U.S. Department of Labor

www.osha.gov

Severe Violator 

Enforcement Program

White Paper

January 2013
1 Executive Summary

Passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 created the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) to assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men 

and women by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education 

and assistance. In the four decades since the OSH Act was enacted, the nation has made dramatic 

progress in reducing work-related deaths and injuries. Since 1970, workplace fatalities have 

been reduced by more than 65 percent. Reported occupational injury and illness rates have 

decreased by over 67 percent since 1973. In 1971, an estimated 38 workers died on the job every 

day. Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) puts that number at 13 per day, with a 

workforce that is almost twice as large. But far too many preventable injuries and fatalities 

continue to occur. Despite much progress, there is still much to do, and OSHA must make the 

most effective use of limited resources to carry out its mission. 

While the vast majority of employers want to protect their employees, others continue to expose 

workers to very serious dangers even after receiving citations for hazards causing serious 

injuries, illnesses, and deaths. On June 18, 2010, OSHA instituted the Severe Violator 

Enforcement Program (SVEP) to more effectively focus enforcement efforts on recalcitrant 

employers who demonstrate indifference to the health and safety of their employees through 

willful, repeated, or failure-to-abate violations of the OSH Act. The program replaced the 

Enhanced Enforcement Program (EEP), an earlier program that the Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG) found to be an inefficient and ineffective means of identifying and addressing the 

most severe violators. On August 16, 2012, OSHA issued a memorandum detailing criteria for 

being removed from SVEP.

Following a preliminary evaluation of the new program’s initial 18 months in operation, OSHA 

has found that SVEP is already meeting certain key goals, including a significant increase in 

follow-up inspections and enhanced settlements. The program has succeeded in guiding OSHA 

enforcement toward recalcitrant employers by targeting high-emphasis hazards, facilitating 

inspections across multiple worksites of employers found to be recalcitrant, and by providing 

Regional and State Plan offices with a nationwide referral procedure. This evaluation has also 

identified several important challenges, such as a high number of transitory construction 

companies which are difficult for OSHA to follow-up with.

Cumulative Summary

As of the end of FY 2011, there were a total of 191 inspections designated as SVEP cases. This 

report reviews this set of developing cases at two points in time – their individual status as of 

September 30, 2011 and as of February 29, 2012 – in order to apply statistical analysis to the 

SVEP’s implementation. SVEP cases were broken down by their SVEP-triggering criteria, by 

industry type (construction and non-construction), company size, and case status. OSHA 

surveyed the field regarding follow-up and related inspections, 11(b) actions, and various aspects 

of settlement activity. From information collected in the SVEP Log and the OSHA surveys, 

OSHA found that:

 The mandatory follow-up inspections are regularly conducted.
2

 Enhanced Settlement Provisions are being established with employers requiring 

measures above and beyond basic hazard abatement to ensure compliance at the cited 

facility and at other related facilities. Of the 180 inspections that were still SVEP cases as 

of February 2012, 67 settlements included enhanced settlement provisions. The most 

commonly-used provisions require employers to provide safety training, inform OSHA of 

current and future worksites, use OSHA’s consultation services, and regularly conduct 

safety and health audits.

 Follow-up and related inspections of construction companies have been difficult. Because 

of the short-term nature of the jobs and the small size of the companies, they often cannot 

be located for follow-ups.

 To date, few SVEP cases have triggered related inspections of the same employers across 

multiple sites. 

 To date, few SVEP cases have required court orders to force compliance under section 

11(b) of the OSH Act. 

 Clarification and standardization of policies between OSHA and the Department of 

Labor's Solicitors Office (SOL) are needed to facilitate joint work (such as 11(b) orders, 

citation deletion and reclassification, and the inclusion of enhanced settlement 

provisions).
3

2 Introduction

The Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP), which became effective on June 18, 2010, is 

intended to focus enforcement efforts on recalcitrant employers who demonstrate indifference to 

the health and safety of their employees through willful, repeated, or failure-to-abate violations 

relating to significant hazards. 

The SVEP replaced the Enhanced Enforcement Program (EEP), a program also intended to 

target problematic employers. The EEP’s criteria, broader than the SVEP criteria, also relied on 

the employer’s compliance history. In 2009, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited the 

EEP and issued a report criticizing the program’s efficiency and effectiveness. The OIG found 

that OSHA missed a number of EEP-qualifying cases, did not conduct proper follow-up on a 

majority of EEP-qualifying cases, made little effort to determine if non-compliance existed 

company-wide where there were multiple locations, and generally did not utilize the enhanced 

enforcement tools the EEP provided to ensure future compliance. 

Rather than amend the EEP, OSHA replaced the program with the more narrowly focused SVEP. 

At the root of the OIG’s criticism was OSHA’s failure to conduct follow-up inspections because 

of EEP’s expansive criteria. These criteria created so many EEP cases that OSHA could not 

maintain the program’s increased enforcement efforts. As such, OSHA tightened the criteria in 

the SVEP to better focus its enforcement resources on those employers who have demonstrated 

particular recalcitrance or indifference to their OSH Act obligations. 

Section XX of the SVEP Directive, CPL 02-00-149, requires OSHA's Directorate of 

Enforcement Programs (DEP) to submit to the Assistant Secretary an End of Fiscal Year Report 

of each Region’s SVEP activity. In addition to the activity report, DEP worked with OSHA's 

Regional Offices to evaluate SVEP’s implementation, current status, and obstacles in order to 

measure its effectiveness and efficiency. 

This report reviews the data collected on those inspections designated as SVEP cases as of 

September 30, 2011, the end of FY 2011. 
4

3 Cumulative Summary as of September 30, 2011

Between when the program became effective on June 18, 2010 and the end of FY 2011, there 

were a total of 191 inspections designated as SVEP cases. In the first, partial fiscal year (June 

18, 2010 – September 30, 2010), there were 41 cases. In FY 2011, the first full year of the 

SVEP, there were 150 SVEP cases. 

a. Eligibility Criteria

Every case that meets the SVEP criteria is considered a severe violator enforcement case. A case 

meets the SVEP criteria if it meets one of the following criteria:

 Is a fatality or catastrophe inspection with one or more willful or repeated violations or 

failure-to-abate notices (SVEP-fatality); 

 Is a non-fatality/catastrophe inspection with two or more willful or repeated violations or 

failure-to-abate notices that are high gravity violations related to High-Emphasis Hazards 

(SVEP-HEH); 

 Is a non-fatality/catastrophe inspection with three or more willful or repeated violations 

or failure-to-abate notices that are high gravity violations related to the potential release 

of a highly hazardous chemical (SVEP-PSM); 

 Is an egregious (e.g., per-instance citations) case (SVEP-egregious).

As of the end of FY 2011, 36 inspections (19%) were designated as SVEP-fatality cases, and 25 

inspections (13%) were designated as SVEP-egregious criteria. Three additional inspections 

(2%) fell into both of these categories, as they were egregious cases with fatalities. Only one 

case (1%) has been designated under the SVEP-PSM criteria. The remaining 126 inspections 

(65%), the largest proportion, were designated as SVEP cases under the SVEP-HEH criteria. 

Figure 1, below, shows the proportion of cases designated under each set of criteria. Table 1 

breaks down the cases by both designating criteria and fiscal year.

Table 1: SVEP Cases Broken Down by Qualifying Criteria and Year

6/18 – 9/ 30/ 2010 FY 2011 Total

Total SVEP Cases 41 150 191

SVEP-Fatality Cases 4 32 36 (19%), excl. egregious

Egregious Cases 7 18 25 (13%), excl. fatalities

Egregious Fatality 1 2 3 (2%)

SVEP-HEH 29 97 126 (65%)

SVEP-PSM 0 1 1 (1%)
5

Figure 1: Proportion of SVEP Cases by Designating Criteria

b. Construction

The SVEP distinguishes between construction and non-construction cases because additional 

enforcement capabilities are granted to construction cases (see SVEP Directive section 

XV(B)(5)). A majority of SVEP cases are construction inspections. As of September 30, 2011, 

115 (60%) of the 191 SVEP cases are in construction (see Figure 2). Of those 115 cases, 13 

(11%) are fatality cases, including an egregious one. The 76 non-construction cases are a 

mixture of general industry, health, process-safety management (PSM), and maritime cases. 

Trends and issues related to applying the SVEP Directive to construction cases is discussed 

further below.

Figure 2: Construction v. Non-Construction SVEP Cases

c. Employer Size

A large factor affecting the SVEP is the proportion of various sized employers. For example, it 

is the large proportion of small construction companies that affects the success of the SVEP’s 

follow-up requirement. Small construction companies have small mobile worksites and, as a 

consequence, are often difficult to find. Overall, a majority of SVEP cases are small businesses. 

Based on the number of controlled employees, 96 SVEP cases (50%) concern employers with 

between 1 and 25 employees. Employers in 46 SVEP cases (24%) have between 26 and 100 

employees. Employers in 16 SVEP cases (9%) have between 101 and 250 employees. Thirtythree SVEP cases (17%) concern employers with more than 250 employees.

115 Construction 

Cases

60%

76 NonConstruction 

Cases

40%

115 Construction Cases

76 Non-Construction Cases

36 Fatalities (19%)

3 Egregious 

Fatalities (2%)

25 Egregious (13%)

126 SVEP-HEH 

(65%)

1 SVEP-PSM (1%)

36 Fatalities (19%)

3 Egregious Fatalities (2%)

 25 Egregious (13%)

126 SVEP-HEH (65%)

1 SVEP-PSM (1%)
6

As mentioned above, whether an employer is in the construction industry or not also affects 

SVEP enforcement. One hundred fifteen cases concern employers in construction, as compared 

to 76 that do not. Of these 115 SVEP construction cases, 80 (70% of construction cases, 42% of 

total cases) involve employers that 

employ less than 25 employees. 

Construction employers in 25 SVEP 

cases (22% construction, 13% total) have 

between 26 and 100 employees. 

Construction employers in 8 SVEP cases 

(7% construction, 4% total) have 

between 101 and 250 employees. Two 

SVEP cases (2% construction, 1% total) 

concern employers with more than 250 

employees.

Of the 76 non-construction cases, 16 

SVEP cases (21% of non-construction 

(NC) cases, 8% of total cases) concern 

employers with between 1 and 25 employees. Employers in 21 SVEP cases (28% NC, 11% 

total) have between 26 and 100 employees. Employers in 8 SVEP cases (11% NC, 4% total) 

have between 101 and 250 employees. Thirty one SVEP cases (41% NC, 16% total) concern 

employers with more than 250 employees. Figure 4 compares the number of construction and 

non-construction cases in each size category.

Figure 4: Size of SVEP Employer, Construction v. Non-Construction

d. Compliance and Awareness

The SVEP has a number of methods by which to encourage severe violators to comply and abate 

hazards. Such methods include follow-up and related inspections, notifying company 

headquarters, and the inclusion of enhanced provisions within settlement agreements. The 

discussion below reviews these methods and their use. Because new cases are being added to the 

program every month and every SVEP case proceeds through the program at its own pace, the 

number of cases at any particular time or status point (i.e., under contest or eligible for a followup inspection) is always shifting. In order to account for this distortion and to better judge the 

success of the SVEP’s implementation, this section of the report reviews a set of SVEP cases and 

0

20

40

60

80

Construction Non-construction

1-25 Employees

26-100 Employees

101-250 Employees

250+ Employees

Figure 3: SVEP Cases by Employer Size

1-25 

Employees 

(50%)

26-100 

Employees

24%

101-250 

Employees

9%

250+ 

Employees

17%
7

examines their progression in two snapshots, taken five months apart. The first snapshot is the 

program as it was at the end of fiscal year 2011, when there were 191 SVEP cases, 18 follow-up 

inspections, and 21 related inspections on the SVEP Log. The second snapshot shows how those 

same 191 SVEP cases had developed as of February 29, 2012. 

To better understand these snapshots, a brief overview of how an SVEP case proceeds through 

OSHA’s enforcement process is beneficial (see Figure 5). An inspection becomes an SVEP case 

upon the issuance of qualifying citations. If the employer has more than one fixed site, the Area 

Director mails a copy of the citations to the employer’s headquarters. After issuance, there is a 

15-day contest period during which the employer decides whether to contest the citations. 

During that time, the employer and OSHA may meet and agree to an Informal Settlement 

Agreement (ISA). (OSHA may negotiate for enhanced provisions during both informal and 

formal settlement discussions.) The ISA may delete or reclassify the citations such that the case 

no longer qualifies for the SVEP. If this occurs, the case is lined off the Log. However, 

settlements can only result in lining off if there are factual changes based on the quality of 

evidence brought forth during settlement discussions. If the citations remain after the ISA, or if 

the employer accepts the citations upon initial notification, final orders are issued at the end of 

the 15-day contest period. The case is then eligible for a follow-up inspection. 

If, upon citation issuance, the citations are contested, the follow-up inspection is barred until the 

case is either adjudicated or settled (although related inspections – inspections of an employer’s 

other worksites triggered by a reasonable belief of systemic noncompliance – may occur at any 

point (see Section 3(d)(ii) below)). If the contest concludes with deleted or reclassified citations 

such that the case no longer qualifies for the SVEP, the case is lined off the Log. If the citations 

remain, the case is eligible for a follow-up inspection. Once a follow-up inspection is either 

conducted or attempted, the case remains on the SVEP Log but OSHA’s SVEP requirement to 

conduct a follow-up inspection is considered fulfilled. 

Figure 5: Stages of a SVEP Case

i. Follow-up Inspections

A follow-up inspection is required to be conducted in every SVEP case after citations become 

final orders. The follow-up inspection assesses not only whether the cited violations were 

abated, but also whether the employer continues to commit similar violations. Follow-up 

15 Day 

Contest/ 

Informal 

Settlement 

Period

No

Yes

SVEP citations 

remain

Citations 

reclassified

Line-out

Eligible for 

Follow-up

Follow-up 

attempted

Follow-up 

performed

(ISA)
8

inspections began in FY 2011. By September 30, 2011, of the 191 ongoing SVEP cases, more 

than half (52%) were not yet eligible for follow-up. Of those 48% that had become eligible for 

follow-up, more than half had received either a follow-up or an attempted follow-up. By 

February 29, 2012, of those cases eligible for follow-up, nearly all had received either a followup or attempted follow-up.

Figure 6: Follow-up Status of SVEP Cases as of Sept. 30, 2011

In FY 2011, 18 follow-up inspections were concluded and 31 more were attempted. Of the 18 

follow-up inspections completed, eight occurred in the construction industry and 10 were nonconstruction. No follow-up inspection has itself become an SVEP case. Individual case factors 

affect whether and when OSHA may conduct a follow-up inspection. Figure 6 (above) breaks 

down the SVEP cases by their follow-up status as of September 30, 2011. At that time, 83 cases 

(44%) were under contest, 44 (23%) were eligible to have follow-up inspections conducted, and 

15 (8%) were so new that they were still in the 15-day contest period. 

By February 29, 2012, 11 cases had been lined out. Out of the 180 remaining SVEP cases, 39 

(20%) had follow-up inspections, 56 (29%) were attempted, 66 (35%) were under contest, and 

19 (10%) were eligible to have follow-up inspections conducted (see Figure 7). To highlight the 

ever-shifting nature of SVEP data, some of those cases that were eligible as of the end of 

February had settled and transitioned from contest status only earlier that month.

83 Under 

Contest (44%) 

31 Attempted (16%)

18 Follow-ups (9%)

44 Eligible (23%)

15 Still w/in contest 

period (8%)

83 Under Contest (44%)

31 Attempted (16%)

18 Follow-ups (9%)

44 Eligible (23%)

15 Still w/in contest period (8%)
9

Figure 7: Follow-up Status of SVEP Cases as of Feb. 29, 2012

If the SVEP is being implemented properly, all cases will eventually have a follow-up conducted 

or attempted. Figure 8 demonstrates this progression to the extent it occurred over the five 

months between snapshots. Many cases that had been under contest or eligible for a follow-up in 

September had their follow-ups conducted or attempted by February. The number of cases under 

contest in September had therefore decreased by February, while the number of cases with 

completed and attempted follow-ups increased between September and February.

Figure 8: Demonstration of Case Status Progression over Time

Construction and non-construction cases trigger different enforcement issues in the SVEP. 

Many small construction companies, for example, have mobile worksites and, therefore, OSHA 

is often unable to locate them for a follow-up. For this reason, SVEP data presented below is 

broken down between construction and non-construction employers. Table 2 (below) breaks 

down the status of construction and non-construction SVEP cases as of February 2012.

Table 2: No. of Construction and Non-Construction Cases by Follow-up Status (Feb. 2012)

Construction Non-construction Total

Follow-ups 17 22 39

Attempted Follow-ups 52 4 56

Under Contest 31 35 66

Eligible 9 10 19

66 Under Contest 

(35%) 

56 Attempted 

(29%)

39 Follow-ups 

(20%)

19 Eligible (10%)

11 Line-outs (6%)

66 Under Contest (35%)

56 Attempted (29%)

39 Follow-ups (20%)

19 Eligible (10%)

11 Line-outs (6%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cases Under

Contest

Cases

Eligible for

Follow-up

Cases w/

Follow-ups

Completed

Cases w/

Follow-ups

Attempted

Sept. 30, 2011

Feb. 29, 2012
10

As demonstrated in Figure 9 below, completing follow-up inspections of construction companies 

has been difficult. The reasons for this trend are explained below.

Figure 9: No. of Construction and Non-Construction Cases by Follow-up Status (Under 

Contest, Eligible, Follow-up Competed, Follow-up Attempted) – February 2012

Under Contest/Unclassified: Follow-up inspections can only be conducted after final orders 

have been issued. Follow-up inspections cannot be conducted, therefore, when a case is under 

contest. As of September 30, 2011, 83 of the 191 SVEP cases were under contest. Another 19 

cases had been under contest at some point, but had settled by the end of the fiscal year. Of 

those in contest, 34 were construction cases and 39 were non-construction cases. Fifteen cases 

(8%) were so new that the cases were still within the 15-day period given to employers to 

consider whether or not to contest the citations. By February 2012, the 15-day contest period 

had ended for those 15 cases and they had either gone into contest or become eligible for a 

follow-up. As of February 2012, the number of cases in contest had been reduced down to 66, 

with 31 cases being construction and 35 being non-construction. Of the 102 SVEP cases that 

have ever been under contest, 30 construction and 11 non-construction cases concern employers 

with between 1 and 25 employees (see Figure 10). Employers in 13 construction and 13 nonconstruction cases have between 26 and 100 employees. Employers in 4 construction and 7 nonconstruction cases have between 101 and 250 employees. Last, one construction and 23 nonconstruction cases concern employers with more than 250 employees.

The SVEP contest rate is 44%, which is significantly higher the national rate of 8% for both FY 

2010 and FY 2011. The large disparity between the SVEP and national contest rates is 

predictable considering the characteristics of each group. Whereas the national rate is created 

out of a pool that includes every inspection in that year for which OSHA has issued any citation, 

including a single other-than-serious citation, the SVEP contest rate is created out of a pool in 

which every employer in every SVEP case is facing significant sanctions for willful and repeat 

violations. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Construction Non-construction
11

Figure 10: Construction and Non-Construction Under-Contest Cases by Size

Follow-ups Attempted: In 56 cases, OSHA inspectors attempted to conduct follow-up 

inspections but were unable to for various reasons (52 of these cases were in construction). In 

these 56 cases, the Area Office determined that no further efforts would be made to complete the 

follow-up inspections. In making the determination to not conduct a follow-up inspection of an 

SVEP case, the Area Office must have a compelling reason. The reasons allowed are: 

 The employer has gone out of business; 

 The worksite has closed; or

 The cited operation at the worksite has ended or been discontinued. 

Upon attempting the follow-up inspection and determining that it cannot be completed, the 

Region informs DEP and the follow-up requirement is considered fulfilled. 

In six construction and two non-construction cases, the employers had gone out of business. In 

22 cases, all construction, the worksite or workplace had closed. In 24 construction and two 

non-construction cases, the cited operation had been discontinued at the worksite. In 

consideration of the short-term nature of construction projects, the SVEP Directive allows 

OSHA to conduct follow-up inspections of construction severe violators at their other worksites. 

Even with this alternative, however, OSHA has had difficulty accomplishing follow-up 

inspections of construction companies. 

DEP found that the primary reason for the difficulty with the construction companies is that the 

companies are very difficult to find due to their small size and mobility. As shown in Figure 11 

below, 44 of the 52 construction cases with unsuccessful follow-up inspections control only one 

to 25 employees. Twenty-one of the 44 cases have five or fewer controlled employees. Whether 

the company has simply finished its project and moved on or the business has left its office 

address and disconnected its phone number, the small size hinders OSHA’s ability to find these 

employers through other means, such as Dun and Bradstreet reports. 

Other reasons for the high number of unsuccessful construction follow-up inspections is that 

many companies go for long periods between projects or the work may not have the same 

hazards for which they were cited in the SVEP case. In addition, the companies often do not 

inform OSHA when they find work. This is the case even though many of the construction 

companies have agreed in their settlements to inform OSHA of their next project. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Construction Non-Construction

1-25 Employees

26-100 Employees

101-250 Employees

250+ Employees
12

Figure 11: Construction Cases with Follow-ups Unable to be Completed by Size

Eligible for Follow-up: As of the end of FY 2011, 44 cases were classified as eligible to have a 

follow-up conducted. Follow-up inspections are expected to be conducted relatively soon after 

the final order date, although not immediately. For the inspections to be effective, time must be 

given to allow companies to abate the hazards and create a better safety culture, or, alternatively, 

to fall back on bad habits. For this reason, Area Offices did not begin conducting follow-up 

inspections until FY 2011. Eighteen follow-up inspections were concluded by the end of FY 

2011 and nine more had been conducted but not concluded. These cases remain classified as 

eligible for a follow-up inspection until the follow-ups are concluded and reported to the 

National Office. Nine other cases had follow-up inspections scheduled to be conducted in FY 

2012. Twenty-two of the 44 eligible cases were construction cases in which the employers’ cited 

projects had concluded and either OSHA could not find the company elsewhere or the employer 

had no other projects scheduled. 

By the end of February 2012, the Area Offices had completed more follow-ups, including the 

nine that were in-process in September. Indeed, as of February, only nine construction and ten 

non-construction cases were eligible. As expected, the steep reduction in eligible cases between 

September and February was primarily driven by Area Offices determining that it was time to 

reclassify a number of construction cases as Attempted/Unable to be conducted after having 

attempted to conduct those inspections for many months. Of the remaining eligible cases, two 

had follow-ups conducted but not concluded, three have follow-ups scheduled, seven are 

awaiting resources (one is a PSM case and six are recently settled), one is postponed while a 

state consultation is in progress, four are construction companies with no current work, one has 

ended the cited process, and one has been delayed on SOL’s advice pending settlement of a 

related case.

Silica: Section XII(H) of the Directive, which details those standards regarding silica exposure 

hazards that will trigger the SVEP, connects the Silica National Emphasis Program follow-up 

inspection requirement to the SVEP’s requirement. To date, there is only one silica case in the 

SVEP. No follow-up inspection has yet been conducted under this dual requirement because the 

case is under contest.

Follow-up Conclusion: Over the last year, Area Offices have established administrative 

processes to ensure that follow-up inspections are conducted. Now that these processes are in 

place for the most part, SVEP follow-up inspections have become routine. The number of 

follow-up inspections conducted in the four months since the end of FY 2011, for example, is 

0

5

10

15

20

25

Construction

1-5 Employees 1-5 Employees (21)

6-10 Employees (9)

11-15 Employees (10)

16-25 Employees (4)

26-100 Employees (7)

101-250 Employees (1)

250+ Employees (0)
13

almost equal to the number conducted the entire year before. The field offices are tracking 

SVEP cases and conducting follow-up inspections at the appropriate time. 

ii. Related Inspections

Section XV(B) of the SVEP Directive states that OSHA will inspect related workplaces and 

worksites of the same employer when the Regional Administrator (RA), in consultation with 

RSOL, determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the compliance problems 

identified in the initial inspection are indicative of a broader pattern of non-compliance. Related 

inspections began in FY 2011, during which 21 related inspections were conducted, of which 

two became SVEP cases. 

Related inspections are those that were officially conducted as SVEP-triggered related 

inspections. This number does not include either inspection when health and safety inspections 

are run nearly simultaneously at a worksite, or subsequent inspections of an employer’s 

workplaces that are independently initiated by a complaint or accident. The additional SVEP 

cases of eleven employers, therefore, have not been included in the related-inspection count 

because the second or third inspections are unrelated to their original SVEP cases. 

By the end of FY 2011, seven SVEP cases had initiated the 21 related inspections, with each of 

the seven triggering anywhere from one to seven related inspections (see Table 3 below). Six of 

the initiating SVEP cases were non-construction, which led to 19 of the related inspections also 

being non-construction. While citations were issued in many of the related inspections, only two 

related inspections became SVEP cases themselves. Both of these related/SVEP cases are nonconstruction cases. 

Table 3: Related Inspection Data by Snapshot

Sept. 30, 2011 February 29, 2012

Total No. of Related-Initiating 

SVEP Cases 

7 7

Construction 1 1

Non-construction 6 6

Total Related Inspections 21 18

Construction 2 2

Non-construction 19 (incl. 2 SVEPs) 16 (incl. 3 SVEPs)

Related cases that became SVEPs 2 3

SVEP Cases w/ no Related 

Inspection

182 171

The number of related inspections shifted over the next few months due to lineouts and other 

case developments. As of February, seven SVEP cases had initiated 18 related inspections (see 

Figure 12). Three related inspections were designated as SVEPs. The third of these 

related/SVEP cases, having been conducted after the end of FY 2011, is an SVEP case outside of 

the 191 in the snapshot. While the number of related construction inspections remained the same 

(one initiating case, two related inspections), the number of related non-construction inspections 

dropped from 19 to 16. The number of triggering non-construction SVEP cases, however, 
14

remained the same. The 

settling of the Lucas Oil 

Production Studios case 

was the primary cause for 

the drop in the number of 

related inspections. Lucas 

Oil was lined out while 

only one new related 

inspection was conducted 

between September and 

February. Before the 

lineout, Federal OSHA 

had conducted four related 

inspections (State Program 

States conducted at least 

two more) at the company’s various other sites. When Lucas Oil was lined out, therefore, all of 

the company’s related inspections were also removed from the SVEP Log. The remaining 171 

SVEP cases, meanwhile, did not trigger any related inspections (see Figure 13). 

Related inspections are triggered by the reasonable belief that an employer’s compliance 

problems were systemic across multiple worksites. For non-construction employers, this trigger 

generally results in related inspections being conducted on the larger employers. Of the six total 

non-construction employers with related inspections as of February, three employers have more 

than 250 employees (see Table 4). There is only one employer with one to 25 employees, one 

with between 26 and 100 employees, and one with 101 to 250 employees. In construction, the 

one employer with related inspections has 37 employees.

Table 4: No. of SVEP Employers with Related Inspections

1 – 25 

Employees

26 – 100 

Employees

101 – 250 

Employees

250+ 

Employees

Construction 0 1 0 0

Non-construction 1 1 1 3

In construction cases, the same factors that prevent or delay OSHA from conducting follow-up 

inspections also prevent or delay related inspections: employers are generally small businesses 

that shift from jobsite to jobsite, may go for long periods before their next project, and therefore 

are difficult to find. Because projects often end or jobsites close before follow-up inspections 

can be conducted, and because related inspections conducted at other sites can fulfill the SVEP 

follow-up requirement in construction cases, most of the related construction inspections have 

been categorized as follow-ups and excluded from the related-inspection data. After such an 

effort just to fulfill the follow-up requirement, the Area Offices rarely go further to attempt 

additional related inspections of a construction employer. Of the 110 construction SVEP cases 

that had not had any related inspections as of February 2012, no further action is being taken on 

the 17 construction cases with successful follow-up inspections or the 52 construction cases with 

failed attempts. Worksites have closed in 33 additional construction cases and the Area Offices 

are still attempting to find those employers. Further, in at least 15 construction cases, including 

some of the ones tallied above, the employers are obstructing OSHA enforcement. In some of 

Figure 12: No. of related inspections triggered by SVEPs 

(Feb 2012):

110 

Construction 

SVEPs with 

no related 

inspections

61 NonConstn. 

SVEPs with 

no related 

inspections

18 Related 

Non-SVEPs

3 Related 

SVEPs

7 SVEPs that 

initiated 

related 

inspections
15

these cases, the employers are ignoring their citations (e.g., mailing back citations unopened and 

not appearing at the informal conferences). In the other cases, ones that have proceeded to 

settlement, the employers are not informing OSHA of their other worksites, contrary to the 

requirement in their settlements.

For non-construction cases, OSHA has not conducted related inspections in 61 instances. 

Nineteen non-construction employers have only one worksite. Four are out of business. Three 

have only one site with the cited process. Two already had their second site recently inspected 

and two have related inspections scheduled. One company is in the state consultation program. 

As the above list shows, the need to determine whether compliance problems are systemic is 

often bypassed by other factors which halt any potential related inspections. In only seven cases 

did the RA reach the point of determining whether the compliance issues were systemic and 

finding that they were not.

Litigation and settlement strategies also affect whether or not related inspections are conducted. 

For at least 38 construction and non-construction SVEP cases that are in contest, RSOL has 

determined that related inspections would harm OSHA’s litigation and settlement strategies. In 

some of these cases, OSHA is pursuing corporate-wide settlement agreements, thereby still 

fulfilling the goal of improving an employer’s safety culture company-wide. 

iii. Company Awareness

The SVEP encourages increased company awareness of OSHA’s enforcement actions. Section 

XV(C)(1) requires the Area Director to mail copies of the citations and Notifications of Penalty 

to the employer’s national headquarters if the employer has more than one fixed establishment. 

In addition, in cases where OSHA determines that an establishment’s safety and health problems 

should be addressed at the corporate level, OSHA may send a letter of concern along with a copy 

of the citations directly to the company president and may meet with company officials, 

concerned employees, and unions (Section XV(C)(3)). 

OSHA sent letters to 34 company headquarters between June 2010 and FY 2011 (see Figure 14). 

These letters were unnecessary in 134 other cases where the employers only had single locations 

or were single fixed establishments (construction), or where the national headquarters were the 

inspections sites. In eight other SVEP cases, 

letters were unnecessary since top officials from 

headquarters and corporate counsel were directly 

involved in the inspections and settlement 

discussions. Letters were not sent in the 

remaining four cases for a variety of reasons, such 

as the company going out of business or 

administrative oversight.

iv. Enhanced Settlement Agreements

Section XV(D) requires the Area Office to 

consider including in settlement agreements 

additional requirements above and beyond basic 

hazard abatement in order to ensure future 

Figure 14: Companies sent letters of 

concern by OSHA:

134 Single 

Site 

Emplyrs: 

No Letters 

76%

34 

Letters 

Sent

19%

8 Direct 

HQ 

action

5%
16

compliance both at the cited facility and at other related facilities. Of the 180 inspections that 

were still SVEP cases as of February 2012, 67 settlements included enhanced settlement 

provisions,128 settlements did not include such provisions, and 56 cases were still in contest. 

Of the 67 cases that did include enhanced settlement provisions, 42 were construction cases and 

25 were non-construction. These enhanced settlement agreements (ENHSAs) were concluded 

through both the formal and informal settlement process. No settlements were drafted in 15 

cases where employers accepted final orders and in 14 cases which defaulted to final orders 

when the employers ignored the citations. 

Section XV(D) specifically requires the Area Office to consider the following provisions:

 Require the employer to hire a qualified safety and health consultant to develop and 

implement an effective and comprehensive safety and health program or, where 

appropriate, a program to ensure full compliance with the subpart under which the 

employer was cited under the SVEP;

 Apply the settlement agreement corporate-wide;

 Require interim abatement controls if OSHA is convinced that final abatement cannot be 

accomplished in a short period of time;

 In construction (and, where appropriate, in non-construction industries), require the 

employer to provide a list of current and future jobsites for a specified time period; 

 Require the employer to submit, for a specified time period, its Injury and Illness Log on 

a quarterly basis and to consent to OHSA conducting inspections based on that 

information;

 Require the employer, for a specified time period, to notify the Area Office of any serious 

injury or illness requiring medical attention and to consent to an inspection; and

 Obtain employer’s consent to entry of a court enforcement order under Section 11(b) of 

the Act.

 Require the employer to take advantage of OSHA’s consultation services.

Other enhanced provisions may also be considered as the case demands. Within the 67 

ENHSAs, the following provisions were the most common:

 38 ENHSAs require general employee training and/or occupation-specific safety training.

 33 ENHSAs (all construction) require the employer to notify OSHA of current and future 

jobsites for a period of time;

 33 ENHSAs require regular safety and health audits and inspections to be conducted by 

the employer or a third party;

 25 ENHSAs require the employer to hire a health and safety consultant;

 22 ENHSAs require the employer to accept final orders under either Section 11(b) or 

Lumex language;

 16 ENHSAs require the employer to develop and implement a safety and health program;

 

1 This number includes settlements in cases that are still classified as under contest either because the settlements 

have been signed but not processed or there are additional citations still being contested.
17

 9 ENHSAs require the employer to consent to future OSHA inspections;

 7 ENHSAs require the employer to review injury and illness reports, submit them to 

OSHA, and notify OSHA of any serious work-related injuries or illnesses. 

v. 11(b) Orders and Administrative Subpoenas

Section XVI of the SVEP Directive strongly encourages SVEP cases to be considered for 

Section 11(b) orders when it appears that such orders may be needed to ensure compliance. In 

considering the use of 11(b) orders, OSHA must balance the employer’s apparent indifference to 

safety (as demonstrated by the SVEP-triggering citations), OSHA’s expectation of post-citation 

abatement and compliance based upon the local offices’ history with the employer, and the 

burden on resources to file numerous settlement agreements with the court. In many cases, after 

weighing such factors, these orders have been deemed unnecessary. In 144 cases, Section 11(b) 

language was not used in either citations or settlements. In 40 cases, Section 11(b) language was 

used in either the citations, or the settlement agreements, or both. The remaining cases are in 

ongoing settlement discussions and may or may not use 11(b) language. As of February 2012, 

only one SVEP case required referral to SOL for Section 11(b) action. 

Some SVEP cases also require Administrative Subpoenas. Administrative Subpoenas may be 

issued whenever there is a need for records, documents, testimony, or other supporting evidence 

necessary for completing an inspection or an investigation of any matter falling within OSHA’s 

authority. As of February 2012, Administrative Subpoenas have been issued in 34 SVEP cases.

vi. Lineouts

Lining out and removal are the two ways an employer may come off the SVEP Log. A lineout 

occurs when an ISA, a Formal Settlement Agreement (FSA), or a court adjudication deletes or

reclassifies the citations such that the case no longer qualifies for the SVEP and is therefore lined 

off the Log. Settlements may only delete or reclassify the citations such that the case no longer 

qualifies for the SVEP if there are factual changes based on the quality of evidence brought forth 

during settlement discussions. Lining-out is not the same as removal. Removal occurs when an 

SVEP case is removed for meeting certain criteria of good behavior (detailed in the 

memorandum entitled Removal Criteria for the Severe Violator Enforcement Program, dated 

August 16, 2012). Lining-out, on the other hand, indicates citations that, while qualifying 

temporarily for the SVEP at issuance, do not have the strength of evidence or justification to be 

upheld upon pushback or contest by the employer. Unlike removal, where the employer is 

firmly a severe violator, a lineout indicates that the employer should not have qualified in the 

first place. 

As of the end of FY 2011, there were 10 lineouts. Between the end of FY 2011 and February 

2012, 11 more cases were lined out. In the Removal Criteria Memorandum, OSHA included a 

reminder to the field that reclassifying citations such that the case no longer qualifies for the 

SVEP may only be done if there are factual changes based on the quality of evidence brought 

forth during settlement discussions. 
18

vii. Posting the SVEP Log on the Public Website

Due to a number of FOIA requests by reporters, OSHA is now posting the SVEP Log to the 

public website. The link to the document can be found on the Enforcement page 

(http://www.osha.gov/dep/index.html) in the Hot Topics section. OSHA updates the log at the 

beginning of every quarter. 

4 Conclusion

OSHA’s analysis of the SVEP shows that the program is off to a strong start. In effect for over 

18 months, the program is meeting key goals. The field has begun conducting follow-up 

inspections and no follow-up inspection to date has itself been designated as a SVEP case. 

Further, SVEP has resulted in the expansion of enhanced settlement agreements. Employers 

have been paying attention to the SVEP since its initiation and the posting of the log to OSHA’s 

public site has clearly raised awareness. The SVEP’s effectiveness will only improve as the 

program matures.