The Secretary of Labor’s Report to 

the President on the Status of Federal 

Agencies’ Occupational Safety and 

Health Programs

Calendar Year 2017
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract __________________________________________________________________ 3

Preface___________________________________________________________________ 4

Format ___________________________________________________________________ 5

Executive Summary_________________________________________________________ 6

The Secretary’s Report to the President ________________________________________ 14

Section 1 - OSHA Activities __________________________________________________ 15

Enforcement____________________________________________________________ 15

Oversight ______________________________________________________________ 17

Compliance Assistance ___________________________________________________ 25

Section 2 – Federal Agency OSH Activities ______________________________________ 29

Fatalities and Hospitalizations ______________________________________________ 29

Certified Safety and Health Committees ______________________________________ 38

Other OSH Committees and Councils ________________________________________ 39

Motor Vehicle Safety _____________________________________________________ 39

Analyzing and Controlling Hazards __________________________________________ 43

Safety and Health Program Response to the Inspection Process___________________ 44

Federal Employees Overseas ______________________________________________ 44

OSH Training and Resources ______________________________________________ 47

Whistleblower Protection Programs__________________________________________ 48

Product Safety Programs__________________________________________________ 48

Specific Agency Reporting Programs ________________________________________ 49

Appendices ______________________________________________________________ 51

Appendix 1: Safety and Health Program Attributes Evaluated in CY 2017 ____________ 52

Appendix 2: Status of Agency Injury and Illness Reporting________________________ 54

Appendix 3: Field Federal Safety and Health Councils ___________________________ 58

Appendix 4: Agency Requests to NIOSH for Technical Assistance _________________ 66
3

ABSTRACT

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

Safety and Health Programs summarizes the occupational safety and health (OSH)–related activities of 

federal Executive Branch departments and agencies during calendar year (CY) 2017. It provides an 

analysis of the annual reports federal agencies submitted to the Secretary of Labor. The report 

includes injury and illness rates calculated using data from the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The 

report also details the efforts federal agencies and DOL’s Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) undertook to improve workplace safety and health for federal employees 

during CY 2017. 

Overall, data suggest federal agencies’ OSH programs improved from CY 2016 to CY 2017. The

Government’s total and lost time illness and injury cases and the corresponding case rates decreased 

from CY 2016. In addition, OSHA had fewer significant enforcement cases involving federal 

agencies, and a lower average number of violations per OSHA inspection, compared to CY 2016. 

OSHA continued to offer numerous training opportunities to agencies covering a diverse spectrum of 

safety and health topics. Agency personnel actively engaged in these training opportunities, along with

participating in OSHA’s Federal Agency Safety and Health Managers’ Roundtable meetings and Field 

Federal Safety and Health Councils.
4

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’ OSH programs and the accidents and injuries that occurred at 

federal worksites. The report provides an analysis of the reports agencies submitted to the Secretary. 

It also describes the activities that OSHA conducted at or with federal agencies during CY 2017. 

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.” 

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

Federal Employees, 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 29 CFR §1960.71(a)(1), the annual report is 

due to OSHA, annually, no later than May 1.
5

FORMAT

The body of this report contains an Executive Summary, two main sections, and appendices. The 

Executive Summary summarizes some of the Executive Branch agencies’ significant achievements 

and the challenges faced in providing safe and healthy working environments for federal employees 

during CY 2017. This section also highlights OSHA’s enforcement activities and outreach efforts to 

support federal agencies. 

The two main sections of the report describe, in detail, the support OSHA provided to federal agencies 

and the OSH information federal agencies supplied in their annual reports. The first section, OSHA 

Activities, provides information on OSHA’s enforcement, oversight, and compliance assistance 

activities during the reporting period. The second section, Federal Agency OSH Activities, contains 

information on OSH-related activities the departments and agencies provided in their reports. In 

addition, this section describes agencies’ efforts to find and control injury and illness trends.

The Appendices provide information on the attributes included in the assessment tool federal agencies 

used to evaluate OSH programs, the injury and illness data federal agencies submitted for CY 2017, 

agencies’ participation in Field Federal Safety and Health Councils, and their requests for technical 

assistance from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 
6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In CY 2017, both OSHA and federal agencies took effective steps to protect the health and safety of 

federal employees. This report provides injury and illness rates for federal Executive Branch 

employees and summarizes information provided in the federal Executive Branch agencies’ annual 

reports to OSHA for the reporting period. In addition, this report describes the efforts of OSHA and 

the agencies to improve OSH programs for federal workers. 

The report explains how the Executive Branch departments and agencies1 sought to improve 

workplace safety and health in CY 2017. It describes how federal agencies analyzed trends and 

improved their programs, and assesses the Government’s trends and overall progress toward improving 

worker safety and health. 

Statistics and Trends

Injury and Illness Statistics

OSHA calculates injury and illness incidence rates for individual agencies by using fiscal year (FY) 

injury and illness claims data reported to the DOL’s OWCP,

2 together with OPM’s employment data. 

In FY 2017, the Government’s employment number increased by 60,758 employees (3 percent) to a 

total of 2,167,980 employees. The total injury and illness cases decreased by 2,044 to 43,434 (4 

percent), and the total case rate decreased from 2.16 to 2.00 (7 percent). The Government’s lost-time 

cases decreased by 956 to 23,251 (4 percent), and the lost-time case rate decreased from 1.15 to 1.07 (7 

percent).

Workers’ Compensation Costs

The Federal Government’s workers’ compensation costs for chargeback year (CBY) 2017 were

approximately $1.5 billion. This slight decrease in costs from CBY 2016 (at approximately $1.6 

billion) was the same as CBY 2015. While this amount is a slight increase in costs over CBY 2014, 

which was approximately $1.4 billion, it is approximately the same as the costs from CBY 2013.

Workers’ compensation benefits provided to employees include payments for medical treatment, 

rehabilitation services, replacement of lost wages, as well as compensation benefits to their survivors 

in cases of death.

Fatalities and Hospitalizations

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

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

hospitalizations3 to OSHA. As shown below, for the CY 2017 reporting period, federal Executive 

Branch departments and independent agencies reported 24 work-related civilian employee fatalities 

 

1 On September 28, 1998, Congress amended the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the Act) to make it applicable to the 

U.S. Postal Service in the same manner as any other employer subject to the Act. Therefore, the U.S. Postal Service is not 

included in this report.

2 OWCP data are available only on a fiscal year basis. 3 On January 1, 2015, OSHA implemented a new reporting rule that requires employers to report an incident resulting in the 

hospitalization of one or more employees, rather than three or more employees. In addition, employers must report 

incidents that result in a loss of an eye or an amputation.
7

and 210 work-related hospitalizations (including incidents resulting in a loss of an eye or an 

amputation).

Agency Fatalities Hospitalizations 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 0 1

Department of Agriculture 3 22

Department of Commerce 0 1

Department of Defense 2 67

Department of Health and Human Services 0 6

Department of Homeland Security 1 30

Department of Justice 1 19

Department of Labor 1 9

Department of State 11 30

Department of Transportation 1 0

Department of the Interior 2 11

Environmental Protection Agency 1 4

International Boundary and Water 

Commission 0 1

National Credit Union Administration 0 1

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0 1

Smithsonian Institute 1 4

Social Security Administration 0 2

Tennessee Valley Authority 0 1

Total 24 210

OSHA Activities 

OSHA engaged in a wide range of enforcement and compliance assistance activities to address OSHrelated issues at federal agencies. Enforcement activities primarily focused on inspections of federal 

worksites to identify violations of OSHA standards and to monitor agencies’ injury and illness rates. 

Compliance assistance activities included consulting with federal agencies and both explaining the 

importance of providing safe and healthy working environments and highlighting the best practices or 

methods to help agencies accomplish this goal. (Please refer to Section 1 – OSHA Activities for a 

complete explanation of these activities.)

Enforcement

During CY 2017, OSHA conducted 509 programmed inspections and 318 un-programmed inspections 

at federal workplaces. On average, each programmed inspection identified 1.84 violations and each

un-programmed inspection identified 0.87 violations. OSHA inspected federal agencies under a 

variety of national and local emphasis programs targeting specific hazards (such as combustible dust or

exposure to hexavalent chromium) and types of industries (such as nursing or maritime). Under the 

Federal Agency Targeting Inspection Program, OSHA specifically targeted federal agency 

establishments with the highest numbers of lost-time cases. An analysis of programmed inspection 

data for CY 2017 identified an increase in programmed inspection activity, an increase in the 

compliance rate, and a decrease in the average number of violations per inspection as compared to CY 

2016. In addition, OSHA issued two federal agency significant/novel case reports involving the 
8

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). (Please refer to Section 1 

– OSHA Activities, Table 2, for specific information on the significant/novel cases.) 

Compliance Assistance

OSHA uses a variety of methods to assist federal agencies in their efforts to improve worker safety and

health, including: responding to federal agency requests for technical assistance, encouraging agencies’

participation in the Secretary’s Field Federal Safety and Health Councils (FFSHCs), and providing 

agencies with a number of OSH training opportunities.

Agency technical assistance requests (ATARs) are consultative services that are available only to 

federal agencies. Similar to OSHA’s Consultation Program for private-sector employers, ATARs may 

include hazard abatement advice, training, a partial or comprehensive visit, or program assistance. 

While an ATAR is not an enforcement inspection, agencies that request assistance are expected to 

correct all violations of citable program elements under 29 CFR Part 1960 or other OSHA standards 

observed during the visit. OSHA’s Area Offices conduct the vast majority of ATARs and interact 

directly with the federal agency sites that request assistance. During 2017, OSHA Area Offices 

conducted five ATARs at the request of the USDA and DOL. 

FFSHCs are federal interagency groups, chartered by the Secretary, that enable local OSH 

professionals to share knowledge and resources. In CY 2017, 36 Councils actively carried out efforts 

to improve the effectiveness of OSH functions within the Government. According to the annual 

reports submitted by FFSHCs to OSHA, during CY 2017, 31 departments and agencies participated in 

council activities and more than 2,000 federal employees attended meetings and/or council-provided 

training. Each year, OSHA assesses the work of the councils so that the Secretary can recognize the 

most successful. In CY 2017, the Secretary recognized nine FFSHCs for their efforts to promote the 

advancement of occupational safety and health in the Federal Government. 

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

request an alternate standard to ensure appropriate protection for affected employees. An alternate 

standard is the federal agency equivalent of a private-sector variance from OSHA standards. 

Currently, there are six OSHA-approved alternate standards that address air traffic control towers, 

special-purpose ladders, lifting devices, diving standards, weight-handling equipment, and gas-free 

engineering. Under § 1960.18, if no OSHA standard exists for a specific working condition 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; one addresses

explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, and the other covers portable tank transport. OSHA did not 

approve any new alternate or supplementary standards in CY 2017.

OSHA provides federal agency OSH personnel with training opportunities through numerous venues, 

including the OSHA Training Institute (OTI). Federal OSH personnel may attend any of OTI’s

professional and technical courses throughout the year. In addition, OSHA provides federal agency 

OSH personnel with a week of free training at OTI, commonly referred to as FEDWEEK. During the 

2017 FEDWEEK, OSHA provided nine half-day seminars, offered twice during the week, on topics 

chosen by federal OSH personnel. Seventy-six federal employees attended these seminars and 

reported that they were pleased with the training offered. 
9

Agency Activities

Occupational Safety and Health Committees

In their annual reports to OSHA, agencies provided information on various OSH committees and 

summarized the benefits of participating in these committees. Four agencies have Certified Safety and 

Health Committees (CSHCs) that meet the requirements of 29 CFR Part 1960, Subpart F, while most

other agencies have internal OSH committees developed outside that structure. 

Under 29 CFR Part 1960, Subpart F, any Executive Branch agency can form a CSHC to monitor and 

assist with the 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. During CY 2017, the following agencies maintained Secretary-approved CSHCs: 

the Central Intelligence Agency, DOL, Tennessee Valley Authority, and U.S. Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC). Each agency, except the SEC, submitted information certifying to the Secretary 

that their respective CSHCs met Subpart F’s requirements. OSHA contacted the SEC to review its

certification.

Self-Evaluations

Under 29 CFR § 1960.79, an agency must periodically evaluate its OSH program both to assess the 

extent to which the program conforms to the requirements of E.O. 12196 and corresponding 

regulations and to determine whether the program is effectively implemented in all agency 

establishments. Most agencies reported conducting a periodic review of their OSH programs during 

CY 2017, using agency-developed tools. Only a few agencies reported receiving assistance from 

outside experts, such as the General Services Administration (GSA), OSHA, or a private-sector 

organization. Agencies that reported performing self-evaluations indicated improvements in the 

operational, managerial, and/or cultural components of their programs. 

For CY 2017, OSHA asked agencies to rate the operational, managerial, and cultural components of 

their OSH programs using a modified 20-question (attribute) tool. The format of the 20-attribute tool 

combines questions from the previously used 30-question OSH program self-evaluation with questions 

about how the agency fulfills specific requirements of 29 CFR Part 1960 and E.O. 12196, 13043, and 

13513. An analysis of the data indicates that most federal agencies are in compliance with the 

requirements of 29 CFR Part 1960 and have effectively functioning OSH programs. Overall, agencies’ 

ratings of the three components reflect an improvement in their programs. Agencies reported

improving numerous program elements by providing employees with more opportunities to participate 

in all aspects of the program including: hazard reporting, defining safe work practices, and conducting 

site inspections. Agencies also reported that individuals with assigned safety and health 

responsibilities had the authority to perform their duties including: reinforcing OSH rules, using the 

necessary funds and resources to abate workplace hazards, and producing and maintaining required 

records. 

Despite the overall success of agencies’ OSH programs, most agencies have several subcomponents 

within each of the three components of their programs that need improvement. The operational 

component’s hazard survey and engineering controls attributes, the managerial component’s incidence 

data and action plan attributes, and the cultural component’s employee involvement attribute may 

require additional emphasis in subsequent years. The analysis also indicated that a small number of
10

agencies were not fully aware of their OSH responsibilities or how to implement all the attributes of an 

effective OSH program in government operations. (Please refer to Section 1 – OSHA Activities, 

Evaluations, for a description of the components of an OSH program and an analysis of the agencies’ 

self-evaluations.)

Controlling Hazards

To determine how well agencies track workplace injuries, OSHA asked agencies to report on the most 

common causes of injuries and the efforts taken to mitigate those causes. Most agencies reported on 

their efforts to reduce employees’ injuries from slips, trips, and falls and/or overexertion. To address 

these injuries, agencies implemented engineering and administrative controls to reduce and/or 

eliminate exposure. Several agencies reported installing slip-resistant flooring, improving lighting, and 

conducting ergonomic assessments. Agencies also conducted annual safety training classes and held 

all-inclusive meetings to improve awareness. In addition, several agencies reported participating in 

OSHA’s National Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls held in May 2017. The purpose of the StandDown was to get employers to pause during the workday for topic discussions, demonstrations, and 

training on how to recognize related hazards and prevent falls. 

Annual Information Request

Each year, OSHA asks agencies to provide information on the status of their OSH programs, in 

addition to information on specific OSH topics. Requests for information on specific OSH topics are 

based on findings from previous annual reports or on developing trends. In CY 2017, OSHA requested 

an assessment of OSH program activities and events, including: presidential and Federal Government–

wide initiatives; occupational illnesses, injuries, fatalities, and hospitalizations; specific 29 CFR Part 

1960 requirements; and an agency OSH program self-evaluation.

Motor Vehicle Safety

In the information request, OSHA asked agencies to provide details on their motor vehicle safety 

programs (MVSPs) as well as any motor vehicle accidents that occurred during the reporting period. 

Most agencies reported having MVSPs that are in compliance with the Executive Orders requiring the 

use of seatbelts in motor vehicles and restricting distracted driving. Several departments and agencies 

offered hands-on training to employees, such as defensive driving, while most others relied on training 

courses provided by either the GSA or the National Safety Council. Collectively, 86 federal agencies 

reported that approximately 11,820 motor vehicle accidents occurred during CY 2017.

Federal Agency Safety and Health Mission

As outlined in 29 CFR Part 1960, Subpart B, a designated agency safety and health official, or other 

senior OSH manager with primary OSH responsibilities, is responsible for the management and 

administration of an agency’s occupational safety and health program. Agency reports indicate that 

most departments and agencies manage their OSH programs from a facilities management department 

or office. A few agencies indicated that independent organizational safety and health divisions or 

departments manage their OSH functions. Most agencies reported that they have the necessary 

resources, including adequate personnel and budgets, to accomplish their OSH activities/objectives. 

They also reported that personnel with OSH responsibilities had the authority to implement operational 

decisions, and to obtain resources, such as equipment and training. Agencies with an OSH committee 

forwarded OSH issues with agency-wide implications to the committee for resolution. 
11

Agency’s Self-Inspection of Safety and Health Program

Overall, federal agencies reported an improvement in the effectiveness of their self-inspections during 

CY 2017. Several agencies noted that their OSH program improvements were due to the number of 

self-inspections completed during the reporting period. Most agencies indicated that they conducted 

self-evaluations on a quarterly basis and that these inspections were conducted by supervisors and 

employees trained in recognizing hazards. Several agencies reported that all workplaces were 

inspected during CY 2017. A few agencies indicated that their facilities were inspected by GSA, 

OSHA, or a federal contractor. Overall, agencies’ involvement in internal and external inspections 

included correcting minor issues on the spot, abating hazards as required by corrective action plans, 

and updating policy and/or procedural guidance to improve the effectiveness of their OSH programs. 

In CY 2017, 82 agencies (89 percent) oversaw self-inspection activities, with a few having the 

inspections conducted by outside sources. (Please refer to Section 1 – OSHA Activities for an analysis 

of agencies’ evaluations of their OSH programs.)

Federal Employee Training (Including Overseas Employees)

Agencies reported providing a wide range of support to their stateside employees. While most 

agencies reported providing employee OSH training based on job responsibilities, some agencies made 

special efforts to ensure that collateral duty OSH personnel received all appropriate training. Many 

agencies provided support by publishing information on their OSH websites and in their newsletters, 

encouraging OSH personnel to participate in local FFSHCs, and recognizing employees’ efforts with 

OSH awards. In addition, agencies supported employees participating in professional OSH 

organizations and pursuing OSH certifications. On a related note, several agencies supported 

employee safety and health by encouraging healthy lifestyles. For example, agencies provided 

employees with onsite fitness centers or subsidized gym memberships, sponsored health fairs, or 

offered health screenings and physical examinations.

The Act, E.O. 12196, and 29 CFR Part 1960 have no geographical limits. These regulations require 

agencies to provide safe and healthful workplaces to all federal civilian employees, including those 

who work outside U.S. borders. In CY 2017, approximately 113,800 government employees worked 

overseas. This represents an 11 percent increase from the 102,267 federal civilian employees reported 

working overseas in CY 2016. Agencies reported providing OSH coverage to their overseas 

employees through the DoD, the Department of State (DOS), or their own programs. All agencies 

described providing their employees with prophylactic immunizations, training, and pre-travel 

information prior to deployment. 

Whistleblower Protection Programs

In the CY 2017 information request to federal agencies, OSHA asked agencies to provide information 

on their whistleblower protection programs. As required by 29 CFR Part 1960, Subpart G, agencies 

must ensure that employees are not subjected to restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination, or 

reprisal for filing a report of unsafe or unhealthy working conditions. Agencies were to provide 

information on any federal employee allegations or reprisal as well as all actions taken in response to 

the allegations. Almost all agencies acknowledged their whistleblower responsibilities and reported 

having a well-designed protection program. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and DOS reported 

investigating allegations of reprisal during CY 2017. DOJ stated that it opened two cases. In the first 

case, the employee alleged that a senior manager retaliated by damaging the employee’s reputation 

within the agency and by denying advancement opportunities. The investigation is pending disposition 

with DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG). In the second case, the employee alleged repeated 
12

discipline and eventual termination after documenting and reporting a lead Court Security Officer’s

carelessness and inconsistency. The investigation has been retained by DOJ-OIG and is ongoing. 

DOS opened one case during the reporting period. In this case, the employee alleged termination after 

raising a variety of concerns, including unsafe working conditions at an overseas post. The DOS-OIG 

investigated the allegation but did not substantiate illegal retaliation. No other agencies received 

employee allegations of retaliation for reporting unsafe working conditions. 

Product Safety

In their CY 2017 reports, federal agencies described their compliance with the provisions of 29 CFR § 

1960.34, which addresses conflicts that may exist in standards concerning federal buildings, leased 

space, products purchased or supplied, and other requirements affecting federal employee safety and 

health. In their reports, agencies addressed how they comply with the product safety requirements of 

the standard, including the use of safety data sheets (SDSs), and whether the agency responded to 

product recalls. Fifty-one agencies (55 percent) reported being in compliance with the standard, while 

26 agencies (28 percent) indicated lacking such a program. Agencies without a product safety program 

reported that they did not use chemicals. Six agencies (7 percent) stated that the provision was 

inapplicable. OSHA will contact the agencies that stated the provision was inapplicable, and those that

did not address the information request, to ensure awareness of their OSH responsibilities in this area. 

Accomplishments

Agencies reported on a broad range of OSH program improvements, such as revising existing policies, 

procedures, and manuals; implementing new training delivery systems; and instituting mandatory OSH 

training. In addition, agencies reported inspecting their facilities and establishments more frequently 

and incorporating risk assessment into their safety policies. While several agencies have invested 

considerable resources and developed robust OSH programs, a few agencies are still in the early stages 

of program development.

Agencies Failing to Submit Annual Reports

OSHA did not receive reports from the following six agencies.

• Advisory Council on Historical Preservation

• Corporation for National Community Service

• Department of Education

• Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services

• Harry S. Truman Foundation

• Office of Special Counsel
13
14

THE SECRETARY’S REPORT TO 

THE PRESIDENT
15

SECTION 1 - OSHA ACTIVITIES

This section discusses OSHA enforcement, oversight, and compliance assistance activities; 

significant/novel enforcement cases involving federal agencies; and agencies’ reports of selfevaluations using components of an integrated safety and health evaluation tool. In addition, this 

section contains information on recordkeeping, provides a summary of agency reports on fatalities and 

hospitalizations, and includes a brief description of the training opportunities OSHA provided solely to

federal OSH personnel. 

Enforcement

Inspections

OSHA is committed to strong, fair, and effective enforcement of safety and health requirements in the 

federal workplace. Through inspections, OSHA assesses agencies’ compliance with safety and health 

standards and the requirements of 29 CFR Part 1960, thus reducing the number of on-the-job hazards. 

OSHA inspections of federal workplaces parallel those conducted in the private sector. While

inspections can occur for many reasons, they generally fall into one of two categories: programmed or 

un-programmed. OSHA performs programmed inspections to focus resources on and emphasize: a 

particular safety or health issue, workplaces associated with specific hazards or adverse health 

outcomes/effects, and establishments where rates of injuries and illnesses exceed industry averages. 

Un-programmed inspections occur for many reasons and are primarily in response to employee 

complaints about or notifications of serious hazards.

OSHA further categorizes inspections as related to either safety or health. Safety inspections focus on 

workplace issues such as means of egress, electrical safety, machine guarding, or proper confined 

space procedures. Health inspections may focus on worker exposures to specific chemicals or 

infectious disease agents, or issues such as noise and ergonomics. During an inspection, if OSHA 

determines that safety and/or health hazards exist, OSHA will document the violations of the

standards. For federal agencies, unlike the private sector, OSHA issues Notices of Unsafe or 

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

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

response to the condition, including:

• De Minimis violations have no direct or immediate relationship to safety or health and do not 

result in citations.

• Other-Than-Serious violations capture hazards that cannot reasonably be predicted to cause 

death or serious physical harm to exposed employees but do have a direct and immediate 

relationship to their safety and health.

• Serious violations are hazards that could cause injury or illness that would most likely result in 

death or serious physical harm to the employee(s).

• Willful violations exist 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 violations occur when an 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 violations occur when the agency 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 agency has not complied with interim 

measures involved in a long-term abatement within the given timeframe.
16

OSHA Inspection Activity

During CY 2017, OSHA conducted 509 programmed inspections and 318 un-programmed inspections 

of federal worksites. Inspections averaged 1.84 violations per programmed inspection and 0.87

violations per un-programmed inspection. According to data obtained through the OSHA Information 

System, 391 of the 509 worksites that received programmed inspections (77 percent) were not in 

compliance. Overall, OSHA discovered 1,341 violations: 899 Serious, 315 Repeat, 1 Willful, and 126

Other-Than-Serious. 

In CY 2017, OSHA continued to conduct programmed inspections that focused on specific federal 

agency establishments/hazards. For example, OSHA targeted federal worksites through the Federal 

Agency Targeting Inspection Program that used the previous fiscal year’s Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs 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 that targeted specific hazards (such as falls), specific injuries (such as amputations), and 

industries (such as maritime).

As illustrated in Table 1, while the number of programmed inspections increased in CY 2017 as 

compared to the prior two years, the average number of serious violations decreased. Similarly, the 

average number of serious violations decreased for un-programmed inspections. 

Table 1. OSHA Federal Agency Programmed, Un-programmed Inspection Activity, CY 2015 through 

CY 2017.

CY 2017 CY 2016 CY 2015 

Programmed Inspections 509 349 475

Percent in Compliance 23 11 10

Average Number of Violations 3.02 3.19 3.99

Serious, Willful, Repeat Violations 939 873 1088

Average Number Serious, Willful, Repeat Violations 1.84 2.56 2.29

Un-programmed Inspections 318 365 344

Percent in Compliance 51 51 49

Average Number of Violations 2.72 1.21 2.23

Serious, Willful, Repeat Violations 276 352 345

Average Number Serious, Willful, Repeat Violations 0.87 0.97 1.0

Total Inspections 827 714 819

Significant/Novel Cases

For citation purposes, OSHA defines significant cases as inspections with penalties over $180,000 and

novel cases as inspections involving specific enforcement issues, such as workplace violence or 

ergonomics. While, by law, OSHA cannot assess penalties against federal agencies, it can determine 

the significance of a federal agency case by comparing the violations to the penalties that it would 

assess to a “similar” private sector employer. 

In CY 2017, OSHA issued two federal agency significant/novel case reports. Once case involved 

USDA, and one case involved DoD. (See Table 2.)
17

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

Department/Agency Inspection 

Type Program Type of Violations 

USDA – U.S. Forest Service

(USFS)/Job Corps

Region 3 – Coeburn, Virginia

Planned 

Program

Amputation Willful: 1

Serious: 4

Other-Than-Serious: 1

OSHA initiated this inspection when the USFS – Job Corps reported that a Job Corps welding student 

had amputated the tip of the left index finger. The student was operating a hydraulic shear machine at 

the time of the incident.

DOD – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

– Bonneville Dam Project 

Region 10 – Cascade Locks, Oregon

Planned 

Program

FEDSAFE Repeat: 5

Serious: 3

Other-Than-Serious: 3

OSHA initiated this inspection as a FEDSAFE regional emphasis planned program inspection for the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Dam Project. OSHA personnel conducted safety and 

health inspections throughout the facility.

Oversight

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 requires agencies 

to perform their own self-evaluations. Both the OSHA evaluations and the agencies’ self-evaluations 

focus on assessing agencies’ OSH program elements.

Federal operations and worksites are quite diverse, ranging from office spaces to construction sites. As 

a result, federal employees face potential exposure to a wide range of OSH hazards. Since agency

OSH programs integrate OSH attributes into their organizational structures, they require a systematic 

approach to determine whether policies and procedures are appropriately developed and implemented. 

An evaluation determines if an OSH program’s policies and procedures are regularly monitored and 

modified to correct any problems and/or adapt to a changing worksite environment.

In 1985, OSHA developed and validated Form 33 to accurately measure the effectiveness of private 

sector employers’ OSH programs. OSHA’s On-Site Consultation Program refined Form 33 through 

years of use in the private sector. In 2013, OSHA adapted Form 33 to evaluate the safety and health 

programs of federal agencies. Based on the concept of an organizational safety and health program, 

Form 33 provides for an assessment of the three components of a structured OSH program—

operational, managerial, and cultural. It uses 58 attributes as metrics for a program’s overall 

effectiveness and integration into an agency. (Please refer to Appendix 1 for lists of Attributes by 

Component OSHA selected for the CY 2017 reporting period.) 

The operational component measures whether a program has a well-defined and communicated system 

to identify, correct, and control hazards. The managerial component assesses whether the program 

incorporates effective planning, administration, training, management leadership, and supervision to 
18

support the prevention or elimination of workplace hazards. Finally, the cultural component evaluates 

whether the OSH program 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 and affect one another.

For the CY 2017 report, OSHA selected 20 of the tool’s 58 attributes to provide a comprehensive

assessment of agencies’ OSH programs. OSHA selected nine attributes each from the operational and

managerial components, and two attributes from the cultural component. Agencies were asked to rate 

each of these attributes based on their CY 2017 reporting period experience and select one of the 

following responses: “does not exist,” “needs major improvements,” “needs minor improvements,” or 

“is highly effective.” The response “does not exist” indicates that the attribute was not in place at all,

while the response “is highly effective” indicates the attribute’s complete effectiveness and integration 

into the OSH program without need for improvement. The other ratings indicate that some aspect of 

the attribute is present, needing either major or minor improvements, respectively. If an agency 

believes an attribute does not apply to its program, it may select “not applicable.” In addition to 

scoring each attribute, agencies had to provide detailed information supporting each chosen attribute 

rating.

Overall Assessment

For the CY 2017 reporting period, OSHA received responses from 92 of 98 agencies, a 94 percent 

response rate4. Of the responding agencies, 15 (16 percent) provided an average rating of “highly 

effective” for each of the 20 attributes, and 58 agencies (59 percent) indicated a need for minor 

improvements in most of their OSH programs. Of the 15 agencies that provided an average score of

“highly effective” for the attributes, six (40 percent) agencies5 provided a rating other than “highly 

effective” on one of the 20 component attributes. These ratings indicated that these six agencies

needed minor improvements to at least one component of their programs. This discrepancy included 

agencies that did not report on the status of their OSH program or reported that an OSH program, in 

full or part, was “not applicable” to their situations. Agencies’ assessment scores indicate that, overall, 

these organizations recognize that effective safety and health programs are assets to their 

organizations. 

Of the 92 agencies that submitted reports, five (5 percent) agencies either did not provide attribute 

ratings or provided a “not applicable” rating for each attribute. In their reports, most of these agencies 

indicated that, while they are committed to taking safety precautions in the course of their daily 

business operations, they did not employ full-time safety and health or collateral duty staff during CY 

2017. These agencies also stated that the attributes in Form 33 do not apply to their operations because 

they have very few employees and their operations are limited to administrative functions. The

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board stated, for example, that given the size and nature of its

mission, it has not implemented formal safety programs.

 

4 Tables 3a and 3b depict the overall scores federal agencies assigned to the self-evaluations of their respective OSH 

programs for CY 2017. Those agencies that either did not rate any of the 20 attributes in the self-assessment or did not 

conduct a self-evaluation are identified as “NR” (not reported) in the Table. In addition, the agencies (listed in the 

Executive Summary) that did not provide an annual report are omitted from the Table.

5 African Development Foundation, Armed Forces Retirement Home, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal 

Elections Commission, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Capital Planning Commission, National

Mediation Board, Social Security Administration, and Vietnam Education Foundation provided a “highly effective” rating 

for each of the 20 attributes.
19

Table 3a. Major Departments/Independent Agencies’ Average Safety and Health Program Rating

(n = 22).

Agency Rating Agency Rating

Department of Agriculture  Department of State 

Department of the Air Force  Department of Transportation 

Department of the Army  Department of Veterans Affairs 

Department of Commerce  Department of the Interior 

Department of Defense  Department of the Navy 

Department of Energy  Department of the Treasury 

Department of Health and Human 

Services

 Environmental Protection Agency 

Department of Homeland Security  General Services Administration 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

 National Aeronautics and Space 

Admin.



Department of Labor  Social Security Administration 

Department of Justice  Tennessee Valley Authority 

Score Explanation

 Highly Effective – Completely in place 

 Needs Minor Improvements – Mostly in place with only minor improvements needed

 Needs Major Improvements – Some portion/aspect is present but major improvement is needed

 Does Not Exist – No discernible indication that a portion or aspect is even in place 

NA – Not applicable

NR – Data not reported by agency

Table 3b. Smaller Independent Agencies’ Average Safety and Health Program Rating (n = 70).

Agency Score Agency Score 

Ability One  Morris K. and Stewart L. Udall 

Foundation 

African Development Foundation  National Archives and Records 

Administration


20

Agency Score Agency Score 

American Battle Monuments 

Commission  National Capital Planning Commission 

Architectural and Transportation 

Barriers Compliance Board (Access 

Board)

 National Credit Union 

Administration 

Armed Forces Retirement Home  National Council on Disability 

Broadcasting Board of Governors  National Endowment for the Arts 

Central Intelligence Agency  National Endowment for the 

Humanities



Commission of Fine Arts NR National Gallery of Art 

Commission on Civil Rights  National Labor Relations Board 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Corporation

 National Mediation Board 

Consumer Product Safety Commission  National Science Foundation 

Court Services and Offender 

Supervision Agency  National Transportation Safety Board 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board  Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission

 Occupational Safety and Health 

Review Commission 

Export-Import Bank of the United 

States NA Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation 



Farm Credit Administration  Nuclear Waste Technical Review 

Board

NA

Federal Communications Commission  Office of Personnel Management 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation  Overseas Private Investment 

Corporation 



Federal Election Commission  Peace Corps NR

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation



Federal Housing Finance Agency  Postal Regulatory Commission 

Federal Labor Relations Authority  Presidio Trust 

Federal Maritime Commission  Railroad Retirement Board 

Federal Mine Safety and Health 

Review  Security and Exchange Commission 

Federal Retirement Thrift Board  Selective Service System NR

Federal Reserve Board  Small Business Administration 

Federal Trade Commission  The Smithsonian Institution 

Institute of Museum and Library 

Services

 Social Security Advisory Board 

Inter-American Foundation  U.S. Agency for International 

Development



International Boundary and Water 

Commission

 U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard 

Investigation Board 



James Madison Memorial Fellowship 

Foundation  U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum 

Kennedy Center  U.S. International Trade Commission 
21

Agency Score Agency Score 

Marine Mammal Commission  U.S. Office of Government Ethics 

Merit Systems Protection  U.S. Trade and Development Agency 

Millennium Challenge Corporation  Vietnam Education Foundation 

Score Explanation

 Highly Effective – Completely in place 

 Needs Minor Improvements – Mostly in place with only minor improvements needed

 Needs Major Improvements – Some portion/aspect is present but major improvement is needed

 Does Not Exist – No discernible indication that a portion or aspect is even in place 

NA – Not applicable

NR – Data not reported by agency

Operational Component Assessment

OSHA provided federal agencies with nine attributes to rate the operational component of their OSH 

programs. Overall, agencies rated the attributes of the operational component highly, indicated by a 

“needs minor improvements” or a “highly effective” rating. Agencies reported success with the selfinspections, hazard reporting, and work rules and practices attributes, with most rating these attributes 

as “needs minor improvements” or “highly effective.” Eighty-four agencies (91 percent) provided a 

rating of “needs minor improvements” or “highly effective” for the hazard reporting attribute. Most

agencies stated that employees can report hazards to managers and safety personnel verbally and by 

email. Several agencies, including the Department of the Army, set up hazard reporting boxes in 

breakrooms and other conspicuous locations to allow anonymous hazard reporting. In addition to 

these methods, many agencies implemented electronic safety hazard reporting systems, allowing

employees to report and track safety hazards from a single electronic portal. Eighty-two agencies (89

percent) provided a rating of “needs minor improvements” or “highly effective” for the self-inspection

attribute. Many agencies reported conducting more inspections during CY 2017. The Department of 

Energy, for example, stated that supervisors, employees, and safety and health staff conducted both

scheduled and random inspections throughout the year at all facilities to determine if patterns of 

recurring hazards or noncompliance existed. Similarly, 82 agencies (89 percent) rated their agencies as

“needs minor improvements” or “highly effective” for the work rules and practices attribute. The 

Department of Commerce (DOC) stated that it has a robust library of written administrative orders, 

manuals, standard operating procedures, protocols, guides, flyers, and broadcasts that are used for 

discussion and planning to ensure mitigation of known hazards. DOC also stated that, based on its 

bureaus’ missions and risk levels, it has instituted briefings before starting certain work activities. In 

all cases, the DOC intranet webpage serves as an ever-growing and improving safety information 

resource to ensure visibility of potential hazards. 

Several agencies indicated a need for major improvements in the operational component of their OSH 

programs. Baseline hazard survey and root cause investigations attributes were not well implemented, 

as indicated by agencies rating these attributes as “needs major improvements” or “does not exist.” 

For example, 13 agencies (14 percent) provided ratings of “needs major improvements” and “does not 

exist” for the baseline hazard survey attribute. While most of these agencies did not state why they 
22

have not conducted a baseline hazard survey within the past five years, several indicated that they plan 

to complete one in CY 2019. In CY 2017, some agencies provided ratings of “not applicable” or “not 

reported” for engineering controls (31 agencies, 34 percent); baseline surveys (17 agencies, 19 

percent); and root cause investigations (14 agencies, 15 percent). OSHA will continue to work with 

these agencies to determine how best to implement these programs, if needed. 

Managerial Component Assessment

This year, OSHA provided federal agencies with nine attributes to rate the managerial component of 

their OSH program, instead of the 11 attributes from previous years. Table 4 provides the amended list 

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

“needs minor improvements” or “highly effective” rating. During the CY 2017 reporting period, the 

four attributes used to assess the Administration/Supervision subcomponent received the highest 

number of “needs minor improvements” and “highly effective” ratings (79 agencies, 86 percent). 

Many agencies, including DoD, indicated that they provide managers and supervisors with sufficient 

resources to effectively implement OSH programs during the planning, programming, budgeting, and 

execution phases. DoD stated OSH staffing levels are adequate to assist in implementing policy 

requirements, and all OSH staff members have the resources necessary to perform their tasks, 

including the access and authority to act. 

In CY 2017, several agencies provided “not applicable” or “not reported” ratings for numerous

managerial components of their OSH programs. Specifically, “not applicable” or “not reported” 

ratings were provided for the incidence data (26 agencies, 28 percent), OSH management system 

review (14 agencies, 15 percent), new employee orientation (13 agencies, 14 percent), and supervisory 

training (13 agencies, 14 percent) attributes. Additionally, nine agencies (10 percent) provided “not 

applicable” or “not reported” ratings for the knowledge, skills, and information and the safety and 

health responsibilities attributes. OSHA will work with these agencies to determine the necessity of 

such programs and how best to implement them.

Cultural Component Assessment

For the CY 2017 reporting period, OSHA provided federal agencies with two attributes to rate the 

cultural component of their OSH programs. In years prior, OSHA provided agencies with 10 attributes 

to evaluate the cultural component. Table 4 provides the amended list of attributes. Most federal 

agencies provided a “needs minor improvements” or “highly effective” rating for both cultural 

component attributes. Seventy-three agencies (79 percent) provided a “needs minor improvements” or 

“highly effective” rating for the resource allocation attribute, while 12 agencies (13 percent) reported

“not applicable” or “not rated” for the same attribute. Similarly, 69 agencies (75 percent) provided a 

“needs minor improvements” or “highly effective” rating for the employee involvement attribute. 

However, thirteen agencies (14 percent) provided a rating of “not applicable” or “not rated” for the 

same attribute. Overall, agencies indicated that they have a comprehensive safety and health culture 

that works to reduce workplace injuries and illnesses. Most agencies stated that their OSH programs 

are effective because they are supported by management and require supervisor and employee 

involvement. 

Table 4. Number of Federal Agencies Self-assigned Ratings to Safety and Health Program Attributes 

(n = 92).
23

Operational Component Number of Agencies with the Self-assigned 

Rating 

Subcomponent Attribute     NA NR 

Hazard 

Anticipation/Detection

Hazard survey 42 20 2 11 14 3

Self-inspection 60 22 5 0 1 4

Surveillance 49 25 4 2 7 5

Hazard reporting 59 25 2 0 2 4

Root cause analysis 47 24 6 1 9 5

Hazard 

Prevention/Control

Engineering controls 37 21 1 2 27 4

Work rules and 

practices 59 23 3 0 3 4

OSHA-mandated 

programs 50 28 3 2 6 3

Tracking hazard 

correction 45 30 3 2 8 4

 

 

Managerial Component Number of Agencies with the Self-assigned 

Rating 
24

Subcomponent Attribute     NA NR 

Planning/Evaluation

Incidence data 28 31 2 5 23 3

Action plan 36 31 6 6 9 4

Annual SHMS review 38 29 7 4 10 4

Administration/ 

Supervision

Specific assignment of 

OSH tasks

52 29 4 0 4 3

Knowledge, skills, and 

information

43 35 4 1 5 4

Authority to perform 52 27 4 1 5 3

OSH organizational 

policies

47 31 4 1 5 4

Safety/Health Training

New employee 

orientation 49 25 5 0 4 9

Supervisory training 32 39 7 1 4 9

 

Cultural Component Number of Agencies with the Self-assigned 

Rating 

Subcomponent Attribute     NA NR 

Management 

Leadership

Resource allocation 44 29 5 2 4 8

Employee Participation Process involvement 48 21 9 1 2 11

Score Explanation 

 Highly Effective – Completely in place 

 Needs Minor Improvements – Mostly in place with only minor improvements needed
25

Cultural Component Number of Agencies with the Self-assigned 

Rating 

Subcomponent Attribute     NA NR 

 Needs Major Improvements – Some portion/aspect is present but major improvement is needed

 Does Not Exist – No discernible indication that a portion or aspect is even in place 

NA – Not applicable

NR – Data not reported by agency

Recordkeeping

As set forth in 29 CFR Part 1904, federal agencies must maintain injury and illness records in the same 

format as the private sector. The recordkeeping requirement allows agencies and OSHA to identify 

worksites with the highest injury and illness rates and to accurately identify the training needs of 

federal agencies. DOL, through its Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), collects the statutorily required 

injury and illness records from all Executive Branch agencies on an annual basis and provides them to 

OSHA.

The fourth completed data collection cycle occurred in CY 2017. OSHA worked with BLS to track the 

data collected and monitor its quality. OSHA also worked with OWCP to assist agencies using the EComp system6 to ensure that all required data were captured and explain the procedures for 

transferring the data from E-Comp to BLS. OSHA provided agencies with guidance about the data 

collection process and followed up with information on errors identified in the submissions.

During the reporting period, OSHA received complete establishment data from 54 of 96 agencies (56 

percent) and partial data from an additional 31 agencies (32 percent). The most common errors were 

the failures to provide the number of employees or hours worked for each establishment. OSHA will 

analyze the collected data for key findings and the collection process for lessons learned to further 

streamline and simplify the procedure. (Please see Appendix 2 for a table detailing the success of 

federal agencies’ injury and illness reporting.)

Of the limited data BLS received in CY 2017, agencies reported 32,601 injuries and seven fatalities. 

According to the data, the injuries and illnesses included: 273 skin problems, 297 respiratory 

conditions, 33 poisonings, 846 issues with hearing loss, and 2,125 other cases of illness. 

Compliance Assistance

Agency Technical Assistance Request

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

and is similar to OSHA’s Consultation Program for private-sector employers. Federal agencies may 

contact an OSHA Area Office and request technical assistance, including hazard abatement advice, 

 

6 E-Comp is an electronic reporting system for OWCP information that also allows federal agencies to maintain their 

OSHA-required injury and illness data.
26

training, a partial or comprehensive visit, 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 2017, three OSHA Area Offices conducted a total of five ATARs. 

• The Cleveland, Ohio Area Office assisted DOL’s OWCP in Cleveland, Ohio with an 

ergonomics assessment. 

• The Cleveland, Ohio Area Office assisted DOL’s Energy Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program with an ergonomics assessment. 

• The Omaha, Nebraska Area Office conducted an ATAR for the USDA’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service’s Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory in Lincoln, Nebraska. The USDA 

requested a comprehensive visit of the facility and program assistance with recordkeeping, 

hazard communication, and ergonomics. 

• The Portland, Oregon Area Office conducted an ATAR for the USFS Yankee Fork Station in 

Challis, Idaho. USFS requested a comprehensive visit of approximately 15 buildings. 

• The Portland, Oregon Area Office provided technical assistance to the USFS in Portland,

Oregon regarding pesticide regulations. Specifically, USFS asked OSHA to evaluate its

pesticide application process under the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Worker 

Protection Standard (WPS) and requested an explanation of OSHA’s hazard communication

regulations. OSHA determined that the scope of EPA’s WPS covers pesticide applications in

forests and instructed USFS to follow the EPA regulations to protect its workers. 

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.

Agencies reported varied involvement, from extensive engagement to occasional worker attendance at 

FFSHC meetings. DoD, for example, reported that approximately 20% of its agencies participated in 

local FFSHCs during CY 2017. Many of the DoD agencies hosted local and regional meetings and 

provided logistical support. Similarly, EPA reported that 17 of its employees participated in 10 

FFSHCs. Collectively, EPA employees attended more than 30 FFSHC meetings in CY 2017. Only 10 

agencies reported that they provided in-kind support to their local Councils during CY 2017. That 

support ranged from generating meeting notices and providing meeting space to assisting the FFSHC 

with program development.

In CY 2017, 36 FFSHCs actively carried out efforts to improve the effectiveness of OSH functions 

within the Government7

. According to the FFSHC annual reports FFSHCs submitted to OSHA, 31 

departments and agencies participated in the Councils and over 2,000 federal employees attended 

meetings and/or council-provided training. Participation decreased for some as a result of limited 

funds and personnel shortages. Nationwide coverage by the Councils, particularly in rural areas, also 

limited participation.

 

7 Please see Appendix 3 for a complete listing of active FFSHCs for CY 2017 and other FFSHC information.
27

Under 29 CFR § 1960.89, each active Council must submit an annual report to the Secretary describing 

activities and programs for the previous calendar year and plans, objectives, and goals for the current 

year. OSHA uses these reports to assess each individual FFSHC’s program plans to determine the 

success of these 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 grouped into three categories based on the size of the 

federal populations 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 against other FFSHCs in its category. The top three scoring 

Councils in each category receive awards for Superior Performance, Meritorious Achievement, and 

Notable Recognition.

In CY 2017, nine FFSHCs received a secretarial award for their activities. By category, these were:

Category I: Federal employee population exceeding 24,000

• Superior Performance – Oklahoma

• Meritorious Achievement – Greater Kansas City

• Notable Recognition – Dallas/Fort Worth

Category II: Federal employee population between 12,000 and 24,000

• Superior Performance – Minneapolis

• Meritorious Achievement – Middle Tennessee Volunteer

• Notable Recognition – Central New York

Category III: Federal employee population of fewer than 12,000

• Superior Performance – Mississippi Gulf Coast

• Meritorious Achievement – Hudson Valley

• Notable Recognition – Louisville Area

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.8

 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.

 

8 An alternate standard is the federal sector’s equivalent of a private-sector variance. Any alternate standard must provide 

protection for the affected federal employees that is equal to or greater than the applicable OSHA standard.
28

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 agencies and their supplementary standards include:

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration - Safety Standard for Explosives, Propellants, 

and Pyrotechnics; and

• U.S. Department of Agriculture/Forest Service - Supplementary Standard for Containers and 

Portable Tanks Transport.

FEDWEEK

OSHA provides a week of training each year, known as FEDWEEK, specifically for federal agency 

OSH personnel. The tuition-free training is held at the OSHA Training Institute, located in Arlington 

Heights, Illinois. OSHA seeks input from federal agencies when developing the FEDWEEK 

curriculum. While the number of federal agencies represented at the CY 2017 event remained 

consistent with prior years, there was a slight increase in the number of participants compared to CY 

2016. (Please see Table 5 below.) In CY 2017, OSHA provided nine half-day seminars, offered twice 

during the week. Federal OSH employee participants had the opportunity to attend up to six different 

sessions on various topics: Distracted Driving; Electrical; Fire Protection; Hazard Communications –

Aligning with GSH; Indoor Air Quality; Office Ergonomics; Recommended Practices for Safety and 

Health Programs; Walking/Working Surfaces; and Workplace Violence. 

Table 5: FEDWEEK Participation by Attendees and Calendar Year (2015–17).

 Calendar Year

2017 2016 2015 

Participants 76 73 93

Seminar Registrants 130 NA* 458

Agencies Represented 18 NA* 18

*A new system for registering students did not include this information.

Federal Agency OSH Managers’ Roundtable

The Federal Agency OSH Managers’ Roundtable is a valuable tool for agencies to exchange 

information on safety and health issues, and to share best practices. Since its inception, the number of 

federal senior OSH managers, medical personnel, technical experts, and labor representatives 

participating in the roundtable has increased significantly. Additionally, the topics addressed during 

roundtables demonstrate added value for participating agencies. In 2017, OSHA began preparations 

for roundtable meetings to be held in 2018. OSHA intends to provide agencies with information on 

several OSHA programs include: Voluntary Protection Programs, National Safety Stand Down, and 

Safe + Sound Week. 

 
29

SECTION 2 – FEDERAL AGENCY OSH 

ACTIVITIES

This section contains information on agency-reported fatalities and hospitalizations, agency 

participation in OSH committees and councils, and agencies’ product safety and motor vehicle safety

programs. In addition, this section provides a summary of agencies’ methods of controlling 

occupational injury and illness trends, their OSH training programs, and the protections agencies 

afford employees who report OSH hazards. Per statute, the GSA and the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) must provide certain services to federal agencies to support 

the Government’s pursuit of improved safety and health conditions for federal employees. A summary 

of their activities is provided at the end of this section.

Fatalities and Hospitalizations

The Act, provisions of 29 CFR Part 1960, and other regulations require employers to investigate, track, 

and promptly report findings involving work-related fatalities and hospitalizations to OSHA. Agencies 

reported 24 federal civilian worker fatalities in CY 2017, the same number reported in CY 2016 and an

approximately 12.5 percent increase from the 21 work-related federal civilian employee fatalities 

reported for CY 2015. 

Table 6: Number of Fatalities/hospitalizations by Department/Agency for CY 2017.

Agency Fatalities Hospitalizations 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 0 1

Department of Agriculture 3 22

U.S. Forest Service 3 21

Natural Resources Conservation Service 0 1

Department of Commerce 0 1

Department of Defense 2 67

Army and Air Force Exchange Service 0 4

Defense Contract Audit Agency 0 1

Department of the Air Force 0 18

Department of the Army 2 26

Department of the Navy 0 17

DoD Education Activity 0 1

Department of Health and Human Services 0 6

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 0 1

Health Resources and Services Administration 0 1

Indian Health Service 0 3

National Institutes of Health 0 1

Department of Homeland Security 1 30

Federal Emergency Management Agency 0 2

Transportation Security Administration 0 3

U.S. Coast Guard 0 1

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 1 23
30

Agency Fatalities Hospitalizations 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 0 1

Department of Justice 1 19

Bureau of Prisons 0 10

Federal Bureau of Investigation 1 6

U.S. Marshals Service 0 3

Department of Labor 1 9

Bureau of Labor Statistics 0 1

Job Corps 1 7

Wage and Hour Division 0 1

Department of State 11 30

Department of the Interior 2 11

Bureau of Indian Affairs 0 4

Bureau of Land Management 1 5

Bureau of Reclamation 1 0

Fish and Wildlife Service 0 2

Department of Transportation 1 0

Environmental Protection Agency 1 4

International Boundary and Water Commission 0 1

National Credit Union Administration 0 1

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0 1

Smithsonian Institute 1 4

Capital Gallery 0 1

National Air and Space Museum 0 1

National Zoological Park 0 2

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute 1 0

Social Security Administration 0 2

Tennessee Valley Authority 0 1

Total 24 210

Summary and Agency Fatality/Hospitalization Reports

The Consumer Product Safety Commission reported one hospitalization: 

• An employee suffered first- and second-degree burns to the palm of the hand during routine 

fireworks field testing.

USDA reported three civilian fatalities and 21 work-related hospitalizations at USFS, and one workrelated hospitalization at the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service

• An employee waded into a streambed to sample its composition and stumbled on a submerged 

rock. The employee then walked to the river bank and lost consciousness.
31

U.S. Forest Service

• Two employees, in separate incidents, were killed in vehicular accidents. 

• During a tree felling operation, an employee was struck from behind by the falling tree and 

fatally injured.

Several injuries resulted from physical exertion.

• Five employees, in separate incidents, were hospitalized due to extreme muscle exertion after 

engaging in strenuous physical fitness activities.

• An employee working in a garden felt short of breath and was hospitalized.

• An employee taking the firefighter work capacity test collapsed and was hospitalized.

• An employee engaged in field operations suffered a foot injury that required hospitalization.

Several injuries resulted from falling or being struck.

• An employee fell off a ladder and was hospitalized.

• An employee was loading cattle into livestock trailer when an animal kicked the trailer gate,

which hit the employee’s face.

• An employee was struck on the head/climbing helmet by a rock that was dislodged by hikers on 

the trail above him. The blow caused the employee to fall approximately 70 feet down the 

mountainside.

• An employee fell off of a horse and broke an elbow.

• An employee climbing a ladder suffered a broken leg when the ladder moved and the 

employee’s left foot became caught in the rung of the ladder.

Two injuries were the results of trying to correct sewer problems. 

• An employee suffered respiratory distress after inhaling vapors from a chemical used to unclog 

a sink. 

• An employee who was working in a sewer house had difficulty breathing and was hospitalized. 

The employee was diagnosed with a bacterial blood infection.

Two injuries were due to burns related to wildland fires.

• An employee was burned when the employee’s chainsaw ignited.

• An employee was burned when a firehose malfunctioned and sprayed the worker with hot 

water.

Two injuries resulted from motor vehicle accidents.

• An employee operating a motorcycle was seriously injured when the motorcycle tipped over.

• An employee operating a motor vehicle was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident.

Two injuries were due to exposures.

• An employee was bitten by a snake and hospitalized for treatment. 

• An employee was hospitalized after making contact with poison oak.

DOC reported one hospitalization. 

• An employee was hospitalized after being stung by a bee.

DoD reported two civilian fatalities and 26 work-related hospitalizations at the Department of the 

Army, four hospitalizations at the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, one hospitalization at the 
32

Defense Contract Audit Agency, 18 hospitalizations at the Department of the Air Force, one 

hospitalization at the DoD Education Activity, and 17 hospitalizations at the Department of the Navy. 

 

Army & Air Force Exchange Service

• Two employees were injured, in separate incidents, as the result of slipping or falling. One 

employee tripped over another employee’s foot. Another employee slipped on black ice in a 

parking lot. 

• An employee was hospitalized with serious injuries after being struck by a forklift.

• An employee amputated the tip of a finger while removing residue from inside a dough 

machine. 

Defense Contract Audit Agency

• An employee broke an arm after slipping in a parking lot.

Department of the Air Force

Several injuries were the results of slip, trips, or falls.

• Three employees were injured, in separate instances, after misplacing a foot and falling. 

• Two employees were injured, in separate instances, after slipping on a wet surface. 

• An employee tripped and fractured a kneecap.

• An employee fell off a bicycle and was hospitalized.

• An employee fell from a lawnmower and was hospitalized.

• An employee fell off a catwalk and was hospitalized.

Three injuries were the results of being struck.

• An employee collided into another person and was hospitalized.

• An employee ran into an obstacle and was hospitalized.

• An employee driving a stake into the ground was injured when fragments of a stake hit the 

employee. 

• Three employees, in separate incidents, were injured while lifting objects. 

• Two employees, in separate incidents, were hospitalized due to dog bites. 

• An employee preparing food was burned by hot liquid and hospitalized.

Department of the Army

• Two employees, in separate incidents, were killed due to operating construction roller

machines. One died of sepsis brought on by wounds from being pinned under the overturned 

machine, while the other was crushed to death.

Three injuries were the results of caught-in/between accidents.

• An employee working on an air hose while a crane was in motion was injured when the 

employee’s arm was caught in a pinch point between the crane and an access ladder.

• An employee smashed a finger while trying to dislodge material from the tailgate of a dump 

truck. 

• An employee crushed a finger while moving material between two forklifts. 

Several injuries were the results of slip, trips, or falls.

• Three employees, in separate incidents, were hospitalized after falling down backwards. 

• Two employees, in separate incidents, fell off a ladder and were hospitalized.
33

• Two employees, in separate incidents, tripped and suffered broken bones that required 

hospitalization.

• An employee slipped in a snow-covered parking lot.

• An employee’s wedding ring was caught on a piece equipment during a fall and caused the skin 

on the finger to be torn off (degloved). 

• An employee suffered second- and third-degree burns from stepping into the drain tank of a 

washing machine. 

• An employee aboard a dredge fell on the stairs and incurred a puncture wound from a serrated 

tread. 

Four injuries were due to physical exertion.

• Two employees, in separate incidents, became dehydrated and lost consciousness, requiring 

hospitalization. 

• One employee injured a shoulder when lifting a bin. 

• One employee suffered carpal tunnel syndrome from repetitive motion. 

Three injuries resulted in amputations.

• An employee’s middle fingertip was amputated while operating a parachute packing machine.

• An employee working on a tanker had a finger severed when a suspension bar fell. 

• An employee suffered a finger amputation while operating a jointer. 

Three injuries were the results of being struck by an object.

• An employee was struck by a falling crate and hospitalized.

• An employee ran into a building while running away from a bear and fractured an arm. 

• An employee was using an air compressor to purge water out of plumbing and was injured 

when the pressurized air compressor lines caused a urinal to break, sending pieces of porcelain 

throughout the latrine. A piece of the urinal impaled the employee’s elbow.

Two injuries were weapon-related.

• An employee was injured when a weapon accidently discharged. 

• An employee injured a hand when the employee picked up a damaged grenade without a pin,

and the grenade exploded.

Department of Defense Education Activity

• An employee caught the tip of a shoe on the floor, fell, and was hospitalized.

Department of the Navy 

• Two employees, in separate incidents, were electrocuted and hospitalized. 

• An employee conducting a dive lost consciousness and was hospitalized.

• An employee performing vehicle maintenance was exposed to smoke and hospitalized.

• An employee performing maintenance on a propane boiler was injured when the superheated 

water flashed into a cloud of steam during a bleed operation.

• An employee’s finger was amputated while performing arresting gear testing.

Several injuries were the results of slip, trips, or falls.

• Three employees, in separate incidents, suffered fractured bones after tripping over an object. 

• Two employees, in separate incidents, fell off ladders and were hospitalized. 

• An employee fell in a parking lot and fractured the left hip.
34

Three injuries were the result of being struck by an object.

• An employee suffered a fractured foot when an oak block fell on the employee’s foot.

• An employee was walking barefoot, slammed the bare arch of the foot on a shelf, and was 

hospitalized.

• An employee suffered broken bones when a truck struck the employee.

Two injuries resulted in amputations.

• One employee’s right index finger up to the first knuckle was amputated when another 

employee hit the finger with a drill. An employee was descending a scaffolding platform and 

suffered an amputated finger when the employee’s ring was caught on part of the scaffolding. 

The Department of Health and Human Services reported one work-related hospitalization at the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one hospitalization at the Health Resources and Services 

Administration, three hospitalizations at the Indian Health Service, and one hospitalization at the 

National Institutes of Health.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

• An employee tripped on the carpet and fell.

Health Resources and Services Administration

• An employee became ill and was hospitalized with typhoid fever and severe dehydration.

Indian Health Service

• While on travel in a remote area, an employee was accidently left behind. The employee was 

hospitalized due to mental stress.

• An employee fell and was hospitalized.

• An employee slipped on a walking surface and injured an ankle.

National Institutes of Health

• While walking, an employee slipped on a wet floor and was hospitalized.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reported one civilian fatality and 23 work-related 

hospitalizations at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, two hospitalizations at the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, three hospitalizations at the Transportation Security Administration, 

one hospitalization at the U.S. Coast Guard, and one hospitalization at the U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

• An employee was hospitalized for heat stress after organizing equipment in a non-airconditioned storage bay.

• An employee tripped and fell while walking and was hospitalized.

Transportation Security Administration

• An employee, retrieving an item from a storage cabinet located behind a door, was struck in the 

back by the door and fell to the ground.

• Two employees, in separate incidents, suffered blood clots while inflight and were hospitalized. 
35

U.S. Coast Guard

• An employee slipped while loading salt into a spreader and was hospitalized.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

One fatality and two injuries were the results of being struck by objects.

• Two Agents were ambushed and beaten with rocks, resulting in the death of one Agent and the 

hospitalization of the other Agent. 

• An employee was hospitalized after a hit to the head while riding in a truck. 

Several injuries were the results of physical exertion. 

• Nine employees engaged in physical fitness were hospitalized for extreme muscle exertion, 

dehydration, or heat stress. 

• An employee was hospitalized with a knee injury after engaging in training exercises. 

Several injuries were the results of motor vehicle accidents.

• Three Agents, in separate incidents, were hospitalized after losing control of the all-terrain 

vehicles (ATVs) they were operating. 

• An Agent involved in a vehicle accident was hospitalized.

• An Agent on a motorcycle suffered a foot injury that required hospitalization. 

Four Agents were injured due to slips and falls.

• Two Agents, in separate incidents, fell off their horses and had to be hospitalized. 

• An Agent jumped to avoid a rattlesnake and suffered serious back and neck injuries that

required hospitalization. 

• An Agent fell and suffered a broken ankle.

• An Agent inhaled a toxic gas while sitting idling in a patrol vehicle and was hospitalized for 

sustained chemical burns to the lungs.

• An Agent was inflating a boat when the boat’s relief valve failed and lacerated the Agent’s 

ankle. The agent was admitted to the hospital for surgery on the ankle.

• An employee was bitten while feeding a dog. 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

• An employee contracted viral meningitis and was hospitalized.

DOJ reported one civilian fatality and six work-related hospitalizations at the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, 10 hospitalizations at the Bureau of Prisons, and three hospitalizations at the U.S. 

Marshals Service.

Bureau of Prisons

Several injuries resulted in amputations.

• Three employees, in separate incidents, amputated fingers while performing food service prep. 

• Two employees, in separate incidents, amputated fingers while operating table saws. 

• An employee’s hand was struck by falling plywood, resulting in a finger amputation. 

• An employee operating an injection molding press placed a hand between the machine frame 

and mold stock, amputating fingers.

• An employee received first- and second-degree burns to the arms, face, and upper back while 

burning a pile of tree limbs.

• An employee fell off a ladder and was hospitalized. 
36

Federal Bureau of Investigation

• An Agent had a heart attack and died while participating in an annual physical fitness test. 

• An employee was hospitalized due to heat exhaustion and dehydration after engaging in 

training exercises.

• An Agent was shot in the line of duty and hospitalized.

• An Agent injured a hand while participating in firearms training.

• An Agent was injured when a flashbang grenade activated in the employee’s hand.

• An Agent was injured in a fall.

• An Agent was injured during parachute training.

U.S. Marshals Service

• An employee scaled a fence and landed in a hole, breaking a leg. 

• An employee was shot in the foot and hospitalized. 

• An employee suffered full-body muscle pain after participating in intense physical activity and 

was hospitalized.

DOL reported one civilian fatality and seven work-related hospitalizations at the Job Corps, one 

hospitalization at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and one hospitalization at the Wage and Hour 

Division. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics

• An employee was injured in a motor vehicle accident and was hospitalized.

Job Corps

• Two Job Corps students were in a motor vehicle accident. One student was killed in the 

accident, and the other was hospitalized with serious injuries. 

• Two Job Corps students, in separate incidents, broke legs after falling. 

• A Job Corps student suffered a finger amputation while using a hydraulic press.

• A Job Corps student was pulling a bed frame away from a wall when the metal frame lacerated 

the student’s right fingertip.

• A Job Corps student suffered carbon monoxide poisoning and was hospitalized.

• A Job Corps student was participating in forest fire fighting activities with USFS when a tree 

branch fell, striking and fracturing the student’s right forearm.

Wage and Hour Division

• An employee was injured in a motor vehicle collision. 

The Department of the Interior reported one civilian fatality and five work-related hospitalizations at

the Bureau of Land Management, one fatality at the Bureau of Land Reclamation, four hospitalizations 

at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and two hospitalizations at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Bureau of Indian Affairs

• Two employees, in separate incidents, were hospitalized due to amputations. One employee 

cut off the tip of a finger while operating a radial arm saw. The other employee was struck by a 

table on the foot. After an infection developed in the foot, the employee was hospitalized, and 

the foot was amputated. 

• An employee fell from an ATV and was hospitalized.
37

• An employee was hospitalized after a motor vehicle collision with an elk.

Bureau of Land Management

• An employee died in the hospital after being in a motor vehicle accident.

• Two employees who were engaged in wildland fire operations were hospitalized due to heat 

stress.

• An employee was injured when a vehicle fell off a jack and struck the employee on the back. 

• An employee, fighting a wildland fire, was hospitalized for pneumonia due to smoke 

inhalation, weather exposure, and fatigue.

• An employee was injured after being struck by a falling tree. 

Bureau of Land Reclamation

• An employee was killed in a motor vehicle collision.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• An employee was hospitalized for overexertion.

• An employee lost consciousness after completing a dive and was hospitalized.

DOS reported eleven fatalities and 30 hospitalizations:

• Forty guards conducting routine embassy security operations were involved in an explosion. 

Ten guards were killed in the explosion, and thirty guards were hospitalized with serious 

injuries.

• An employee became trapped in a boatswain’s chair on a cable. The employee disconnected 

the safety lines, lost grip on the cable, fell approximately 420 feet to the ground below, and

died. 

The Department of Transportation reported one fatality:

• While on duty and participating in the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG’s) Physical Fitness 

Program, an Agent suffered a fatal heart attack. 

EPA reported one fatality and four hospitalizations:

• An employee was found dead in a private restroom.

• An employee tripped and fell in the corridor, breaking an arm and dislocating a shoulder. 

• An employee lost balance and fell against a wall, causing the employee’s head to strike the 

wall.

• An employee was leaning against a table. The table tipped and the employee fell, incurring 

serious injuries.

• An employee was running on a wet surface, slipped, and fell to the ground. 

The International Boundary and Water Commission reported one hospitalization:

• An employee was pinned between two vehicles while conducting a river dredging operation.

The National Credit Union Administration reported one hospitalization:

• An employee was injured in a motor vehicle collision at an intersection.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported one hospitalization:

• An employee was seriously injured in a rear-impact motor vehicle collision.
38

The Smithsonian Institute reported one fatality at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, one 

hospitalization at the Capital Gallery, one hospitalization at the National Air and Space Museum, and 

two hospitalizations at the National Zoological Park. 

Capital Gallery

• An employee was driving a post into the ground when the post driver recoiled, causing the 

employee’s hand to slip off the driver. The employee’s finger was amputated at the tip. 

National Air and Space Museum

• An employee missed a step on a staircase and fell.

National Zoological Park

• An employee on a ladder suffered a concussion when the employee’s head hit an overhead 

pipe, causing the employee to fall to the floor.

• An employee on a ladder lost balance and grabbed a condensation pan in an attempt to stop 

from falling. The sharp edge of the pan lacerated the employee’s hand. 

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute

• An intern became ill, had difficulty breathing, and then died. 

The Social Security Administration reported two hospitalizations:

• An employee was hospitalized for breathing complications as a result of a chemical exposure.

• An employee slipped in water on the floor and was hospitalized.

Certified Safety and Health Committees

A CSHC 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 Part 1960, Subpart F. These committees

monitor and support agencies’ safety and health programs. Specifically, they allow agencies to

maintain an open channel of communication between employees and management and to facilitate 

employee input on agencies’ OSH-related policies, conditions, and practices.

When an agency decides to form a CSHC, it must report this intent to the Secretary. The agency must 

provide the Secretary with information regarding the existence, location, and coverage area 

(establishments and populations) of the committee, and the names and phone numbers of each 

committee chair. In addition, the agency must certify that the committee meets all the requirements of 

29 CFR Part 1960, Subpart F. It must also provide an update of its OSH program activity as part of its 

required annual report to the Secretary.

Agencies with CSHCs that meet the requirements are exempt from unannounced OSHA inspections. 

However, these agencies may request an inspection. While any agency may form a CSHC, only four 

such certified committees existed in CY 2017. The Secretary recognized the following Departments 

and independent agencies as having CSHCs:

• Central Intelligence Agency

• Department of Labor

• Tennessee Valley Authority

• U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
39

For the CY 2017 reporting period, the Central Intelligence Agency, DOL, and Tennessee Valley 

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

the requirements of the subpart. The SEC did not report on its CSHC for CY 2017. The Department 

of Energy, which previously had a CSHC, reported that it is exploring the feasibility of re-establishing 

its Committee. 

Other OSH Committees and Councils

OSHA asked federal agencies to provide information on their involvement in both internal and external 

OSH committees and councils. Agencies were also asked to indicate whether they support OSHrelated certifications from these organizations. For CY 2017, 57 agencies (62 percent) reported that 

they encourage employee participation in OSH-related committees at the departmental, agency, and 

field operation levels, and in a variety of local OSH committees, including FFSHCs. Committee 

membership varied among agencies. Some agencies reported that OSH committee membership 

included only management, while other agencies noted that committee participant requirements 

included OSH-related expertise, duties, or responsibilities. For example, DOS and the Department of 

the Treasury reported that their designated agency safety and health officials participated in the Office 

of Federal Agency Programs’ Roundtable meetings. DOC facilitates a departmental level safety 

committee, which provides internal safety training opportunities to all employees with OSH-related 

duties within its bureaus. In addition, DOC bureaus designate funds for employees to participate in 

offsite OSH training and committees. 

Several agencies, including the Department of the Interior, reported that they encourage employees to 

participate in OSH professional organizations, such as the American Industrial Hygiene Association, 

the American Society of Safety Professionals, and the National Safety Council (NSC). Many of these 

agencies also stated that they encourage and provide funding for OSH personnel to obtain and maintain 

professional licenses such as the Certified Safety Professional, Associate Safety Professional, Certified 

Industrial Hygienist, and Professional Engineer. Other agencies indicated that, while they encourage 

employees to participate in and receive certification from OSH organizations, due to fiscal restraints,

opportunities for employees to participate in training were limited. DHS, for example, stated that it 

prioritizes hiring the most accomplished and experienced OSH professionals and supporting their 

professional certifications and maintaining existing certifications over the length of their careers. 

However, due to fiscal restraints, DHS has limited funds for employee training and cannot spare time 

for employees to be away from the office. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reported that, since it 

is a small agency, participation in OSH committees and professional organizations is not a good use of 

staff time.

Motor Vehicle Safety

Collectively, 86 federal agencies provided information on the roughly 11,820 motor vehicle accidents 

their employees experienced during CY 2017. Most agencies reported having a motor vehicle safety 

program (MVSP), with the majority noting compliance with E.O. 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 motor vehicle 

accidents.

Similar to previous years, many agencies reported requiring defensive driving courses. Most agencies 

used courses developed by GSA, NSC, or similar organizations. Several agencies also reported 

placing decals in vehicles, reminders on employee websites, and/or notices in break rooms to 

encourage seatbelt use. While several agencies reported tracking seatbelt use after an accident – many 
40

using information from police reports – few had any full-time tracking. A few agencies mentioned 

performing random compliance checks, and several agencies reported using camera surveillance inside 

vehicles to monitor compliance.

DOS reported using Event Data Recorders, both domestically and overseas, to monitor drivers. DOS 

believes this approach reduced fatalities and injuries associated with operating motor vehicles. DOS

added two overseas posts to its Drive-CamTM program in CY 2017, bringing the total to 21 posts in the 

program. DOS reported that these posts reduced risky driving behavior by 87%, with an estimated 44 

lives saved since the program’s inception overseas. During 2017, DOS tracked a 26% reduction in 

seatbelt policy violations and a 9% reduction of cell phone policy violations compared with 2016 

totals. Domestically, the Fleet Management Office installed a total of 19 Event Data Recorders to 

monitor driver performance in passenger vans and shuttle buses.

The Department of the Air Force (Air Force) reported that its installations used national motor vehicle 

safety programs such as the American Automobile Association’s Defensive Driving and the NSC’s 

Alive at 25. These programs served to further reinforce motor vehicle safety and mishap prevention. 

Its policy and guidance directly addressed compliance with E.O. 13043 and 13513. The Air Force also 

specified that civilian employees who operated motorcycles in the performance of their duties were 

required to attend motorcycle safety training, and those who operated motorcycles for personal use 

outside their assigned duties could attend the same training at no cost. The Air Force’s civilian 

employees who operated a government motor vehicle other than a motorcycle received operator 

training as part of their employment. The Air Force noted that it continued to use Street Smart

presentations conducted by Stay Alive From Education (SAFE) Inc., often funded through a grant from 

Anheuser Busch. The Street Smart program used audience participation to demonstrate, from first 

responders’ perspectives and real-life experiences, what happened to individuals who made poor 

driving choices, such as driving without seatbelts, driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs, and 

texting while driving.

Fifteen agencies indicated the lack of an MVSP for a variety of reasons, including having a small 

number of employees assigned to the agency, the agency’s mission (such as not driving in an “official 

capacity” or 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 item. Some agencies deemed to 

have little to no training stated a mere compliance with E.O. 13043 and 13513, with no indication of 

any further information on safety protocols or measures. OSHA will follow up with agencies to offer 

assistance in addressing motor vehicle safety.

Agencies reporting the lack of an MVSP include: Ability One Commission, Access Board, African 

Development Foundation, American Battle Monuments Commission, Commission on Civil Rights, 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Institute of Museum and 

Library Services, Inter-American Foundation, James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation, 

National Council on Disability, National Endowment for the Humanities, Peace Corps, Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and the Postal Regulatory Commission.

Table 7: Summary of Motor Vehicle Accidents as Reported by Departments and Independent 

Agencies (Fiscal Year 2015 through Calendar Year 2017).

Department/Agency Status Number of Accidents CY 

2017 (2016/2015) 

Department of Agriculture 2,339 (2,013/2,117)
41

Department/Agency Status Number of Accidents CY 

2017 (2016/2015) 

Department of the Air Force 19 (18/29)

Department of the Army ? NR (15/NR)

Department of Commerce 80 (106/102)

Department of Defense 543 (638/485)

Department of Energy 85 (95/NR)

Department of Health and Human Services 0 (147/88)

Department of Homeland Security 1,585 (1,126/1,127)

Department of Housing and Urban Development ? 0 (NR/0)

Department of Justice 2,251 (2,303/1,971)

Department of Labor 546 (498/487)

Department of the Interior 841 (497/618)

Department of the Navy 246 (15/9)

Department of State 2,024 (1,885/1,692)

Department of Transportation 39 (181/50)

Department of the Treasury 124 (329/196)

Department of Veterans Affairs 367 (402/308)

Environmental Protection Agency 29 (43/39)

General Services Administration 68 (69/72)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 69 (85/135)

Social Security Administration 18 (32/16)

Tennessee Valley Authority ? 227 (NR/160)

Office of Personnel Management 252 (209/177)

Ability One ? 0 (NR/NR)

Access Board ? NR (0/0)

African Development Foundation ? 0 (NR/0)

American Battle Monuments Commission 1 (0/0)

Armed Forces Retirement Home 0 (0/3)

Broadcasting Board of Governors 0 (1/NR)

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 0 (0/0)

Commission on Civil Rights ? 0 (NR/0)

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ? 0 (NR/NR)

Consumer Product Safety Commission 2 (7/2)

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency ? 7 (NR/4)

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ? 0 (NR/0)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 6 (7/12)

Export-Import Bank of the United States 0 (0/0)

Farm Credit Administration 2 (0/0)

Federal Communications Commission 7 (5/5)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 6 (35/40)

Federal Elections Commission 0 (0/0)
42

Department/Agency Status Number of Accidents CY 

2017 (2016/2015) 

Federal Housing Finance Agency 1 (0/NR)

Federal Labor Relations Authority ? NR (0/NR)

Federal Maritime Commission 0 (0/0)

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service ? NR (0/0)

Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission 0 (0/0)

Federal Reserve Board 0 (3/0)

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board 0 (0/0)

Federal Trade Commission 0 (0/0)

Holocaust Memorial Museum 0 (0/0)

Institute of Museum & Library Services ? 0 (NR/NR)

Inter-American Foundation ? NR (0/0)

International Trade Commission ? 0 (NR/0)

International Boundary and Water Commission 10 (4/7)

James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation ? 0 (NR/NR)

John F. Kennedy Center 0 (0/0)

Marine Mammal Commission 0 (0/0)

Merit Systems Protection Board 0 (0/0)

Millennium Challenge Corporation 0 (0/0)

Morris K. Udall & Stewart L. Udall Foundation 0 (0/0)

National Archives and Records Administration 4 (1/1)

National Capital Planning Commission 0 (0/0)

National Council on Disability ? NR (NR/NR)

National Credit Union Administration ? 3 (NR/NR)

National Endowment for the Arts ? 0 (NR/NR)

National Endowment for the Humanities ? NR (NR/NR)

National Gallery of Art 0 (1/NR)

National Labor Relations Board 0 (1/0)

National Mediation Board 0 (0/0)

National Science Foundation ? 0 (NR/NR)

National Transportation Safety Board ? 0 (NR/NR)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 (10/1)

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ? 0 (NR/NR)

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 0 (0/0)

Office of Government Ethics ? 0 (NR/NR)

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

Overseas Private Investment Corporation 0 (1/0)

Presidio Trust ? 3 (NR/NR)

Railroad Retirement Board 0 (0/0)

Securities and Exchange Commission 0 (0/0)

Selective Service System ? 0 (NR/NR)

Small Business Administration 0 (1/1)
43

Department/Agency Status Number of Accidents CY 

2017 (2016/2015) 

Smithsonian Institution 15 (30/26)

Social Security Advisory Board ? 0 (NR/NR)

The Peace Corps ? NR (NR/2)

Trade and Development Agency 0 (1/0)

Vietnam Education Foundation 0 (0/0)

Legend

No change from 2016 report NR Not reported

Decrease from 2016 report ? Undetermined from reported data

Increase from 2016 report

Analyzing and Controlling Hazards

This year, OSHA again asked agencies how they determined any OSH-related trends, such as specific 

causes/types of injuries, or hazardous jobs/tasks. Of the 84 agencies that provided information on this 

topic, 37 (44 percent) reported that the most frequent cause of employee injuries was slips, trips, and 

falls. EPA, for example, stated that more than half the injuries and illnesses its employees reported in 

CY 2017 were categorized as slips, trips, or falls. Other common causes of injuries included materials 

handling (lifting, caught by/against) and ergonomics. Many of the smaller independent agencies had 

no employee injuries to report, while some agencies’ statistics were such that they could not identify a 

“most frequent” cause.

Agencies included a variety of prevention strategies to counter injurious incidents, such as relying on 

accurate employee and supervisor reports to identify hazard areas. Other approaches included: 

installing slip-resistant flooring and warning signage; prevention awareness training, including 

ergonomics and ladder safety; general housekeeping improvement, including removing slip, trip, and 

fall hazards and placing cleaning supplies and equipment in accessible areas; and using website and 

safety bulletin boards to increase hazard awareness. This year several agencies also reported 

participating in OSHA’s National Safety Stand-Down for Fall Prevention in May 2017 designed to 

bring awareness to fall hazards, typical work tasks associated with fall risks, and fall protection 

strategies.

Agencies provided information on efforts to identify and analyze workplace hazards and described a 

range of analytical methods, from manually cataloging incidents to real-time computer monitoring of 

OSH-related data as entered into a variety of information systems. In general, agencies with more 

employees, or higher incidence rates, tended to incorporate information systems and more frequent 

monitoring. Overall, federal agencies with higher rates reported greater emphasis on data analysis, 

integrating OSH-related considerations into all aspects of agency operations and tracking near misses. 

Yet, generally, 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, most agencies reported performing some type of data analysis to determine 

the prevalence of injury type and cause, 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 
44

hazard abatement. Agencies also reported tracking and analyzing near-misses, or incidents that could 

have resulted in an accident or injury. Other strategies for reducing workplace injuries and illnesses 

included integrating safety considerations into building design and/or job duties and procedures; 

encouraging employees to report potential hazards upon discovery; and focusing on specific problems, 

such as frequent types of injuries or specific hazards. Agencies stressed the importance of selfinspection in identifying, analyzing, and controlling hazards.

Safety and Health Program Response to the Inspection Process

Federal agencies were asked to report on their involvement in a variety of inspection activities, 

including internal and external agency inspections. Agencies’ responses varied from correcting 

hazards during the course of an inspection, to working with GSA and other entities for hazard 

abatement, to consulting with OSHA on abatement methods. Many also reported updating policy and 

procedural guidance. Most agencies indicated that they encouraged employees and supervisors to 

participate in the inspection process.

Collectively, 64 agencies affirmed that they performed at least annual internal OSH program 

inspections/audits. DoD required each of its organizations to complete an annual program selfassessment and pass an external assessment every four years. As a result, during CY 2017, the Air 

Force reported that approximately 100,000 OSH inspections occurred, of which approximately 79 were 

OSHA inspections.

Several agencies reported an increase in the frequency of inspections. For example, the U.S. Access 

Board reported that OSH officials conducted quarterly inspections of its OSH program management 

system. The National Gallery of Art reported their Risk Management Department conducted quarterly 

inspections of a portion of the campus and inspected the entire campus annually. The National 

Mediation Board reported that it performed a daily “walk through” of the work space to identify and 

remove any potential hazards. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation reported that it performed 

ad hoc self-inspections throughout the year, and observed and addressed issues via facility 

walkthroughs. The Smithsonian Institute reported that it required each of its establishments 

(museums/facilities) to conduct at least three self-inspections every year, and some of its 

establishments increased the frequency to achieve a uniform level of facility safety throughout the 

year.

In addition to self-inspections/audits, agencies reported that external regulatory agencies performed 

routine OSH-related inspections at their establishments. While most agencies did not specify the exact 

number of such inspections/audits, they did indicate receiving more than 400 Notices of Unsafe or 

Unhealthy Working Conditions or the equivalent from the Joint Commission, OSHA, or the Mine 

Safety and Health Administration. Commonly cited hazards included impediments to egress; fire 

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

equipment programs, including respiratory protection; poor housekeeping; 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 Part 1960, which require agencies to 

provide safe and healthful workplaces, have no geographic limits. During the CY 2017 reporting year, 

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.
45

According to agency reports, more than 113,800 government employees worked outside the United 

States’ borders during CY 2017. DoD (including the armed services), which reported approximately 

46,792 overseas employees, and DOS (59,666 employees) reported the largest numbers of overseas 

employees. DoD, its various components, and the military Departments indicated that they extended 

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

that its robust overseas OSH program included provisions for safe and healthful living conditions for 

its own overseas employees, and for other agencies’ federal employees stationed at embassies. 

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, a few agencies 

reported an overseas federal workforce, most of whom were covered under OSH programs of DoD or 

DOS.

Table 8: Number of Federal Civilian Employees in Overseas Locations by Agency (Fiscal Year 2015 

through Calendar Year 2017) (n = 33 agencies).

Number of Employees

Agency Status 2017 2016 2015

Department of Agriculture 900 400 400

Department of Commerce ? 278 NR NR

Department of Defense 46,792 39,309 60,000

Department of Energy ? NR NR NR

Department of Health and Human Services ? 89 NR NR

Department of Homeland Security 2,000 2,100 2,100

Department of the Interior ? 1,006 NR NR

Department of Justice 1,312 431 426

Department of Labor 53 0 30

Department of State 59,666 59,522 57,888

Department of Transportation ? 332 NR NR

Department of the Treasury 33 48 46

Department of Veterans Affairs 0 0 0
46

Number of Employees

Agency Status 2017 2016 2015

Environmental Protection Agency 360 183 199

General Services Administration ? 12 NR NR

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 12 14 12

African Development Foundation ? 12 NR 0

American Battle Monuments Commission ? 59 NR NR

Broadcasting Board of Governors ? 32 NR NR

Consumer Product Safety Commission 1 2 2

Export Import Bank ? 1 NR NR

Millennium Challenge Corporation 33 26 22

National Endowment for the Humanities ? 0 NR NR

National Science Foundation ? 0 NR NR

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2 4 4

Overseas Private Investment Corporation 5 5 4

Peace Corps 188 186 191

Postal Regulatory Commission 0 0 0

Smithsonian Institution ? 620 NR NR

Social Security Administration 0 0 NR

U.S. Trade and Development Agency 1 37 30

Vietnam Education Foundation 1 0 0
47

Number of Employees

Agency Status 2017 2016 2015

TOTAL 113,800 102,267 121,354

Legend

No change from CY 2016 report NR Not reported

Decrease from CY 2016 report ? Undetermined from reported data

Increase from CY 2016 report

OSH Training and Resources

E.O. 12196 requires each agency to provide OSH training for its employees, and 29 CFR Part 1960,

Subpart H, prescribes the necessary OSH training for employees with respect to applicable standards. 

In their reports to OSHA, most agencies stated that they provide OSH training to employees based on 

job responsibilities via such conventional methods as online (53 agencies (57 percent)) or classroom 

training (46 agencies (50 percent)) and hands-on activities. DHS, for example, reported that it uses a 

variety of training delivery methods, but it relies heavily on virtual and online technologies to ensure 

that approximately 200,000 civilian employees located in over 1,200 establishments receive 

appropriate and timely OSH training. DHS also stated that it uses instructor-led training for supervisor 

training, collateral duty safety officer training, and safety committee member training. For CY 2017, 

25 agencies (27 percent) reported that they made special efforts to ensure that collateral duty OSH 

personnel received appropriate training. 

Several agencies reported encouraging employees to seek professional certification and participate in 

professional OSH organizations. For example, the U.S. Navy provides employees with external 

training and professional development opportunities at colleges and universities, safety and health 

conferences, and the OSHA Training Institute. Twenty-three agencies (25 percent) reported providing 

employees with the opportunity to participate in the FY 2017 OSHA FEDWEEK. In addition, 27 

agencies (29 percent) reported that employees received training from the OSHA Training Institute or 

its Education Centers. Agencies also reported providing support by maintaining OSH websites, 

publishing OSH newsletters, and encouraging participation in FFSHCs. 

According to their reports, agencies’ OSH training efforts ranged from new-hire orientation to 

supervisory training. Most agencies indicated that new-hire orientation included information on 

agency-specific safety and health policies, general safety and health rules, major hazards and 

protections, and emergency procedures. Supervisory training included a review of 29 CFR Part 1960, 

E.O. 12196, the agency’s non-retaliation policy, and the agency’s emergency procedures. Other 

training topics included OSHA compliance, accident analysis, and hazard communication. Few 

agencies provided specific details regarding monies dedicated to OSH training efforts. Most agencies 

reported having a mandatory training budget, although training fund distribution policies varied 

dramatically. Some agencies reported a centralized training budget that required each independent site 
48

to request funding approval for safety classes. These agencies indicated that the standard mechanism 

for monitoring training budgets was to review funding requests. Other agencies, including EPA, 

reported a decentralized approach that delegated funds to each location along with the responsibility

for ensuring that employees receive appropriate OSH training.

To evaluate the effectiveness of their OSH training programs, most agencies reported that they review 

course evaluations to obtain employee feedback on course material relevance and instructor quality, 

and identify opportunities for improvement. Most agencies stated that they can evaluate how well 

employees absorbed training material by reviewing exam performance and hands-on demonstrations. 

In addition, most agencies recognize that the effectiveness of their OSH training program is best 

assessed by observing employee behavior, performing internal inspections, and reviewing injury and 

illness data. EPA stated that a lack of injuries and illnesses and agency OSH audit findings provided 

the evidence of OSH training effectiveness. 

Whistleblower Protection Programs

Under 29 CFR Part 1960, Subpart G, federal agencies must ensure that employees are not subjected to 

reprisal or other forms of restraint for filing a report of unsafe or unhealthy working conditions. In an 

effort to assess agencies’ whistleblower protection programs, OSHA requested that agencies provide 

information on any federal employee allegations of reprisal and the actions taken in response to such 

allegations. OSHA also asked agencies to describe program improvements that may have resulted 

from these cases of employee-alleged reprisal.

Nearly all agencies indicated awareness of 29 CFR Part 1960, Subpart G, and reported having 

functional protection programs. Only two agencies reported investigating allegations of reprisal during 

CY 2017. DOJ stated that it opened two cases. In the first case, the employee alleged the senior 

manager retaliated by damaging the employee’s reputation within the agency and by denying 

advancement opportunities. The investigation is pending disposition with DOJ-OIG. In the second 

case, the employee alleged repeated discipline and ultimate termination after documenting and 

reporting the Lead Court Security Officer’s carelessness and inconsistency. The investigation has been 

retained by DOJ-OIG and is ongoing. DOS reported investigating one allegation of reprisal during the 

calendar year. In this case, the employee alleged termination after raising a variety of concerns that 

included unsafe working conditions at an overseas post. The OIG investigated the allegation but did 

not substantiate illegal retaliation.

Product Safety Programs 

In the CY 2017 information request, OSHA asked the agencies to describe their compliance with the 

provisions of 29 CFR § 1960.34, specifically addressing how each agency ensured that the products 

and services procured complied with the product safety requirements of the standard. Agencies were 

also asked to address their use of safety data sheets and to detail how they respond to product recalls. 

Of the 77 responding agencies, 51 (66 percent) reported their compliance with the standard, and 26 (33 

percent) indicated that such a program did not exist within their respective agencies. The remaining 

agencies did not respond to this item.

Most agencies provided few details on their programs, responding that program-specific authority was 

vested to GSA under 29 CFR Part 1960, Subpart E. However, USDA noted that it addressed product 

safety through the federal acquisition process and required purchases to 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 its 
49

component OSH program managers monitored product recalls, and local offices received follow-up 

information as appropriate using alerts and electronic webpage postings. Among smaller agencies, the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) reported that it purchased only products that were

Underwriters Laboratory (UL) listed, and then used them in accordance with manufacturers’ 

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

Program requirements, including issuing and reviewing all SDSs, and maintained an electronic SDS 

database for all products. FDIC stated that its managers followed product recalls in their program 

areas.

EPA’s product safety program was noteworthy. EPA reported that its OSH program was covered 

under its Safety, Health, and Environmental Management Program (SHEMP) and was implemented 

throughout all organizational levels. EPA also reported that it subscribed to ChemWatch, a database 

that provides access to Safety Data Sheets for millions of chemicals. SHEMP managers used this 

repository to learn about the properties and potential hazards associated with new chemicals that 

entered their facilities. According to the agency’s report, although it had not developed a 

comprehensive product safety program to address 29 CFR § 1960.34(b), 94 percent of its operating 

locations had procedures in place to ensure that OSH managers were notified when new chemicals, 

such as cleaning agents, pesticides, and laboratory reagents, were introduced into their processes. The 

OSH managers then determined the associated introduced risks. Safety professionals and relevant 

employees reviewed the SDS and kept them available for reference. Moreover, EPA indicated that in a 

recent questionnaire, 91 percent of its operating location OSH managers reported compliance with 

labeling hazardous materials, wearing the correct personal protective equipment, adhering to special 

handling procedures, and complying with product recalls.

Specific Agency Reporting Programs 

OSHA’s regulations at 29 CFR Part 1960, Subpart E require GSA and NIOSH to assist federal 

agencies with specific activities affecting federal employee safety and health. OSHA requested that 

GSA and NIOSH provide details on these activities in their annual reports. Specifically, OSHA asked 

GSA to report on its programs for ensuring that federal facilities are designed, operated, and 

maintained in accordance with OSH requirements and best practices. OSHA also asked the agency to 

address how it 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 provide information on its Request for Technical Assistance9 program, and the program’s 

effect on federal agencies.

General Services Administration 

As requested, GSA reported on its processes pertaining to facilities and operations, indicating that it 

continually updated the safety and health requirements in the governing standards and requirements 

 

9 NIOSH’s response to a federal agency’s Request for Technical Assistance usually involves a Health Hazard Evaluation 

(HHE): a workplace study to learn whether workers are exposed to hazardous materials or harmful conditions. Based on

the information provided, NIOSH answers an HHE/technical assistance request in one of the following ways: in writing 

with pertinent information or a referral to a more appropriate agency, by telephone to discuss the problems and how they 

might be solved, or with a visit to 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 an 

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.
50

regarding both federally owned facilities and those commercially leased to federal tenants. It also 

reported that both its operations and maintenance and custodial services required safety and health 

specifications, which were current. In CY 2017, GSA did not implement any significant changes 

within its products and services function. It continued to require that products and services met 

applicable federal and nongovernment standards, such as those of EPA, UL, and National Fire 

Protection Association. There were no product recalls issued in the 2017 reporting period.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NIOSH reported it received 37 federal agency technical assistance requests for health hazard 

evaluations. It completed 26 (70 percent) of those requests, performing six field investigations and 20 

record reviews/consultations. Federal agencies’ requests varied by both exposure groups and health 

problems. For the reporting period, the exposure group categories of indoor environmental quality, 

biological, and chemical accounted for over 91 percent of assistance requests. The health problem 

category of respiratory accounted for nearly 53 percent of assistance requests, with the categories of 

viral/bacterial and skin composing another 24 percent of the grouping. (Please see Appendix 4 for a 

breakdown of agencies’ requests to NIOSH for technical assistance.)
51

APPENDICES
52

Appendix 1: Safety and Health Program Attributes Evaluated in CY 2017

Operational Component

• Hazard Anticipation and Detection (5 of 11 attributes assessed)

o A comprehensive, baseline hazard survey has been conducted within the past five

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 An effective hazard reporting system exists. The purpose of this attribute is to determine 

if the agency has effective policies and procedures in place to identify and assess hazards 

and implement control measures.

o Accidents are investigated for root causes. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if 

the agency conducts investigations to identify correctible system failures following an 

incident or near miss at a site to prevent future occurrences. 

• 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 behavior 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.
53

o An action plan designed to accomplish the organization’s safety and health objectives 

is in place. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency has established a plan 

to achieve its safety and health objectives.

o A review of the overall safety and health management system is conducted at least 

annually. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency periodically audits the 

management aspects of its SHMS, identifying progress and needed changes/improvements.

• Administration and Supervision (4 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 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 (2 of 6 attributes assessed)

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 addresses their responsibilities and an understanding of hazards.

Cultural Component 

• Management Leadership (1 of 10 attributes assessed)

o Managers allocate the resources needed to properly support the agency’s safety and 

health program. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency’s managers 

demonstrate OSH leadership, promote a culture of safety and health in the organization, and 

support effective operation of the safety and health program by allocating needed resources.

• Employee Participation (1 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.
54

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 0 0

African Development Foundation 1 1 1

Agency for International Development 5 5 5

American Battle Monuments Commission 28 28 28

Armed Forces Retirement Home 2 2 1

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System 5 5 5

Broadcasting Board of Governors 28 28 28

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation 

Board 2 2 2

Commission of Fine Arts 1 1 1

Commission on Civil Rights 5 0 0

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 4 0 0

Consumer Product Safety Commission 3 3 2

Corporation for National and Community 

Service 52 0 0

Court Services and Offender Supervision 

Agency 10 10 10

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 1 1 1

Department of Agriculture 2,318 2,318 319

Department of the Air Force 542 541 398

Department of the Army 543 309 290

Department of Commerce 725 693 680

Department of Defense 759 759 546

Department of Education 26 26 21

Department of Energy 53 51 51
55

Number of Establishments 

Department/Agency Total Submitted 

Data 

Submitted 

Usable Data 

Department of Health and Human Services 1,979 1,979 724

Department of Homeland Security 1,210 907 800

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 32 8 7

Department of the Interior 2,130 2,130 0

Department of Justice 1,331 1,331 688

Department of Labor 954 954 954

Department of the Navy 571 300 225

Department of State 405 405 375

Department of Transportation 1,062 858 854

Department of the Treasury 1,000 200 0

Department of Veterans Affairs 1,550 994 969

Environmental Protection Agency 108 108 108

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 54 54 43

Export-Import Bank 13 13 13

Farm Credit Administration 5 5 5

Federal Communications Commission 17 17 17

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 95 95 86

Federal Election Commission 1 1 1

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 11 11 11

Federal Housing Finance Agency 6 1 1

Federal Labor Relations Authority 7 7 7

Federal Maritime Commission 7 7 6

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 11 11 11

General Services Administration 456 20 3

Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation 1 0 0
56

Number of Establishments 

Department/Agency Total Submitted 

Data 

Submitted 

Usable Data 

Holocaust Memorial Museum 9 8 4

Institute of Museum and Library Services 1 1 1

Inter-American Foundation 1 1 1

International Boundary and Water 

Commission 13 13 13

International Trade Commission 1 1 1

James Madison Foundation 1 1 1

Kennedy Center 1 1 1

Marine Corps 56 25 13

Marine Mammal Commission 1 1 1

Merit Systems Protection Board 10 0 0

Millennium Challenge Corporation 21 1 1

Morris K. Udall & Stewart L. Udall 

Foundation 2 2 2

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 32 25 24

National Archives and Records Administration 42 42 19

National Capital Planning Commission 1 1 1

National Council on Disability 1 1 1

National Credit Union Administration 6 6 6

National Endowment for the Arts 1 1 1

National Endowment for the Humanities 2 1 1

National Gallery of Art 1 1 1

National Labor Relations Board 51 51 51

National Mediation Board 2 2 2

National Science Foundation 1 1 0

National Transportation Safety Board 6 6 6

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7 7 7

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 1 1 0

Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission 3 3 3
57

Number of Establishments 

Department/Agency Total Submitted 

Data 

Submitted 

Usable Data 

Office of Government Ethics 1 1 1

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation 3 0 0

Office of Personnel Management 65 65 0

Office of Special Counsel 1 1 1

Overseas Private Investment Corporation 1 1 1

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 4 4 4

Postal Regulatory Commission 1 1 1

Presidio Trust 1 1 1

Railroad Retirement Board 54 54 54

Securities and Exchange Commission 12 12 12

Selective Service System 4 4 4

Small Business Administration 184 0 0

Smithsonian Institution 32 32 8

Social Security Administration 1,853 1,853 1,669

Social Security Advisory Board 1 1 1

Tennessee Valley Authority 82 75 75

The Peace Corps 78 1 1

Trade and Development Agency 1 1 1

Vietnam Education Foundation 1 1 1

Total 20,790 17,518 10,301
58

Appendix 3: Field Federal Safety and Health Councils

Active FFSHCs in CY 2017 – Received Annual Reports by OSHA Region

Region II Region V 

Central New York FFSHC Chicago FFSHC

Greater New York FFSHC Detroit FFSHC

Hudson Valley FFSHC Duluth/Superior FFSHC

Puerto Rico FFSHC Minneapolis FFSHC

Western New York FFSHC Region VI 

Central New York FFSHC Dallas/Fort Worth FFSHC

Greater New York FFSHC Oklahoma FFSHC

Region III South Texas FFSHC

Hampton Roads FFSHC Region VII 

Metropolitan Washington, DC FFSHC Greater Des Moines FFSHC

Northeastern Pennsylvania FFSHC Greater Kansas City FFSHC

Region IV Greater Omaha FFSHC

Atlanta FFSHC Greater St. Louis FFSHC

Central Florida FFSHC Region VIII 

Coastal Empire FFSHC Denver FFSHC

Louisville Area FFSHC Region IX
59

Middle Tennessee FFSHC Phoenix FFSHC

Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC San Francisco Bay Area FFSHC

North Carolina FFSHC Region X

South Florida FFSHC Mt. Rainier FFSHC
60

FFSHCs with Appointed Representatives in CY 2017 by Federal Department/Agency 

Department of Agriculture

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

• Duluth/Superior FFSHC

• Greater Des Moines FFSHC

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC

• Minneapolis FFSHC

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC

• North Carolina FFHSC

• Puerto Rico FFSHC

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC

Department of Commerce

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

• Detroit FFSHC

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC

• Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC

• North Carolina FFSHC

Department of Defense

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC

• Minneapolis FFSHC

• Northeastern Pennsylvania FFSHC

Department of Energy

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Western New York FFSHC

Department of Health and Human Services

• Atlanta FFSHC

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Minneapolis FFSHC

• Puerto Rico FFSHC

Department of Homeland Security

• Atlanta FFSHC

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

• Detroit FFSHC

• Duluth FFSHC

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Greater New York FFSHC

• Greater Omaha FFSHC

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC

• Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC

• Northeastern Pennsylvania FFSHC

• Phoenix FFSHC

• San Francisco FFSHC

• South Florida FFSHC

• Western New York FFSHC

Department of Justice

• Atlanta FFSHC

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Greater Omaha FFSHC

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC

• Minneapolis FFSHC

• North Carolina FFSHC

• Northeastern Pennsylvania FFSHC

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC

Department of Labor

• Atlanta FFSHC

• Central Florida FFSHC

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

• Duluth/Superior FFSHC

• Greater Des Moines FFSHC

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Greater New York FFSHC

• Greater Omaha FFSHC

• Hudson Valley FFSHC

• Minneapolis FFSHC

• Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

• North Carolina FFSHC

• Northeastern Pennsylvania FFSHC

• South Florida FFSHC
6

1

• Western New York FFSHC

Department of State • South Florida FFSHC

Department of Transportation • Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC • Greater Kansas City FFSHC • Greater Omaha FFSHC • Minneapolis FFSHC • Puerto Rico FFSHC

Department of Veterans Affairs • Atlanta FFSHC • Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC • Detroit FFSHC • Greater Des Moines FFSHC • Greater Kansas City FFSHC • Greater New York FFSHC • Greater Omaha FFSHC • Greater St. Louis FFSHC • Hudson Valley FFSHC • Minneapolis FFSHC • Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC • Northeastern Pennsylvania FFSHC • Mt. Rainier FFSHC • San Francisco Bay FFSHC • South Florida FFSHC • Western New York FFSHC

Department of the Interior • Atlanta FFSHC • Greater New York FFSHC • Minneapolis FFSHC • Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC • Northeastern Pennsylvania FFSHC

Department of the Treasury • 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 Kansas City FFSHC • Greater New York FFSHC • Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC • Mt. Rainier FFSHC • North Carolina FFSHC

General Services Administration • Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC • Greater Des Moines FFSHC • Greater Kansas City FFSHC • Mt. Rainier FFSHC • Northeastern Pennsylvania 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 • Greater Des Moines FFSHC U.S. Air Force • Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC • Detroit FFSHC • Duluth/Superior FFSHC • Greater Omaha FFSHC • Minneapolis FFSHC • Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC • Mt. Rainier FFSHC • North Carolina FFSHC • Western New York FFSHC
62

U.S. Army

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

• Detroit FFSHC

• Greater Des Moines FFSHC

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Greater New York FFSHC

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC

• North Carolina FFSHC

• Northeastern Pennsylvania FFSHC

• South Florida FFSHC

• Western New York FFSHC

U.S. Navy

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC

• Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

U.S. Postal Service 

• Atlanta FFSHC

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

• Detroit FFSHC

• Greater Des Moines FFSHC

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC

• Hudson Valley FFSHC

• Phoenix FFSHC

• Minneapolis FFSHC

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC

• North Carolina FFSHC

• Northeastern Pennsylvania FFSHC

• Western New York FFSHC
63

FFSHCs with Non-Appointed Representatives in CY 2017 by Federal Department/ 

Agency 

Department of Agriculture

• Atlanta FFSHC

• Central Florida FFSHC

• San Francisco FFSHC

Department of Commerce

• Louisville Area FFSHC

• Minneapolis FFSHC

• Oklahoma FFSHC

• Western New York FFSHC

Department of Defense

• Greater New York FFSHC

• Hampton Roads FFSHC

• Oklahoma FFSHC

• San Francisco FFSHC

Department of Energy

• Greater New York FFSHC

• Hampton Roads FFSHC

Department of Health and Human Services

• Atlanta FFSHC

• Chicago FFSHC

• Greater New York FFSHC

Department of Homeland Security

• Greater New York FFSHC

• Hampton Roads FFSHC

• Oklahoma FFSHC

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC

• South Florida FFSHC

• Western New York FFSHC

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

• Atlanta FFSHC

• Chicago FFSHC

• Greater New York FFSHC

• Western New York FFSHC

Department of Justice

• Atlanta FFSHC

• Greater New York FFSHC

• Western New York FFSHC

Department of Labor 

• Atlanta FFSHC

• Hampton Roads FFSHC

• Oklahoma FFSHC

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC

Department of Transportation

• Duluth/Superior FFSHC

• Greater New York FFSHC

• Oklahoma FFSHC

Department of Veterans Affairs

• Central Florida FFSHC

• Central New York FFSHC

• Greater New York FFSHC

• Louisville Area FFSHC

• Minneapolis FFSHC

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC

Department of the Interior

• Atlanta FFSHC

• Central Florida FFSHC

• Greater New York FFSHC

• Louisville FFSHC

• Minneapolis FFSHC

• San Francisco FFSHC

Department of the Treasury 

• Chicago FFSHC

• Greater New York FFSHC

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC

• South Florida FFSHC

Environmental Protection Agency 

• Chicago FFSHC

• Greater New York FFSHC

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC

General Services Administration 

• Atlanta FFSHC
64

• Central Florida FFSHC • Greater New York FFSHC • San Francisco Bay FFSHC • Western New York FFSHC

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration • Central Florida FFSHC • Hampton Roads FFSHC

National Labor Relations Board • Atlanta 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. Air Force • Atlanta FFSHC • Central Florida FFSHC • Central New York FFSHC • Hampton Roads FFSHC • Oklahoma FFSHC • South Texas FFSHC

U.S. Army

• Central New York FFSHC • Greater New York FFSHC • Hampton Roads FFSHC • Louisville Area FFSHC • San Francisco FFSHC • South Florida FFSHC U.S. Navy • Central Florida FFHSC • Hampton Roads FFSHC • Minneapolis FFSHC U.S. Postal Service • Atlanta FFSHC • Greater New York FFSHC • Louisville Area FFSHC • Oklahoma FFSHC • San Francisco FFSHC
65

Departments/Agencies that Appointed New Representatives to FFSHCs in CY 2017 

Department of Agriculture

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

Department of Commerce

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC

• Minneapolis FFSHC

Department of Defense

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

Department of Education

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

Department of Energy

• Greater New York FFSHC

Department of Health and Human Services

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Minneapolis FFSHC

Department of Homeland Security

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Greater New York FFSHC

• Phoenix FFSHC

• Puerto Rico FFSHC

• South Florida FFSHC

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

Department of Justice

• Duluth/Superior FFSHC

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

Department of Labor

• Atlanta FFSHC

• Duluth/Superior FFSHC

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Greater New York FFSHC

• Hampton Roads FFSHC

Department of Transportation

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

Department of Veterans Affairs

• Detroit FFSHC

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Greater New York FFSHC

• North Carolina FFSHC

• Northeastern Pennsylvania FFSHC

• San Francisco FFSHC

• South Florida FFSHC

Department of the Interior

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC

Department of the Treasury

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Western New York FFSHC

Environmental Protection Agency

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC

General Services Administration

• Greater New York FFSHC

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC

Social Security Administration

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

U.S. Air Force

• Central Florida FFSHC

• Western New York FFSHC

U.S. Navy

• Minneapolis FFSHC

• Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

U.S. Postal Service

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Greater New York FFSHC
66

Appendix 4: Agency Requests to NIOSH for Technical Assistance

Technical Assistance Requests, and Completed Investigations by Type 

CY 2015 through CY 2017

Technical Assistance 

Requests

Completed Investigation by Type

Desktop Field

Department/ 

Agency 2017 2016 2015 2017 2016 2015 2017 2016 2015

Agriculture 2 3 3 4 2 1

Commerce 1 1

Defense 9 9 3 3 5 1 1 1 1

Energy 1 1

General Services 1

Health and

Human Services 2 2 1

Homeland 

Security 7 2 4 3 3 1 1 2

Interior 3 1 3 3

Justice 2 4 2 1

U.S. Postal 

Service 1 1 4 2 3

Social Security 

Administration 2 4 2 5 1

Transportation 1 2 1 1

State 1 1

Treasury 1 3 1 4

Veterans Affairs 9 6 5 5 4 5 1

Other 3 2 3 2

Total 38 43 27 20 32 15 6 4 4
67

2017 Assistance Requests by Department/Agency and Exposure Group 

Exposure Group*

Department/Agency

ChemicalBiologicIndoor Environmental QualityNoiseHeatStressRadiationErgonomics

Agriculture 2

Commerce

Defense 4 1 3

Energy 1

General Services

Health and Human Services

Homeland Security 3 1 2 1

Interior

Justice 2

U.S. Postal Service 1

Social Security 2

Transportation 1

Treasury

Veterans Affairs 1 8

Other 1 1

Total 10 5 17 1 0 0 2 0

* 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 DoD’s single request to 

investigate two exposure groupings: “Biologic” and “Indoor 

Environmental Quality.”
68

2017 Assistance Requests by Department/Agency and Health Problem 

Health Problem

Department/Agency

RespiratoryViral/BacterialCancerMusculoskeletalMental/BehavioralSensorySkin DisorderNervous System

Agriculture 2

Commerce

Defense 6 4 2

Energy

General Services

Health and Human Services

Homeland Security 4 1 1 1 1

Interior

Justice 1 2

U.S. Postal Service 1

Social Security 2 1

Transportation 1

Treasury 1

Veterans Affairs 7 3 1 1

Other 3 2 1

Total 26 6 7 0 0 0 6 4