Performance evaluation requirements

Yes. Under 1960.11 an agency head must ensure that any performance evaluation of management officials, supervisory employees, or other appropriate management officials measures how well that employee meets the requirements of the agency occupational safety and health program.

• Measure only what is within the employee’s assigned responsibilities and authority, as required by the regulation. See 1960.11.

The agency head is responsible. 1960.11 starts with "Each agency head shall ensure" that appropriate evaluations measure performance in meeting the agency occupational safety and health program requirements.

• That means leadership at the top must adopt and enforce policies that put safety responsibilities into performance criteria. See 1960.11.

Under 1960.11, any management official in charge of an establishment, any supervisory employee, or other appropriate management official must have evaluations that measure their performance in meeting agency safety and health program requirements.

• In short: managers, supervisors, and other management officials with relevant responsibilities should have safety included in their evaluations. See 1960.11.

Yes. 1960.11 requires that evaluations measure performance in meeting safety program requirements "consistent with the employee's assigned responsibilities and authority."

• Practical application: do not hold a supervisor accountable for actions they have no authority to control; instead set measurable safety expectations that align with their role. See 1960.11.

Yes. 1960.11 explicitly says evaluations must measure safety performance "taking into consideration any applicable regulations of the Office of Personnel Management or other appropriate authority."

• Practically, that means safety criteria must be integrated in ways that comply with OPM guidance on performance appraisal systems and personnel actions. See 1960.11.

Recognizing superior safety performance is encouraged but not described as a punishment or incentive requirement. 1960.11 states that "The recognition of superior performance in discharging safety and health responsibilities by an individual or group should be encouraged and noted."

• Agencies should document and acknowledge strong safety performance as part of the evaluation process. See 1960.11.

Yes, agencies can use safety-related performance information as evidence in personnel decisions, provided they follow applicable personnel rules. 1960.11 requires that evaluations measure safety performance consistent with assigned responsibilities and applicable OPM regulations.

• Make sure any use of safety ratings for promotions or discipline complies with OPM and agency policies. See 1960.11.

Measure the manager on safety actions within their authority and role. 1960.11 requires evaluations to be "consistent with the employee's assigned responsibilities and authority."

• Examples of appropriate measures when resources are limited:
  • Timely reporting of hazards and follow-up actions within the manager’s control
  • Participation in safety meetings and training completion
  • Implementation of administrative controls the manager can require
• If resource approval is needed from higher levels, evaluate the manager on how well they documented and escalated safety needs. See 1960.11.

Both are acceptable so long as they measure performance in meeting the agency safety program and match the employee’s responsibilities. 1960.11 does not prescribe specific metrics but requires that evaluations measure performance against program requirements.

• Use a mix of objective metrics (training completion, timely hazard abatement, reporting rates) and documented qualitative assessments (leadership in safety, corrective action follow-through). See 1960.11.

Yes, where oversight of contractors is an assigned responsibility. 1960.11 requires that evaluations measure how the employee meets the agency occupational safety and health program requirements consistent with their assigned responsibilities and authority—this includes contractor oversight duties when assigned.

• If a manager’s role includes contractor supervision, include measures such as: contractor safety plan reviews, contractor compliance follow-up, and incorporation of contractor incident reports into corrective actions. See 1960.11.

Yes, if the collateral duty is an assigned responsibility, agencies should measure performance in meeting safety program requirements for that duty. 1960.11 applies to supervisory or other management officials as appropriate to their responsibilities.

• The OSHA letter on hepatitis B vaccination for first aiders (https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2000-11-01) discusses how collateral duties (like AED team membership) are treated for compliance purposes; agencies should likewise treat collateral safety duties as part of performance expectations when appropriate. See 1960.11 and https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2000-11-01.

No, an agency cannot unilaterally adopt alternate standards that change regulatory requirements without following the alternate-standards process. While 1960.11 governs performance evaluations, other parts of Part 1960 (for example 1960.17 as explained in OSHA correspondence) set the process for alternate standards.

• The OSHA letter on hexavalent chromium (https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2019-04-19) notes that 1960.17 allows an agency to request approval from the Secretary of Labor before implementing an alternate standard. See https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2019-04-19 and 1960.11.

Yes, failing to measure safety performance for appropriate management officials could be inconsistent with agency responsibilities under Part 1960. 1960.11 requires evaluations to measure how employees meet safety program requirements, and other provisions like 1960.8 obligate agencies to provide workplaces free from recognized hazards.

• OSHA’s correspondence about adoption of industry standards explains that federal agencies must meet Part 1960 obligations and that 1960.8 is the agency equivalent of the OSH Act employer duty to furnish safe workplaces. See 1960.11 and the interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2005-03-28-0.

Document measurable expectations, objective evidence, and linkage to assigned authority. 1960.11 requires measuring performance in meeting the agency safety program consistent with assigned responsibilities.

• Recommended documentation elements:
  • Specific safety goals or tasks assigned to the employee
  • Dates and records of completed training or safety briefings
  • Records of hazard reports made and follow-up actions taken
  • Evidence of leadership actions (e.g., safety meetings convened, corrective actions tracked)
• Keep records in a way that aligns with OPM rules for personnel actions. See 1960.11.

Yes. Participation in safety committees is an appropriate measurable element when it is within an employee’s assigned responsibilities or authority. 1960.11 requires measuring performance in meeting safety program requirements consistent with assigned duties.

• Examples: attendance, documented contributions, completion of assigned committee actions, and follow-up on recommendations. See 1960.11.

Yes. Managers in charge of safety programs should have their performance measured on meeting the agency occupational safety and health program requirements. 1960.11 explicitly covers management officials in charge of an establishment and other appropriate management officials.

• Include metrics such as program implementation milestones, corrective action completion, training delivery, and compliance monitoring. See 1960.11.

Military personnel and uniquely military equipment or operations are excluded from OSHA coverage, so Part 1960 requirements apply differently; civilian employees and non-unique operations remain subject to agency safety program requirements. OSHA’s letter on oxygen-deficient atmospheres explains that executive orders and Part 1960 mean military-unique operations are excluded while civilian employees working on non-unique tasks are covered. See https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2024-07-16 and 1960.11.

• Practical effect: include safety responsibilities in evaluations for civilian employees and managers overseeing non-unique operations; consult agency guidance where military-unique operations are involved. See https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2024-07-16 and 1960.11.

Yes. 1960.11 explicitly states that recognition of superior performance by an individual or group should be encouraged and noted.

• Consider awards, formal recognition in performance files, public acknowledgement, or non-monetary incentives that comply with agency personnel rules. See 1960.11.

No—while informal discussions are useful, 1960.11 requires that performance evaluations measure safety program performance; meaningful evaluations require documented, objective evidence that can be reviewed.

• Use documented counseling, written performance plans, measurable goals, checklists, training records, and formal appraisal entries to support evaluation ratings. See 1960.11.