Prepared by the Office of 

Federal Agency Programs

Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration
President’s Report 

Page 1 

President’s Report 

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

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

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

Statistics and Trends................................................................................................................... 4

OSHA Activities......................................................................................................................... 5

Agency Activities........................................................................................................................ 6

Annual Information Request....................................................................................................... 8

Accomplishments...................................................................................................................... 11

FY 2014 Goals.......................................................................................................................... 11

Agencies Failing to Submit Annual Reports ............................................................................ 12

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

Enforcement.............................................................................................................................. 14

Oversight................................................................................................................................... 17

Compliance Assistance ............................................................................................................. 35

Section 2 – Federal Agency OSH Activities............................................................................... 39

Fatalities and Catastrophes ....................................................................................................... 39

Certified Safety and Health Committees .................................................................................. 44

Other OSH Committees and Councils...................................................................................... 45

Continuity of Operations........................................................................................................... 46

Motor Vehicle Safety................................................................................................................ 47

Telework Enhancement ............................................................................................................ 50

Analyzing and Controlling Trends............................................................................................ 50

Safety and Health Management System Response to the Inspection Process.......................... 51

Training of Overseas Federal Employees................................................................................. 52

Whistleblower Protection Programs......................................................................................... 53

Specific Agency Reporting Requirements................................................................................ 54

Agency OSH Responsibilities..................................................................................................... 58

Program..................................................................................................................................... 58

Standards................................................................................................................................... 60

Workplace ................................................................................................................................. 61

Records ..................................................................................................................................... 61

Inspections and Investigations.................................................................................................. 62

References................................................................................................................................. 63

OSH-Related Resources and Information ................................................................................... 64

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... 66
President’s Report 

Page 2 

President’s Report 

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

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

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

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

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

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conducted at or with federal agencies 

during fiscal year (FY) 2013.

1

 

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

the status of these programs, as mandated by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conditions of employment.

 Executive Order (EO) 12196, Occupational Safety and Health Programs for Federal 

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

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

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

carrying out their responsibilities.

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

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

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

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

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

the annual report is due to OSHA, annually, no later than May 1.2

 

1 A Recordkeeping rule change, effective in August 2013, changed federal agency injury and illness reporting requirements. This Report includes 

federal agency OSH and related activities that occurred throughout FY 2013 and the first quarter of FY 2014, which ended December 31, 2014. 

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

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

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

Page 3 

President’s Report 

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

AGENCY OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM ACTIVITY – EXTENDED FISCAL YEAR 

2013 (Report), includes an EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, the two main sections of the Report proper, 

and three APPENDICES. The Report diverges significantly from previous reports in length and 

content in that it is much shorter and focuses on the overall status of federal agencies’ OSH 

programs. Due to the August 2013 Recordkeeping rule change, this Report is also transitional in 

nature. (Please refer to SECTION 1 – OSHA ACTIVITIES, Recordkeeping, for a further 

explanation of the effect that the Recordkeeping had on federal agency reporting requirements.) 

This Extended FY 2013 Report covers the entire FY 2013 timeframe, and the first three months 

of FY 2014. Unless otherwise indicated, FY 2013 data are reported. Next year’s report will be 

based on calendar year 2014 data. 

The EXECUTIVE SUMMARY summarizes some of the significant achievements and challenges 

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

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

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

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

reported to OSHA. In an attempt to make the Report more user-friendly and increase its 

usability, OSHA eliminated the AGENCY SUMMARIES that were present in previous year’s 

iterations.

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

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

of the Presidential Initiative - Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment Initiative 

(POWER).

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

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

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

trends.

The APPENDICES section contains Agency OSH Responsibilities, a list of OSH-related Resources 

and Information, and a list of Acronyms used in the Report. The Agency OSH Responsibilities

appendix provides information on federal agency responsibilities with respect to OSH programs 

as delineated by the Act, EO 12196, and Title 29 CFR §1960. This appendix is divided into five 

subsections: Program, Standards, Workplace, Records, and Inspections and Investigations. 

Each subsection lists the agency’s responsibilities; and discusses each responsibility, and 

provides hyperlinks to the specified reference(s). 
President’s Report 

Page 4 

President’s Report 

During the reporting period, both OSHA and federal agencies continued their efforts to protect 

the health and safety of federal employees and support agencies’ respective safety and health 

management systems (SHMSs). This report provides FY 2013 injury and illness data for this 

sector, and is a compilation of the required annual reports that OSHA received from federal 

agencies. In addition, this Report summarizes the efforts OSHA and Executive Branch agencies 

made to improve OSH programs for federal workers. The reader should refer to the various 

sections of the Report for specific details regarding subject matter contained in this EXECUTIVE 

SUMMARY. 

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

Government as a whole [less the U.S. Postal Service3(USPS), and non-Executive Branch 

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

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

enforcement, oversight, and compliance assistance activities. In addition, it describes the actions 

federal agencies took during the reporting period to analyze trends and improve their SHMSs. 

The Report continues with an analysis of federal agencies’ self-evaluations of their respective 

SHMSs. Eight new items were added to the self-evaluation tool; one item from the FY 2012 

evaluation tool was omitted from this year’s evaluation tool. (Please refer to SECTION 1 – OSHA

ACTIVITIES, for a complete description of the EVALUATIONS.)

Statistics and Trends 

Injury and Illness Statistics 

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

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

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

individual agencies.

In FY 2013, the Government’s employment rolls decreased by 22,991 employees to 2,199,193

employees. Its total injury and illness cases decreased by 3,827 to 55,205, and its total case rate 

(TCR) decreased from 2.66 to 2.51 (5.6 percent). The Government’s lost-time cases decreased

by 2,495 to 26,436; and its lost-time case rate (LTCR) decreased from 1.3 to 1.2 (7.7 percent).

Workers’ Compensation Costs 

The Federal Government’s workers’ compensation costs (less the USPS and non-Executive 

Branch agencies) decreased from approximately $1.7 billion to $1.6 billion, a 5.9 percent

decrease from the previous chargeback year (CBY). Workers’ compensation benefits provided 

to employees and their survivors include payments for medical treatment, rehabilitation services, 

replacement of lost wages, and death benefits.

 

3 On September 28, 1998, Congress amended the Act to make it applicable to the USPS. Therefore, it is not included in this Report.
President’s Report 

Page 5 

President’s Report 

Fatalities and Catastrophic Events 

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

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

catastrophic events to OSHA in an expeditious manner. Agencies reported that forty-one civilian 

employee fatalities occurred during FY 2013, thirty-seven of which were determined to be workrelated. 

OSHA ACTIVITIES 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

agencies. Compliance assistance included consultation activities that assisted federal agencies in 

understanding both the importance of providing safe and healthy working environments, and 

possible methods for accomplishing this. (Please refer to SECTION 1 – OSHA ACTIVITIES, for a 

complete explanation of these activities.)

Enforcement 

During FY 2013, OSHA conducted 131 programmed inspections, and 1,147 unprogrammed 

inspections of federal worksites, with an average of 4.19 violations per programmed inspection, 

and an average of 3.6 violations per unprogrammed inspection. In addition, OSHA inspected 

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

hazards, such as lead, falls, powered industrial vehicles, energized equipment; and specific 

injuries, such as amputations; or industries, such as manufacturing or maritime. 

In FY 2013, OSHA issued a total of ten federal significant cases involving the departments of 

the Interior, Navy and Veterans Affairs, and the Transportation Security Administration. (Please 

refer to SECTION 1 – OSHA ACTIVITIES, Table 1, for specific information on the agency 

inspected, the reason for the inspection, the emphasis program, and the number and severity of 

the violations.) 

Oversight 

Presidential Initiative - POWER. The Presidential Initiative - Protecting Our Workers and 

Ensuring Reemployment, established in 2010, was created to challenge federal Executive Branch 

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

strived to meet their goals. POWER originally had seven goals; an eighth goal was introduced in 

2012. 

In general, the Initiative was a partial success in FY 2013. The Government as a whole (less the 

USPS) met four out of the six measurable goals. However, no departments met all of their 

measurable goals. In FY 2013, federal employees (excluding those employed by the USPS) filed 

more than 68,000 injury notices. While the number of reported injuries has continued to decline 

in the Federal Government over the past several years, compensation for lost wages and medical 
President’s Report 

Page 6 

President’s Report 

benefits still represents a significant cost to the American taxpayer. In CBY 2013 alone, total 

costs were approximately $1.6 billion, excluding the USPS. 

Compliance Assistance 

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

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

councils, and other forms of safety and health committees; supporting the development of federal 

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

opportunities.

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

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

2013, OSHA conducted an ATAR at the request of the U.S. Secret Service, and began planning 

the process with the National Archives and Records Administration.

Field Federal Safety and Health Councils (FFSHCs) are federal interagency groups, chartered by 

the Secretary, that bring together in the spirit of cooperation local OSH professionals for 

education, and problem solving. In FY 2013, thirty-five FFSHCs actively carried out efforts to 

improve the effectiveness of OSH functions within the Government. The OSHA Assistant 

Secretary recognized ten of these councils for Superior Performance, Meritorious Achievement, 

and Notable Recognition awards.

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

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

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

conditions of federal agency employees, an agency may submit a request for a supplementary 

standard. Currently, there are only two OSHA-approved supplementary standards.

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

Training Institute and other venues. Federal OSH personnel may attend any of the myriad of 

professional and technical courses provided through the OSHA Training Institute. In addition to 

the on-site training courses, OSHA provides a week of training specifically for federal agency 

OSH personnel at the OSHA Training Institute. During the reporting period, OSHA provided 

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

OSH personnel. The one hundred-five federal OSH employee participants, representing thirtyone federal agencies, had the opportunity to attend up to six different sessions on various topics.

Attendees reported it as a valuable experience.

Agency Activities 

Occupational Safety and Health Committees 

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

While a handful of agencies continued to maintain Certified Safety and Health Committees

(CSHCs), regulated by 29 CFR §1960, Subpart F, most agencies described internal OSH 

committees developed outside of these regulatory requirements. 
President’s Report 

Page 7 

President’s Report 

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

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

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

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

OSH policies. When appropriately implemented, a CSHC allows agencies to be exempt from 

unannounced OSHA inspections. Currently, five agencies have Secretary-approved CSHCs: the 

Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Labor, General Services Administration (GSA), 

Tennessee Valley Authority, and U.S. International Trade Commission. 

Per 29 CFR §1960, Subpart F, DOL and the Tennessee Valley Authority submitted information 

certifying to the Secretary of Labor that their respective CSHCs met the requirements of the 

subpart; the Central Intelligence Agency did not submit complete information; the U.S. 

International Trade Commission reported that it no longer has a CSHC; and the GSA reported 

that it is no longer is eligible to have a CSHC since it no longer has a national level committee. 

Two agencies, the Department of Energy, and the National Archives and Records 

Administration, are reportedly continuing their efforts to establish a CSHC.

Self-Evaluations 

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

assess both the extent to which the agency’s program conforms to the requirements of EO 12196 

and the corresponding regulations, as well as whether the agency has implemented the program 

effectively in all field activities. Although a few agencies did not distinguish between workplace 

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

SHMSs. Many agencies evaluated their programs themselves, using a variety of tools, while 

others requested assistance from outside experts. In general, agencies reported that selfevaluations resulted in improvements to different aspects of their SHMSs, including the 

operational, managerial, and cultural aspects that encompass an effective SHMS.

This year, OSHA asked agencies to use a prescribed tool to perform their self-evaluations. An 

analysis of the reported data indicates that, for the most part, federal agencies are in compliance 

with the requirements of 29 CFR §1960, and have effective SHMSs. However, there are several

areas for improvement within the operational, managerial, and cultural components, even in 

those agencies that reported the most robust systems. The analysis also indicated that multiple 

agencies are not fully aware of their OSH responsibilities, and of the applicability of an effective 

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

operations. (Please refer to SECTION 1 – OSHA ACTIVITIES, figures 1 through 4, and the 

ensuing discussion, for a description of the components of a SHMS, and an analysis of the selfevaluations as reported by agencies.)

Controlling Trends 

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

summarize whether or not they met their POWER goals. Although some agencies complied with 

this request, responses were largely inconsistent. For example, 27 percent (21 agencies) of all 

agencies reported that they met all eight POWER goals. However 44 percent (34 agencies) of 

the agencies either did not specify whether or not they met their 2013 POWER goals, or the 

agency was unclear in its response. Additionally, seventeen agencies reported that they met at 

least two or more of their POWER goals. 
President’s Report 

Page 8 

President’s Report 

Annual Information Request 

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

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

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

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

reporting period, OSHA requested information on Presidential and Other Government-wide 

Initiatives, Fatalities and Catastrophic Events, several 29 CFR 1960 Requirements, an expanded

agency SHMS Self-evaluation, and FY 2014 OSH goals.

Presidential and Other Government-wide Initiatives 

OSHA asked federal agencies to provide information on their continuity of operations (COOP)

planning, motor vehicle safety programs, and telework enhancement activities. (Please refer to 

SECTION 2 – FEDERAL AGENCY OSH ACTIVITIES, for detailed information on these items.)

Continuity of Operations 

For several years, OSHA has asked federal agencies to describe their plans for responding to, 

and maintaining agency operations in the event of, emergencies or disasters. For the reporting 

period, nearly every department and agency reported that it had some type of plan for dealing 

with emergency response and COOP; or that it is currently developing a plan. Most agencies 

reported that these plans either contained provisions for ensuring the safety and health of their 

workers, or were developed with the input of OSH personnel. For most, training is provided inhouse, a few agencies indicated using commercial sites, such as, 

https://mobileworkexchange.com/, to provide training opportunities for their employees. 

However, several agencies, including the Inter-American Foundation, James Madison Memorial 

Fellowship Foundation, and the Kennedy Center indicated that the agency either does not have a 

COOP plan, or that the plan does not address OSH issues. For the last two years, the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, and the Vietnam Education Foundation indicated that the agency’s 

plan is in development. The National Merit Board did not report on this item.

In addition to COOP planning, OSHA asked federal agencies to describe lessons learned from 

recent natural disasters. Few agencies described being affected by, or involvement in natural 

disasters during the reporting period. However, those that did report involvement in such events 

collectively reported continued challenges with communications, command and control, 

accountability for employees’ safety, as well as inter- and intra-agency communication and 

coordination. Agencies reported various approaches to respond to these challenges, including 

improving emergency notification systems; expanding the pool of telework-eligible employees, 

and optimizing the use of telework; improving the functioning of and/or developing emergency 

response teams; and increasing the scope and depth of training, and emergency response 

exercises. 

Motor Vehicle Safety 

Collectively, thirty agencies reported approximately 5,416 motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), 

which is a 3.6 percent decrease from the 5,621 MVAs reported in FY 2012. Most agencies 

reported having motor vehicle safety programs that are in compliance with the Executive Orders 

requiring the use of seatbelts in motor vehicles, and the ban on texting while driving. Agencies 

reported that their programs had demonstrable effects on limiting the likelihood and impact of 
President’s Report 

Page 9 

President’s Report 

MVAs on the mission. Many departments and agencies reported requiring defensive driving 

courses, with the majority using courses through either GSA or the National Safety Council. 

Similar to previous year’s reporting, agencies also reported having programs to encourage 

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

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

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

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

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

twelve agencies indicated the absence of a motor vehicle safety program, citing a variety of 

reasons, including agency size and number of employees assigned, mission requirements, and 

not owning an agency-dedicated fleet. Seven agencies did not report on this item.

Telework Enhancement 

With few exceptions, agencies reported that their telework programs are in compliance with 

Telework Enhancement Act of 2010, other applicable laws, statutes and regulations, and OPM 

guidelines; and that agency regulations and policies address the authority, policy, and 

responsibilities for managing the telework program. Most reported the use of checklists, selfevaluations, and in some cases, counseling, training, and visits from supervisors for personnel 

authorized to telework. The agencies that reported on this item confirmed continuing efforts to 

promote the use of telework and expand telework capability with minimal adverse mission 

impacts, and that no employees were injured or became ill while on telework. Only six agencies 

indicated the absence of a telework program, citing various reasons for the omission, including 

agency size, mission requirements, and security issues. 

In addition, OSHA asked agencies to describe how recent natural disasters affected their 

telework programs. Most reported little-to-no impact on their missions and programs, stating 

that existing telework programs amply provided for uninterrupted business operations, and that 

employees appropriately used the available telework options. Of the agencies that reported 

adverse impacts, the majority described stressed and overtaxed communication systems, and 

preparedness issues. These agencies indicated that they were in the process of revising COOP 

planning and improving their communications capabilities to address these issues. 

29 CFR 1960 Requirements 

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

§1960, specifically: involvement in field federal safety and health council activities, agency selfinspections, OSH training of employees assigned overseas, and programs for protecting 

employees from reprisal for reporting OSH hazards. 

Field Federal Safety and Health Councils 

In 2014, thirty-five councils submitted annual reports detailing their activities during calendar 

year (CY) 2013. These FFSHCs represented the councils found in OSHA regions II through X. 

Due to their inactivity, no councils in OSHA Region I submitted an annual report. According to 

the annual reports, approximately 373 appointed representatives from 81 federal departments and 

agencies participated in FFSHCs nationwide. Four hundred and eight non-appointed members 

from at least one hundred twenty federal departments and agencies also participated in the 

councils, along with 628 associate members from roughly 283 local businesses, local 

governments, safety and health associations, and labor unions. Seven FFSHCs (20 percent) 
President’s Report 

Page 10 

President’s Report 

reported that they do not have any officially appointed representatives on their councils. These 

councils’ membership consists of associate members and non-appointed members. In CY 2013, 

thirty-three departments and agencies appointed new representatives to eleven FFSHCs (31

percent). Of the new appointments, thirty-five were management representatives and twentyeight were non-management representatives. Twenty-four FFSHCs (69 percent) had no new 

appointments in CY 2013.

Safety and Health Management System Response to the Inspection 

Process 

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

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

correction, working with GSA and other public and private sector entities for hazard abatement, 

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

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

International Trade Commission, indicated that they encouraged employee and contractor 

participation in the inspection process. Based on agency reports, federal agencies were involved 

in one hundred eighty federal OSHA safety and health inspections, and over 11,000 internal 

safety and health inspections of their respective establishments; with approximately 12,000

Notices of Unsafe or Unhealthy Working Conditions being issued as a result of these inspections. 

Fifty-seven agencies either indicated that the inspection process was “not applicable” to their 

situations, or did not report on the item. 

Training of Overseas Federal Employees 

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

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

more than 142,000 government employees worked outside the boundaries of the United States in 

FY 2013, with the majority identified by the departments of Defense and State. Of those that 

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

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

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

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

their overseas federal workforce is covered under either DoD or State OSH programs. 

Several agencies also reported on agency support of their stateside employees, reporting a range 

of employee support activities for OSH-related activities. Some reported that employee training 

was largely based on job responsibilities. Some also reported making special efforts to ensure 

that collateral duty OSH personnel received the appropriate training. In addition, several 

agencies reported that employees were encouraged to seek professional OSH certification and 

participate in professional OSH organizations. Agencies also provided support by maintaining 

OSH websites, distributing OSH awards, publishing OSH newsletters, and encouraging 

participation in FFSHCs. Many agencies reported that they also supported employees’ safety 

and health through encouraging healthy lifestyles by providing on-site fitness centers;

subsidizing gym memberships; sponsoring health fairs; and offering a variety of health-related 

services, such as health-screenings and physical examinations.
President’s Report 

Page 11 

President’s Report 

Whistleblower Protection Programs 

OSHA's Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs enforces the whistleblower 

provisions of more than twenty whistleblower statutes protecting employees who report 

violations of various workplace safety, airline, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, 

environmental, financial reform, food safety, health insurance reform, motor vehicle safety, 

nuclear, pipeline, public transportation agency, railroad, maritime, and securities laws. One 

statute is specific to federal agencies; 29 CFR §1960, Subpart G requires such agencies to ensure 

that employees are not subjected to reprisal or other forms of restraint for filing a report of 

unsafe or unhealthy working conditions. In an effort to assess agencies’ whistleblower 

protection programs, OSHA requested that agencies provide information on any federal 

employee allegations of reprisal, and the actions taken in response to the allegations. Most 

agencies indicated awareness of provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Act, Title 5, U.S.C. § 

2302(c), and reported having functional protection programs. The Access Board reported that it 

does not have such a program. 

Several agencies reported strides in improving their programs. These included reports that: the 

Department of Commerce’s program was awarded Whistleblower Protection Agency 

Certification; the Department of Energy established an employee Differing Professional Opinion

process; and the National Labor Relations Board publishing a broad program guidance 

document. The Inter-American Foundation indicated minimal progress in establishing its 

program. 

For the reporting period, agencies reported zero cases of reprisal from employees for filing a 

report of unsafe or unhealthy working conditions. However, the DOL and the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission reported handling reports of reprisal unrelated to safety 

and health concerns.

Accomplishments 

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

the federal worker. Agencies reported on a range of relevant accomplishments, from revising 

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

facilities. Some agencies reported adding risk assessments to their safety policies, incorporating 

safety considerations into their building plans for new facilities, and including safety in 

management performance criteria. A few agencies indicated that they are in the infancy stages 

of developing a SHMS. In addition, several agencies reported encouraging employees to 

become certified in first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and the use of automatic external 

defibrillators. Although federal agencies reported multiple fatalities occurring in FY 2013, these 

same agencies reported instituting a multitude of corrective actions to preclude similar future 

occurrences. Agencies reported implementing policy changes, developing new and improving 

upon existing training protocols, and performing safety audits, to mention a few of these 

improvements. 

FY 2014 Goals 

There were no significant changes regarding agencies proposed occupational safety and health 

goals for FY 2014 from FY 2013. Most goals were broad-based in scope incorporating various 

strategies to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their SHMSs. Agencies reported on 
President’s Report 

Page 12 

President’s Report 

plans to reduce the incidence of work-related injuries and illnesses, and incorporate more 

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

also reported on plans to join OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Programs, participate in FFSHCs, 

abate specific physical and chemical workplace hazards, and expand OSH training. 

Agencies Failing to Submit Annual Reports4 

OSHA did not receive reports from seventeen independent agencies5for inclusion in the 

extended FY 2013 Report, even after contacting these agencies repeatedly to ensure they had 

received the initial, and multiple follow-up, requests for information. These included the: 

 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

 American Battle Monuments Commission 

 Broadcasting Board of Governors 

 Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board 

 Morris K. and Stewart L. Udall Foundation 

 National Capital Planning Commission 

 National Council on Disability 

 National Credit Union Administration 

 National Endowment for the Arts

 National Gallery of Art

 U.S. Agency for International Development

 U.S. Arctic Research Commission

 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

 U.S. Commission on Fine Arts

 U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

 U.S. Office of Government Ethics 

 U.S. Office of Special Counsel

 

4 Although their data is included in the Report, four agencies provided OSHA their annual OSH reports approximately five months after the due 

date (May 1), including the Central Intelligence Agency, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board, and the Merit Systems Protection Board. 

5

Please note that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has failed to submit a report for the past four consecutive fiscal years (FY 2010 -

FY 2013); and that the American Battle Monuments Commission, the National Endowment for the Arts, and National Gallery of Art, have failed 

to submit a report for the past two consecutive fiscal years (FY 2012 – FY 2013).
President’s Report 

Page 13 

President’s Report 
President’s Report 

Page 14 

President’s Report 

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

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

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

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

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

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

FEDWEEK, a training opportunity provided by OSHA for federal OSH personnel.

Enforcement 

Inspections 

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

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

generally fall into one of two categories: programmed or unprogrammed. Programmed worksite 

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

sites reporting injury and illness statistics that exceed industry averages, or sites associated with 

particular hazards, or adverse health outcomes, such as amputations. Unprogrammed inspections 

occur for other reasons, such as when OSHA receives an employee complaint or notification of 

serious hazards.

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

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

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

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

agent.

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

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

violations, and the citations often include monetary penalties. However, for federal agencies, 

OSHA issues Notices of Unsafe or Unhealthful Working Conditions (Notices), which carry no 

monetary penalties. For either sector, the “cited” employer may appeal the citation/notice.

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

response to the condition, including:

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

and do not result in citations.

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

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

to their safety and health.
President’s Report 

Page 15 

President’s Report 

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

serious physical harm to the employee(s).

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

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

employee safety and health.

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

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

has become a final order.

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

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

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

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

Unprogrammed Inspections 

In FY 2013, OSHA initiated 1,147 inspections of federal worksites; of these sites, 22.2 percent

were in compliance with OSHA standards. There was an average of 3.6 violations cited per 

initial inspection, with 76 percent of the total violations issued as serious.

Programmed/Targeted Inspections 

In FY 2013, OSHA’s National Office continued the Federal Agency Targeting Inspection 

Program (FEDTARG), which is a targeted inspection program of federal worksites. It uses the 

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

lost-time cases. During the reporting period, OSHA conducted 131 inspections under this 

program and discovered an average of 4.19 violations per inspection, a decrease from FY 2012’s 

average of 4.8 violations per inspection. Overall, OSHA discovered 442 violations, including: 1 

Willful, 265 Serious, 58 Repeat, and 118 Other-Than-Serious violations.

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

programs that targeted specific hazards such as lead, falls, powered industrial vehicles, energized 

equipment; and specific injuries, such as amputations; or industries, such as manufacturing or 

maritime. Local or regional emphasis programs may result in stronger relationships between 

OSHA and the federal agencies. 

Significant/Novel Cases 

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

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

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

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

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

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

2013, OSHA issued a total of ten federal significant cases. These cases involved the 

departments of Homeland Security-Transportation Security Administration (one case), Interior
President’s Report 

Page 16 

President’s Report 

Table 1. Summary of OSHA Significant Cases Involving Federal Agencies.

Department/Agency Inspection Type Program Type of Violations

Interior – Bureau of 

Reclamation Hoover Dam

Planned 

Programmed

Amputations and 

Powered Industrial 

Vehicles

Serious: 50

Repeat: 8

Other-Than-Serious: 5

Interior – National Park 

Service

Fatality Not Applicable Serious: 7

Repeat: 3

Other-Than-Serious: 2

Navy Complaint Not Applicable Serious: 7

Repeat: 4

Transportation Security 

Administration

Planned 

Programmed

FEDTARG Serious: 9

Repeat: 8

Veterans Affairs,

VHA Palo Alto Health Care 

System

Planned 

Programmed

FEDTARG Serious: 5

Repeat: 5

Veterans Affairs,

Bedford VHA Medical 

Center

Planned 

Programmed

FEDTARG Serious: 5

Willful: 1

Repeat: 16

Veterans Affairs,

Southern Oregon VHA 

Rehabilitation Center and

Clinics

Planned 

Programmed

FEDTARG Serious: 10

Repeat: 5

Other-Than-Serious: 2

Veterans Affairs, Battle 

Creek VHA Medical Center

Planned 

Programmed

FEDTARG, 

Novel

Serious: 4

Repeat: 6

Veterans Affairs, Tomah 

VHA Medical Center

Planned 

Programmed

FEDTARG,

Novel

Serious: 2

Repeat: 3

Other-Than-Serious: 2

Veterans Affairs, San 

Francisco VHA Medical 

Center

Fatality Not Applicable,

Novel

Serious: 3
President’s Report 

Page 17 

President’s Report 

(two cases), the Navy (one case), and Veterans Affairs-Veterans Health Administration (VHA)

(six cases – including three novel cases). (Please refer to Table 1, above, for specific 

information on the significant cases involving federal agencies.) None of the involved federal 

agencies appealed the case(s). As with all inspections, OSHA worked with these agencies to 

ensure that they abated the hazards, and made the necessary improvements to their SHMSs.

Oversight 

Presidential Initiative - POWER 

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

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

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

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

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

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

employees to work as soon as possible. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

electronically submit OWCP’s workers’ compensation claim forms. 

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

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

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

tracks the remaining five goals.6

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

due to workplace injuries or illness. In FY 2013, federal employees (excluding those employed 

by the USPS) filed more than 68,000 injury notices. Although the vast majority of claimants 

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

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

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

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

represents a significant cost to the American taxpayer. In CBY 2013 alone, total costs were 

approximately $1.6 billion (excluding the USPS). 

FY 2013, the third year of the POWER Initiative, was a partial success. The Government as a 

whole (less the USPS) met four out of the six measurable goals. No departments met all of their 

measurable goals. 

 

6 OSHA only tracks Executive Branch departments and agencies, while OWCP tracks all federal agencies.
President’s Report 

Page 18 

President’s Report 

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

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

2013 performance target was for agencies to have no more than 2.63 total injury and illness cases 

per 100 employees; government-wide, the total case rate was 2.51, representing a 22 percent

decrease over the rate of 3.22 in the FY 2009 baseline year. In FY 2013, sixteen of the eighteen

Executive Branch departments met their goal. Among the remaining forty-four independent 

agencies that are tracking Goal 1, twenty-six met the goal, twelve fell short, and six had no 

measurable data. 

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

Initiative, the Government as a whole (less the USPS) exceeded this goal. The FY 2013

performance target was for agencies to have no more than 1.29 lost time cases per 100 

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

decrease over the rate of 1.48 in the FY 2009 baseline year. Sixteen of the eighteen Executive 

Branch departments met their goals. Among the remaining forty-four independent agencies that 

are tracking Goal 2, twenty-nine agencies met their performance target, nine failed to do so, and 

six agencies had no measurable data. 

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

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

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

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

[Please refer to tables 2a and 2b for those agencies (as identified by the red symbol - ) that did 

not achieve their respective LTCR goals.] Even so, agencies reported on general mitigation

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

into agency operations, and tracking near misses. Agencies stressed the importance of selfinspection, internal and external, in identifying hazards, and analyzing and controlling trends.

Goal 4 concerns the timely filing of initial claim forms for injuries and illness. Agencies are 

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

above the baseline or meet the minimum threshold of 75 percent for FY 2013. Government-wide 

(less the USPS), these claims were timely filed 86.91 percent of the time, which represents an 

increase of 9 percent over the baseline of 80.1 percent, but which fell short of the performance 

target of 87.75 percent. Among the eighteen Executive Branch departments, only seven met this 

goal. Of the eleven that failed, three did not meet the minimum threshold, and the remaining 

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

Legislative Branch agencies met their performance targets. Two of the remaining three agencies 

failed to meet the minimum threshold of 75 percent, and one failed to increase timely filing by 3

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

targets, and one had no measurable data. Of the forty-four independent agencies, five had no 

claims filed during FY 2012, twenty met their goal, and the remaining nineteen failed to meet 

their performance target. (Fifteen did not meet the minimum threshold, and the other four failed 

to increase by 3 percent per year above the baseline year.)

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

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

claims by 3 percent per year above the baseline, or meeting a minimum threshold of 68 percent

for FY 2013. Government-wide (less the USPS), 79.85 percent of wage loss claims were filed 
President’s Report 

Page 19 

President’s Report 

on-time, surpassing the goal of 75.68 percent. Of the eighteen Executive Branch departments, 

twelve met or exceeded their target, and six did not. Four Legislative Branch agencies met their 

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

Branch agencies met its target, one did not, and one had no wage loss claims filed. Of the fortyfour independent agencies that were tracked, fourteen met their targets for timely filing of wage 

loss claims; fifteen had no wage loss claims filed, and the remaining fifteen failed to meet their 

targets or meet the minimum threshold of 68 percent goal for the year. 

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

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

as a whole (less the USPS) achieved a lost production day rate of 34.2 days, exceeding the target 

of 34.7 days. Among the eighteen Executive Branch departments, nine met or exceeded their 

targets. Eight Legislative Branch agencies met lost production day targets, while one did not. 

One Judicial Branch agency met its target, one did not, and one had no measurable data. Of the 

forty-four independent agencies tracking Goal 6, twenty-seven met their lost production day 

targets, twelve failed to do so, and five had no measurable data.

Goal 7 tasked the fourteen agencies with the largest, statistically significant volume of serious 

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

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

Security, the Interior, Justice, Labor, the Navy, Transportation, the Treasury, Veterans Affairs;

and the Social Security Administration. Collectively, these agencies were to increase the returnto-work of their seriously injured employees to 93.38 percent. For FY 2013, their actual 

percentage return-to-work was 91.92 percent. Four met their return-to-work targets, including 

the departments of Health and Human Services, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation.

Goal 7 also serves to support Executive Order (EO) 13548: Increasing Federal Employment of 

Individuals with Disabilities. As noted in section 3(b),

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

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

and increase successful return-to-work outcomes for those of their employees who 

sustain work-related injuries and illnesses, as defined under the Federal Employees' 

Compensation Act (FECA), by increasing the availability of job accommodations and 

light or limited duty jobs, removing disincentives for FECA claimants to return-to-work, 

and taking other appropriate measures. The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the 

Director of the Office of Personnel Management, shall pursue innovative re-employment 

strategies and develop policies, procedures, and structures that foster improved return-towork outcomes, including by pursuing overall reform of the FECA system. The 

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

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

efforts can be assessed.

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

return-to-work; to review the results of analytical studies on return-to-work and promote sharing 

and implementation of best practices identified; and to form a bridge between the workers’ 

compensation and disability hiring personnel, and establish a continuity of practice for the 
President’s Report 

Page 20 

President’s Report 

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

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

Office of Disability Employment Policy, OSHA, DoD’s Computer/Electronic Accommodations 

Program, and OPM. The Council continued to hold quarterly meetings during FY 2013, in 

which members shared their experiences and best practices toward promoting the importance of 

return-to-work in the federal community. 

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

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

and CA-7. Of the eighteen Executive Branch agencies, sixteen were reportedly in compliance 

with this requirement. Among the forty-four independent agencies tracked by the POWER 

Initiative, sixteen agencies have established electronic filing capability.

During FY 2013 the POWER Initiative continued to provide a framework that focuses agencies’ 

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

programs. As the performance results in this report show, while the Federal Government as a 

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

in this third year, it experienced some difficulty in sustaining improvement and achieving targets. 

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

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

and monitoring of agency progress under Goal 8 is expected to produce further improvement in 

timely filing performance. The POWER Council’s continuing partnership and collaboration with 

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

improvement toward achieving a positive outcome for this goal during FY 2014, the final year of 

the Initiative.

CONTROLLING TRENDS

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

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

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

For example, 27 percent (twenty-one agencies) of all agencies reported that they met all seven 

POWER goals. However, 44 percent (thirty-four agencies) of the agencies either did not specify 

whether or not they met their FY 2013 POWER goals, or it was unclear from the response. 

Additionally, seventeen agencies reported that they met at least two or more POWER goals. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large Independent Agencies.

Green = Met Goal Red = Did Not Meet Goal

Total Case Rates Lost Time Case Rates
President’s Report 

Page 21 

President’s Report 

Agency

FY2009 

TCR 

Baseline

FY2013 

TCR 

Target

Final 

TCR

FY2009 

LTC 

Baseline

FY2013 

LTC 

Target

Final 

LTCR

All Government, less USPS 3.22 2.63 2.51 1.48 1.29 1.2

Department of Agriculture 5.5 4.72 4.91 1.85 1.64 2.08

Department of Commerce 2.36 1.03 0.84 1.03 1 0.39

Department of Defense (including Air 

Force, Army, Navy/Marines)

2.76 2.25 2.08 1.48 1.22 1.11

Department of the Air Force 2.73 2.02 1.79 1.49 1.22 1.11

Department of the Army 3.02 2.5 2.25 1.56 1.28 1.13

Department of the Navy 2.77 2.27 2.13 1.44 1.18 1.07

Department of Education 1 1 0.48 0.63 1 0.29

Department of Energy 1.66 1.57 1.41 0.67 1 0.69

Department of Health and Human 

Services 1.43 1.08 1.01 0.73 1 0.53

Department of Homeland Security 6.79 5.56 5.47 2.48 2.19 2.31

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 0.77 1 0.87 0.41 1 0.26

Department of Interior 6.03 5.17 5.18 2.08 1.81 1.69

Department of Justice 4.14 3.66 3.58 2.35 2.08 2.04

Department of Labor 1.99 1.89 1.69 0.87 1 0.63

Department of State 1.02 1 0.69 0.52 1 0.36

Department of Transportation 1.64 1.49 1.46 0.98 1 0.79

Department of Treasury 1.22 1 0.84 0.73 1 0.49

Department of Veterans Affairs 3.7 3.22 3.05 1.71 1.51 1.43

 
President’s Report 

Page 22 

President’s Report 

 

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

Green = Met Goal Red = Did Not Meet Goal

 Total Case Rates Lost Time Case Rates

Agency

FY2009 

TCR 

Baseline

FY2013 

TCR 

Target

Final 

TCR

FY2009 

LTC 

Baseline

FY2013 

LTC 

Target

Final 

LTCR

Agency for International Development 0.87 1 1.11 0.4 1 0.48

Armed Forces Retirement Home 9.03 3.9 8.9 6.5 1.42 3.56

Commission on Civil Rights 2.27 1 0 0 1 0

Consumer Product Safety 

Commission 0.92 1 0.38 0.92 1 0.38

Corporation. for National and 

Community Service 

0.52 1 0.65 0.17 1 0.49

Environmental Protection Agency 0.62 1 0.52 0.29 1 0.24

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission 1.05 1.02 1.12 0.32 1 0.54

Federal Communication Commission 0.22 1 0.17 0.22 1 0.11

Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation 0.6 1 0.3 0.39 1 0.2

Federal Election Commission 0.28 1 0 0.28 1 0

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Federal Maritime Commission 1.69 1 0 1.69 1 0

Federal Mediation and Conciliation 

Services 1.21 1 0.83 0 1 0.83

Federal Reserve - Board of Governors 1.28 1.24 1.33 1.23 1 1.33

Federal Trade Commission 0.09 1 0.35 0.09 1 0.09

General Services Administration 1.06 1 0.79 0.69 1 0.35

Holocaust Memorial Council 3.66 1.07 2.81 3.14 1 2.25

International Boundary and Water 

Commission 9.52 8.22 7.54 7.14 3.91 4.37

International Broadcasting Bureau 0.87 1 0.6 0.66 1 0.38

International Trade Commission 0.54 1 0.52 0.27 1 0.26

J.F. Kennedy Center for the 

Performing Arts 2.13 2.07 5.88 0 1 1.96

Merit Systems Protection Board 1.86 1 0 0 1 0

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 0.48 1 0.46 0.17 1 0.21

National Archives and Records 

Administration.

4.51 2.77 1.98 2.27 1.69 1.74

National Credit Union Administration 0.74 1 0.84 0.53 1 0.75

National Endowment for the Arts 1.2 1.16 0.63 0.60 1 0.63

National Endowment for the 

Humanities 1.88 1 1.81 1.88 1 1.2

National Gallery of Art 2.97 2.19 2.93 1.85 1.22 0.98

National Labor Relations Board 0.74 1 0.18 0.31 1 0.18

National Science Foundation 0.5 1 0.55 0.43 1 0.55

National Transportation Safety Board 0.75 1 0.72 0.75 1 0.24

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0.51 1 0.42 0.34 1 0.05

Office of Personnel Management 1.18 1.14 0.99 0.59 1 0.63

Peace Corps 0 1 0 0 1 1

Pension Benefit Guarantee 0.44 1 0 0.33 1 0
President’s Report 

Page 23 

President’s Report 

Corporation

Presidio Trust 4.55 4.03 11 3.94 3.49 6.47

Railroad Retirement Board 0.63 1 0.32 0.52 1 0.32

Securities and Exchange Commission 0.14 1 0.2 0.08 1 0.12

Selective Service System 2.14 1.29 0.65 2.14 1.29 0.65

Small Business Administration 1.27 1.06 1.39 0.49 1 0.64

Smithsonian Institution 2.49 2.42 2.78 1.18 1.14 1.63

Social Security Administration 1.27 1.18 1.16 0.82 1 0.74

Tennessee Valley Authority 2.18 1.41 1.63 0.20 1 0.13

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

refer to tables 2a and 2b for details regarding POWER goals 1 and 2, TCR and LTCR for 

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

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health 

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

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

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

Council, which consists of sixteen members: eight representing federal agency management, and 

eight from labor organizations representing federal employees.

FACOSH met three times during the extended reporting period. During its October 2012 

meeting, FACOSH approved the Training Subcommittee7– Federal Buildings Personnel 

Training Act Workgroup’s report and recommendation, and approved the reports of the Model 

Career Management Plan, and Uniform Safety and Health Training Guidelines workgroups. 

FACOSH forwarded the subcommittees’ reports and recommendations to the Secretary, who 

approved all the recommendations. 

During its June 2013 meeting, FACOSH received updates from its two standing subcommittees –

Training, and Emerging Issues.

8

 (Background information regarding FACOSH and occupational 

exposure limits is provided below.) In addition, the Council deliberated upon future POWER 

metrics and best practices for whistleblower protection programs. No recommendations 

regarding these topics were acted upon during the meeting. 

During its December 2013 meeting, its two standing subcommittees provided further updates. 

The Council received an update from OPM regarding its recent activities involving the 

application of the Training Subcommittee recommendations. OPM concluded that the 

recommendations were not implementable at that time. The Council referred the issue back to 

the Subcommittee for further deliberations. No recommendations regarding these topics were 

acted upon during the meeting. 

 

7 The Training Subcommittee was tasked with evaluating the effectiveness of the Industrial Hygiene Series 0690, and the Safety and Occupational 

Management Series, 0018, in meeting the needs of federal agency OSH programs, as well as assessing the OSH training needs for federal 

workers at all levels. The Subcommittee’s first goal was to provide FACOSH with recommendations for altering core qualifications requirements 

for those job series and to provide justification for changing OPM’s current qualification standards. In addition, the Subcommittee planned to 

assess the training needs of federal employees, possibly dividing those requirements into different categories, such as managers, collateral duty 

personnel, and professional OSH personnel. In response to the FACOSH Report, OPM conducted several focus groups researching the 

applicability of the recommendations. 

8 The Emerging Issues Subcommittee was tasked with evaluating OSHA’s current permissible exposure limits’ ability to effectively protect 

federal workers, and to determine the means necessary to assure the Government’s leadership in using the most protective measures to protect its 

employees from exposure to hazardous substances.
President’s Report 

Page 24 

President’s Report 

The certified minutes for these meetings are available on the OSHA page at:

http://www.osha.gov/dep/facosh/facosh_10182012_mtgmnt.pdf, 

http://www.osha.gov/dep/facosh/facosh_06062013_mtgmnts.pdf, and

http://www.osha.gov/dep/facosh/facosh_12052013_mtgmnts.pdf, respectively.

Background: FACOSH and Permissible Exposure Limits. 

During CYs 2011 and 2012, the Emerging Issues Subcommittee collected information from 

federal agencies and labor organizations representing federal employees regarding their 

experience with using occupational exposure limits, including the OSHA permissible exposure 

limits. OSHA sets minimum standards for workplace safety and health for both private sector 

and federal employers. 

The Emerging Issues Subcommittee laid the groundwork for FACOSH’s recommendations 

regarding occupational exposure limits. It analyzed the scientific and technological advances in 

determining exposure limits for substances of concern, starting with the adoption of the original 

OSHA permissible exposure limits, and how federal Executive Branch agencies use the 

occupational exposure limits for risk management and control. 

It should be noted that since the current permissible exposure limits have existed unchanged 

since their adoption in 1971, they do not incorporate into these recommended limits over 40 

years of advances in technology, or the latest peer-reviewed published toxicological reports. 

Advances in scientific knowledge have led to a greater understanding of adverse effects; and 

scientific research is continually re-evaluating occupational exposure limits and their 

effectiveness in protecting workers. 

 

FACOSH’s analysis resulted in three recommendations for ensuring that the Federal 

Government continues to set an example as a model employer in protecting its workforce from 

substances that could cause serious injuries or illnesses. The full FACOSH report, 

Recommendations for the Adoption and Use of Occupational Exposure Limits by Federal 

Agencies, is available upon request, and at: http://www.osha.gov/dep/facosh/Exhibit_9b.pdf .

The proposal that was forwarded to the Secretary included recommendations to: 

 Forward the memorandum, the Report, and the sample Executive Order text to the White 

House for the President’s review with the recommendation to issue an updated Executive 

Order amending EO 12196 – directing agency heads to require the use of the most protective 

occupational exposure limits that are feasible, and that are published by a recognized 

research or regulating body, in federal workplaces, notwithstanding the existence of a 

permissible exposure limit for a given substance of concern. In addition, it was 

recommended that the Secretary publicize a list, updated every five years, of recognized 

research for regulating bodies whose occupational exposure limits agencies must consider in 

complying with this requirement.

 Include in the updated EO that federal Executive Branch departments and agencies require 

their contractors, subcontractors, recipients, and sub-recipients, to the extent authorized by 

applicable statutory authority, to use the most protective occupational exposure limits that are 

feasible, and published by a recognized research or regulatory body, notwithstanding the 

existence of a permissible exposure limit, while working at federal workplaces.
President’s Report 

Page 25 

President’s Report 

 Stipulate in the updated EO that a person deemed to be competent by virtue of training and 

experience make recommendations regarding acceptable chemical exposure risks, 

appropriate occupational exposure limits, and employee exposure controls. 

Recommendations on occupational exposure limits may be based on factors, such as, toxicity 

of the chemical, length and frequency of exposure, analytical limit of detection, and 

technological and economic feasibility.

Evaluations 

Section 1-401(h) of EO 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 EO establishes OSHA’s responsibility for evaluating federal agencies, 29 CFR 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

evaluation of a SHMS requires a systematic approach to determine whether policies and 

procedures are appropriately developed and implemented, and regularly monitored and modified 

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

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

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

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

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

(Please refer to figures 1 thru 4 for a depiction of the components, and the attributes of a SHMS

that were evaluated in FY 2013.) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

each other.

FIGURE 1. Components of a Safety and Health Management System.

For this year’s President’s Report, OSHA selected 25 out of the tool’s 58 attributes (nine from 

the Operational, eleven from the Managerial, and five from the Cultural components, 
President’s Report 

Page 26 

President’s Report 

respectively; please refer to figures 2, 3, and 4 for the attributes evaluated in FY 2013) across the 

three components of a SHMS for the agencies to assess (In FY 2012, seventeen attributes were 

assessed). Agencies were asked to rate each of these attributes, based on their FY 2013 reporting
President’s Report 

Page 27 

President’s Report 

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

were asked to rate each attribute on a “0” to “3” scale; with a rating of “0,” indicating that the 

attribute is totally absent, to a rating of “3,” indicating the attribute’s complete effectiveness and 

integration into the SHMS without the need for improvement. Furthermore, OSHA asked 

agencies to provide a detailed narrative, with examples to support each self-identified rating. 

OPERATIONAL COMPONENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

attribute is to determine if personnel in the agency are performing effective safety and health 

inspections on a regular basis.

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

attribute is to determine if the agency regularly assesses if previously established safety and 

health controls are still effective; or if they are either improperly applied, or otherwise 

inadequate.

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

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

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

planned or anticipated changes in the workplace.

o Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) are used to reveal potential hazards associated with 

chemical products in the workplace. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the 

agency is effectively utilizing the information contained in the MSDSs to detect existing or 

potential hazards. 

 HAZARD PREVENTION AND CONTROL (4 OF 9 ATTRIBUTES ASSESSED)

o Feasible engineering controls are in place. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the 

agency identifies and employs engineering methods to eliminate or control workplace hazards.

o Effective safety and health rules and work practices are in place. The purpose of this 

attribute is to determine if the agency has established general workplace rules, and specific 

work practices that prescribe safe and healthful behaviors and task performance methods.

o Applicable OSHA-mandated programs are effectively in place. The purpose of this 

attribute is to determine if the agency has effectively implemented program management 

requirements in applicable OSHA standards.

o An effective procedure for tracking hazard correction is in place. The purpose of this 

attribute is to determine if the agency monitors timely correction of identified hazards.

FIGURE 2. Operational Safety and Health Management System Attributes Evaluated in

FY 2013.
President’s Report 

Page 28 

President’s Report 

MANAGERIAL COMPONENT

 PLANNING AND EVALUATION (3 OF 5 ATTRIBUTES ASSESSED)

o Hazard incidence data are effectively analyzed. The purpose of this attribute is to 

determine if the agency uses hazard incidence data to set safety and health priorities.

o An action plan designed to accomplish the organizations safety and health objectives is 

in place. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency has established a plan to 

achieve its safety and health objectives.

o A review of the overall safety and health management system is conducted at least 

annually. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency periodically audits the 

management aspects of its SHMS, identifying progress, and needed changes/improvements.

 ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION (5 OF 8 ATTRIBUTES ASSESSED)

o Safety and health program tasks are each specifically assigned to a person or position for 

performance or coordination. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the essential 

OSH responsibilities are identified and assigned to appropriate personnel.

o Individuals with assigned safety and health responsibilities have the necessary 

knowledge, skills, and timely information to perform their duties. The purpose of this 

attribute is to determine if the agency’s personnel have the understanding, skill and current 

information needed to effectively perform their OSH responsibilities.

o Individuals with assigned safety and health responsibilities have the authority to 

perform their duties. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency’s personnel 

have adequate authority to perform their safety and health responsibilities effectively.

o Individuals with assigned safety and health responsibilities have the resources to 

perform their duties. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency’s personnel 

have the necessary resources to perform their safety and health responsibilities effectively.

o Organizational policies promote the performance of safety and health responsibilities.

The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agencies’ organization’s personnel are 

provided positive incentive for performance of their safety and health responsibilities.

 SAFETY AND HEALTH TRAINING (3 OF 6 ATTRIBUTES ASSESSED)

o Employees receive appropriate safety and health training. The purpose of this attribute is 

to determine if the agencies’ personnel are provided appropriate training to perform their 

assigned safety and health responsibilities.

o New employees’ orientation includes applicable safety and health information. The 

purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency provides appropriate education and 

training in safety and health protection for new employees who are assuming new duties.

o Supervisors receive training that covers the supervisory aspects of their safety and 

health responsibilities. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency provides

supervisory training that address their responsibilities and an understanding of hazards.

FIGURE 3. Managerial Safety and Health Management System Attributes Evaluated in

FY 2013.
President’s Report 

Page 29 

President’s Report 

FIGURE 4. Cultural Safety and Health Management System Attributes Evaluated in

FY 2013.

CULTURAL COMPONENT

 MANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP (3 OF 10 ATTRIBUTES ASSESSED)

o Top management provides competent safety and health staff support to line managers and 

supervisors. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency provides appropriate 

staff guidance and assistance to managers and supervisors relative to their safety and health 

responsibilities.

o Managers delegate the authority necessary for personnel to carry out their assigned safety 

and health responsibilities effectively. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the 

agencies’ managers promote a culture of safety and health and support effective operation of 

the SHMS by delegating adequate authority for personnel to perform their OSH responsibilities.

o Managers allocate the resources needed to properly support the organization’s SHMS. The 

purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agencies managers demonstrate OHS leadership, 

promote a culture of safety and health in the organization, and support effective operation of the 

SHMS by allocating needed resources.

 EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION (2 OF 9 ATTRIBUTES ASSESSED)

o There is an effective process to involve employees in safety and health issues. The purpose 

of this attribute is to determine if there is an established organizational process that is known, 

trusted, and used by employees to provide input regarding safety and health issues.

o Employees participate in the evaluation of safety and health performance. The purpose of 

this attribute is to determine if employees of the organization are actively engaged in reviews 

and audits of safety and health performance.
President’s Report 

Page 30 

President’s Report 

Overall Assessment 

OSHA received responses from seventy-seven departments and agencies out of ninety-eight9

agencies, or a 78.6 percent response rate, evaluating their respective agencies’ SHMSs, with a 

mean overall rating of “2.2” for FY 2013. This represents a slight decrease from the mean rating 

of “2.35” reported in FY 2012. Of the seventy-seven responding agencies, thirty-four agencies, 

or 44.1 percent provided a “3” rating for the overall assessment of their SHMSs in FY 2013 [as 

compared to nine out of eighty-five agencies (10.6 percent) in FY 2012]. The majority of federal 

agencies provided a “2,” or better rating for the 25 attributes used to rate the three components of 

a SHMS; thereby representing that their respective SHMSs are effective- to highly-effective,

with only minor to little improvements needed. This is in spite of the fact that FY’s 2013 overall 

mean rating showed a slight decrease from the overall mean rating reported in FY 2012. Stated 

otherwise, federal agencies’ SHMSs are “model” programs that are in compliance with the 

provisions of 29 CFR §1960. Of the seventy-seven agencies that provided input into this year’s 

Report, fifteen agencies, or 19.5 percent, either did not provide a self-evaluation of their 

respective SHMSs, or provided a “not-applicable” rating for the overall assessment and 

respective SHMS’s attributes; compared to fourteen percent, or twelve of eighty-five agencies, 

reported in FY 2012. 

 

As noted, an agency’s assignment of a “3” rating for its SHMS’s overall score is indicative of a 

“model” program, with equal ratings assigned to all of the component’s attributes. Such ratings 

indicate that improvements to the program and its attributes are minimally necessary. As 

identified earlier, thirty-four agencies provided an overall score of “3” to their SHMS. However, 

twenty-eight (82.4 percent) of these agencies identified that improvements were needed in 

multiple components of their programs, as indicated by self-assessment ratings of less than “3” 

across the component-attribute spectrum. This phenomenon suggests incongruences between the 

agency’s overall assessment of their SHMS and the need for improvement across the SHMS 

component-attribute spectrum. This effect includes those agencies that reported the most 

effective systems, as indicated by a “3” rating, as well as those that indicated a SHMS, in full or 

part, was “not applicable” to their situations, or did not report on the status of their SHMSs. 

(Please refer to Table 4 for the discrete number of responding federal agencies that provided the 

specified rating for the twenty-five assessed attributes.)

As indicated above, the three components of a SHMS and their related attributes apply to any 

system, regardless of such agency factors as: size, number of employees, and scope of mission. 

Therefore, it is disconcerting that between seven (9.1 percent) to eighteen (23.4 percent) agencies 

reported that all of the twenty-five attributes of their SHMS were rated as either “not applicable,” 

or were “not-rated” by the respective agencies. OSHA is working with these agencies to ensure 

they better understand the applicability of the SHMS for the protection of their workers, and the 

mitigation of hazards in their work environments.

Operational Component Assessment 

Nine attributes were provided to federal agencies to rate the operational component of their 

respective SHMSs. Of these, five attributes were newly added for federal agencies to assess in 

the FY 2013 reporting period, including: hazard survey, change analysis, use of MSDSs, 

 

9 Tables 3a, and 3b depict the overall score assigned by federal agencies to the self-evaluation of their respective SHMSs for FY 2013. Those 

responding agencies, that either did not provide an overall rating of their respective SHMSs, or did not provide documentation that they 

conducted a self-evaluation, are identified as “NR”(not reported) in the table. Although the seventeen agencies that did not provide an agency 

report (indicated in the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY) are included in the table, these agencies are also identified as “NR.”
President’s Report 

Page 31 

President’s Report 

engineering controls, and OSHA-mandated programs. Overall, the attributes of the operational 

component were rated highly, indicated by a “3” or “2” rating. Forty-one agencies (53.2 percent 

of agencies) provided a “3” rating: for the self-inspection attribute for the reporting period, as 

compared to forty-one agencies (48.2 percent) for the FY 2012 reporting period; forty agencies 

(51.9 percent of agencies) for the surveillance attribute, as compared to 38 agencies ( 44.7 

percent) for the FY 2012 reporting period; and forty-three agencies (55.8 percent of agencies) for 

the presence of work rules and practices attribute, as compared to forty-four agencies (51.8 

percent of agencies) for the FY 2012 reporting period. Newly added to this year’s Report, the 

majority of agencies also provided a “2” or higher rating for the hazard survey (fifty-two 

agencies), and OSHA-mandated programs (sixty-one agencies) attributes (67.5 percent, and 79.2

percent, respectively). 

Federal agencies continue to strive to improve the effectiveness of their SHMSs. Minimal gains, 

reflected in agencies’ ratings shifting from the lower end of the rating spectrum to the higher 

end, were noted across the operational component. A handful of federal agencies identified the 

need for substantial improvements, with the hazard survey (eight agencies), and change analysis

(six agencies) attributes10 (10.4 percent, and 11.7 percent, respectively) requiring the most 

attention in the upcoming reporting period.

Table 3a. Major Departments and Independent Agencies’ Overall Safety and Health 

Management System Self-rating Score (n = 23).

Agency Score Agency Score

Department of Agriculture Department of Labor

Department of the Air Force Department of the Navy

Department of the Army Department of State

Department of Commerce Department of Transportation

Department of Defense Department of the Treasury

Department of Education NR Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of Energy Environmental Protection Agency

Department of Health and Human Services General Services Administration

Department of Homeland Security NR National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

Social Security Administration

Department of the Interior Tennessee Valley Authority

Department of Justice

Legend for Table 3a and 3b.

Symbol Color Indicates a SHMS Score of: (Interpretation)

Green 3 (Completely in place)

Yellow 2 (Mostly in place with only minor improvements needed)

Red 1 (Some portion or aspect is present although major improvement is needed)

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

NR Data not reported by agency

 

10 The hazard survey and the change analysis attributes of the operational component of a SHMS were added for analysis to the extended FY 

2013 Report. They were not evaluated for FY 2012 reporting period. 
President’s Report 

Page 32 

President’s Report 

Managerial Component Assessment 

Eleven attributes were provided to federal agencies to rate the managerial component of their 

SHMSs. Of these, three attributes were newly added for federal agency assessment in the FY 

2013 reporting period, including: incidence data, authority to perform, and appropriate 

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

“3” or “2” rating. In particular, the majority of agencies provided a “3” rating across the five 

attributes used to assess the Administration/ Supervision subcomponent of their respective 

SHMSs, with approximately 57.1 percent to 67.5 percent of agencies providing a “3” rating for 

these attributes. For the FY 2012 reporting period, agencies’ similarly rated the specific 

assignment of OSH tasks; knowledge, skills, and information; and OSH organizational policies 

attributes, which were used to evaluate the Administration/ Supervision subcomponent, with 

approximately 48.2 percent to 62.4 percent of agencies providing the “3” rating for these 

attributes. From the FY 2013 submitted data, federal agencies’ reports reflected some 

improvement in agencies’ designing an action plan to accomplish the organization’s OSH 

objectives. Thirty agencies out of seventy-seven agencies (39.0 percent of agencies) rated the 

action plan attribute with a “3;” as compared to twenty-eight out of eighty-five agencies (32.9 

percent of agencies) for the FY 2012 reporting period. Although the overall number

Table 3b. Smaller Independent Agencies’ Overall Safety and Health Management System Selfrating Score (n =75).

Agency Score Agency Score

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation NR National Council on Disability NR

Architectural and Transportation Barriers 

Compliance Board (Access Board) National Credit Union Administration NR

American Battle Monuments Commission NR National Endowment for the Arts NR

Armed Forces Retirement Home Board NR National Endowment for the Humanities

Broadcasting Board of Governors NR National Gallery of Art NR

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System National Labor Relations Board

Central Intelligence Agency National Mediation Board NR

Committee for Purchase from People Who Are 

Blind or Severely Disabled (Ability One) National Science Foundation

Commodity Futures Trading Corporation National Transportation Safety Board

Consumer Product Safety Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission NR

Corporation for National and Community 

Service

Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission

Court Services and Offender Supervision 

Agency Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Office of Personnel Management

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Office of Special Trustee for American Indians

Export-Import Bank of the United States Overseas Private Investment Corporation

Farm Credit Administration Peace Corps NR

Federal Communications Commission Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NR Postal Regulatory Commission

Federal Election Commission Railroad Retirement Board

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NR Security and Exchange Commission

Federal Housing Finance Agency Selective Service System

Federal Labor Relations Authority Small Business Administration

Federal Maritime Commission The Presidio Trust

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service The Smithsonian Institution

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 

Commission U.S. African Development Foundation
President’s Report 

Page 33 

President’s Report 

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board NR U.S. Agency for International Development NR

Federal Trade Commission U.S. Arctic Research Commission NR

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

Board

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

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

International Boundary and Water Commission NR U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum NR

James Madison Memorial Fellowship 

Foundation U.S. International Trade Commission

Marine Mammal Commission U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board NR

Merit Systems Protection Board U.S. Office of Government Ethics NR

Millennium Challenge Corporation U.S. Office of Special Counsel NR

Morris K. and Stewart L. Udall Foundation NR U.S. Trade and Development Agency

National Archives and Records Administration NR Vietnam Education Foundation

National Capital Planning Commission NR

Table 4. Number of Federal Agencies Assigning Ratings to Safety and Health 

Management System Attributes (n = 77).

Number of Agencies with the 

Self-assigned Rating

Component Subcomponent Attribute 3 2 1 0 NA NR

Operational

Hazard 

Anticipation/Detection

Hazard survey 25 27 1 8 8 8

Self-inspection 41 21 0 3 5 7

Surveillance 40 18 3 3 6 7

Change analysis 24 21 4 6 13 9

Use of MSDSs 36 15 1 4 12 9

Hazard 

Prevention/Control

Engineering controls 36 14 3 4 11 9

Work rules and practices 43 23 2 2 0 7

OSHA-mandated 

programs

35 26 2 4 1 9

Tracking hazard 

correction 39 18 2 4 7 7

Managerial

Planning/ Evaluation

Incidence data 35 16 2 5 10 9

Action plan 30 23 3 8 6 7

Annual SHMS review 34 22 5 5 3 8

Administration/

Supervision

Specific assignment of 

OSH tasks 52 12 0 3 2 8

Knowledge, skills, and 

information 44 18 3 2 1 9

Authority to perform 45 14 2 2 3 11

Appropriate resources 45 17 2 2 0 11

OSH organizational 

policies 45 19 1 1 1 10

Safety/Health 

Training

Employee OSH training 33 20 4 2 2 16

New employee orientation 35 20 2 2 2 16

Supervisory training 22 24 4 7 4 16

Cultural Management 

Leadership

Provided competent staff 37 15 3 1 3 18

Delegation of authority 44 13 2 1 1 16

Resource allocation 44 14 1 1 1 16
President’s Report 

Page 34 

President’s Report 

Employee 

Participation

Employee involvement 

process

42 14 3 1 1 16

Employee evaluation of 

OSH performance 29 23 2 3 3 17

dropped, agencies’ rating of the annual SHMS review attribute remained relatively constant at 

thirty-four agencies (44.2 percent of agencies) for the reporting period; as compared to thirty-five

out of eighty-five agencies (41.2 percent of agencies) for the FY 2012 reporting period. 

Agencies reported gaining ground in providing appropriate supervisory training, with only 

eleven agencies (14.3 percent) rating this attribute with either a “1” or “0” rating; as compared to 

fifteen out of eighty-five agencies (17.6 percent) for the FY 2012 reporting period.

Some decline was noted in other ratings of the managerial attributes. The number of federal 

agencies providing a “3” rating to the employee OSH training attribute decreased from forty-four

agencies (51.8 percent of agencies) for the FY 2012 reporting period, to thirty-three agencies 

(42.9 percent of agencies) for the FY 2013 reporting period. Similar decreases were noted in the 

number of federal agencies that provided a “3” rating to the new employee orientation attribute, 

from thirty-nine agencies (45.9 percent of agencies) for the FY 2012 reporting period, to thirtyfive agencies (45.5 percent of agencies) for the FY 2013 reporting period; and the supervisory 

training attribute, from twenty-three agencies (27.1 percent of agencies) for the FY 2012

reporting period, to twenty-two agencies (28.6 percent of agencies) for the FY 2013 reporting 

period.

Cultural Component Assessment 

As for the FY 2012 reporting period, five attributes were provided to federal agencies to rate the 

cultural component of their SHMSs. Of these, the provided competent staff attribute was newly 

added to the tool for federal agency assessment in FY 2013 reporting period; the “line” function

attribute was deleted from the assessment tool. Overall, the vast majority of federal agencies, 

between fifty-two agencies (67.5 percent) to fifty-eight agencies (75.3 percent) providing a “2” 

or higher rating for all five of the attributes used to assess the cultural component. This result 

approximates last year’s reporting, whereby between fifty-six agencies (65.9 percent) to sixtyeight agencies (80 percent) provided similar ratings. 

From the FY 2013 submitted data, federal agencies’ reports reflected improvement in three 

attributes of the cultural component, specifically delegation of authority, employee involvement 

process, and evaluation of OSH performance attributes, as indicated by fewer agencies providing 

lower ratings to these attributes. The employee evaluation of OSH performance attribute 

demonstrated the most improvement as demonstrated by only three agencies (3.9 percent of 

agencies) providing either a “0,” or a “not applicable” rating for the FY 2013 reporting period, as 

compared to twenty-five agencies (29.4 percent of agencies) for the FY 2012 reporting period. 

The ratings of federal agencies for the former two attributes demonstrated smaller incremental 

improvements, with only one agency (1.3 percent of agencies) providing either a “0” or a “not 

applicable” rating for the FY 2013 reporting period, as compared to three agencies (3.5 percent 

of agencies) providing similar ratings for the FY 2012 reporting period. 

Recordkeeping 

Beginning January 1, 2005, federal agencies were required to maintain their injury and illness 

records in essentially the same format as the private sector, as is set forth in 29 CFR §1904. 
President’s Report 

Page 35 

President’s Report 

Historically, however, OSHA did not systematically collect this information. This will change, 

starting in 2015. On August 5, 2013 OSHA finalized a rule change that will allow the 

Department of Labor to annually collect the statutorily-required injury and illness records from 

all Executive Branch agencies. In addition, the rule clarifies and updates some existing 

provisions of 29 CFR §1960. Collecting these records will allow OSHA to identify those 

worksites that have the highest injury and illness rates, and better target needed training for 

federal agencies.

Throughout 2013, OSHA worked with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to adapt its private sector 

survey to the federal sector for universal data collection. In order to ensure the best response rate 

from federal agencies, OSHA is planning to provide guidance about the data collection process, 

and advance information about the data to be collected so agencies are familiar with data 

collection requirements prior to Bureau’s system becoming active. In addition, OSHA is 

proposing to conduct training regarding the changes to 29 CFR §1960, and the data collection 

process and procedures.

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE 

Agency Technical Assistance Request 

An agency technical assistance request, known as an ATAR, is a consultative service open only 

to federal agencies and is analogous to OSHA’s Consultation Program for private sector

employers. Federal agencies may contact an OSHA area office and request technical assistance, 

which may include hazard abatement advice, training, a partial or comprehensive inspection, 

and/or program assistance. While the request is generally considered to be totally consultative, 

an agency’s failure or refusal to abate serious hazards may result in an inspection referral. In FY

2013, OSHA conducted an ATAR at the request of the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) and began 

planning the process with the National Archives and Records Administration.

U.S. Secret Service ATAR 

OSHA conducted an assistance request for the USSS involving mold remediation. The 

assessment group visited three exterior security USSS Washington, DC. locations. None of the 

walls or equipment in any of the buildings exhibited visible mold growth or displayed any signs 

of water damage from water intrusion to the ceiling tiles. However, in one building the group 

noticed a small amount of mold growth along one edge of the air conditioner diffusers. As a 

result, GSA and USSS submitted a work order that included removing the diffuser unit from the 

ceiling, cleaning and inspecting all of the internal parts and screens, replacing the filter, and 

reinstalling the unit back into the ceiling. After completing the work order and building 

evaluations, GSA and USSS agreed to develop and implement a schedule of formal maintenance 

and cleaning for the respective ventilation units in each exterior security building. No further 

action beyond the ATAR was taken.

National Archives and Records Administration ATAR 

In FY 2013, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) proposed to OSHA that 

it consider an alternate standard for several of the agency’s mobile ladder stands used in the 

records preservation and storage process. In support of NARA’s request for the alternate 

standard, it requested that OSHA conduct an ATAR specific to its mobile ladder stands. The 

ATAR was convened in November 2012, at NARA’s Philadelphia facility under the jurisdiction 
President’s Report 

Page 36 

President’s Report 

of OSHA Region III. The results of this ATAR will be reported in the CY 2014 Secretary’s 

Report to the President.

Field Federal Safety and Health Councils 

Field federal safety and health councils (FFSHCs) are federal interagency groups, chartered by 

the Secretary, that bring together local OSH professionals for education, problem solving, and 

cooperation in the safety and health field. Located throughout the nation, these councils work to 

reduce the incidence, severity, and cost of accidents, injuries, and illnesses within their 

designated geographic areas. In CY 2013, thirty-five FFSHCs actively carried out efforts to 

improve the effectiveness of OSH functions within the Government.

Under 29 CFR §1960.89, each active council must submit an Annual Report to the Secretary

describing its activities and programs for the previous calendar year ; and its plans, objectives, 

and goals for the current year. The report is used to assess the FFSHC’s program plans, and to 

determine the success of its goals and objectives. The councils that best exemplify the intent and 

purpose of the FFSHC program may receive an achievement award from the Secretary.

In determining award recipients, councils are separated into three categories based on the size of 

the federal population they serve, which allows them to compete with other councils that possess 

approximately the same resources and serve similar populations. Each council’s Annual Report 

to the Secretary is evaluated and receives a score that is ranked with other FFSHCs in its 

category. The top three scorers in each category receive awards for Superior Performance, 

Meritorious Achievement, and Notable Recognition.

Due to tie scores in Category I, ten FFSHCs received a Secretarial award for their CY 2013 

council activities. By category, these were:

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

than 24,000

Superior Performance – Northern New Jersey

Meritorious Achievement – Greater New York

Meritorious Achievement – Dallas/Fort Worth

Notable Recognition – Western New York

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

between 12,000 to 24,000

Superior Performance – Greater Cincinnati

Meritorious Achievement – Greater St. Louis

Notable Recognition – Roadrunner Chapter

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

less than 12,000

Superior Performance – Mississippi Gulf Coast

Meritorious Achievement – Hudson Valley

Notable Recognition – Duluth/Superior
President’s Report 

Page 37 

President’s Report 

Alternate and Supplementary Standards 

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

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

11

 Currently, there are five 

OSHA-approved alternate standards. 

During FY 2013, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the 

National Archives and Records Administration each had alternate standards progressing through 

OSHA’s review process. NOAA requested OSHA consider its application for an alternate 

Diving Standard, and NARA asked for approval of modifications to its Special Purpose Ladders 

(Pulpit Ladders). These efforts continued through the time period covered by this Report.

The agencies and their alternate standards include:

 Federal Aviation Administration - Alternate Standard for Fire Safety in Air Traffic 

Control Towers.

 GSA - Standard on Special-Purpose Ladders.

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration - Standard for Lifting Devices and 

Equipment.

 U.S. Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command - Management of Weight-Handling 

Equipment.

 U.S. Navy - Gas Free Engineering Manual.

Under 29 CFR §1960.18, if no OSHA standard exists that is appropriate for application to 

working conditions of federal agency employees, an agency may submit a request for a 

supplementary standard. Currently, there are only two OSHA-approved supplementary

standards: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Safety Standard for 

Explosives, Propellants, Pyro-technics; and U.S. Department of Agriculture/Forest Service’s 

Supplementary Standard for Containers and Portable Tanks Transport.

Occupational Safety and Health Training 

OSHA provides federal agency OSH personnel with training opportunities. Annually, OSHA 

provides a week of training, known as FEDWEEK, specifically for federal agency OSH 

personnel at the OSHA Training Institute, located in Arlington Heights, Illinois. This year, 

OSHA provided nine half-day seminars, offered twice during the week on topics chosen after 

surveying federal OSH personnel. The one hundred-five federal OSH employee participants, 

representing thirty-one federal agencies, had the opportunity to attend up to six different sessions 

on various topics, including: Electrical Safety; Office Ergonomics; Record Keeping; Defensive 

Driving; Machine Guarding; Indoor Air Quality; Confined Spaces; Fall Protection; and Hearing 

Conservation.

In addition, the Institute offers a myriad of professional and technical courses that are open to the 

private and public sectors alike. Federal OSH personnel regularly attend these courses.

Federal Agency Safety and Health Roundtable 

Previously, FACOSH informally recommended to OSHA that the agency establish a forum to 

serve as an informational exchange for federal agency best practices. As a result, OSHA 

 

11 An alternate standard is the federal agency equivalent of a private sector variance. Any alternate standard must provide equal or greater 

protection than the applicable OSHA standard for the affected federal employees.
President’s Report 

Page 38 

President’s Report 

initiated the Federal Agency Safety and Health Roundtable concept, convening two roundtables 

in CY 2013. Federal senior safety and health managers, medical personnel, technical experts,

and labor representatives were invited to attend. The June inaugural meeting was held in the 

DOL. It included a technical general session and a breakout session to allow managers the 

opportunity to collaborate on safety and health issues affecting federal agencies and their

workforce. Additionally, success stories were shared by one of NASA’s leading program 

managers, as well as other prominent OSH professionals.

The second Roundtable, held December 2013 in the DOL, included discussions on the POWER 

Initiative; contractor safety, including the application of the multi-employer worksite to 

construction in federal worksites; the new federal agency recordkeeping requirements, the Global 

Harmonizing Standard; the President’s Report; strategies to reduce injuries and illnesses among 

the federal workforce; and the OSHA inspection process of federal agencies. Although only two 

roundtable sessions have been held, attendees enthusiastically applauded them as a highly 

effective OSH resource and information exchange. OSHA will facilitate future roundtables on a 

quarterly basis. 
President’s Report 

Page 39 

President’s Report 

This section provides information on agency reported fatalities and catastrophes; and selected 

agency activities, including participation in OSH committees and councils, continuity of 

operations planning, motor vehicle safety, and telework programs. It also provides a summary of 

agencies’ methods of controlling occupational injury and illness trends, specifically highlighting 

POWER Goal 3; the impact of the inspection process on an agency’s safety and health 

management system; employees’ overseas training; and protections afforded employees who 

report safety and health hazards. Per statute, the GSA and the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) are required to provide certain services to federal 

agencies in pursuing the safety and health of federal employees. This section ends with a brief 

regarding these activities.

Fatalities and Catastrophes 

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

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

catastrophic events to OSHA in an expeditious manner. Agencies reported that forty-one civilian 

employee fatalities occurred during FY 2013, thirty-seven of which were determined to be workrelated, as follows. The federal departments reported fatality incidents, including: 

 Department of Agriculture (USDA): four fatalities, with three being work-related; 

 Department of Energy: two work-related fatalities; 

 Department of the Interior: three work-related fatalities; and 

 Department of State: thirteen fatalities, with ten being work-related, and eighteen injuries.

Independent from the military departments, the Department of Defense (DoD) reported that its 

Defense Logistics Agency had one work-related fatality, and consolidated the reports received 

from the military departments. The DoD consolidated report included fatality reports from:

 The Department of the Air Force, with one work-related fatality;

 The Department of the Army, with four work-related fatalities, and five catastrophic 

events; and 

 The Department of the Navy, with thirteen work-related fatalities, four injuries, and one 

catastrophic event.

Summary of Agency Fatality/ Catastrophic Reports 

The USDA detailed the following incidents:

 While on a wildland fire patrol hike, a fire engine crewmember collapsed and became 

unresponsive while ascending a hill near the Monument Canyon drainage. Although 

onsite personnel immediately initiated cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, and upon arrival, 

Medevac flight personnel initiated other resuscitation efforts, the resuscitation efforts 

were unsuccessful. The agency determined that an unknown pre-existing medical 

condition was the cause of the fatality; autopsy revealed cardiac arrest related to heart 

disease. As a result of this fatality, the agency reported that it has implemented efforts to 

increase employee awareness of need to be physically fit.

 According to the agency report, three smokejumpers were constructing a fire-line around 

a tree that had been struck by lightning and was on fire within the South Warner 
President’s Report 

Page 40 

President’s Report 

Wilderness, Modoc National Forest, California. Within 15 minutes, a large limb 

separated from the tree, fell to the ground, struck and injured the Incident Commander

who was working below. Despite efforts to resuscitate him, he succumbed to his 

injuries. As a result of this fatality, the agency reported initiating several training 

programs, including: hazard-tree awareness training, and the concept of margin training. 

It also implemented several programmatic changes, including: increasing crew risk 

assessment training, and options to blast or walk-away from single tree fires.

 According to the agency report, a Fire Management Officer (FMO), an Assistant FMO 

and an Engine Captain were independently patrolling a wildland fire on all-terrain 

vehicles (ATVs) to find a lightning sparked fire’s perimeter on the Santa Fe National 

Forest. All personnel were wearing the required personal protective equipment. The 

Engine Captain did not arrive at the pre-arranged meeting point, and could not be 

contacted via radio or phone. A search was conducted for seven days involving 280 

searchers from the Forest Service, State Police, National Guard, Bureau of Land 

Management, and other local agencies. The Engine Captain was found at the bottom of a 

ravine. The agency’s analysis of the incident indicated that the Engine Captain attempted 

to negotiate a steep incline just off a forest road, and that the ATV appeared to have 

flipped back onto him, causing fatal injuries to his neck and head area. The deceased had 

completed all required ATV training. As a result of this fatality, the agency reported that 

it has created a field risk assessment guide to enable employees to select the proper tool 

(ATV or Utility Terrain Vehicle) for the envisioned work; and has embedded video 

communications with all field ATV riders. 

 The USDA reported a fourth incident for which it was not able to determine workrelatedness. According to agency reports, a Range employee died four days after 

becoming sick due to respiratory complications after a Hantavirus infection. It was not 

known whether he acquired Hantavirus at work from one of the many Forest Service 

outbuildings he frequented, or at home working in his barn or at his father’s ranch. He 

worked with livestock and frequented numerous Forest Service buildings on a daily 

basis. All Forest Service buildings were found to be in good condition and were kept 

clean; however, all contained evidence of the presence of rodents. As a result of this 

fatality, the agency reported that it has increased training to field regarding the respiratory 

hazards of airborne exposure to rodent feces dust in old, abandoned and unoccupied 

buildings. 

The Department of Energy reported the following incidents:

 According to its report, a Department Facility Management Specialist fell from the stairs 

in a mechanical equipment room during facility modification work in the Main Building 

of the Headquarters Germantown, Maryland facility. The employee required 

hospitalization due to sustained head injuries, and later died as a result of his injuries. 

The agency reported that “fitness for duty,” and other factors contributed to the fall. As a 

result of this fatality, the agency assessed all internal and external stairs in headquartersowned buildings for condition and compliance with applicable codes; repairs were made 

as needed. In addition, the agency reported that it developed a Return-to-Work/Fitnessfor-Duty guidance document, and communicated it to the entire agency on its internal 

Powerpedia wiki-page.

 The second incident involved a Bonneville Power Administration employee who was 

fatally injured while working on high-voltage equipment. The agency’s analysis 

concluded that the direct cause of the incident was accidental, precipitated by the 
President’s Report 

Page 41 

President’s Report 

employee’s improper preparation of the work task. As a result of this incident, the 

Administration revised its contract clause to increase emphasis on safety and health 

requirements. It also reported that it is in the process of undertaking a comprehensive 

review of its contractor safety and health requirements utilizing existing Department 

safety and health directives as a baseline. 

The Department of the Interior reported the following incidents:

 According to its report, a volunteer, working on a boat off the California coast, had 

completed the day’s work and was returning to the mainland by water craft. As he was 

descending a ladder from a dock into a boat, he lost his grip, fell - striking his head on the 

boat. He died from the resulting injuries. As a result of this incident, the agency is 

studying varying designs to on- and off-boarding of personnel from watercraft to the 

shore. 

 The Department reported that an employee, who was working alone in a remote area,

failed to check-in at a pre-determined location. The ensuing search found the employee 

in an unconscious state; he was unable to be resuscitated. Preliminary reporting indicated 

that agency check-in procedures may not have been followed. However, the case 

remains under investigation. The Department reported that it has implemented 

programmatic changes, including more robust employee check-in and check-out 

procedures.

 The third incident involved the death of a wildland smoke-jumper who died from injuries 

sustained when his parachute canopy failed to deploy. The incident occurred 

approximately 45 miles east of Boise, Idaho, near Smith’s Prairie in support of fire 

suppression activities. The agency’s corrective actions are pending the final investigation 

report.

The Department of State reported that ten of its personnel were killed, and twelve were injured 

during multiple suicide attacks on its missions. These included:

• A suicide bomber attack of the U.S. Embassy at Ankara, Turkey that killed one staffer, 

and injured five others;

• A suicide bomber attack that occurred in Kabul, Afghanistan that killed one, and injured 

five others; and

• A complex, multiple suicide, vehicle-borne attack on the Consulate in Herat, Afghanistan 

that killed eight individuals, and injured two local guards.

Specific to the above incidents, the Department of State reported that unspecified corrective 

actions were taken, and that it has internal procedures in place to address such incidents. State 

reported other fatalities, including that:

• A local guard assigned to security of an Embassy residence in New Delhi entered the 

pool and drowned. As a result of this incident, State limited access to the pool area by 

locking the pool gate, installing a pool alarm and a rope demarking the shallow depth from 

the deeper area of pool. 

• One USAID officer was killed, and two others injured during a head-on collision with an 

opposite direction traveling truck. The motor vehicle accident occurred in Haiti. A review 

of the DriveCam video recording showed that the accident was unavoidable on the part of 

government driver, and that no corrective or programmatic changed were needed. 
President’s Report 

Page 42 

President’s Report 

• The final incident involved the death of a local Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam heatingventilation- air conditioning (HVAC) contractor. The contractor was attempting to empty a 

40 pound carbon dioxide cylinder when the tank valve malfunctioned, causing the tank to fall 

severing its valve assemble. The sudden release of gas propelled tank across the workspace 

fatally striking the contractor. As a result of this incident, State reported that it established a

post policy to identify and conduct risk assessment of all non-routine operations (those 

happening less than once per year); and conducted a hazard assessment and developed 

standard operating procedures necessary to mitigate any risk factors identified. 

In addition to the above fatalities, State reported one catastrophic event that caused burn- and 

fall-injuries to four contract employees. These employees were reinsulating the HVAC ducts in 

a mechanical room in Washington, DC, that resulted in a flash fire. The project was stopped 

until adequate controls could be implemented. As a result of this incident, the agency reported 

that it prepared a training program to identify health and safety requirements that must be 

followed during contract management, and instituted a process where reimbursable work 

authorization projects are reviewed prior to work authorization. 

The DoD reported that an employee of the Defense Logistics Agency slipped while walking up 

the wooden stairs leading into a modular building. The employee suffered a fractured skull, and 

died eleven days later. The ensuing investigation highlighted that the contributing factors 

included the inclement weather with the presence of rain and ice, which caused the walking 

surface to become slippery, and an uneven and cracked walkway. The Agency: provided 

training to employees on the importance of reporting potential hazards/mishaps, installed nonslip materials to the wooden steps as an interim measure, contracted replacement of the steps 

with metal grate steps, and updated/posted emergency contact information.

The Department of the Air Force reported that a worker, who was tasked to repair an HVAC unit 

on a facility roof, died of head injuries sustained from a fall from a 20-foot ladder. Although not 

reportable to OSHA, the Department reported a second fatality involving an “off-duty” military 

member in transit to his new duty station. According to the agency report, the member failed to 

negotiate an interstate entry ramp curve, and proceeded into the path of an oncoming tractor-trailer. 

The Air Force reported that neither fatality precipitated programmatic changes. 

The Department of the Army reported the following incidents:

 An underwater explosive test facility dive team was recovering equipment from a depth 

of 127 feet when one of the divers secondary air supply experienced rapid air loss, 

forcing the diver to make an emergency ascent to the surface. The agency reported that 

human error may have attributed to the incident, but the report was inconclusive whether 

the diver's regulator contributed to the equipment failure. As a result of this fatality, the 

agency reported that all future dive operations would be conducted under strict Navy

protocols using naval personnel.

 According to the agency report, the driver of an Army bus collided with an oncoming 

vehicle, when attempting a left turn at an intersection. The report concluded that the 

incident was caused by driver inattentiveness. As a result of the incident, the employee 

fell into a coma, and later died from his injuries. This fatality did not precipitate changes 

to Army protocols.

 According to the agency report, an employee was replacing the cab hydraulic cylinder on 

a light medium tactical vehicle with the cab raised to access the engine compartment. 
President’s Report 

Page 43 

President’s Report 

While working on the hydraulic lift arm for the cab, the cab dropped from the raised

position and pinned the employee between the cab and front bumper. The agency’s 

analysis of the incident concluded that the employee failed to use the proper equipment 

to support the cab of the truck, and that he was overconfident in his ability to remove the 

cylinder without injury. According to the agency report, the work package for this task 

required a cab support tool which was not available to the employee for the task. The 

agency’s report also indicated that the manager failed to ensure mechanics conducted 

maintenance tasks in accordance with appropriate technical manuals. As a result of this 

fatality, the agency directed that maintenance activities involving the replacement of the 

cab hydraulic cylinder be suspended until the cab support tool is on hand, and all 

personnel are trained on the use of the tool. 

 The agency reported a fourth fatal incident that involved a three man crew moving utility 

poles. An employee was using a four-by-four wooden board to guide utility poles that 

were being raised by a crane operator. For unknown reasons, the crane operator lowered 

the utility pole causing the four-by-four wooden pole that the employee was holding to 

flip in an arc - striking the employee on the chest, neck, and jaw. The employee died 

two days later. As a result of this fatality, the agency reported developing written 

procedures on lifting, loading, and setting utility poles. It reported that a job hazard 

analysis assessment was conducted and communicated to employees. The agency 

clarified supervisory personnel responsibilities to include that the team leader will ensure 

personnel are properly licensed and trained to operate assigned equipment, that the first 

line supervisors will be present to supervise personnel during all hazardous operations, 

and that the Garrison Safety Office will make periodic audits to review the effectiveness 

of training and operator qualifications.

In addition to the above fatalities, the Army reported on five catastrophic events which resulted 

in an injury to one individual (amputation to index finger and permanent injury to middle finger),

and approximately $11.5 million in equipment losses or damages. The five events involved 

personnel injury during diagnostic maintenance on a HVAC unit; damages to a 100-ton spillway 

gantry crane, and a 520-ton floating crane; the unintentional sinking of a tugboat; and the 

grounding of a dredge vessel. The agency’s analyses of the incidents indicated human error to 

be a contributing cause in each case. As a result of these events, the Army installed newer or 

repaired obsolete or damaged equipment, and provided training to personnel on revised and 

newly developed protocols. 

The Department of the Navy reported the following incidents:

 According to the agency report, a contractor employee assigned to work at the Naval Sea 

Systems Command Headquarters, located at the Washington Navy Yard, fatally shot 

twelve employees, including: seven government, and five government contractor 

employees, and wounded four others. The agency indicated that multiple high level 

investigations are pending, and that possible corrective actions will focus on background 

and security investigations of personnel. The Navy further reported that its immediate 

corrective actions included improved security checks at the Washington Navy Yard.

 A second incident involved a Police Detective Sergeant who was struck by a pick-up 

truck driven by another DoD civilian employee. The victim was transported in critical 

condition to Rhode Island Hospital where he underwent emergency surgery; he

subsequently died from his injuries. Three investigative organizations, the Naval 

Criminal Investigative Service, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Providence, Rhode Island, 
President’s Report 

Page 44 

President’s Report 

and the Installation Safety Mishap Investigation team, are currently investigating the 

incident. The agency’s report indicated that corrective and/or programmatic changes are 

pending the investigative final report.

In addition to the above fatalities, the Navy reported on one catastrophic event that resulted in a 

fire, during testing of the large lithium battery, at the Naval Surface Warfare Center located in 

Indiana. The agency’s report indicated that the direct cause of fire was the venting of the cells 

being tested. As a result of the incident, the Navy initiated a review of its lithium battery testing 

standard operating procedures, established certification requirements, and provided stand-downs 

and process training to personnel. It stated that its programmatic improvement will include: 

storage and segregation of battery products; battery hazard identification, controls and briefing; 

and article verifications and validation. Furthermore, it indicated that program guidance and 

battery and test process procedures are in the process of being updated.

Certified Safety and Health Committees 

A certified safety and health committee (CSHC) is an OSH committee that the head of the 

sponsoring agency has certified to the Secretary of Labor as meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 

§1960, Subpart F. The purposes of a CSHC are to monitor and assist with an agency’s OSH 

program; maintain an open channel of communication between employees and management; and 

facilitate employee input to improve OSH-related policies, conditions, and practices. In addition 

to an improved OSH program and a safe and healthful workplace, agencies with a CSHC are 

statutorily exempt from unannounced OSHA inspections.

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

CSHCs. In brief, an agency that wants to establish a CSHC must establish OSH committees at 

both the national and – if the agency has subcomponents located outside its national office or 

headquarters – other appropriate levels within the organization. Committee membership must 

include equal numbers of management and non-management representatives. In addition, the 

committee must have access to OSH-related information, monitor the agency’s OSH program, 

and consult and advise on OSH program operations.

When an agency decides to form a CSHC, it must report this intent to the Secretary and include:

 The existence, location, and coverage (establishments and populations) area of the 

committee; and

 The names and phone numbers of each committee chair (national and local).

In addition, the agency must certify to the Secretary of Labor that the committee meets all the 

requirements of 29 CFR §1960, Subpart F. The agency must also provide an annual update on 

its CSHC as part of its required Annual Report to the Secretary of Labor on the Agency’s 

Occupational Safety and Health Program.

In an effort to support agency formation of CSHCs, OSHA may not conduct unannounced 

inspections at federal agencies with CSHCs unless the CSHC has requested an inspection. While 

any agency may form a CSHC, only five such certified committees currently exist. The 

Secretary recognizes the following departments and independent agencies as having CSHCs:

 Central Intelligence Agency,

 Department of Labor,
President’s Report 

Page 45 

President’s Report 

 General Services Administration,

 Tennessee Valley Authority, and

 U.S. International Trade Commission.

Status of Agency CSHCs 

As previously noted, the aforementioned agencies must provide the Secretary with an annual 

status report on their respective CSHCs. Only the DOL and the Tennessee Valley Authority

submitted complete information certifying to the Secretary that their respective CSHCs met the 

requirements of the subpart. The Central Intelligence Agency provided a vague report that 

touched on the requested information, but explaining further information was CLASSIFIED. 

The U.S. International Trade Commission reported that it no longer has a CSHC; the GSA 

reported that it is no longer eligible to have a CSHC since it no longer has a national level 

committee. During CY 2014, OSHA will be following up with these agencies to confirm the 

status of their CSHCs.

Other OSH Committees and Councils 

Thirty-seven agencies (as compared to thirty-four in FY 2012) reported on a variety of noncertified OSH-related committees that function at the departmental, agency, and field operation 

levels, including FFSHCs. Committee membership varied from agency-to-agency, with some 

comprised of various levels of managers, others focused on expertise in a specific area, and still 

others had members with only OSH-related duties and responsibilities. According to the various 

reports, most of these OSH committees were considered vital components of the respective 

department or agency’s OSH program. Given the reported levels of participation of some of the 

OSH committees, some of the departments and agencies may want to pursue certifying their 

committees and achieving the recognition and OSH benefits such certification would provide.

Although the majority of federal agencies reported minimal to no involvement in FFSHC 

activities, some agencies described a variety of committees and other venues to address 

workplace OSH issues. These departments and agencies reported active participation in FFSHC 

activities, and reported that they encourage employees to participate in local council activities 

and appropriate OSH professional organizations, such as the American Biological Safety 

Association, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, the American 

Industrial Hygiene Association, the American Society of Safety Engineers, Health Physics 

Society, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, the National Fire Protection Association, 

the National Strength and Conditioning Association, as well as, nationally- and locally-oriented 

safety organizations, such as the National Safety Council, and local working groups, to assess 

safety procedures for specific jobs or draft worksite safety policies. Other agencies reported 

making efforts to reestablish their OSH committees that had become inactive in recent years. 

Specifically, 

 The Army indicated that most of its major Commands, subordinate Commands, and 

organizations participate in Command OSH advisory councils at least twice a year, and 

that it encourages its personnel to participate in other agencies’ OSH councils.

 The Department of Commerce reported active encouragement of its employees to 

participate in Bureau field office OSH meetings, and that its various Bureaus participate 

in the Department’s semiannual OSH council and the monthly safety managers’ 

workgroup meetings.
President’s Report 

Page 46 

President’s Report 

 The Department of Education stated that the current Chairperson of the Metropolitan 

Washington Federal Safety and Health Council is a departmental employee, and has held 

that position for the past six years. 

 State indicated that it participated in several of the FACOSH subcommittees and 

workgroups.

 NASA and the National Traffic Safety Board indicated that their headquarters personnel 

respectively participate in FACOSH and its various subcommittees. 

Continuity of Operations 

Various executive orders and legislative acts require Executive Branch agencies to develop and 

implement plans for responding to or maintaining agency operations in the event of emergencies 

or disasters. Depending on the specific event, some agencies may respond to the site of an event, 

and must account for the safety and health of their federal employees during such a response. 

Still other agencies, with no mission to respond, are required to plan for continuing their 

operations should an event affect their business sites and workplaces. Nearly every department 

and agency reported that it had some type of plan for dealing with emergency response and 

continuity of operations, such as telework; or that it is currently developing a plan. Most 

agencies also reported that these plans either contained provisions for ensuring the safety and 

health of their federal workers, or were developed with OSH personnel input. Specifically,

 The USDA reported that it has a variety of COOP plans, including occupant emergency 

and business continuity plans, which contain provisions for building evacuation and 

shelter-in-place during emergencies; and cover a wide variety of scenarios. The 

Department also reported on its ongoing efforts to identify and delineate OSH manager 

COOP-related roles and responsibilities relative to assuring the safety and health of 

employees. 

 The Air Force reported that its Chief of Safety ensures the safety and health of personnel 

in the Department’s COOP process by identifying the critical risks to organizational 

readiness, and supporting strategies that best mitigate risks to ensure that the Air Force 

can continue its essential functions safely under all conditions, including, but not limited 

to, natural disasters, military attack, technological failures, civil unrest, or other 

disruptive conditions that seriously degrade or threaten national security.

 The Department of Energy indicated that its program offices and field sites address 

pandemic situations, including the use of social distancing, shutdown of non-essential 

operations, and alternate work locations. It further indicated that its Biologic Event 

Monitoring Team reviews other infectious diseases that can result in a biological 

emergency, and provides advice and coordinates communications to more than 15,000 

federal employees. 

 The Department of Health and Human Services reported that its fully developed COOP 

strategy incorporates a variety of options, including, telework, relocation, and 

administrative leave for its employees, and devolution of specific missions to alternative 

sites or sub agencies. 

 Similarly, the Federal Trade Commission reported that its plans include operations’ 

relocation and telework for its personnel.
President’s Report 

Page 47 

President’s Report 

In addition to COOP planning, federal agencies were asked to report lessons learned from recent

training experiences and natural disasters. Similar to previous reports, they reported challenges 

with communications, command and control, accountability for employees’ safety, as well as 

inter- and intra-agency communication and coordination. Specifically, 

 The Department of Energy reported that in 2013, its Western Area Power Administration 

(WAPA) established the Office of Security and Emergency Management to facilitate the 

development and maintenance of the WAPA Emergency Management Program, 

including updating plans with current guidance, document-required training and drills, 

conducting and documenting required self-assessments, and maintaining an effective 

emergency readiness assurance program. Other Department subagencies reported similar 

efforts.

 The Department of the Interior reported a COOP Plan success that resulted when, on May 

31, 2013, a tornado did major damages to its El Reno, Oklahoma offices. No injuries 

were sustained by its employees. It reported that its employees were familiar with the 

possible risks associated with tornados, and the pre- and post-actions to take in such a 

situation, and knew their established alternate worksite location. 

 The Department of Veterans Affairs reported that the 2013 Eagle Horizon Exercise 

highlighted the need to update the Emergency Relocation Group list. Additionally, the 

Department’s National Cemetery Administration determined that individuals designated 

as alternates for the Emergency Relocation Group should receive training in their roles 

and responsibilities prior to future COOP exercises. 

 The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency reported its most significant lesson 

learned pertained to employee notification and telework capacity during inclement 

weather events. As a result of the experience, the Agency improved its weather-related 

operating status notification system.

 For four years running, the Federal Housing Finance Agency reported that it received a 

score of 14/14 “GREEN” (outstanding) from the Department of Homeland SecurityFederal Emergency Management Administration continuity exercises.

 The Overseas Private investment Corporation identified the need for improved signage at 

its designated assembly points, and improved communication tools for floor wardens. 

Corrective actions included the use of clearer signage and an upgraded radio 

communication system.

In FY 2012, four agencies reported not having COOP plans. Of these, the Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board), and the Vietnam Education 

Foundation, reported progress in developing such plans during the 2013 reporting period; 

andwhile the other two, the Inter-American Foundation, and the James Madison Memorial 

Fellowship Foundation, continued to report not having COOP plans. Additionally for the 2013 

reporting period, the National Merit Board did not report on its COOP plans.

Motor Vehicle Safety 

Federal agencies reported that 5,416 motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) occurred in FY 2013, 

which represents approximately a 3.9 percent decrease from the 5,621 MVAs reported in FY 

2012. (Please see Table 5 for a side-by-side comparison of FY 2012 and 2013 MVAs reported 

by federal agencies.) The majority of agencies reported having a motor vehicle safety program, 
President’s Report 

Page 48 

President’s Report 

with most agencies noting compliance with EOs 13043 and 13513, which require the use of 

seatbelts in motor vehicles, and ban texting while driving, respectively. In addition, agencies 

reported that they continued to provide programs to limit the likelihood and impact of motor 

vehicle accidents. 

Similar to previous years’ reports, many departments and agencies required defensive driving 

courses, the majority using courses through GSA, or the National Safety Council or similar 

organizations. Several agencies also reported having programs to encourage seatbelt use, such as 

decals in vehicles, or reminders on employee websites or in break rooms. While several 

agencies reported tracking seatbelt use after an accident – many using information from police 

reports – few had any full-time tracking of seatbelt use at other times. A number of agencies 

mentioned having random compliance checks, including one agency that reported using camera 

surveillance. 

Approximately twelve agencies indicated not having a motor vehicle safety program for a variety 

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

in an “official capacity,” and not owning an agency-dedicated fleet. Ten other agencies indicated 

that a motor vehicle safety program was “not applicable” to their situation, or failed to report the 

existence of a program. Particularly disconcerting, however, was the assertion by a few agencies 

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

Those agencies indicating that they did not have a motor vehicle safety program include: the 

Access Board, Armed Forces Retirement Home, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Federal 

Maritime Commission, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, Inter-American 

Foundation, James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation, Marine Mammal Commission, 

Table 5. Summary of FY 2013/2012 Motor Vehicle Accidents as Reported by Department and

Independent Agency.

Department/Agency Status Number of Accidents FY 2013

(FY 2012)

Department of Agriculture 0 (147)

Department of the Air Force 13 (13)

Department of the Army 11 (23)

Department of Commerce 134 (128)

Department of Defense 515 (823)

Department of Energy 90 (47)

Department of Health and Human Services 100 (96)

Department of Homeland Security ? NR (2669)

Department of Justice 2689 (3006)

Department of Labor 403 (370)

Department of the Navy ? NR (NR)
President’s Report 

Page 49 

President’s Report 

Table 5. Summary of FY 2013/2012 Motor Vehicle Accidents as Reported by Department and

Independent Agency.

Department/Agency Status Number of Accidents FY 2013

(FY 2012)

Department of State 380 (271)

Department of Transportation 28 (38)

Department of the Treasury 316 (4)

Department of Veterans Affairs 43 (292)

Environmental Protection Agency 31 (31)

General Services Administration 38 (92)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 201 (205)

Social Security Administration 3 (6)

Tennessee Valley Authority 102 (78)

Office of Personnel Management 218 (204)

Armed Forces Retirement Home 1 (0)

Broadcasting Board of Governors ? NR (3)

Central Intelligence Agency ? NR (NR)

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 2 (0)

Corporation for National and Community Service 3 (0)

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 14 (15)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 15 (8)

Farm Credit Administration 0 (5)

Federal Communications Commission 4 (2)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 32 (10)

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ? NR (6)

Federal Maritime Commission 3 (0)

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 2 (0)

International Boundary and Water Commission 0 (1)

National Archives and Records Administration 7 (2)
President’s Report 

Page 50 

President’s Report 

Table 5. Summary of FY 2013/2012 Motor Vehicle Accidents as Reported by Department and

Independent Agency.

Department/Agency Status Number of Accidents FY 2013

(FY 2012)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0 (15)

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation 0 (1)

Small Business Administration 0 (1)

Smithsonian Institution 13 (15)

The Peace Corps 1 (0)

The Presidio Trust 4 (0)

Legend for Table 5 

No change from FY 2012 report NR Not reported

Decrease from FY 2012 report ? Undetermined from reported data

Increase from FY 2012 report

National Endowment for the Humanities, Postal Regulatory Commission, Social Security 

Advisory Board, and the United States African Development Foundation.

Telework Enhancement 

In general, agencies reported that their telework programs are in compliance with Telework 

Enhancement Act of 2010, other applicable laws, statutes, and regulations, and OPM guidelines; 

and that the authority, policy, and responsibilities for managing the telework programs are set 

forth in agency regulations and policies. Most reported the use of checklists, self-evaluations;

and in some cases, counseling, training, and visits from supervisors for personnel who are 

authorized to telework. Of those agencies that reported on this item, they reported continuing to 

promote telework, and expand telework capability with minimal adverse mission impacts, and 

that no employees were injured or became ill while on telework. Several agencies reported not 

having a formalized telework program, including: the Access Board, Federal Mine Safety and

Health Review Commission, Inter-American Foundation, James Madison Memorial Fellowship 

Foundation, Marine Mammal Commission, National Mediation Board, the Presidio Trust, and 

the Selective Service System; citing various reasons for the omission, including agency size and 

mission requirements. 

Agencies were also requested to describe how recent natural disasters affected their telework 

programs. Of the agencies that reported adverse impacts, the majority describe stressed and 

overtaxed communication systems, and preparedness issues. However, these impacts did not 

necessitate significant changes to their programs. 

Analyzing and Controlling Trends 

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

specific causes or types of injuries, or hazardous jobs or tasks. Responses illustrated little 
President’s Report 

Page 51 

President’s Report 

change in previously reported agency actions to identify and analyze workplace hazards. 

Agencies responded by describing a range of analysis methods, from manual cataloging of 

incidents to real-time computer monitoring of OSH-related data as entered into an information 

system(s). In general, agencies with a greater number of employees, or higher incidence rates, 

tended to incorporate information systems and more frequent monitoring of entered data.

Overall, federal departments and agencies with higher rates of injuries and illnesses reported 

greater emphasis on data analysis, integrating OSH-related considerations into all aspects of 

agency operations, and tracking near misses. Yet even agencies that reported few or no workrelated injuries and illnesses continued to track OSH-related reports and information to help 

ensure safer and more healthful workplaces.

Most departments and agencies reported performing some type of data analysis to determine the 

prevalence of injury type, the most common causes of injuries, and the jobs or tasks that resulted 

in injuries. Agencies also reported tracking and analyzing “near-misses,” or those incidents that 

could have resulted in an accident or injury, but did not at that particular time. Other strategies 

for reducing workplace injuries and illnesses include, integrating safety considerations into 

building design and/or job duties and procedures; encouraging employees to report potential 

hazards as they are discovered; and focusing on specific problems, such as frequent types of 

injuries, or specific hazards. Agencies stressed the importance of self-inspection, internal and 

external, in identifying hazards, and analyzing and controlling trends.

Safety and Health Management System Response 

to the Inspection Process 

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

agency and external (OSHA-conducted) inspections; and various responses to the inspection 

process, including immediate correction, working with GSA and other entities for hazard 

abatement, negotiation with OSHA, and updating policy and procedural guidance. Some 

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

International Trade Commission, indicated that they encourage employee and contractor 

participation in this inspection process. 

Collectively, eighteen agencies reported over 184 federal OSHA inspections, and over 11,188 

internal safety and health inspections of their respective establishments; with over 11,991 

Notices of Unsafe or Unhealthy Working Conditions being issued either by federal OSHA or the 

agency’s internal inspection authority. Fifty-seven agencies either indicated that the inspection 

process was “not applicable” to their situations (ten agencies), or did not report on it (forty-seven

agencies). 

The Department of Defense, including the armed services departments, reported the greatest 

number of OSHA inspections, with 148 inspections, and 496 Notices being issued. The Federal 

Aviation Administration reported the greatest number of internal agency safety and health 

inspections, with approximately 11,173 inspections of its staffed and unstaffed workplaces, and 

11,412 Notices being issued. 
President’s Report 

Page 52 

President’s Report 

Training of Overseas Federal Employees 

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

provide safe and healthful workplaces have no geographical limits. In an effort to determine 

how to best assist agencies with providing safe and healthful workplaces for their overseas 

employees, OSHA requested that agencies provide information on whether any of their federal 

employees were stationed overseas, and how they ensured that those employees were provided 

with safe and healthful workplaces.

According to agency reports, more than 142,000 government employees worked outside the 

boundaries of the United States during the 2013 reporting period. This represents approximately 

a ten percent decrease from the ~159,000 federal civilian employees reported working overseas 

in FY 2012. (Please see Table 6 for a comparison of federal civilian employees reported 

working overseas in FYs 2012 and 2013.) The departments of Defense (including the armed 

services, reported approximately 83,000 employees), and State (55,200 employees) reported the 

largest number of overseas employees. The DoD, its various components, and the other military 

departments indicated that they extend their OSH programs and coverage to include their 

overseas federal civilian employees. State indicated that it has a robust overseas OSH program, 

and includes provisions for safe and healthful living conditions for its overseas employees, as 

well as other federal employees stationed at embassies. Multiple agencies indicated the presence 

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

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

Table 6. Number of Federal Civilian Employees in Overseas Locations by Agency

(FY 2013, FY 2012) (n = 27 agencies).

Number of Employees

Agency Status FY 2013 FY 2012

Department of Agriculture 450 458

Department of Commerce 785 ~900

Department of Defense ~83,000 ~88,000

Department of Energy ? 0 NR

Department of Health and Human Services ? NR 2,500

Department of Homeland Security ? NR 2,100

Department of the Interior 550 ~380

Department of Justice 1,351 1,037

Department of Labor 24 7

Department of State 55,200 54,584

Department of Transportation ? 645 NR

Department of the Treasury 55 768

Department of Veterans Affairs ? NR NR

Environmental Protection Agency 179 158

General Services Administration 12 7

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 4 284

Social Security Administration 6 6

Broadcasting Board of Governors ? NR ~300

Consumer Product Safety Commission 1 1
President’s Report 

Page 53 

President’s Report 

Millennium Challenge Corporation 29 37

National Science Foundation 4 4

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 2

Overseas Private Investment Corporation 1 1

Peace Corps 181 200

Smithsonian Institution ~1 ~1

U.S. Agency for International Development ? NR 6,780

U.S. Trade and Development Agency ? 30 NR

~TOTAL ~142,512 ~158,515

Legend for Table 6 

No change from FY 2012 report NR Not reported

Decrease from FY 2012 report ? Undetermined from reported data

Increase from FY 2012 report

overseas federal workforce, most of whom are covered under either DoD’s or State’s OSH 

programs. 

Several agencies also reported on agency support of their stateside employees, reporting a range 

of employee support activities for OSH-related activities. Some reported that employee training

is primarily based on job responsibilities. Some also reported making special efforts to ensure 

that collateral duty OSH personnel received the appropriate training. In addition, several 

agencies reported that employees were encouraged to seek professional OSH certification and 

participate in professional OSH organizations. Agencies also reported providing support by 

maintaining OSH websites, distributing OSH awards, publishing OSH newsletters, and 

encouraging participation in FFSHCs and other appropriate venues. Many agencies reported that 

they also supported employees’ safety and health through encouraging healthy lifestyles by 

providing fitness centers; subsidizing gym memberships; sponsoring health fairs; and offering a 

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

Although not specific to OSH-related issues, several agencies reported on the added value of 

Employee Assistance Programs. 

Whistleblower Protection Programs 

29 CFR §1960, Subpart G requires federal agencies to ensure that employees are not subjected to 

reprisal or other forms of restraint for filing a report of unsafe or unhealthy working conditions. 

In an effort to assess agencies’ whistleblower protection programs, OSHA requested that 

agencies provide information on any federal employee allegations of reprisal, and the actions 

taken in response to the allegations. Most agencies indicated awareness of provisions of the 

Whistleblower Protection Act, Title 5, U.S.C. § 2302(c), and reported having functional 

protection programs. The Access Board reported that it does not have such a program. 

Even though most agency reports were not specific to occupational safety and health issues, a 

few agencies indicated major overall improvements to their programs, including:

 The Department of Commerce’s indication that its program has been awarded 

Whistleblower Protection Agency Certification by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel for 

conducting training and promoting awareness of provisions of the Whistleblower 

Protection Act.
President’s Report 

Page 54 

President’s Report 

 The Department of Energy’s report that it has established a Differing Professional 

Opinion process for technical issues involving environment, safety and health, for 

employees to raise technical concerns related to environment, safety, and health, which 

cannot be resolved using routine processes. 

 The National Labor Relations Board publishing its guidance document: Occupational 

Safety and Health Protection for Employees of the National Labor Relations Board.

Agencies reported zero cases of reprisal against employees who filed a report of unsafe or 

unhealthy working conditions. This is decrease from the five allegation reports that federal 

agencies indicated occurred in FY 2012. However, a couple of agencies reported handling 

reports of reprisal unrelated to safety and health concerns. The Department of Labor reported, 

that although its subagencies processed multiple allegations of reprisal, none of the issues filed in 

these cases were related to unsafe/unhealthful workplace conditions. Similarly, the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission reported processing one allegation report of reprisal that 

was unrelated to an employee report of unsafe or unhealthy working conditions. 

In FY 2012, the Inter-American Foundation indicated that, although it did not have a 

whistleblower protection program, it would develop a program in the upcoming year. Its 2013 

report did not indicate action on this item.

Specific Agency Reporting Requirements 

29 CFR 1960, Subpart E requires GSA and andNIOSH to assist federal agencies with specific 

activities affecting federal employee safety and health. For the second year, OSHA requested 

that these two agencies provide reports on these activities. Specifically, OSHA asked GSA to 

address its programs for ensuring that federal facilities are designed, operated, and maintained in 

accordance with safety and health requirements and best practices; how the agency ensures that 

the products and services offered to federal agencies comply with product safety requirements; 

how safety recalls are implemented; and how federal purchasers are made aware of the safe use 

of such products, including any system for providing material safety data sheets. OSHA asked 

NIOSH to address its health hazard evaluation12program, and how it effected federal agencies. 

General Services Administration 

As requested, GSA reported on its processes pertaining to Facilities and Operations, indicating 

that no significant changes to this agency function were implemented during the 2013 reporting 

period. In similar fashion, GSA indicated that no significant changes were implemented within 

its Products and Services function. It reported zero product recalls for the 2013 reporting period.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NIOSH reported that, in FY 2013, it completed thirty-four technical assistance investigations of 

federal agencies, including seven on-site investigations (OSIs), and twenty-seven desk-top 

 

12 A health hazard evaluation (HHE) is a study of a workplace to learn whether workers are exposed to hazardous materials or harmful conditions. 

For federal agencies, NIOSH provides for technical assistance requests. On the basis of the information provided, NIOSH responds to a HHE/ 

technical assistance request in one of the following ways: respond in writing with helpful information or a referral to a more appropriate agency;

call to discuss the problems and how they might be solved; visit the workplace. During a visit, NIOSH will meet with the employer and employee 

representatives to discuss the issues and tour the workplace. During one or more visits, NIOSH may review records about exposure and health, 

interview or survey employees, measure exposures, and perform medical testing. At the end of this evaluation, NIOSH will provide a written 

report to the employer and employee representatives. Depending on the type of evaluation, the final report may require a development time of a 

few months to a few years.
President’s Report 

Page 55 

President’s Report 

investigations (DTIs). The issues investigated were varied. (Please refer to Table 7 for 

information on NIOSH’s completed technical assistance investigations provided to federal 

agencies.) In addition, the Institute reported that it has received thirty-one new requests for 

technical assistance to be conducted during the 2014 reporting period from the departments of 

Agriculture, Energy and the Interior, three of which will include an on-site investigation. These 

new requests involve heat stress, and chemical exposure issues. 
President’s Report 

Page 56 

President’s Report 

Table 7. NIOSH – Number of Health Hazard Evaluations of Federal Agencies Completed in 

FY 2013. (n = 34)

On-site Investigations (Number) Desk-top Investigations (Number)

Department/Agency OSI Issue(s) Department/Agency DTI Issue(s)13

Defense (3)

 Pharmaceutical dusts,

 Firing range 

particulates, and

 Disinfectants

Agriculture (2)

 Indoor 

environmental 

quality (16),

 Chemical (6),

 Ergonomics (2), and 

 Heat stress (1)

Homeland Security (1)  Radon Defense (5)

Interior (1)  Pesticides Health and Human 

Services (5)

Justice (1)  Lead

 Cadmium USPS (3)

Social Security 

Administration (1)

 Job stress, and

 Indoor environmental 

quality

Veterans Administration 

(5)

departments of 

Commerce, Homeland 

Security, Interior, and 

Treasury; Central 

Intelligence Agency, 

Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, 

and the Social Security 

Administration (1 each)

 

13 NIOSH indicated that these four issues were part and parcel of each of the desk-top investigations conducted on 

the identified federal agencies. 
President’s Report 

Page 57 

President’s Report 
President’s Report 

Page 58 

President’s Report 

Federal Executive Branch agencies have a variety of responsibilities with respect to their OSH 

programs as delineated by Section 19 of the OSH Act, EO 12196, and Title 29 CFR §1960. This 

section condenses those responsibilities into five subsections: Program, Standards, 

Workplace, Records, and Inspections and Investigations. Each subsection lists the agency 

responsibilities, and provides a discussion of each responsibility along with hyperlinks to the 

specified reference(s).

Program 

Establish and maintain an effective and comprehensive OSH program.

All three documents14 require agencies to establish and maintain OSH programs that 

comply with the program requirements of 29 CFR §1960 and OSHA’s occupational 

safety and health regulations as described in the relevant parts of Title 29 CFR.

Operate an OSH management information system.

EO 12196, paragraph 1-201(j), requires each agency to maintain a system for managing 

its OSH information, which must include maintaining records the Secretary requires. 

While the EO does not mandate an electronic information management system, many 

such systems are available. They can facilitate maintaining, analyzing, retrieving, and 

tracking OSH-related information.

Develop and implement OSH program evaluation procedures.

29 CFR §1960.78 requires agencies to evaluate the effectiveness of their OSH programs 

and include the results of those self-evaluations in their annual reports to the Secretary. 

According to 29 CFR §1960.79, these self-evaluations must include qualitative 

assessments of the extent to which the OSH programs comply with EO 12196 and 29 

CFR §1960, and analyses of whether the agency has effectively implemented its OSH 

program in all its field activities.

Appoint a DASHO and other OSH officials at appropriate levels.

EO 12196, paragraph 1-201(c), and 29 CFR §1960.6 require each agency to designate an 

official who will be responsible for managing and administering the agency’s OSH 

program. This Designated Agency Safety and Health Official must have “sufficient 

authority” to effectively represent and support the agency head with regard to the OSH 

program; §1960.6 states that the DASHO should be an Assistant Secretary or equivalent. 

29 CFR §1960.6(c) also requires the agency to designate OSH officials at appropriate 

levels throughout the agency to ensure implementation of an effective OSH program.

 

14 EO 12196, paragraph 1-201(b); The Act, Section 19(a); and 29 CFR §1960.1(a)
President’s Report 

Page 59 

President’s Report 

Submit an annual report to OSHA, and include a summary of OSH program selfevaluation findings.

All three documents15 require each agency to send an annual report to the Secretary with 

respect to OSH-related accidents and injuries, and its OSH program. The agency must 

include a summary of its self-evaluation findings in the annual report. It must also 

include any information or data the Secretary requests. OSHA’s Office of Federal 

Agency Programs formulates the annual report request and analyzes the agency reports.

Ensure adequate financial, and other resources for effective OSH program implementation 

and administration.

29 CFR §1960.7 stipulates that each agency must provide the resources to implement and 

administer its OSH program. The standard lists several resources that a federal agency 

OSH program must include, such as sufficient personnel, personal protective equipment, 

hazard abatement, OSH-related sampling and analyses, training, technical information, 

and medical surveillance – but it does not limit the resources to that list.

Include appropriate OSH criteria in managers’ and supervisors’ performance appraisals.

According to 29 CFR §1960.11, agencies must include OSH-related performance 

measures as part of the performance evaluations for any management official-in-charge 

of an establishment, any supervisory employee, or any other appropriate management 

official. The standard further requires that the evaluation must measure the employee’s 

performance “in meeting requirements” of the agency’s OSH program, consistent with 

the manager’s or supervisor’s assigned responsibilities and authority.

Post the OSHA poster or equivalent and provide a copy to the Secretary.

29 CFR §1960.12 requires the agency to “post conspicuously in each establishment” and 

keep posted, a poster informing employees of the “provisions of the Act, Executive Order 

12196, and the agency occupational safety and health program.” The poster must 

include core OSHA-provided text along with other information specific to the agency. 

The agency must also provide a copy of this poster to the Secretary.

Promote OSH-related employee awareness.

Along with conspicuously posting the “OSHA poster,” 29 CFR §1960.12 – specifically 

paragraph (e) – requires agencies to use their ordinary information channels – such as 

newsletters, bulletins, handbooks, website, etc. – to promote employees’ awareness of 

OSH-related issues. While the standard does not define “occupational safety and health 

matters,” nor does it specify the frequency with which an agency must “promote... 

awareness,” simply posting the “OSHA poster” does not satisfy the requirements of this 

paragraph.

Establish anti-discrimination and -reprisal procedures for OSH-related activities.

Both EO 12196, paragraph 1-201(f), and the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 

§1960.46) require agencies to establish procedures assuring that no employee is subject 

to “restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination or reprisal” for OSH-related 

activities. Various OSH-related regulations afford employees rights and privileges 

related to reporting OSH issues and participating in OSH-related activities. Agencies 

 

15 EO 12196, paragraph 1-201(l); The Act, Section 19(a)(5); and 29 CFR §1960.71(a)
President’s Report 

Page 60 

President’s Report 

must establish procedures to assure that employees can exercise their rights and/or 

participate in OSH-related activities without becoming subject to discrimination or 

reprisal.

Provide CSHCs with all agency information relative and necessary to their duties.

If an agency has established a Certified Safety and Health Committee16 per Subpart F of 

29 CFR §1960, it must provide that CSHC with “all agency information” relative to the 

Committee’s duties. According to the standard, such information can include - but is not 

limited to: OSH policies and programs; available OSH-related human and financial 

resources; accident, injury, and illness data; material safety data sheets; inspection 

reports; abatement plans; and reprisal investigation reports.

Provide OSH training to top management, supervisors, OSH inspectors, collateral duty 

personnel, CSHC members, employees, employee representatives.

EO 12196, paragraph 1-201(k), requires OSH-related training for several levels of agency 

employees. 29 CFR §1960 Subpart H specifies the necessary OSH-related training for all 

levels of agency employees. Agencies must provide at least the listed required training 

for the designated level of employee, but may provide more extensive or comprehensive 

training for any level of employee.

Standards 

Comply with applicable OSHA and 1960 alternate standards.

All three documents17 require agencies to comply with all applicable OSHA standards 

issued under Section 6 of the Act – or an OSHA-approved alternate standard.

Adopt emergency temporary and permanent supplemental standards as necessary and 

appropriate if no OSHA standard exists.

According to 29 CFR §1960.18, if there is no OSHA standard that applies to a particular 

worksite, job, condition, or other workplace exposure, an agency must implement an 

emergency temporary supplemental standard to protect its employees. Subsequent to 

implementing an emergency temporary supplemental standard, the agency must develop 

and implement a permanent supplemental standard to continue to assure a safe and 

healthful workplace and adequate employee protection.

Notify OSHA and the other federal agency if another agency’s standard conflicts with an 

OSHA standard.

29 CFR §1960.19(c) stipulates that, in the unlikely event of another agency’s standard 

interfering with an OSHA standard, the head of the agency discovering such a conflict 

must notify the other federal agency and the Secretary. The agencies will then undertake 

joint efforts to resolve the conflict.

The standard also requires compliance with the more protective of the conflicting 

standards until after the conflict is resolved.

 

16 See Certified Safety and Health Committees for a description of CSHCs.

17 EO 12196, paragraph 1-201(d); The Act, Section 19(a); and 29 CFR §1960, Subpart C
President’s Report 

Page 61 

President’s Report 

Workplace 

Provide safe and healthful workplaces and working conditions.

All three previously identified documents require that federal workplaces and working 

conditions be safe and healthful and free from recognized serious hazards. According to 

§1960.2(v), a “serious hazard or condition” is one that has the “substantial probability” 

of causing death or serious physical harm. 29 CFR §1960.1(g) clarifies that federal 

employees who work in private sector establishments are covered by their respective 

federal employer’s OSH program, and the agency is responsible for assuring safe and 

healthful workplaces and conditions for these employees.

Ensure timely response to employee reports of unsafe/unhealthful conditions.

EO 12196, paragraph 1-201(h), requires agencies to respond to employee reports of 

hazardous conditions. It also requires agencies to inspect the situation within 24 hours 

for “imminent dangers,” within three working days for potentially “serious” conditions, 

and within 20 working days for other conditions.

Promptly abate unsafe/unhealthful conditions.

Both EO 12196, paragraph 1-201(e), and §1960 require agencies to promptly abate 

unsafe or unhealthful working conditions. While 29 CFR §1960.28(d)(3) recognizes that 

some hazards can be abated immediately, the Executive Order clarifies that if the agency 

cannot promptly abate the condition, it must develop an abatement plan that includes both 

a timetable for abatement and interim protective measures. 29 CFR §1960.30 provides 

further instructions with regard to abatement and abatement plans.

Acquire, maintain, and require the use of safety equipment, PPE, and other protective 

devices.

Both the Act, at Section 19(a)(2), and 29 CFR §1960.8(d) require federal employers to 

“acquire, maintain, and require the use of approved PPE, approved safety equipment, 

and other devices necessary to protect employees.”

Records 

Keep records per 29 CFR §1904, and allow OSHA access to them.

The Act, at Section 19(a)(3), mandates that agencies maintain “adequate records,” and 

29 CFR §1960.66 clarifies that, at a minimum, agencies must comply with the 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements under 29 CFR §1904, Subparts C, D, E, and G.
President’s Report 

Page 62 

President’s Report 

Use the records to identify unsafe/unhealthful conditions and establish OSH program 

priorities.

29 CFR §1960.66(c) requires agencies to analyze the information [including the records 

required by paragraph (b) of the standard] collected through its management information 

system (required by EO 12196) to identify unsafe and unhealthful working conditions 

and establish its OSH program priorities.

Inspections and Investigations 

Require inspections, allow access to OSHA’s inspectors, and establish a procedure for 

issuing Notices. (Refer to page 28 for an explanation of an OSHA Notice.)

Subpart D of Part 1960 covers workplace inspections and abatement of hazardous 

conditions. Among its requirements, agencies must:

 Inspect “all areas and operations...at least annually,” and more frequently if the 

area is hazardous – §1960.25(c);

 Authorize OSHA inspectors to “enter without delay” any agency worksite –

§1960.31(b);

 Immediately abate imminent danger conditions and remove employees who are 

not needed during the abatement process – §1960.26(b)(5); and

 Establish procedures for issuing Notices of Unsafe or Unhealthful Working 

Conditions (Notices) not later than 15 days after completing the inspection for 

safety violations, or 30 days after completing the inspection for health violations –

§1960.26(c)(2).

Allow for employee representatives during inspections.

EO 12196, paragraph 1-201(i), requires agencies to assure that employee representatives 

accompany OSH inspectors during workplace inspections. In addition, 29 CFR 

§1960.27(a) provides guidance on the selection of employee representatives.

Allow OSH personnel to use necessary specialized expertise.

29 CFR §1960.8(e) requires agencies to allow their OSH personnel to use necessary 

specialized expertise “from whatever source available,” such as other agencies, 

professional groups, labor organizations, universities, etc.

Investigate all fatalities and catastrophes, keep investigation report copies, and provide a 

summary report to OSHA, and CSHCs.

According to §1960.29(b) agencies must investigate all fatalities and/or catastrophes 

(hospitalization of three or more employees) and produce a written report of the 

investigation. The report must include specific information [§1960.29(d)] and the agency 

must provide copies to specified parties, including OSHA.

Keep CSHC members advised of reprisal allegations, and provide copies of investigation 

reports.

Among the duties of both local- and national-level CSHCs is the requirement to review 

the agency’s response to allegations of reprisal. 29 CFR §1960.40(b)(8) requires local 

CSHCs to review the agency’s response and, according to §.40(b)(9), if at least half the 

committee is dissatisfied with the agency’s investigation report, they must report their 
President’s Report 

Page 63 

President’s Report 

dissatisfaction to the Secretary. The same requirements are found at §1960.41(b) and 

§.41(d), respectively, for national CSHCs.

Given these statutory duties for CSHC members, §1960.47 requires agencies to provide 

copies of reprisal investigation reports to their certified committees.

References 

Executive Order 12196 - Occupational safety and health programs for Federal employees, 45 

FR 12769, Feb. 26, 1980.

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Public Law 91-596, 84 STAT. 1590, 91st 

Congress, S.2193, December 29, 1970, as amended through January 1, 2004.

Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1960.
President’s Report 

Page 64 

President’s Report 

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

ACGIH

1330 Kemper Meadow Drive

Cincinnati, Ohio 45240

Customers/Members Phone: 513-742-2020

Administrative Phone: 513-742-6163

Fax: 513-742-3355

E-mail: mail@acgih.org

American Industrial Hygiene Association

American Industrial Hygiene Association

2700 Prosperity Ave., Suite 250

Fairfax, VA 22031

Phone: 703-849-8888

Fax: 703-207-3561

E-mail: infonet@aiha.org

American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE)

American Society of Safety Engineers

Customer Service

1800 E Oakton St.

Des Plaines, IL 60018

Phone: 847-699-2929 (8:30 - 5:00 Central Time)

Fax: 847-768-3434 (24 Hours)

E-mail: customerservice@asse.org

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) and Related Information18

MSDS Online Library

MSDS Solutions

MSDSs Online

MSDS Exchange

Free MSDSs

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluations 

Completed in FY 2013

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0031-3187.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0031-3177.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0031-3167.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0031-3169.pdf

 

18 A search on the worldwide web for “Free MSDS” returned nearly 300,000 links. As a service to federal agencies, a few links have been 

provided. However, providing the link does not imply OSHA endorsement of the website, nor does it imply that any given site is “better than,” 

or “preferred” to any other site.
President’s Report 

Page 65 

President’s Report 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0031-3174.pdf

NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards

NIOSH Chemicals Page

NIOSH Safety and Prevention Topics

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSHA Construction Industry Information and Assistance OSHA Website –

www.osha.gov

Laws, Regulations and Interpretations

Laws and Regulations (29 CFR)

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health

Safety and Health Management Systems e-Tool

Safety and Health Topics, Technical Links

OSHA Office of Federal Agency Programs

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Rm. N3622

Washington, DC 20210

(202) 693-2122

(202) 693-1685 FAX

OSHA’s Field Operations Manual, Chapter 13, Section VII Agency Technical Assistance 

Request http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_02-00-150.pdf

OSHA Compliance Assistance eTools and Electronic Products

OSHA Regional and Area Offices (map with links)

OSHA Standards

OSHA’s Cooperative Programs

OSH-related Statistics and Data

OSHA Office of Whistleblowers Protection Programs, http://www.whistleblowers.gov/

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

BLS Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities Program
President’s Report 

Page 66 

President’s Report 

Acronym Definition 

ATAR Agency Technical Assistance Request

CBY Chargeback Year 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COOP Continuity of Operations

CSHC Certified Safety and Health Committee

CY Calendar Year 

DASHO Designated Agency Safety and Health Official

DoD Department of Defense

DOL Department of Labor

EO Executive Order

FACOSH Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health 

FECA Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

FFSHC Field Federal Safety and Health Council

FY Fiscal Year

GSA General Services Administration

LTCR Lost-Time Case Rate

MVA Motor Vehicle Accident

NARA National Archives and Records Administration

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth 

OPM Office of Personnel Management

OSH Occupational Safety and Health

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OWCP Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

POWER Protecting Our Workers, Ensuring Reemployment

SHMS Safety and Health Management System 

TCR Total Case Rate

U.S.C. United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USPS U.S. Postal Service