february 2, 1996 federal register · federal register/vol. 61, no. 23/friday, february 2,...

fede

ral r

egiste

r

4029

FridayFebruary 2, 1996

Part III

Department of LaborOccupational Safety and HealthAdministration

29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952Occupational Injury and Illness Recordingand Reporting Requirements; ProposedRule

4030 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration

29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952

[Docket No. R–02]

Occupational Injury and IllnessRecording and ReportingRequirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA), Department ofLabor.ACTION: Notice of Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA) proposesto revise Title 29 of the Code of FederalRegulations Part 1904, Recording andReporting Occupational Injuries andIllnesses, the supplementalrecordkeeping instructions, and replacethe recordkeeping forms. This revisionis expected to result in: a greatlysimplified injury and illnessrecordkeeping system for employers,improved information concerningoccupational injuries and illnesses,increased utility of the injury andillness records at the establishment/sitelevel, increased use of moderntechnology, including computers andtelecommunications equipment, andimproved employee awareness andinvolvement.

This rulemaking is part of the overalleffort to simplify and revise Part 1904.One section, Reporting of Fatality orMultiple Hospitalization Incidents, wasrevised in a separate rulemaking. Thetext of the revised § 1904.8, whichbecame effective May 2, 1994, isincluded in this proposal as section1904.12 due to reorganization of thevarious sections of Part 1904. However,§ 1904.12 in this proposal includes threeadditional changes which are intendedto further clarify the earlier revision.

Also included in this rulemaking isthe revision of 29 CFR 1952.4. § 1952.4establishes the recordkeeping andreporting requirements for States thathave their own occupational safety andhealth programs and have beenapproved by OSHA to enforce safetyand health regulations in their State.The revision of this section is aclarification of the requirements basedon the existing interpretation of thecurrent § 1952.4.DATES: 1. Written comments on theproposed regulation must bepostmarked on or before May 2, 1996.

2. A public meeting will be held inWashington, D.C. in the U.S.Department of Labor auditorium at 200Constitution Avenue NW beginning at

8:30 am on March 26, 1996 andextending through March 28th, ifnecessary.ADDRESSES: Comments are to besubmitted in writing in quadruplicate,or 1 original (hard copy) and 1 disk(51⁄4′′ or 31⁄2′′) in WP 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0 orASCII. Note: Any information notcontained on disk; e.g., studies, articles,etc. must be submitted in quadruplicate.All comments shall be submitted to:Docket Officer, Docket No. R–02,Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, Room N–2625, U.S.Department of Labor, 200 ConstitutionAvenue NW., Washington, DC 20210,telephone (202) 219–7894. Comments of10 pages or less may be transmitted byfacsimile to (202) 219–5046 providedthe original and 4 copies of thecomment are sent to the Docket Officerthereafter. Notice of intention to appearat the meeting is to be sent to Mr. TomHall, OSHA Division of ConsumerAffairs, Docket No. R–02, Room N–3647,U.S. Department of Labor, 200Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,DC 20210.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Anne Cyr, OSHA, U.S. Department ofLabor, Office of Information andConsumer Affairs, Room N–3647, 200Constitution Ave., NW., Washington DC20210. Telephone (202) 219–8148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Background

Administrative History

Following the passage of theOccupational Safety and Health (OSH)Act of 1970, the Occupational Safetyand Health Administration (OSHA) wasformed to promulgate and enforce safetyand health regulations and standards. In1971, OSHA published the occupationalinjury and illness recording andreporting regulation, 29 CFR Part 1904.During that same year, the Secretary ofLabor delegated responsibility for theoccupational injury and illnessstatistical program to the Bureau ofLabor Statistics (BLS).

Since 1971, OSHA and BLS haveoperated the injury and illnessrecordkeeping system as a cooperativeeffort. OSHA promulgated and enforcedthe recordkeeping regulations whileBLS prepared survey forms, publishedrecordkeeping forms and supplementalinstructions, provided outreach, andconducted the Annual Survey OfOccupational Injuries And Illnesses. In1990 the agencies decided to reorganizethese duties, and the Department ofLabor announced that the recordkeepingfunction was being transferred to OSHA.Pursuant to a memorandum of

understanding (MOU), BLS retainedresponsibility for conducting theAnnual Survey Of Occupational InjuriesAnd Illnesses, while responsibility foradministering the recordkeeping systemwas transferred to OSHA (ex. 6).OSHA’s responsibility includesdeveloping, publishing, and providingoutreach for recordkeeping regulationsand instructions. In 1991, OSHA createdthe Office of Statistics to assume theseresponsibilities and to meet the dataneeds of the agency.

Purpose of the RecordsThe injury and illness records are

intended to have multiple purposes.One purpose is to provide informationfor employers and employees, raisingtheir awareness of the kinds of injuriesand illnesses occurring in the workplaceand their related hazards. Increasedemployer awareness should result in theidentification and voluntary correctionof hazardous workplace conditions. Inthis role, the records serve as a‘‘management tool’’ for theadministration of company safety andhealth programs. Likewise, employeeswho are provided information oninjuries and illnesses will be moreaware of hazards in the workenvironment, and therefore more likelyto follow safe work practices, and reportworkplace hazards. This wouldgenerally raise the overall level of safetyand health in the workplace.

Another purpose for keeping theserecords is to provide OSHA compliancestaff with information which canfacilitate safety and health inspections.During the initial stages of aninspection, the inspector reviews theinjury and illness data for theestablishment and subsequently focuseshis or her inspection efforts on thesafety and health hazards revealed bythe injury and illness records.

Another use of the injury and illnessrecords is to produce statistical data onthe incidence of workplace injuries andillnesses, thereby measuring themagnitude of the injury and illnessproblem across the country. BLS andparticipating States make the surveydata available at an aggregate level byindustry group for research purposesand for public information. OSHA alsowill use employer specific informationto help focus its intervention efforts onthe most dangerous worksites and theworst safety and health hazards.

Regulatory/Interpretation HistoryWhen Part 1904 was first

implemented, industry safety expertswere concerned that the regulations andthe instructions on the forms did notprovide adequate guidance for

4031Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules

employers. They requested that theDepartment of Labor provide additionalinstructions on employer recordkeepingobligations to clarify severalrecordkeeping issues. The Bureau ofLabor Statistics responded in 1972 bypublishing supplemental instructions tothe recordkeeping forms, BLS Report412, What Every Employer Needs ToKnow About OSHA Recordkeeping (ex.1). These supplemental instructionswere designed to meet the needs ofemployers by providing detailedinformation on when and how to recordinjury and illness cases on therecordkeeping forms.

A major concept established in thesupplemental instructions was thedefinition of work relationship.Although the Act and regulationsrequired ‘‘occupational’’ or ‘‘work-related’’ injuries and illnesses to berecorded, neither provided a detaileddefinition of the terms. The 412 bookletdefined work relationship as follows: 1)cases that occurred at the employer’sestablishment (on premises) wereconsidered work-related; and 2) casesthat occurred off the employer’spremises were considered work-relatedif the employee was engaged in a workactivity or was present as a condition ofemployment.

The BLS 412 booklet was updated in1973 and 1975. In 1978, the booklet wasagain updated to reflect changes in theregulations exempting small employersfrom the recordkeeping requirements,and to allow employers to computerizetheir records. The updated versions ofthe instructions included lists of firstaid and medical treatments, flow chartsto describe the recordkeeping decision-making process, and answers to many ofthe questions most frequently asked byemployers.

In response to requests from labor andindustry, and after publication in theFederal Register and a formal commentperiod, the BLS 412 report series wasreplaced in April of 1986 by theRecordkeeping Guidelines ForOccupational Injuries And Illnesses (ex.2). The revised version of thesupplemental instructions contained anexpanded question and answer formatsimilar to the BLS 412 report, butprovided additional information on thelegal basis of the requirements forrecordkeeping under Part 1904. TheGuidelines provided clearer definitionsof the types of cases to be recorded,discussed employer recordkeepingobligations in greater detail, introducedexceptions to the on-premisespresumption of work relationship forinstances where the application of thegeneral rule was consideredinappropriate or overly burdensome,

updated the medical treatment/first aidlists, and addressed new recordkeepingissues. A short version of theGuidelines, A Brief Guide toRecordkeeping Requirements forOccupational Injuries and Illnesses (ex.7), was also produced.

While the 1986 guidelines clarifiedthe existing requirements, concerns stillpersisted about the quality and utility ofthe injury and illness data. Someemployers believed that the guidelineswere too long and that some of therecordkeeping concepts were toocomplex and difficult to understand.

These continued concerns about theinjury and illness records and therelated statistics led to the 1987Keystone National Policy Dialogue onWork-related Illness and InjuryRecordkeeping (described in the ReportsSection below). The Keystone dialoguegroup identified many problems withthe recordkeeping system and providednumerous suggestions for improving therecordkeeping definitions.

Under a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) dated July 11,1990 (ex. 6), the responsibility foradministering the national injury andillness recordkeeping system wastransferred from the Bureau of LaborStatistics to OSHA. As a result, OSHAdeveloped and is now proposing thisrevision of the regulations, forms, andsupplemental instructions.

Compliance Activities

In 1981 OSHA changed its use ofemployers’ injury and illness records inits programmed inspection activity. Atthe beginning of a planned programmedinspection, the compliance safety andhealth officer would do a ‘‘records-onlycheck’’ to determine the lost workdayinjury incidence rate for theestablishment. If the establishment hada rate below the national average, thecompliance officer would end theinspection.

Beginning in 1986, OSHA discoverednumerous instances of significantunderreporting of injuries and illnesses.The Agency began issuing largepenalties for recordkeeping violations.These highly publicized recordkeepingcases resulted in an even greaterawareness of, and sensitivity to, theinjury and illness recordkeepingrequirements among the safety andhealth community. In 1989, OSHAdiscontinued its ‘‘records-only check’’policy of terminating inspectionsbecause of concerns that this policymight have been an incentive tounderrecord injuries and illnesses.

Other Criticisms

OSHA enforcement policies of the1980s led to increased awareness ofrecordkeeping requirements whichresulted in renewed criticisms of theexisting recordkeeping system. Onepersistent objection has been that thecurrent injury and illness recordkeepingguidelines are too lengthy and complex.Another objection is that the currentdefinition of work relationship capturessome cases which employers believeshould not be considered work-related.Examples include employees injuredwhile participating in voluntarywellness programs, cases related to theconsumption of food and drink, andcases involving workers performingpersonal tasks at the workplace duringnon-work hours.

Reports

Since the middle 1980s, severalstudies have evaluated the utility of thecurrent OSHA injury and illnessrecordkeeping system. The NationalResearch Council (NRC), the KeystoneCenter, and the General AccountingOffice (GAO) each published reportswhich evaluated the recordkeepingsystem and generated proposals forimprovement.

NRC Report: In 1984, because ofconcern over the possibleunderreporting of occupational injuriesand illnesses and other issues related tothe accuracy of the national datacollected by the Bureau of LaborStatistics (BLS), Congress appropriatedfunds for BLS to conduct a qualityassurance study of its Annual Survey onOccupational Injuries and Illnesses. BLSrequested the National Research Councilto convene an expert panel to addressthe issue of the validity of employerrecords and the BLS annual survey,problems related to determining andreporting occupational diseases, andother issues related to the collection anduse of data on health and safety in theworkplace.

In 1987, the National ResearchCouncil issued a report, CountingInjuries and Illnesses in the Workplace:Proposals for a Better System (ex. 4),which contains the panel’srecommendations. Twenty-four specificrecommendations were made (see Ch.8of ex. 4), which generally were intendedto accomplish the following: (1) modifythe BLS Annual Survey to provideincreased information about the injuriesand illnesses recorded; (2) discontinuethe supplementary data system andreplace it with a grant program forStates and individual researchers andinclude criteria for the detail andquality of data collected; (3) conduct an


ongoing quality assurance program toidentify underreporting on the BLSAnnual Survey by comparing theinformation on employers’ logs withindependent sources; (4) implementoccupational disease surveillance,including collection of exposure data;(5) improve the collection of nationaloccupational fatality data; (6)implement an administrative datasystem which would allow OSHA to beable to obtain individual establishmentdata to conduct an ‘‘effective programfor the prevention of workplace injuriesand illnesses * * *’’ (p.10); and (7)implement a thorough evaluation ofrecordkeeping practices in individualestablishments, using additionalresources requested from Congress forthat purpose so as to avoid reducing thenumber of OSHA inspections ofworkplace hazards.

Keystone: In 1987, The KeystoneCenter, an independent non-profitorganization that facilitates nationalpolicy consensus-building dialogues,convened 46 representatives from laborunions, corporations, healthprofessions, government agencies,Congressional staff and academia for ayear-long dialogue to discussoccupational injury and illnessrecordkeeping.

In 1989, Keystone issued its finalreport, Keystone National PolicyDialogue on Work-related Illness andInjury Recordkeeping, 1989 (ex.5). Thereport focused on four major topics: (1)recordkeeping criteria; (2) OSHAenforcement procedures; (3) injury andillness data systems; and (4)occupational illnesses. The reportdetailed issues within each topic andmade specific recommendations. Bytopic and in summary, the Keystonereport recommended: (1) revision ofvarious aspects of the recording criteria;(2) use of injury and illness data byOSHA for targeting enforcement andrevision of the guidelines to make themeasily and uniformly understood; (3)development of a national system forthe collection and dissemination ofoccupational injury and illnessinformation; and (4) broadening the typeof information collected concerningoccupational illness and making theinformation available to employees andgovernment agencies for appropriatepurposes such as research and study.

In 1995, Keystone reassembled agroup of business, labor, andgovernment representatives to discussdraft proposed changes to therecordkeeping system. OSHA shared itsdraft proposed revision with theparticipants. The draft was alsoreprinted in several national safety andhealth publications. OSHA received

feedback on the draft. This documentreflects many of the issues and concernsraised. Written comments generated bythe on-going dialogue have been enteredin the docket (ex. 12).

GAO: An August 1990 report by theUnited States General AccountingOffice, Options for Improving Safetyand Health in the Workplace (ex. 3),discussed the importance of theemployer injury and illness records,including: (1) for many entities, thegeneral descriptive value to betterunderstand the nature and extent ofoccupational safety and healthproblems; (2) identification byemployers and employees of safety andhealth problems in the workplace whichwill enable them to correct theproblems; (3) use by OSHA to conductresearch, evaluate programs, allocateresources, and set and enforcestandards. The report focused on the useof the records in OSHA enforcement,particularly in targeting industries andworksites for inspections anddetermining the scope of inspections.

The GAO report found ‘‘possiblysignificant injury and illnessunderrecording and subsequentunderreporting’’ (p.3). Reasons forinaccurate recordkeeping include: (1)intentional underrecording in responseto OSHA inspection policies oremployer safety competitions; (2)unintentional underrecording becauseof a lack of understanding of therecording and reporting system; and (3)inaccurate recordkeeping because of thelack of priority placed on recordkeepingby employers which results in lack ofappropriate supervision ofrecordkeepers. The GAO noted thatOSHA’s revised enforcementprocedures, which included increasingthe size of the fines for recordkeepingviolations and modifying its records-review procedures, should help improvethe accuracy of recordkeeping. The GAOrecommended that the Department ofLabor conduct studies to assess theaccuracy of the records usingindependent data sources, evaluate howwell employers understand the revisedguidelines [revisions could be testedpre-publication], and utilize arecordkeeping audit program in selectedenforcement activities.

Advisory Committee on ConstructionSafety and Health (ACCSH): OSHAprovided the Advisory Committee onConstruction Safety and Health(ACCSH) with a written briefing on thedraft proposal to revise 29 CFR Part1904 and made an oral presentation tothe Committee on October 13, 1994.During its meeting on December 9, 1994,the Committee presented itsrecommendations to Assistant Secretary

Joseph Dear. The Committeerecommended that OSHA ‘‘immediatelypublish the NPRM on recordkeeping forpublic comment.’’ The Committeereiterated its recommendation in itsMay, 1995 meeting. In addition, theACCSH presented OSHA with specificrecommendations on particularprovisions of the revision which are ofsignificance to the constructionindustry. OSHA has given the ACCSHrecommendations careful considerationand modified the proposal in severalareas.

The ACCSH recommendations,OSHA’s written briefing, and therelevant portions of the transcripts ofthe October and December 1994 ACCSHmeetings, are part of the public record(ex. 10).

OSHA would like to have the benefitof public comment on the ACCSHrecommendations, as well as thespecific issues for comment and theprovisions of the proposed rule.

Outline

The following is an outline of theremainder of this preamble. Theregulatory text and appendices followthe preamble.II. Summary and Explanation1. Reorganize sections2. Definitions (Proposed § 1904.3)

a. lost workdayb. employeec. establishmentd. first aide. health care providerf. medical treatmentg. responsible company officialh. restricted work activityi. site controlling employerj. subcontractor employeek. work environmentl. work related

3. Recording criteria—(Proposed § 1904.4)4. New case—(Proposed § 1904.4)5. 7 days to complete—(Proposed § 1904.4)6. Computerize/centralize Log—(Proposed

§ 1904.4)7. Computerize/centralize Incident Records—

(Proposed § 1904.5)8. Year-end summary—(Proposed § 1904.6)9. Centralize records—(Proposed § 1904.7)10. Retention—(Proposed § 1904.9)11. Access—(Proposed § 1904.11)12. Fatality/multiple hospitalization

reporting—(Proposed § 1904.12)13. Reports—(Proposed § 1904.13)14. Exceptions/variance—(Proposed

§ 1904.15)15. Subcontractor records—(Proposed

§ 1904.17)16. Mandatory Appendix B

a. Blood leadb. Cadmiumc. Hearing lossd. Skin disorderse. Asthmaf. Asbestosg. Bloodborne


h. Tuberculosisi. All other

III. Specific Issues for CommentIssue 1—Exemptions—(Proposed § 1904.2)Issue 2—Work relationship/severity—

(Mandatory Appendix A)Issue 3—First aid/medical treatment—

(Proposed § 1904.3)Issue 4—Restricted work activity—

(Proposed § 1904.3)Issue 5—Musculoskeletal disorders—

(Mandatory Appendix B)Issue 6—Reluctance to recordIssue 7—Employee involvementIssue 8—Access/privacy—(Proposed

§ 1904.11)Issue 9—Software

IV. Forms

OSHA 300OSHA 301

V. Legal AuthorityVI. State PlansVII. Regulatory Impact AssessmentVIII. Regulatory Flexibility CertificationIX. Environmental Impact AssessmentX. FederalismXI. Public ParticipationXII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995XIII. List of SubjectsXIV. Authority

II. Summary and Explanation of theProposed Rule, SupplementalInstructions

The changes to the recordkeepingsystem are being proposed as regulatory

changes in Part 1904. This proposedrule would make 18 significant changesin the requirements of Part 1904:

1. Reorganize the sections within therule to place the purpose, coverage anddefinitions for the rule at the beginning,in keeping with the commonly acceptedregulatory format. The change wouldalso improve the logical placement ofthe various sections, provide moremeaningful titles for the sections, andcombine sections where appropriate.The following table summarizes theproposed reorganization of the rule:

REDESIGNATION TABLE

New section Old section

1904.1 Purpose ...................................................................................... 1904.1 Purpose and scope.1904.2 Coverage and exemptions ......................................................... 1904.15 Small employers and 1904.16 Establishments classified in

Standard Industrial Classification codes (SIC) 52–89, (except 52–54,70, 75, 76, 79, and 80).

1904.3 Definitions .................................................................................. 1904.12 Definitions.1904.4 OSHA Injury and Illness Log and Summary (OSHA Form 300

or equivalent).1904.2 Log and summary of occupational injuries and illnesses.

1904.5 OSHA Injury and Illness Incident Record (OSHA Form 301 orequivalent).

1904.4 Supplementary record.

1904.6 Preparation, certification and posting of the year-end summary 1904.5 Annual summary.1904.7 Location of records .................................................................... 1904.14 Employees not in fixed establishments.1904.8 Period covered ........................................................................... 1904.3 Period covered.1904.9 Retention and updating of occupational injury and illness

records.1904.6 Retention of records.

1904.10 Change of ownership ............................................................... 1904.11 Change of ownership.1904.11 Access to records .................................................................... 1904.7 Access to records.1904.12 Reporting of fatality or multiple hospitalization incidents ........ 1904.8 Reporting of fatality or multiple hospitalization incidents.1904.13 Reports by Employers ............................................................. 1904.20 Description of statistical program, 1904.21 Duties of employ-

ers and 1904.22 Effect of State plans.1904.14 Recordkeeping under approved State plans ........................... 1904.10 Recordkeeping under approved State plans.1904.15 Petitions for recordkeeping exceptions .................................... 1904.13 Petitions for recordkeeping exceptions.1904.16 Falsification of, or failure to keep records or reports .............. 1904.9 Falsification, or failure to keep records or reports.1904.17 Subcontractor records for major construction projects. ........... New Section.Mandatory Appendix A. Work-relatedness ............................................... New appendix.Mandatory Appendix B. Recording of specific conditions ........................ New appendix.Appendix C. Decision tree for recording occupational injuries and ill-

nesses.New appendix.

2. Changes in recordkeepingdefinitions. The recordkeeping system isvery dependent on the definitions usedto determine the recording of specificcases. Some specific modificationsincluded in the proposed § 1904.3 are toredefine ‘‘restricted work activity’’,‘‘establishment’’, and ‘‘medicaltreatment’’; and provide new definitionsfor an ‘‘employee’’, ‘‘subcontractoremployees’’, ‘‘health care provider’’, and‘‘work environment’’. The followingaddresses each proposed change to thedefinitions:

a. Eliminate the term ‘‘lost workdays’’,by replacing it with a definition of‘‘days away from work’’. The OSHArecordkeeping system has historicallydefined lost workdays as involving bothdays away from work and days of

restricted work activity. The proposalwould change the system to eliminatethe counting of days of restricted workactivity altogether and only count thenumber of days away from work. OSHAhas found no evidence that the currentrestricted work activity day counts arebeing used in safety and health programevaluation. It therefore sees no purposein continuing the restricted workactivity day count requirement.

Employers will not be required tocount days away from work that extendbeyond 180 days (six months). OSHAbelieves day counts greater than 180days add negligible information forinjury and illness case analysis whileentailing significant burden whenupdating the OSHA records. OSHAsolicits comment on the appropriateness

of the 180 day criteria. Should the daysaway from work count be capped? Is180 days too short or long of a period?If so, should the count be capped at 60days? 90 days? 365 days? or some othertime period?

Although not in the proposed rule,OSHA is considering a modification tothe concept of days away from work toinclude days the employee wouldnormally not have worked (e.g.weekends, holidays, etc.). OSHAbelieves this change to calendar dayswould greatly simplify the method ofcounting days away by eliminating theneed to keep track of, and subtract out,scheduled days off from the total timebetween the employee’s first day awayand the time the employee was able toreturn to full duty. OSHA asks for


comment on whether the reduction ofburden associated with this approachjustifies the change in the type ofinformation that will be collected.

Another potential benefit of changingto calendar days would be that the daycount would more accurately reflect theseverity of the injury or illness. The daycount would capture all the days theemployee would not have been able towork at full capacity regardless of workschedules. For example, if an employee,who normally does not work weekends,is injured on a Friday and is unable towork until the following Tuesday, the‘‘days away from work’’ would be three(3), using calendar days, rather than one(1) day, using work days. If the sameinjury occurred on a Monday, the daycount would be three (3) using eithercalendar or workdays. Changing the daycount to calendar days would eliminatediscrepancies based upon workschedules. Thus, the day counts wouldbe easier to calculate and potentiallymore meaningful.

One of the potential problems withthis change would be that economicinformation on lost work time as ameasure of the impact of job relatedinjuries and illnesses on work lifewould no longer be available.Employers could, however, estimatework time lost by applying a work day/calendar day factor to the recorded daycounts. OSHA solicits comment on theidea of counting calendar days ratherthan work days, in particular, whatpotential do these methods have foroverstating (i.e., counting calendar days)or understating (i.e. counting work days)the severity of injuries and illnesses?

b. Clarify ‘‘employee’’. ‘‘Employee’’ isdefined in Section 3(6) of the Act. Aregulatory note is included within thedefinition to clarify that for OSHArecordkeeping purposes ‘‘employees’’include those workers whom theemployer supervises on a day-to-daybasis. These workers may includeworkers provided by a temporary helpservice, a contractor, or a personnelleasing service. This is consistent withcase law and the interpretationcurrently used by OSHA.

c. Redefine ‘‘establishment’’. Thedefinition of an establishment describesthe location the records cover. To bemost useful the records must be specificto a particular location. ‘‘Establishment’’means a single physical location that isin operation for 60 calendar days orlonger where business is conducted orwhere services or industrial operationsare performed. This definition is aminor modification of the definition ofestablishment found in the StandardIndustrial Classification Manual, 1987.The definition was modified by

introducing the 60 day provision. Thecurrent injury and illness recordkeepingsystem defines an establishment as asingle physical location that is inoperation for 1 year or longer. OSHAbelieves the proposed shorter timeperiod (60 days) will facilitate the useof information at more transientworkplaces, such as construction sites.OSHA requests comment on the costsand benefits of this change.

The proposed definition ofestablishment includes the primarywork facility and other areas such asrecreational and storage facilities,restrooms, hallways, etc. The currentsystem excludes both parking lots andrecreational facilities from the definitionof establishment. OSHA is proposingthat the current practice of excludingthe company parking lot from theestablishment be continued, but isincluding recreational facilities in thedefinition (see section below fordiscussion of exemptions to work-relatedness). OSHA believes that, byincluding related geographic areas, suchas recreational facilities, therecordkeeping system will besimplified. OSHA requests comment onthis change.

The concept of separateestablishments for separate activitiesfound in the current supplementalinstructions will be incorporated intothe regulations. When distinct andseparate economic activities areperformed at a single physical location,each activity may represent a separateestablishment. For example, contractconstruction activities conducted at thesame physical location as a lumber yardmay be treated as separateestablishments. Each distinct andseparate activity should be consideredan establishment when (1) no oneindustry description (StandardIndustrial Classification, 1987) includessuch combined activities, and (2) theemployment in each such economicactivity is significant, and (3) separatereports can be prepared on the numberof employees, their wages and salaries,sales or receipts, or other types ofestablishment information. Thisapproach is based on the definition ofan establishment found in the StandardIndustrial Classification Manual, 1987.

d. Redefine ‘‘first aid’’. The definitionof first aid has been modified to consistof a comprehensive list of treatmentsconsidered first aid. OSHA hasattempted to include those treatmentsthat are, in and of themselves,associated with only minor cases. Anytreatment or care other than those foundon the first aid list would be consideredmedical treatment for recordkeepingpurposes. OSHA believes injuries and

illnesses requiring only the treatmentslisted as first aid would be minor innature and the recording of them wouldnot be consistent with the intent of theAct. OSHA also believes a finite list willreduce confusion, lead to consistentrecordkeeping decisions and greatlysimplify the decision-making process.

A treatment may be consideredpreventive only when there is no work-related injury or illness prior to its use.A treatment may not be defined aspreventive when given to stop anexisting work-related condition frombecoming worse. The only exception tothis rule is tetanus/diphtheria shots/boosters. Tetanus/diphtheria shots/boosters will continue to be included asfirst aid treatment. OSHA seekscomment on whether this approach torecording tetanus/diphtheria shots isappropriate, or whether they should beconsidered medical treatment.

For further discussion of first aid andmedical treatment, see Issue 3 in theIssues for Comment section of thispreamble.

e. Define ‘‘health care provider’’. Thisis a person operating within the scopeof his or her health care license,registration or certification. OSHArecognizes that this definition differsfrom definitions of health care providerfound in other government regulationsand requests comment on itsappropriateness for OSHA injury andillness recordkeeping purposes. OSHAis considering qualifying this definition,for example by limiting it to personnelwith specific training. OSHA requestscomment on this limitation.

f. Redefine ‘‘medical treatment’’.Medical treatment is defined to includeany treatment other than first aidtreatment. The definition focuses on thenature of the treatment given and not onthe person administering the treatment(e.g. physician, registered healthprofessional, etc.). Any treatment notincluded in the definition of first aid isconsidered medical treatment, makingthe two groups mutually exclusive. Thisapproach provides clear guidance foremployers and thus eliminates any‘‘grey areas’’ that must be interpreted byemployers. For further discussion offirst aid and medical treatment, seeIssue 3 in the Issues for Commentsection of this preamble.

g. Define ‘‘Responsible CompanyOfficial’’. The definition of responsiblecompany official is central to directingthe accountability for the accuracy andcompleteness of the OSHA records foran establishment to the uppermanagement level of the firm. Theproposed definition will place theresponsibility to certify the accuracyand completeness of the Log and


Summary with an owner of thecompany, an officer of the corporation,the highest ranking company official atthe establishment or his or hersupervisor.

OSHA believes that by requiring ahigher level employee of the firm tocertify the Log, companies will have agreater incentive to take appropriatemeasures to assure the accuracy andcompleteness of the information.

h. Define ‘‘Restricted Work Activity’’.The definition of restricted workactivity will be modified to includeinjuries and illnesses where the workeris not capable of performing at fullcapacity for a full shift (1) the task heor she was engaged in at the time ofinjury or onset of illness; (2) any activitythat he or she performed or wasexpected to perform on the day of injuryor onset of illness. OSHA believes thisdefinition will focus on the hazardoustasks that lead to serious injuries andillnesses and lead to greater consistencyin the recording of these more severecases. For further discussion ofrestricted work activity, see Issue 4 inthe Issues for Comment section of thispreamble.

I. Define ‘‘site controlling employer’’.A site controlling employer is anemployer in the construction industry(SIC codes 15, 16 and 17) withcontractual, legal and/or practicalcontrol over the performance, timing, orcoordination of other employers’ workon the construction project. Anemployer (such as a general contractor)that retains another employer to workon the project is presumed to havesufficient control over thesubcontractor’s performance to beconsidered a site controlling employer.In addition, an employer (such as aconstruction manager) is a sitecontrolling employer if it hasmanagerial or supervisory authoritywith respect to employers engaged onthe project, regardless of whether it hasa contractual relationship with thoseemployers. For further discussion ofsubcontractor records, see number 15 ofthis section.

j. Define ‘‘subcontractor employees’’.This proposal requires site controllingemployers in the construction industry,for construction projects with an initialtotal contract value of $1 million ormore, to maintain separate injury andillness records for certain on-siteemployees other than their own, asdescribed in number 15 of this section.Separate records must be kept for those‘‘subcontractor employees’’ who arepresent at a construction project inconnection with their construction job,and are not employees of the site

controlling employer at thatconstruction project.

k. Define ‘‘work environment’’. Thedefinition of work environment iscentral to determining work-relatedness.The proposed definition is compatiblewith the definition traditionally used inthe supplemental instructions. Thework environment is defined as theemployer’s establishment and otherlocations where employees are engagedin work-related activities or are presentas a condition of their employment.

l. Define ‘‘work-related’’. Althoughemployers are required to recordoccupational, or work-related injuriesand illnesses, the current regulations donot provide a definition of work-related.This proposal includes ‘‘work-related’’in the definition section of theregulatory text and further clarifies theconcept in Mandatory Appendix A. Theproposed definition is based on thedefinition in the current supplementalinstructions, but is modified to createseveral new exceptions to thepresumption of work-relatedness, whichare explained below. Additionally, forinjury and illness recordkeepingpurposes, if an event in the workenvironment either caused orcontributed to the case or aggravated apre-existing condition, then it isconsidered work-related.

It has also been suggested that work-relationship should be limited to whereit is demonstrated that the workenvironment contributed substantially(fifty percent or more) to the condition.OSHA requests input on the properlevel of work-relationship that shouldbe used. OSHA requests input on howwork contribution can be objectivelymeasured for such a purpose.

For OSHA injury and illnessrecordkeeping purposes, the concept of‘‘work-related’’ has traditionally beenbased on a geographic concept of thework environment. The presumptionhas been made that if injuries orillnesses occur at the employer’sestablishment, then the case is work-related. This includes cases occurringwhile the employee is on break, in therest room or in storage areas whenlocated on the employer’s premises.Many employers have criticized thispolicy, citing cases that occur at theestablishment that they believe have alimited workplace relationship. As aresult, the 1986 guidelines provided forseveral exceptions to this rule: removingemployee parking lots and recreationalfacilities from the definition of thepremises under certain conditions;excluding those cases where symptomsarise at work, but are caused byaccidents or exposures away from work;excluding cases where the employee

was at the establishment as a member ofthe general public rather than as anemployee; and excluding cases arisingsolely from pre-existing conditions.

As recommended in the Keystonereport, the proposed revision continuesto use the geography based presumptionof work-relatedness. Parking lots willcontinue to be excluded from theproposed definition of establishment.Company access roads will be added tothe exclusion. By excluding parking lotsand access roads, some injuries andillnesses will be excluded whileemployees are arriving to or leavingfrom work. OSHA seeks input onwhether the exception for parking lotsshould be continued, and/or whetherOSHA should continue to excludeinjuries and illnesses that occur whileemployees are commuting to and fromwork.

While recreational facilities are beingincluded in the definition ofestablishment, injuries or illnessesoccurring on company recreationalfacilities may still be excluded by theproposed ‘‘voluntary participation inwellness programs’’ exceptionexplained below. The exception will bebased on the activity the employee wasengaged in rather than the physicallocation itself to preserve and simplifythe geography based presumption ofwork-relatedness.

Several new and/or revised activity-based exceptions to the presumption ofwork-relatedness are being proposed.OSHA requests comment on any and allof the following proposed exceptions:

• Cases resulting solely fromvoluntary participation in wellnessprograms, fitness activities, recreationalactivities, and medical programs. Thiswould include cases occurring duringexercise activities, blood donations,physicals, flu vaccination programs, etc.unless the employee was participatingas a condition of employment.

• Cases involving eating, drinking, orpreparing one’s own food whenunrelated to occupational factors. Thisexception would eliminate therecording of cases such as an employeewho cuts a finger opening a can of foodfor lunch or is burned while drinkingcoffee.

• Cases that are solely the result ofemployees doing personal tasks (totallyunrelated to their job) at theestablishment outside of normalworking hours. This would excludethose cases where the employee isinjured because the employer wasallowing the worker to use employerequipment at the establishment forpersonal uses outside of normal workinghours. OSHA requests comment on theappropriateness of this approach,


especially on the limitation that theseevents occur ‘‘outside of normal workhours’’.

• Cases resulting solely from acts ofviolence committed by family members,a former spouse, or self-inflicted whenunrelated to the employee’s worksituation. This exemption is based onthe Keystone’s recommendation thatinjuries and illnesses involving anintentional act of violence in the workenvironment should be consideredwork-related unless it can be clearlyestablished that the act was not relatedto the employee’s work situation. Theintent of the Keystone group was toexclude those cases that are clearlyrelated to a domestic dispute that leadsto subsequent violence in theworkplace, such as a worker who isassaulted by a spouse or ex-spouse.

For situations involving violencecommitted by individuals other thanfamily members or a former spouse,OSHA believes it would be difficult, ifnot impossible, to determine if the casewas related to work or to a domesticsituation. For this reason, the exemptionto work-relatedness has been limited toviolence committed by family membersor former spouses. Personal acts ofviolence perpetrated by employees, co-workers, customers, or others would notbe excluded. OSHA requests commenton whether this exemption should beexpanded to other kinds of personalrelationships. If so, how should it bedefined? Also, should the definition offamily be limited or defined? If so, how?

• Cases involving workers who werenever engaged in any duty at work thatcould have placed stress on the affectedbody part. This would exclude thosecases where symptoms arise at work,but are caused by accidents orexposures away from work.

• Cases involving workers who werenever exposed to any chemical orphysical agent at work that would beassociated with the observed injury orillness. This would also exclude thosecases where symptoms arise at work,but are caused by accidents orexposures away from work.

• Cases resulting solely from activityin voluntary community or civicprojects away from the employer’sestablishment. This reflects and clarifiesthe work-relationship criteria of injuriesand illnesses occurring away from theemployer’s establishment. Casesoccurring away from the employer’sestablishment are considered work-related if the employee is engaged in awork activity or is there as a conditionof employment.

• Cases that result solely from normalbody movements, including walkingunencumbered, talking, tying a shoe,

sneezing, or coughing, provided theactivity does not involve a job-relatedmotion and the work environment doesnot contribute to the injury or illness.The Keystone report recommended thisexemption. The report suggested thatinjuries and illnesses related to a pre-existing condition should not berecorded if they are not related to anidentifiable work activity. The exclusionwould not apply if it involved repetitivemotion or if the work environmenteither caused or contributed to theinjury/illness.

• A mental illness will not beconsidered work related, except mentalillnesses associated with post-traumaticstress. OSHA seeks input on thefollowing questions:

(A) How should OSHA define mentalhealth conditions for recordkeepingpurposes, and when and how shouldthe conditions be entered into the injuryand illness records?

(B) How should employers determinethe work-relatedness of mental healthconditions?

(C) How would employers gainknowledge of mental health conditions,given the issue of patient/doctorconfidentiality?

For injury and illness recordkeepingpurposes, OSHA has historicallyevaluated injuries and illnessesexperienced by employees working intheir homes as cases occurring off theemployer’s premises. Becausealternative work place policies(allowing employees to work out of theirhomes) are becoming morecommonplace, OSHA is incorporating asection within Mandatory Appendix Ato address the issue of ‘‘work-relatedness’’ for employees who work athome. An injury or illness will beconsidered work-related if it occurswhile the employee is performing workfor pay or compensation in the home, ifthe injury or illness is directly related tothe performance of work rather than thegeneral home environment or setting.OSHA is considering whether thispolicy should be maintained, orwhether work-relatedness should bepresumed for injuries and illnesses ofthese employees. OSHA solicitscomment on this issue.

For further discussion of workrelatedness, see Issue 2 in the Issues forComment section of this preamble.

3. Modify the meaning of ‘‘recordableoccupational injury or illness’’ (seeproposed section 1904.4 in theregulatory text). At the present timecertain injuries are to be recorded,namely those which result in death, andinjuries other than minor injuriesrequiring only first aid and which donot involve loss of consciousness,

restriction of work or motion, medicaltreatment, or transfer to another job.Currently, all diagnosed (recognized)occupational illnesses are to berecorded, regardless of severity. Thedistinction between illnesses andinjuries is currently based on the natureof the precipitating event or exposure.Cases which result from instantaneousevents are considered injuries, and caseswhich result from non-instantaneousevents are considered illnesses. Thiscurrent distinction between injuries andillnesses often results in confusion andarbitrary and counter-intuitive decisionson how to record a case. For example,a small cut resulting in an infectionwould be recorded as an injury, eventhough infection is commonlyconsidered an illness.

The proposed change would eliminatethe need for employers to make adistinction between injuries andillnesses. One set of criteria would beused to evaluate all cases therebyminimizing confusion and inconsistentrecording. This proposal represents amajor simplification of therecordkeeping system, which wouldresult in more accurate injury andillness data, and reduce therecordkeeping burden for employerswho are required to maintain records.

Currently, detailed data for codingcases is collected by BLS only forinjuries and illnesses that involve daysaway from work. If recordkeepingchanges are made and no changes aremade to the current BLS surveymethodology, separate information forinjuries and illnesses will no longer bepublished by BLS for cases that do notresult in days away from work.Published information would continueto be available for combined injuriesand illnesses, combined injuries andillnesses resulting in days away fromwork and combined injuries andillnesses without days away from work.In addition, if the survey methodologywere modified to collect and code asample of case characteristics for caseswhich do not involve days away fromwork, separate injury and illnessinformation could be published for allcases.

The proposed criteria for recordableoccupational injuries and illnesseswould require employers to record anycase where (1) an injury or illness exists;and (2) is work-related; and (3) meetsone or more of the following criteria: (a)involves medical treatment; OR (b)involves death, loss of consciousness, orin-patient hospitalization for treatment;OR (c) involves a day(s) away fromwork, restricted work activity, or jobtransfer; OR (d) includes any conditionas listed in Mandatory Appendix B.


4. Provide clear guidance fordetermining when an injury or illnesscase is resolved. Determination of caseresolution is particularly importantbecause employers may be dealing witha reinjury or recurrence of a previouscase and must decide whether therecurrence is a ‘‘new case’’ or acontinuation of the original case.Historically, the supplementalinstructions to the recordkeepingregulations required employers toevaluate previously recorded injuriesand illnesses as new cases if they wereaggravated by additional work-relatedevents or exposures. OSHA developedand included new guidance forevaluating cumulative trauma disordersas new cases in the Ergonomics ProgramManagement Guidelines ForMeatpacking Plants (ex. 11) which werepublished in 1990. The ‘‘MeatpackingGuidelines’’ provide: If and when anemployee who has experienced arecordable CTD becomes symptom free(including both subjective symptomsand physical findings), any recurrenceof symptoms establishes a new case.Furthermore, if the worker fails toreturn for medical care within 30 days,the case is presumed to be resolved.Any visit to a health care provider forsimilar complaints after the 30-dayinterval ‘‘implies reinjury or reexposureto a workplace hazard and wouldrepresent a new case.’’

OSHA is now proposing to expandthe use of the criteria found in the‘‘Meatpacking Guidelines’’ to all cases(including injuries and illnesses of theback and lower extremities), whileincreasing the number of days to 45. Arecurrence of a previous work-relatedinjury or illness will be presumed to bea new case when it either (1) resultsfrom a new work accident, or (2) 45days have elapsed since medicaltreatment, restricted work activity anddays away were discontinued and thelast signs or symptoms wereexperienced. This presumption isrebuttable by medical evidenceindicating that the prior case had notbeen resolved. In doing so, OSHAbelieves it will simplify the decision-making process for determination of a‘‘new case’’ and result in more completeand consistent data. This method ofdefining case resolution/durationshould provide better data on theincidence of illness cases that frequentlylast only 2–3 weeks (e.g. dermatitis,some CTDs, etc.) and recur on a regularbasis.

OSHA solicits comment on theappropriateness of the 45-day interval.Is 45 days too short or long of a period?If so, should the period be 30 days? 60days? 90 days? or some other time

period? Should different conditions(e.g., back cases, asthma cases, etc.) havedifferent time intervals for evaluatingnew cases?

OSHA is also seeking input for animproved way to evaluate new cases.Should a new category of cases becreated to capture information onrecurring injuries and illnesses? Oneoption is to add an additional ‘‘checkbox’’ column to the proposed OSHAForm 300 for identifying those casesthat are recurrences of previouslyrecorded injuries and illnesses. Thiswould allow employers, employees andOSHA inspectors to differentiatebetween one time cases and those thatare recurrent, chronic conditions. Thisapproach may help to remove some ofthe stigma of recording these types ofdisorders and lead to more completerecords. OSHA solicits input on thisapproach. Will a recurrence columnreduce the stigma of recording thesetypes of cases? Should recurrences beincluded in the annual summaries?Should a time limit be used to limit theuse of a recurrence column?

5. The proposal will also require thatthe proposed forms (OSHA 300 and 301)be completed within 7 calendar days,rather than the currently required 6workdays. OSHA believes this willsimplify the requirements by replacinga varying amount of time (depending onthe establishment’s work schedule) witha standard week.

6. Enhance the ability to computerize/centralize the OSHA 300 Log inproposed § 1904.4. The currentregulations and instructions provide forcomputerization of the OSHA 200 Log,providing that the employer hasavailable at the establishment a papercopy of the Log current within 45calendar days. This proposal wouldallow employers to keep their OSHALog on computer, provided that theemployer is able to produce a copy ofthe Log within 4 hours of a request byan authorized governmentrepresentative who is permitted accessto the Log under proposed § 1904.11.This proposal will reduce theemployer’s cost of recordkeeping andallows for maximum flexibility whenemployers choose to computerize theirrecords, without decreasing the accessto those records by authorizedpersonnel.

7. Allow for the computerization ofIncident Records in proposed § 1904.5.At the present time, the regulationsprovide for the computerization of theOSHA 200 Log, but not for thecomputerization of the supplementaryrecord, the OSHA 101. This proposalwould allow employers to computerizeboth of the forms, which may result in

less paperwork burden for employerswithout compromising the quality ofthose records. The provisions forcomputerization parallel the proposedchanges for computerization of theOSHA 300 Log found in proposed§ 1904.4.

8. Modify the proposed § 1904.6(formerly 1904.5) to provide a new title,require annual average number ofemployees and total hours worked by allemployees to be included in the year-end summary, and require a responsiblecompany official to certify the accuracyand completeness of the records. Thesection would be titled ‘‘Preparation,Certification and Posting of the Year-End Summary’’. The proposal to requirean estimate of the employees’ totalhours worked to be listed on the year-end summary would facilitate hazardanalysis and incidence rate calculation.An injury and illness incidence rate isthe number of injuries and/or illnessesrelated to a common exposure base of100 full-time workers. The commonexposure base enables meaningfulcomparisons of the data regardless ofindustry, firm size and time period.Information on annual averageemployment and total hours worked canbe obtained from payroll or othercompany records, and is often availablefrom other reports required by thegovernment, such as unemploymentinsurance or workers’ compensationreports. For some employers, the addedburden will be negligible because oftheir participation in the BLS AnnualSurvey of Occupational Injuries andIllnesses which already requires acompilation of this information.Approximately 10 percent of employerswho regularly are required to keeprecords are selected each year toparticipate in the BLS survey. OSHArequests comment on the costs andbenefits associated with thisrequirement and suggestions foralternative methods for collecting theinformation necessary to calculate theseincidence rates.

The proposal will require theemployer to post the year-end summaryfor the entire year, from February 1 toJanuary 31 of the following year.Because the records are kept on acalendar year basis, OSHA believes onemonth (January) is a reasonable timeperiod for completing the summarysection of the form. The year longposting requirement will impose noadditional burden on the employerwhile presenting employees with theopportunity to examine the totalsthroughout the year. This requirementwill also allow employees hired duringany time of the year to gain knowledge


about the safety and health environmentof the workplace.

9. Modify the location requirements toprovide for enhanced centralization ofrecords. This proposal would combinethe current § 1904.14, Employees not infixed establishments, and some of theprovisions for centralization of recordsfound in the current § 1904.2, Log andsummary of occupational injury andillness, into the proposed § 1904.7,Location of records. The new sectioncontains criteria for records pertainingto employees who either work at anestablishment, or who report to anestablishment but work elsewhere, orwho are engaged in physically dispersedwork activities. Under the currentsystem; (1) records pertaining toemployees that report to anestablishment must be kept at theestablishment, (2) for employees thatreport to an establishment but workelsewhere, the records must be kept atthe establishment where they report,and (3) when employees do not reportto a fixed establishment on a regularbasis, the records must be kept in acentral location with telephone access.

The location requirements will bemodified to allow for the maintenanceof records at an alternate, centralizedlocation. The current regulations do notprovide for centralization of thesupplementary records, but do allowcentralization of the OSHA 200 Log,providing that the employer hasavailable at the establishment a papercopy of the Log current within 45calendar days. This proposal wouldeliminate the need for a current copy ofthe required records at theestablishment, provided the employer isable to produce copies of the recordswithin 4 hours of a request by anauthorized government representativewho is permitted access to the recordsunder the proposed § 1904.11. Theemployer can either transmit a copy ofthe records to the worksite or to thegovernment representative’s office. Thisproposal allows for greater flexibilitywhen employers choose to centralizeand/or computerize their recordswithout decreasing the access to thoserecords by authorized individuals andprovides for recent and futuretechnological developments. OSHArequests comment on situations wherethe 4 hour requirement may beinfeasible. Should the requirement berestricted to business hours, and if so,to the business hours of theestablishment to which the recordspertain or the establishment where therecords are maintained?

The current system requires a separateset of records for each single physicallocation of a multi-establishment firm,

regardless of employment size of thelocation. The proposal modifies thisrequirement by allowing an employer toconsolidate its records for allestablishments with less than 20employees as long as the establishmentlocation is specified in the Departmentcolumn on the proposed OSHA Form300.

10. Modify the retention of recordssection (§ 1904.6) by renumbering andretitling it to § 1904.9 Retention andupdating of work-related injury andillness records, reducing the retentionperiod from five to three years, andrequiring employers to update the injuryand illness records during the three yearretention period to include newlydiscovered injuries and illnesses. Theemployer will be required to revise theLog to reflect changes which occur inpreviously recorded injuries andillnesses, including changes in thecount of days away from work.Employers must also update totals orsummaries at least quarterly. OSHA askswhether the summary update should bemore or less frequent? Employers willnot be required to update the OSHAForm 301 to reflect changes inpreviously recorded cases.

The current § 1904.2 states thatemployers shall maintain a Log andsummary of injuries and illnesses,which has been interpreted to requirethe updating of the Log, but not theupdating of supplementary records orannual summary, to reflect newlydiscovered cases or to reflect newlydiscovered information concerning acase.

The proposed change would clarifythe employers’ obligations to updatethese records during the three yearretention period, if and when theyreceive additional or updatedinformation concerning a case.

11. Modify the access to recordssection, currently § 1904.7 and proposed§ 1904.11, to require employers toprovide copies of records to governmentrepresentatives. The current sectionstates that ‘‘Each employer shallprovide, upon request, records providedfor in §§ 1904.2, 1904.4 and 1904.5 forinspection and copying * * *’’. In someinstances, instead of providing copies ofthe records, some employers haveattempted to provide OSHA compliancepersonnel only with access to therecords, with the copying to be done byhand. The proposed change wouldclearly require employers to providecopies of the records to governmentpersonnel authorized to access injuryand illness records.

The section, compatible with section1910.20 Access to Employee Exposureand Medical Records, will also be

modified to clarify that the request foraccess by authorized governmentrepresentatives can be made in personor in writing. This, in conjunction withproposed § 1904.13, will allow forcollection of the records through themail.

Currently, only governmentrepresentatives are authorized access tothe injury and illness supplementaryforms (OSHA No. 101). This proposalwill expand the access authorization toemployees, former employees, and theirdesignated representatives. OSHAbelieves this will increase employeeand/or labor groups’ ability to performmeaningful safety and health programanalysis.

The section will also be modified torequire employers to provide copies ofthe OSHA Log to authorized individualsat no cost. This will remove existingbarriers to easy access to the forms byemployees, former employees and theirdesignated representatives.

The proposal will specify time limitsthe employer must meet in providingthe injury and illness records once arequest of access is made. Employersmust provide: 1) copies of the OSHAForms 300 and 301 within 4 hours of arequest made in person by anauthorized government representative;2) access to the OSHA Forms 300 and301 for review by the close of businesson the next scheduled workday when arequest is made by an employee, formeremployee or their designatedrepresentative(s); 3) copies of the OSHAForms 300 and 301 within sevencalendar days when a request is madeby an employee, former employee ortheir designated representative(s); or 4)within 21 calendar days of a writtenrequest received from an authorizedgovernment agency. OSHA solicitsinput on these time limitations. Arethey reasonable? Should they beshortened or extended?

12. Clarify the requirements ofreporting fatalities and multiplehospitalization incidents, currently§ 1904.8 and proposed § 1904.12. As canbe seen in Section III. of the preambleto the April 1, 1994 final rule of thereporting requirements (FR Vol. 59, No.63, 15599), it was OSHA’s intent torequire employers to make their reportsin a manner which allows OSHAimmediate access to the information.However, because the regulatory textreads, ‘‘shall orally report’’, there is thepossibility that some employers mayleave a message on an answeringmachine during non business hours tosatisfy the requirement. Therefore, forclarification purposes, the regulatorytext will be changed to read ‘‘* * *shall, report the fatality/multiple


hospitalization by telephone or inperson to the Area Office of theOccupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA), U. S.Department of Labor, that is nearest tothe site of the incident during regularbusiness hours, or by using the OSHAemergency toll-free central telephonenumber (1–800–321–OSHA [6742])during non business hours.’’

OSHA will also clarify therequirement to report three or more in-patient hospitalizations which occur ata single site. The site controllingemployer or designee will beresponsible for making the report if nomore than two employees of a singleemployer were hospitalized but,collectively, three or more workers werehospitalized as in-patients.

The OSHA toll-free telephone numberwill also be added to the regulatory textfor clarification purposes.

13. Clarify an employer’sresponsibility to report injury andillness information to the Secretary ofLabor and the Secretary of Health andHuman Services. The proposed§ 1904.13 consolidates current§§ 1904.20, 1904.21, and 1904.22 andreflects the transfer of someresponsibilities from the BLS to OSHA.Injury and illness data required to bemaintained by employers may becollected periodically by mail or othermeans. Data could be collected for avariety of purposes, including but notlimited to, injury/illness surveillance;development of information forpromulgating or revising safety andhealth standards; evaluating theeffectiveness of OSHA’s enforcement,training and voluntary programs; publicinformation; and for directing OSHA’sprogram activities, including workplaceinspections.

14. Change the procedure forpetitioning recordkeeping exceptions.The current variance section will bedeleted. Instead, all requests forrecording exceptions or variances willbe made pursuant to the procedures in29 CFR 1905. This change eliminatesduplicate sets of rules/procedures foundin Title 29 of the Code of FederalRegulations. The ability to request anexception or variance to therequirements under Part 1904 willcontinue using the procedures outlinedunder Part 1905.

Under the current recordkeepingrequirements, one variance has beengranted to AT&T, and subsequentlyexpanded to the Bell companies. Thevariance allows AT&T to keep records ofits ‘‘field force’’ by division, rather thanby establishment. The centralization ofrecords provision contained in thisproposal will eliminate the continued

need for this variance. All exemptionsgranted prior to the publication date ofthe final rule of revised Part 1904 willbe null and void.

15. Require comprehensive recordsfor ‘‘subcontractor employees’’ in theconstruction industry in proposed§ 1904.17. The Keystone reportoriginally proposed the use of ‘‘sitelogs’’ or comprehensive injury andillness records for major constructionactivities. The report noted thatconstruction sites are normallycomposed of multiple contractors andsubcontractors, each of which may bepresent at the site for a relatively shortperiod of time. Under the currentregulations there are no records readilyavailable to represent the injury andillness experience for the entire site.

Accordingly, the proposal wouldrequire site-controlling employers (ortheir designees) in the constructionindustry to maintain a separate recordreflecting the injury and illnessexperience of employees working forconstruction firms other than their own,working at the construction site whenthe initial construction contract valueexceeds $1,000,000. In addition to thenormal OSHA Log entry and IncidentRecord (OSHA Forms 300 and 301)which must be completed for all injuriesand illnesses involving the sitecontrolling employer’s own‘‘employees’’, a separate, additionalrecord requiring an abbreviated entryshall be completed for injuries andillnesses of ‘‘Subcontractor employees’’.(‘‘Subcontractor employees’’ are definedas employees of construction firms (inSICs 15,16, and 17) who are present ata construction project in connectionwith their job(s) who are not employeesof the site controlling employer at thatconstruction project.) The sitecontrolling employer would only haveto record injuries and illnesses of‘‘subcontractor employees’’ who areemployed by construction employerswith 11 or more employees at any timeduring the previous calendar year. Thesite-controlling employer would only berequired to enter the name of the injured‘‘subcontractor employee’’, his or hercompany, date, and a brief descriptionof the injury or illness. The sitecontrolling employer has the option ofusing a separate OSHA Form 300, anequivalent form, or a collection ofrecords obtained from the subcontractoremployers (e.g. photocopies ofsubcontractors’ Logs) to satisfy thisrequirement. The increase in burden foremployers is offset for those employerswho already maintain information onthese cases for liability and otherpurposes. OSHA invites comment onlimiting the requirement to injuries and

illnesses experienced by ‘‘subcontractoremployees’’ whose employers, becauseof their size, are covered by the OSHAinjury and illness recordkeepingrequirements. Should this requirementbe expanded to record the injuries andillnesses experienced by all‘‘subcontractor employees’’ on site,regardless of the employer’s statusunder the recordkeeping requirementscoverage?

The site-controlling employer wouldnot be responsible for updating therecords or entering counts of days awayfrom work or restricted workdays forthese ‘‘subcontractor employees’’. The‘‘actual’’ employer of the worker (if nototherwise exempt from OSHArecordkeeping requirements) would beresponsible for completing in detail anyentries on their own OSHA records.Employers covered by the standard forthe Process Safety Management ofHighly Hazardous Chemicals;Explosives and Blasting Agents, 29 CFR1910.119, are currently required to keepsimilar records.

The injuries and illnesses recorded for‘‘subcontractor employees’’ under thisrequirement would not be included inthe national statistics generated by theBLS Annual Survey. Records for‘‘subcontractor employees’’ will be keptseparately from the OSHA 300 Log;therefore, while site controllingemployers and subcontractors with 11or more employees will both maintainthe injury and illness records, there willbe no double counting of injuries andillness in the statistical system.

An alternative to this section has beensuggested: Each contractor with 11 ormore employees in an individualproject, shall yearly or upon completionof their work on the project, provide theproject owner, or agent for the owner,with a copy of their project specificOSHA 300 Log. The project ownerwould have the responsibility to collectthe data and send it to OSHA, asrequired. OSHA invites public commenton this alternative.

16. Provide special guidance in amandatory appendix for the recording ofspecific types of injuries and illnesses(see proposed Mandatory Appendix B).OSHA believes all of these conditionsare recordable under the currentrecordkeeping requirements. However,in order to capture significant non-fatalcases that may not meet the othergeneral criteria contained in thisproposal, OSHA has developed a listingof specific conditions andcorresponding recording criteria foreach condition, and has incorporatedthe listing into the proposed regulationsas a mandatory appendix. Theapplication of this list will assist in


collecting more timely and completedata on non-minor occupationalillnesses and injuries which are serious,significant or disabling but otherwisewould not be captured consistently bythe other recording criteria discussed inchange number 3 above. The applicationof the list will also provide cleardirection that is needed by employers todetermine the proper recording of theseconditions, and will incorporate therecordkeeping guidance that OSHA hasdeveloped in various guidelines,directives and letters of interpretation.

The current recordkeeping systemrequires ‘‘all’’ occupational illnesses tobe recorded. An occupational illness iscurrently defined as ‘‘any abnormalcondition or disorder’’ arising from anon-instantaneous work-related event orexposure. This definition is intended tocollect comprehensive information onoccupational illnesses as soon as theyare detected or recognized. Detection orrecognition can result from a clinicaldiagnosis, or through lab tests, x-rays, orother diagnostic techniques. Thelanguage of the current general illnessrecording criteria is so broad andinclusive that, in theory, it shouldencompass all illnesses, regardless ofseverity or duration. However, becausethere is no specific guidance forindividual conditions, employers areoften unsure of which diagnostic resultsconstitute detection or recognition of anillness that should be entered into therecords.

OSHA believes that by providingspecific guidance for specificconditions, even though that guidancemay be less inclusive than the generaldefinitions currently in use, employerswill be more likely to understand andcomply with the recordkeepingrequirements and the data will beimproved.

In many instances, OSHA standardsrequire employers to conduct certaintests or medical evaluations. In mostcases, the lowest test results or medicalcriteria used as action thresholds withinthe standards are being proposed as therecording criteria for injury and illnessrecordkeeping purposes. OSHA does notbelieve that the recordkeeping criteriaare restricted by these action thresholdsprescribed in specific standards, butbelieves that using the same criteria fordifferent standards and regulationsimproves the simplicity of the overallregulatory system. For example, thelowest biological and other monitoringtest results used as threshold levels inthe lead and cadmium standards will beused as the recording criteria. Undersuch circumstances, employers arerequired to use a single set of criteria tomeet the obligations of both rules. The

burden on employers may be reducedwhen parallel requirements exist.

OSHA believes that early recognitionand recording of injuries and illnessespromote more timely resolution of thehazardous conditions causing them. Therecording of injuries and illnesses intheir early stages provides informationthat would allow the employer tocorrect hazardous conditions beforethey result in material impairment or domore serious damage to the employee.For this reason, the proposed criteria forrecordable conditions are not limited toclinical diagnosis of an illness or injuryby a physician. Recording of conditionslisted in the Mandatory Appendix Bwhen the applicable criteria are met willenhance the utility of the log as aninformation source and managementtool.

OSHA selected the conditions listedin Appendix B using multiple criteria,as follows: 1) The condition would notbe recorded, or would not be recordedaccurately or consistently, using thegeneral criteria, 2) The condition occurscommonly and large numbers ofemployers need specific guidance, and/or 3) The condition has a history ofcontroversy that warrants specificguidance. If any of these conditionswere met, OSHA also considered 1)existing standards covering thecondition or hazard, 2) existinginterpretations covering the properrecording of the condition, and/or 3)threshold recording criteria that couldbe developed using objective methodsfor determining the proper recording ofan injury or illness. OSHA asks forinput on whether these criteria areappropriate, or whether other criteriashould be used for determining whichconditions are listed in Appendix B.OSHA also asks for input on the specificcriteria that have been chosen for eachcondition, including the effects ofadopting these criteria, possiblealternatives, and the potential benefitsand costs associated with variousalternatives.

The listed conditions must berecorded and entered into the injury andillness records when the proposedcriteria are met. Some of theseconditions are:

(a.) Elevated blood lead levels. Thecurrent recordkeeping system requiresemployers to record cases where anemployee’s blood lead level is in excessof 50 micrograms (µg) per 100 grams ofwhole blood. This has been the criteriain the recordkeeping guidelines since1986. OSHA is proposing to revise thiscriteria to 40 micrograms (µg) per 100grams of whole blood to match thelowest biological monitoring test resultused as an action threshold within the

lead standard (29 CFR1910.1025(j)(2)(B)). Employers wouldrecord cases where an employee’s bloodlead level is in excess of 40 micrograms(µg) per 100 grams of whole blood.

OSHA asks for input on what levelshould be used and any other criteriawhich could be used to record leadrelated illnesses.

(b.) Cadmium. Employers wouldrecord cases where an employee’scadmium levels are as follows: level ofcadmium in urine (CdU) exceeding 3micrograms per gram of creatinine (µg/g Cr); level beta-2 microglobulin inurine (β2–M) exceeding 300 microgramsper gram of creatinine (µg/g Cr); or levelof cadmium in blood (CdB) exceeding 5micrograms per liter of whole blood (µg/lwb). These criteria are based upon thesurveillance levels found in theCadmium Standard, 1910.1027.

(c.) Hearing loss. Employers wouldrecord any work-related case resultingin an average shift of 15 decibels ormore at 2000, 3000 and 4000 hertz inone or both ears as measured from theemployee’s original baseline establishedunder 29 CFR Part 1910.95Occupational Noise Exposure. Thehearing test may be adjusted for agingand the recorded case may be removedif a retest performed within 30 daysdoes not confirm the original shift. Apresumption of work-relatedness is usedfor hearing loss occurring to employeescovered by the Occupational NoiseExposure standard, i.e. those who areexposed to noise levels in excess of an85 dB 8 hour time weighted average.

The lowest action level in the noisestandard is an average shift of 10decibels or more at 2000, 3000 and 4000hertz. OSHA is proposing the 15 decibelcriteria for recordkeeping purposes toaccount for variations in the reliabilityof individual audiometric testingresults.

OSHA asks for input on which levelof a shift in hearing should be used asa recording criteria; 10 decibels? 20decibels? 25 decibels? For each level,what baseline should be used?Preemployment (original) baseline?Audiometric zero? Is adjusting forpresbycusis appropriate?

(d.) Skin disorders. Employers wouldrecord skin disorders lasting beyond 48hours, including, but not limited to,allergic or irritant dermatitis. OSHAasks if there are significant skindisorders, such as urticaria, which maynot be captured by this criterioncoupled with the general recordingcriteria (i.e. medical treatment,restricted work activity, days away fromwork, etc.)?

(e.) Asthma and other obstructiveairway disease. Employers would record


an initial episode of work-relatedasthma diagnosed by a health careprofessional. Employers would alsorecord subsequent work-relatedepisodes that result in theadministration of prescription drugsand/or diagnosis by a health careprovider. There are an estimated200,000 cases of occupational asthmaevery year according to the NationalInstitutes of Health. There are over 250identified agents found in a diverserange of materials and industrialprocesses that can cause occupationalasthma. OSHA believes it is essential tocollect information on episodes of work-related asthma in order to identify andabate workplace conditions which leadto this illness. OSHA is, however,concerned that its proposed policy mayresult in the over-recording ofoccupational asthma when employeeshave chronic, recurrent cases of thedisease. OSHA asks for input onpossible ways to reduce or eliminateover-recording that will not result in theloss of significant asthma cases. OSHAalso requests information on how todifferentiate between episodes ofasthma that are induced by the workenvironment and those which are not.

(f.) Asbestos-related disorders.Employers would record any caseresulting in a diagnosis by a health careprovider of asbestosis or mesothelioma,or the recognition of any otherparenchymal or pleural abnormality(e.g. radiograph profusion category of1/1 or greater by the ILO classificationsystem, pleural plaques and/or pleuralthickening). These criteria are based oninformation found in Appendix D of theasbestos standard (29 CFR Part1010.1001) which discusses the signsand symptoms of exposure-relateddisease.

(g.) Bloodborne pathogens diseases(AIDS, HIV infection, Hepatitis B., etc.).OSHA is proposing to require employersto record exposure incidents whichresult in disease (e.g., HIV, hepatitis B,hepatitis C). Furthermore, OSHA isproposing that employers be required torecord lacerations or puncture woundsinvolving contact with another person’sblood or other potentially infectiousmaterials since these are clearly non-minor ‘‘injuries’’. OSHA believes thatthese criteria meet the Agency’smandate to collect information relatedto the death, illness, and injury ofworkers. OSHA requests comment onwhether it is appropriate to record thesesmall puncture wounds and lacerationsif they do not lead to disease.

The above criteria limit the number of‘‘exposure incidents’’, as defined in theBloodborne Pathogens standard, whichare to be recorded. Incidents which

result in exposures to blood or otherpotentially infectious materials to theeyes, mouth, other mucous membrane,or non- intact skin would not be OSHArecordable.

OSHA is aware that some health carefacilities already collect data on allbloodborne pathogens exposureincidents because these events arebelieved to be of serious magnitude. Forexample, many employers collectinformation about needle punctures,blood splashes to the eyes, andexposures on non-intact skin. In light ofthis, OSHA is considering other optionsfor the recordability criteria ofbloodborne pathogens diseases. Oneoption would require employers torecord all ‘‘exposure incidents’’. An‘‘exposure incident’’, as defined in theBloodborne Pathogens standard,paragraph (b) of 29 CFR 1910.1030,means ‘‘a specific eye, mouth, othermucous membrane, non-intact skin, orparenteral contact with blood or otherpotentially infectious materials thatresults from the performance of anemployee’s duties’’. Using this samedefinition for the recordability criteriamay simplify the task of identifyingwhat events need to be recorded forOSHA recordkeeping.

OSHA believes that the collection ofinformation about ‘‘exposure incidents’’is useful to employers in the control ofbloodborne pathogens hazards. OSHArecognizes, however, that this secondoption requires the recording of‘‘exposures’’ rather than strictlyillnesses or injuries.

OSHA is seeking comments on thisissue. What data is useful to collect? Arethere other criteria for the recording ofbloodborne infectious diseases whichshould be considered? What experiencedo employers have in data collectionsystems for this hazard?

In an attempt to address the concernsof personal privacy OSHA isadditionally proposing that theexposure incidents described above berecorded simply as the type ofbloodborne pathogen exposure incident,regardless of the outcome of theincident. In other words, employersshall record occupationally acquiredbloodborne pathogen disease, such asHepatitis B or C, simply as the initialbloodborne exposure incident and notethe type of exposure (e.g. needlestick).The seroconversion status and specifictype of bloodborne disease need not beentered. This strategy would enableemployers to consider data about needlepunctures or lacerations (or otherbloodborne pathogens exposureincidents) while protecting the privacyof individual employee’s medicalinformation. (Please refer to the Issues

for Comment section regardingconfidentiality for further discussion ofthe employee privacy concerns.) Theserecording criteria apply to all employeescovered by the Act and are not limitedto those covered by the BloodbornePathogens Standard.

(h.) Tuberculosis infection or disease.OSHA is proposing that newly detectedtuberculosis infections and cases ofactive tuberculosis in workers withoccupational exposure be recorded. Thecriteria proposed is consistent with thatpublished by previous OSHA directivesto the field (Memorandum from LeoCarey to Regional Administrators,February 26, 1993).

Work-relatedness is presumed inwork sites where the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CDC) haspublished reports of epidemics amongworkers resulting from workplaceexposures, i.e., correctional facilities;health care facilities; homeless shelters;long-term care facilities for the elderly;and drug treatment centers. Theemployer can rebut this presumption ofwork relationship by providingevidence that the employee is known tohave had a non-work exposure to activeTB. Examples include situations inwhich (1) an employee is living in ahousehold with a person diagnosedwith active TB or (2) the Public HealthDepartment lists the employee as acontact to a case of active TB.

All other industries would recordtuberculosis infections or disease only ifthe employee was exposed totuberculosis in the worksite. Forexample, in industries wheretuberculosis is not a recognized hazardresulting from work duties, tuberculosisinfections or disease would notroutinely be recorded. However, if aworker with infectious tuberculosisdisease infected their co-workers, theco-workers’ infection/disease would berecordable.

OSHA is seeking to learn if there areother industries, aside from those listedin the proposal, where reasonablyanticipated occupational exposure totuberculosis is occurring. Are thereother types of worksites where thepresumption of work-relatedness shouldbe applied?

(I.) In addition to these conditions,Mandatory Appendix B providesguidance for cases resulting in carbonmonoxide poisoning, mercurypoisoning, benzene poisoning, UVburning of the eye, lacerations, hepatitisA, mesothelioma, byssinosis,hypersensitivity pneumonitis, toxicinhalation injuries, pneumoconiosis,eye injuries, musculoskeletal disorders,fractures of bones or teeth, and burns.


OSHA asks for input on possibleadditions, deletions, and revisions tothe list, different or additional criteria(e.g. diagnostic test results) or any otherinformation that might be used forestablishing the existence of, and lead tothe accurate, consistent recording ofinjuries and illnesses.

III. Specific Issues for CommentOSHA invites comment on the

proposed changes in the regulations,forms and supplemental instructions.OSHA has identified the following nineissues. For some issues, the agency isconsidering using alternative regulatorytext which is included in this ‘‘SpecificIssues for Comment’’ section. OSHAwould like to receive specific commenton these issues, including any cost andbenefit estimates on the various optionsdiscussed below:

Issue 1. Exemptions from OSHAinjury and illness recordkeepingrequirements. The current regulationsinclude exemptions from most of therecordkeeping requirements for smallemployers (no more than 10 employees)and establishments in specific servicesand retail standard industrialclassifications (SICs 52–89). Industriestraditionally targeted for OSHAenforcement, which are those in SICs 01through 51, are not exempted. (Note the‘‘exemption’’ is really a partial onebecause ‘‘exempt’’ employers must stillcomply with the provisions of thecurrent § 1904.8, Reporting of fatalityand multiple hospitalization accidents(proposed § 1904.12) and § 1904.21,Duties of employers (proposed§ 1904.13). Because the exemption is apartial one, affected employers arereferred to as ‘‘partially exempt’’).

SIC Exemption. In 1983, theindustries selected for the partialexemption were chosen from majorindustry groups within SICs 52–89, atthe two 2-digit level, whose average lostworkday case injury rate for 1978–80was at or below 75% of the privatesector average. Industries traditionallytargeted for OSHA enforcement, whichare those in SICs 01 through 51, are notexempted. Application of this formularesulted in the current list of partiallyexempted industries:

SIC Industry

55 Automotive dealers and gasolineservice stations.

56 Apparel and accessory stores.57 Furniture, home furnishings, and

equipment stores.58 Eating and drinking places.59 Miscellaneous retail.60 Depository institutions.61 Nondepository institutions.62 Security and commodity brokers.

SIC Industry

63 Insurance carriers.64 Insurance agents, brokers and serv-

ice.65 Real estate.67 Holdings and other investment of-

fices.72 Personal services.73 Business services.78 Motion pictures.81 Legal services.82 Educational services.83 Social services.84 Museums, art galleries and botanical

& zoological gardens.86 Membership organizations.87 Engineering, accounting, research,

management and related services.88 Private Households.89 Miscellaneous services not else-

where classified.

Since the partial recordkeepingexemption based on SIC codes wasimplemented, the injury and illnessrates of the major industry groups havechanged. If the same formula wereapplied to the 1990–92 lost workdayinjury rate statistics for SICs 52–89, atthe 2-digit level, no additionalindustries would be added to the partialexemption. Two industries would losetheir partial exemption and be requiredto keep records: eating and drinkingplaces (SIC 58), and museums, artgalleries and botanical & zoologicalgardens (SIC 84).

Within certain major industry groups(2-digit SICs), there exist high hazardindustries and industry groups (4 and 3-digit SICs) (ex.8). To address this‘‘nesting’’ problem, OSHA applied the1983 evaluation criteria to the 1990through 1992 BLS lost workday injurydata at the 3-digit SIC level. Where noinformation was available at the 3-digitlevel, OSHA used information at the 2-digit level.

The proposed text in this NPRMmodifies the partial exemption forindustries in Standard IndustrialClassifications (SICs) 52 through 89 toreflect this refinement to address the‘‘nesting’’ problem. Current partiallyexempt industries which would have tocomply are:SIC 553 Auto and Home Supply

Stores,SIC 555 Boat Dealers,SIC 571 Home Furniture and

Furnishings Stores,SIC 581 Eating Places,SIC 582 Drinking Places,SIC 596 Nonstore Retailers,SIC 598 Fuel Dealers,SIC 651 Real Estate Operators and

Lessors,SIC 655 Land Subdividers and

Developers,

SIC 721 Laundry, Cleaning, andGarment Services,

SIC 734 Services to Dwellings andOther Buildings,

SIC 735 Miscellaneous EquipmentRental and Leasing,

SIC 736 Personnel Supply Services,SIC 833 Job Training and Vocational

Rehabilitation Services,SIC 836 Residential Care,SIC 842 Arboreta and Botanical or

Zoological Gardens, andSIC 869 Membership Organizations

Not Elsewhere Classified.The following industries, currently

required to comply with the injury andillness recordkeeping regulation, will bepartially exempt:SIC 525 Hardware Stores,SIC 752 Automobile Parking,SIC 764 Reupholstery and Furniture

Repair,SIC 793 Bowling Centers,SIC 801 Offices and Clinics of Doctors

of Medicine,SIC 807 Medical and Dental

Laboratories, andSIC 809 Miscellaneous Health and

Allied Services, Not ElsewhereClassified.If the same analysis, using data at the

3-digit level where available, wereapplied to those industries in SICs 01through 51 (industries not historicallyexempted from OSHA recordkeeping),the following industries would have lostworkday case rates less than 75% of theprivate sector average:SIC 074 Veterinary Services,SIC 131 Crude Petroleum and Natural

Gas,SIC 211 Cigarettes,SIC 233 Women’s and Misses’

Outerwear,SIC 234 Women’s and Children’s

Undergarments,SIC 272 Periodicals,SIC 273 Books,SIC 274 Miscellaneous Publishing,SIC 281 Industrial Inorganic

Chemicals,SIC 282 Plastics Materials and

Synthetics,SIC 283 Drugs,SIC 286 Industrial Organic Chemicals,SIC 291 Petroleum Refining,SIC 319 Leather Goods, NEC,SIC 357 Computer and Office

Equipment,SIC 366 Communications Equipment,SIC 367 Electronic Components and

Accessories,SIC 376 Guided Missiles, Space

Vehicles, Parts,SIC 381 Search and Navigation

Equipment,SIC 382 Measuring and Controlling

Devises,


SIC 384 Medical Instruments andSupplies,

SIC 385 Ophthalmic Goods,SIC 386 Photographic Equipment and

Supplies,SIC 387 Watches, Clocks, Watchcases

and Parts,SIC 391 Jewelry, Silverware, and

Plated Ware,SIC 448 Water Transportation of

Passengers,SIC 461 Pipelines, Except Natural Gas,SIC 472 Passenger Transportation

Arrangement,SIC 481 Telephone Communications,SIC 483 Radio and Television

Broadcasting,SIC 489 Communications Services,

NEC,SIC 491 Electric Services,SIC 504 Professional and Commercial

Equipment,SIC 506 Electrical Goods,SIC 507 Hardware, Plumbing and

Heating Equipment,SIC 513 Apparel, Piece Goods, and

Notions, andSIC 516 Chemicals and Allied

Products.OSHA solicits comment on the

appropriateness of its exemptionprocedure, expanding it to SICs 01through 51, or alternative approachesthat would reduce employer paperworkburden while retaining needed injuryand illness information. SpecificallyOSHA requests comment on whether toexpand the partial exemption to some,all, or none of these industries asclassified by SIC code. Please includeany estimates of costs and benefitsassociated with these exemptions.

Small Employer Exemption. Theproposed text in this NPRM alsomodifies the partial exemption for smallemployers. Employers in theconstruction industry with 10 or feweremployees, and non-constructionemployers with 19 or fewer employeeswill now be exempted from allrequirements except the Reporting ofFatality and Multiple HospitalizationIncidents (proposed § 1904.12) andDuties of Employers (proposed§ 1904.13). The BLS Annual Survey datashow that small employers generallyexperience much lower patterns ofinjuries and illnesses than medium andlarger size firms. However, the BLSAnnual Survey also shows that smallemployers in the construction industryaccount for a significant percentage ofrecordable injuries and illnesses. In1991, over 66,000 recordable casesoccurred in construction firms with 11to 19 employees. These cases accountedfor 13% of the total recordable cases inthe construction industry. In contrast, in

the manufacturing industry, only 2.4%of the recordable cases were found infirms with 11 to 19 employees. OSHAbelieves, given these numbers and thetransient nature of the constructionindustry, that employers in theconstruction industry with 11 or moreemployees should be required to keepOSHA injury and illness records.

Discussion. The modification of boththe small employer and SIC partialexemptions is designed to ensure thatOSHA’s recordkeeping requirementscover those employers with the highestrates of occupational injuries andillnesses. These changes shift therecordkeeping responsibilities fromhistorically low hazard employers toemployers experiencing higher rates ofinjuries and illnesses. The net effect ofthese changes in scope will be therecording of more injuries and illnesses,but fewer establishments will becovered by the regulation.

Employers in the proposed partiallyexempt industries and small employerswill be required to maintain the OSHAInjury and Illness Log and Summary(proposed Form 300) when they arenotified that they have been selected forthe BLS Survey of Occupational Injuriesand Illnesses for a given year. Partiallyexempt employers may also be requiredto provide reports related tooccupational safety and health, asrequired by the proposed § 1904.13.Additionally, these employers will berequired to comply with reportingrequirements for Fatality and MultipleHospitalization Incidents (proposed§ 1904.12).

OSHA asks for specific input on thefollowing items:

(1) Should the list of partially exemptindustries based on SIC codes remainthe same, be eliminated, or beexpanded?

(2) How often should the SICexemption be updated using currentdata?

(3) What are other options foraddressing the SIC exemption issues?

(4) Should the small employer partialexemption remain the same, beeliminated, or be expanded?

(5) What would the cost be (time andmoney) for keeping the records toemployers currently exempt from therecordkeeping requirements butproposed to be covered? and

(6) What benefits would accrue fromthe proposed changes (monetize orquantify where feasible)?

Issue 2. Case recordability criteria—injury/illness severity and work-relationship. Section 8(c)(2) of the Act,which deals with injury and illnessrecordkeeping, mandates themaintenance of accurate records of

‘‘work-related deaths, illnesses andinjuries other than minor injuriesrequiring only first aid treatment andwhich do not involve medicaltreatment, loss of consciousness,restriction of work or motion, or transferto another job.’’ Section 24(a), whichdeals with statistics, mandates thecollection of statistics on ‘‘work injuriesand illnesses which shall include alldisabling, serious or significant injuriesand illnesses, whether or not involvingloss of time from work, other than minorinjuries requiring only first aidtreatment and which do not involvemedical treatment, loss ofconsciousness, restriction of work ormotion, or transfer to another job.’’

The current recordkeeping system,and the system that is being proposed,consider conditions work-related if thework environment either caused orcontributed to the conditions oraggravated a pre-existing condition tothe extent that it becomes recordable.This proposal, however, includes theexemption of certain activities to avoidrecording cases which OSHA believesadd no useful information to the recordsfor surveillance purposes. Appendix A.of this proposal describes theseexemptions. For example, employerswill consider a case non work-related if‘‘the case results solely from normalbody movements, i.e. walkingunencumbered, talking, tying a shoe,sneezing, or coughing, provided theactivity does not involve a job-relatedmotion and the work environment doesnot contribute to the injury or illness.’’

The proposed system requires therecording of all injuries and illnesseswith the exclusion of minor injuries andillnesses. OSHA believes thatpotentially debilitating illnesses shouldbe recorded as early in theirdevelopment as possible, to promote theearly recognition and resolution ofproblems that could halt the progressionof the illnesses. OSHA believes that therecords should capture most injuriesand illnesses, in order to provide aneffective surveillance system foroccupational safety and health programdevelopment, but exclude minorinjuries and illnesses.

Within the occupational safety andhealth community, there is a variety ofviews concerning the interpretation ofthese Sections of the Act and the typesof cases the records should capture. Thediscussion revolves around twoquestions: (1) What constitutes work-relationship? (2) What is the level ofinjury/illness seriousness that should beused to determine the proper recordingof a case? OSHA has identified thefollowing three alternative views onboth work-relatedness and seriousness


that differ from the positions OSHAproposes in this document:

Work-RelatednessThis issue is especially relevant when

dealing with conditions where thespecific event or exposure that causedthe injury or illness cannot be easilyidentified, or the condition is the resultof both work-related and non work-related causes (such as off-the-jobactivities, aging, prior medical history orwork aggravation of off-the-job injuries).Common examples include lower backpain, hearing loss, and asthma.

Alternative 1: Exclude Cases With AnyNon-Work Linkage

Those holding this view believe thatthe work environment should be thesole, obvious cause of the injury orillness before it is recorded. Theybelieve that cases should only beconsidered work-related if there isconcrete evidence that the causal eventor exposure occurred while theemployee was engaged in workactivities. They believe that if there isany evidence of non work-relatedfactors, the case should be excluded.

Alternative 2: Limit to PredominantWorkplace Linkage

Those holding this view believe thatthe work environment should be a majorcontributor to the injury or illness forthe injury or illness to be consideredwork-related. They believe that OSHA’sposition is too harsh a test, amountingto zero tolerance for conditions wherework is a minor contributor and non-

work factors are the predominant causeof the injury or illness. Those holdingthis view believe that OSHA’s currentand proposed criteria for work-relationship cause companies to over-record cases, artificially inflate andoverstate workplace injuries andillnesses, undermine the credibility ofthe system, and have led to generalresistance to the recordkeeping system.Those holding this view believe thecriteria should be modified so that acase would be considered work-relatedonly if work activity(s) or exposure(s)causes or is the predominate contributorto the condition.

Some of those holding this view haveproposed an alternative that wouldallow a documented determination by ahealth care provider to decide work-relationship for the following types ofcases: hernias, cardiovascular disorders,respiratory conditions, hearing loss,skin disorders or musculoskeletaldisorders such as back pain, tendinitisand carpal tunnel syndrome. For thispurpose, a check list has beensuggested, as follows. (note: In theabsence of evaluation by a health careprovider, the case would be consideredwork-related if the work environmentcaused, contributed to or aggravated thecondition in any way.)1. Injury/illness type

lllHernialllMusculoskeletal disorder

lllback painllltendinitislllotherllllllll

lllRespiratory condition

lllSkin disorderlllNon-occupational disease

2. How was injury/illness discoveredlllDuring occupational medical

visitlllRoutine physical examinationlllNon-occupational medical visitlllOther: llllllll

3. Applicable medical historylllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll4. Off-the-job activities which may have

contributedlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll5. Work relationship evaluationa. Injury/illness characteristics

lll Degenerative condition due toaging or non-occupational disease

lll Congenital conditionlll Aggravation of on-the-job

injury or illnessb. Possible work contribution

lll Workplace event or exposure?lll yes lll no

lll Workplace aggravation? lllyes lll no

lll Condition consistent withworkplace event or exposure?lll yes lll no

lll Condition would haveoccurred without regard toworkplace duties or exposures?lll yes lll no

c. Exposure factors for this type ofinjury/illness

On-the-job Com-ments Off-the-job Com-

ments

lll High ................................................................................. lll High .................................................................................lll Medium ........................................................................... lll Medium ...........................................................................lll Low ................................................................................. lll Low .................................................................................lll Not sure .......................................................................... lll Not sure ..........................................................................

6. Work relationship determinationlll Work-related. On-the-job

exposure factors more predominantthan off-the-job exposure factors.

lll Not work-related. Off-the-jobfactors more predominant than on-the-job exposure factors.

lll Not sure. Assume work-relationship.

Alternative 3: Include Cases With AnyWorkplace Linkage

Those holding this view believe thatinjuries and illnesses should berecorded if the worker ever experienceda workplace event or exposure that hadany possibility of playing a role in thecase. For example, a cancer case, wherethe worker had at some time in his or

her career worked with a carcinogenicsubstance, would be considered work-related, even though there is no positivelink between the case and a workplaceexposure.

SeriousnessThe concept of seriousness is

particularly relevant when dealing withconditions where the worker is notobviously impaired, but is experiencingsome subjective symptom (pain,dizziness, etc.) or has an abnormalhealth test result. For example, a bloodtest may indicate that a worker has arelatively high level of cadmium in hisor her system, but the worker is notexperiencing any symptoms thatadversely affect either work or lifestyle.

The worker has an abnormality, butshould it be considered an injury orillness?

Alternative 1: Days Away From Work orDeath

Proponents of this view believe thatemployers should record only thosecases that result in days away from workor death. They believe that this willresult in the most meaningful andaccurate information (because fatalitiesand days-away-from-work cases arehard to ‘‘cover up’’ and they areunquestionably serious). They alsobelieve that this approach will minimizethe burden on employers and focussafety and health efforts on the cases


with the greatest impact on bothemployers and workers.

Alternative 2: Days Away From Work,Impairment, or Death

Proponents of this view agree withacross-the-board application of the basiccriteria mentioned in Section 8 of theAct, (days away, medical treatmentbeyond first aid, etc.) but believe thepurpose of proposed MandatoryAppendix B should be limited tocapturing ‘‘serious’’ cases which may be‘‘missed’’ because they do not meet thebasic criteria. Such cases would includedisorders where no lost time occurs, orwhere medical treatment is notprovided at the time the case isdiagnosed or discovered becausemedical treatment would not help, butthe case is serious nonetheless.Examples include the current criteria forrecording hearing loss (25dB),asbestosis, mesothelioma, silicosis,byssinosis and other similarly seriouswork-related diseases.

Potential guiding language forrecording cases missed by the basiccriteria would be ‘‘any work-relatedcondition that results in, or is likely toresult in, a physical or mentalimpairment that substantially limits amajor life activity.’’ In addition tostating such guiding language in, and asa basis for a Mandatory Appendix,clarifying examples of specific known tobe serious conditions such as, but notlimited to, those mentioned in theparagraph above could be listed.

Those who support this approachbelieve it meets the ‘‘disabling, serious,or significant’’ criteria prescribed inSection 24(a) of the Act and that thesecriteria must be considered carefully,especially if OSHA intends to collectOSHA Logs and use the data forinspection targeting and interventionpurposes. Supporters of this approachalso believe it will provide the mostmeaningful data to employers forimproving workplace safety and healthefforts by helping to allocate resourcesfor preventing injuries and illnesseswhich are truly serious.

Alternative 3: No Limitations onSeriousness

Proponents of this view believe thatall work-related injuries and illnessesshould be recorded. They interpret theAct to require the recording of all work-related illnesses, no matter how minoror how short lived they may be, and therecording of all non-minor injuries.They believe the recording criteriashould be expanded to include all signsand symptoms experienced by workers,and perhaps even potentially hazardousexposure incidents and near misses.

They believe that this alternativeprovides the employer and the workersat the worksite with the most effectivesurveillance tool that will lead to themost complete injury and illnessprevention efforts. Proponents of thisview have provided alternative languagefor recording cases where ‘‘signs,symptoms, and/or laboratoryabnormalities last longer than 48 hours(either persistently or intermittently)’’excluding minor injuries (minor injuriesare minor scratches, abrasions, bruisesand first degree burns).’’

ImplicationsThe issues of work-relationship and

case severity have major implicationsfor all of the parties that use the injuryand illness records, includingemployers, workers and thegovernment. If the criteria are tooinclusive, they may appear to overstatethe injury and illness experience,undermine the credibility of the system,and fail to focus safety and health effortson the most serious workplace hazards.If they are too exclusive, they mayappear to understate the injury andillness experience, undermine thecredibility of the system, and fail toreflect hazardous conditions that requireattention. OSHA believes that the OSHAproposal in the NPRM is compatiblewith the language and intent of the Act,and provides the best way to resolvethese issues. OSHA welcomes comment,ideas, and alternative suggestions fromthe public concerning these issues andthe alternatives presented above.

Specifically, OSHA requests input onA) The level of severity and criteria forestablishing work-relationship anddetermining which cases are enteredinto the records; B) How ‘‘significant/serious/disabling’’ should be defined toresult in consistent recording practicesand data; C) How work contribution canbe objectively measured for such apurpose; D) Does the checklist shownabove meet these objectives? F) Shouldwork-relationship be established onlywhere work is the predominant causalfactor? G) Should work-relationship beestablished if work was something lessthan the predominant cause? or H) Ifwork contributed more than 50% to theinjury or illness? 25%? 10%? J) Howcould any of these percentages bemeasured/determined?

Issue 3. The definitions of first aidand medical treatment. The distinctionbetween first aid and medical treatmentis a critical component in determiningwhether to record a work-related injuryor illness. One criterion in the proposedregulatory text requires any work-related injury or illness involvingmedical treatment beyond first aid to be

recorded. A case which involves firstaid only (and does not meet any of theother recording criteria) is notrecordable. The intent of this distinctionis to capture information on injuries andillnesses which are significant andwould provide valuable information forsafety and health analysis whileexcluding minor cases which would notprovide necessary or useful informationfor analysis.

The current recordkeeping systemdefines first aid as any one-timetreatment, and any follow-up visit forthe purpose of observation, of minorscratches, cuts, burns, and splinters, andso forth which do not ordinarily requiremedical care. Medical treatment isdefined to include any treatment otherthan first aid treatment administered toinjured employees. The definitionfocuses on the type of treatment givenand not on the person administering thetreatment (e.g. physician, registeredhealth professional, etc.). Thesedefinitions are further clarified withinthe Recordkeeping Guidelines forOccupational Injuries and Illnesses bylists of examples of treatments whichare considered either medical treatmentor first aid. These lists are notcomprehensive and confusion existsconcerning the classification of unlistedtreatments.

This proposal attempts to clarify thedistinction between first aid andmedical treatment by defining the termsin a way that will make them mutuallyexclusive. The proposed regulatory textdefines first aid with a finite list oftreatments. Medical treatment is definedas any treatment other than those listedin the first aid definition.

‘‘First aid’’ means the followingtreatments for work-related injuries andillnesses:1. Visit(s) to a health care provider

limited to observation2. Diagnostic procedures, including the

use of prescription medicationssolely for diagnostic purposes

3. Use of nonprescription medications,including antiseptics

4. Simple administration of oxygen5. Administration of tetanus/diphtheria

shot(s) or booster(s)6. Cleaning, flushing or soaking wounds

on skin surface7. Use of wound coverings such as

bandages, gauze pads, etc.8. Use of any hot/cold therapy (e.g.

compresses, soaking, whirlpoolsnon-prescription skin creams/lotions for local relief, etc.) exceptfor musculoskeletal disorders (SeeMandatory Appendix B)

9. Use of any totally non-rigid, non-immobilizing means of support (e.g.elastic bandages)


10. Drilling of a nail to relieve pressurefor subungual hematoma

11. Use of eye patches12. Removal of foreign bodies not

embedded in the eye if onlyirrigation or removal with a cottonswab is required

13. Removal of splinters or foreignmaterial from areas other than theeyes by irrigation, tweezers, cottonswabs or other simple means

OSHA asks for comment on thefollowing issues:

(A) Should any treatments on theproposed first aid list be excluded andshould any treatments be added?

(B) Should a list of medical treatmentsalso be provided? Which treatments?

(C) Should simple administration ofoxygen be defined to exclude moresevere procedures such as IntermittentPositive Pressure Breathing (IPPB)? If so,how?

Issue 4. The definition of restrictedwork. The Keystone Report stated thatthe recording of restricted work isperhaps the least understood and leastaccepted concept in the recordkeepingsystem. Recording cases involvingrestricted work activity is importantbecause injured or ill employees areunable either to perform all of theirnormal duties or perform a full day’swork. The concept of restricted workactivity was included in the Act due toconcern that some employers might tryto conceal significant injuries andillnesses by temporarily assigninginjured or ill workers to other jobs withreduced requirements. This concern stillexists today.

The difficulty in determiningrestricted work lies in the need todetermine the employee’s ‘‘normalduties’’. In the past, OSHA has broadlydefined the employee’s normal duties toinclude any work activity included inthe employee’s job description, even ifthe activity is performed infrequently.According to the Keystone Report, thisdefinition is problematic because ‘‘(1)few in industry understand the scope ofthis interpretation; (2) many who dounderstand it disagree with it; and (3) tomaximize productivity, workers areincreasingly assigned a wider range oftasks, making it increasingly difficult tomeasure and/or verify the performanceof these greatly divergent and infrequentduties.’’ (ex. 5, p. 17)

The Keystone Report recommendedthat restricted work activity should berecorded if the employee is 1) unable toperform the task he/she was engaged inat the time of injury or onset of illnessor 2) unable to perform any activity thathe/she would have performed duringthe week. OSHA believes that the first

criterion will focus on the hazardoustasks that lead to serious injuries andillnesses. OSHA believes, however, thatthe second criterion is not easilydefined and could lead to the recordingof inconsistent data. This criterion hasbeen narrowed in the proposed text ofthe regulation to include activities theemployee performed or was expected toperform on the day of injury or onset ofillness. OSHA believes these activitieswill be well known and understood anduse of this criterion will lead to greaterconsistency in the recording of thesemore severe work-related injuries andillnesses.

This proposal also eliminates therequirement for employers to count thedays of restricted work activity. Theemployer will be required to place acheck in the restricted work column ifthe case involved restricted workactivity but not days away from work.

OSHA asks for input on whether theproposed language is too limiting or toobroad, on alternative ways to definerestricted work activity and/or the usualduties of an employee, along withsuggested ways to improve employers’understanding and acceptance of theconcept of restricted work activity.OSHA’s goal is to have employersconsistently record cases that involverestricted work by providing a conceptwhich is widely accepted and easy tointerpret.

OSHA asks for input on the followingquestions: (A) Will the elimination ofthe restricted work activity day countprovide an incentive for employers totemporarily assign injured or ill workersto jobs with little or no productive valueto avoid recording a case as oneinvolving days away from work? (B)Will the inclusion of question 13 on theproposed OSHA Form 301, ‘‘If the caseinvolved days away from work orrestricted work activity, enter the datethe employee returned to work at fullcapacity’’, help to reduce such anincentive?

Issue 5. The proper recording ofmusculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Overthe last 10 years, there has been anincreased awareness of work-relateddisorders associated with ergonomichazards, i.e. hazards associated withlifting, repeated motion, and repetitivestrain and stress on the musculoskeletalsystems of workers. OSHA labels theseinjuries and illnesses, which result fromergonomic hazards, ‘‘musculoskeletaldisorders’’ (MSDs). MSDs do notinclude broken bones, chipped teeth,contusions or sprains/strains resultingfrom falls or being struck.

Although MSDs have always beenrecordable, OSHA and BLS had notpublished any specific guidance on how

to record them until 1986. The 1986Recordkeeping Guidelines providedsome limited specific guidance byrequiring all back cases to be evaluatedas injuries using the general injurycriteria, and to record carpal tunnelsyndrome as an illness. The 1986Guidelines did not provide specificdirections on which criteria to use forrecording other types of musculoskeletaldisorders.

Historically, for recording purposes,disorders caused by repeated orcumulative trauma were covered by thegeneral illness criteria because thesedisorders are caused by prolongedexposure to various risk factors, ratherthan being caused by a singleinstantaneous event. The existingdefinition of occupational illness (inplace since 1971) is very inclusive:‘‘Any work related abnormal conditionor disorder (other than an occupationalinjury)’’. (1986 RecordkeepingGuidelines, P 39) Thus, the currentcriteria for recording illnesses requiresthe employer to record each and everyoccupational illness, including MSDs.

Theoretically, all musculoskeletaldisorders, even the less severe caseswhich do not meet the recording criteriafor injuries, would be recordable as aresult of applying the general illnessrecording criteria. Despite theirrecordability, OSHA observed that veryfew, if any, of these disorders werebeing recorded on employers’ OSHALogs. As a result, OSHA developed anenforcement policy limiting theissuance of citations and penalties forunrecorded MSDs to those cases whichinvolve:

• a clinical diagnosis by a health careprovider; or

• at least one physical finding, (i.e.,an objective symptom such as rednessor swelling); or

* a subjective symptom, such as painor numbness, coupled with eithermedical treatment or lost workdays,(i.e., days away from work and/or daysof restricted work activity).

In 1990, OSHA published specificcriteria for the proper recording ofMSDs in the Ergonomics ProgramManagement Guidelines ForMeatpacking Plants (MeatpackingGuideline). These criteria have been thebasis for all of OSHA’s interpretationsinvolving the proper recording ofmusculoskeletal disorders to the upperextremities (shoulder, arms, wrist andhands) since that time.

Even though the specific criteria inthe Meatpacking Guidelines definedfewer recordable cases than the generalillness criteria, the number of recordedcases has increased dramatically. WhileOSHA believes that these types of


disorders are increasing in number,OSHA believes that the increase inrecorded MSD cases is also the result ofOSHA providing employers withspecific guidance on the subject, inconjunction with enforcement of therequirements. Compliance with therecordkeeping requirements improvedsubstantially and the resulting data andstatistics have reflected thatimprovement.

One purpose of this proposed revisionof 29 CFR Part 1904 is to consolidate inthe regulation various criteria,guidelines and interpretations policieswhich are currently found in a numberof different documents. Anotherpurpose is to simplify the recordkeepingrequirements, in order to make thesystem more ‘‘user friendly’’ and toencourage more accurate and consistentrecording of injuries and illnesses.Consistent with these purposes, OSHAis proposing to incorporate the criteriafor recording MSDs found in theMeatpacking Guidelines in mandatoryAppendix B of the proposed regulation,and to simplify the system by applyingthose criteria equally to cases involvingthe upper extremities, the back and thelower extremities.

The criteria in proposed MandatoryAppendix B require employers to recordnew, work-related musculoskeletaldisorders: (1) whenever they arediagnosed by a health care provider, or(2) if the employee has objectivefindings (redness indicative ofinflammation, deformity, swelling, etc.).When either of these criteria, or whenany of the general criteria for recordingillnesses and injuries in § 1904.4(b) (i.e.death, loss of consciousness, days awayfrom work, restricted work activity, jobtransfer, or medical treatment beyondfirst aid) is met, the case is required tobe recorded on the OSHA Form 300.OSHA’s proposal represents acontinuation of the current recordingpolicy, and is intended to ensure theearly recognition and recording ofmusculoskeletal disorders soappropriate actions may be taken.

The current recording of these cases isalso dependent on the definitions offirst aid, medical treatment andrestricted work. Because OSHA isproposing to change those definitions,the recording of musculoskeletaldisorders will be affected. OSHArecognizes that hot and cold treatmentsfor most injury and illness conditionsshould be considered first aidtreatments, as indicated in the proposeddefinition of first aid. However, NIOSH(NIOSH, Cumulative trauma disorders:A manual for musculoskeletal diseasesof the upper limbs, Taylor and Francis,1988, p. 125) and other recognized

authorities (Hales & Bertsche,‘‘Management of Upper ExtremityCumulative Trauma Disorders’’,AAOHN Journal, March, 1992, Vol. 40,No. 3; Nanneman, D., ‘‘Thermalmodalities: Heat and cold: Review ofphysiological effects with clinicalapplications’’, AAOHN Journal, 1991,Vol. 39, No. 2) recognize hot and coldtreatments as therapeutic modalities inthe conservative, early treatment ofMSDs. Because these treatments maycause negative effects if not properlyadministered, OSHA is proposing thattwo or more hot and cold treatments beconsidered medical treatment for MSDsonly when directed by a health careprofessional.

There is a concern that the proposedcriteria will result in a situation whereworkers could be working withsignificant pain for an extended periodof time, without their case being enteredinto the records. OSHA has been askedto consider an additional recordingcriterion for these cases: record whenthe employee reports symptoms (pain,tingling, numbness, etc.) persisting forat least 7 calendar days from the date ofonset. OSHA asks for input on thiscriterion.

OSHA recognizes that its proposedrecording policy does not provide amechanism for excluding cases thatinvolve short term job transfers forminor soreness that commonly occurs tonewly hired employees or employees onrehabilitation assignments during a‘‘break in’’ stage. OSHA asks for inputon whether a method for excludingthese cases should be developed? If so,what method should be used?

Issue 6. The reluctance of someemployers to enter cases into therecords. For a variety of reasons, someemployers have historically shown areluctance to enter injuries and illnessesinto the OSHA records.

Some employers mistakenly believethat recording a case implies fault onthe part of the employer. Some fail torecognize that the requirements ofOSHA recordkeeping have nothing to dowith workers’ compensation insuranceor any other system outside of theOSHA requirements. While many OSHArecordable injuries and illnesses may becompensable under an insuranceprogram, others are not. Furthermore,many employers use a workers’compensation or insurance form in lieuof the OSHA supplementary record.However, some employers who usethese forms in lieu of the OSHAsupplementary record mistakenlybelieve that completing the forms forOSHA recordkeeping purposesautomatically makes the casecompensable. While reducing the

paperwork burden on employers,perhaps this equivalency optionperpetuates this misunderstanding andshould be eliminated.

Many companies use the informationfrom the OSHA records to establish‘‘accountability systems’’ formanagement as well as their safety andhealth professionals. Often thesesystems are linked to performanceevaluations of the affected individuals.These performance evaluations may beused to help determine bonuses,promotions, or compensation levels.Affected employees may be discouragedfrom fully and accurately recordinginjuries and illnesses in the OSHArecords when they may be, or mayperceive to be, personally penalized forcomplying with the OSHArecordkeeping requirements.

The OSHA recordkeeping proposalincludes several items intended toreduce the effects of these potentialproblems on the accuracy of the records.Certification of the accuracy andcompleteness of the OSHA Log by aresponsible company official anddisclaimers of a relationship betweenOSHA injury and illness recordkeepingand implications of fault for insurancesystems are included in the regulatorytext and on the proposed forms. The‘‘employer use column’’ can be utilizedby companies to indicate those casesthat the firm does not wish to includein their internal safety statistics.

OSHA asks for input on (A) ways toencourage accurate injury and illnessrecords, (B) how the confusion betweenOSHA recordkeeping and workers’compensation/insurance requirementscan be minimized, and (C) how theadverse effect of accountability systemson the OSHA records can be reduced.

Issue 7. Improving employeeinvolvement. The Keystone report statedthat overall workplace safety and healthwould benefit if the information in theinjury and illness records were morewidely known. The report noted thatemployee involvement and awarenessare minimal for three reasons: (1) Lackof knowledge that access is permitted,(2) fear of employer reprisal, and (3)employee apathy. The Keystone reportconcluded that employee notificationcould improve employee involvementin recordkeeping and enhance thequality of the data, increase employees’knowledge of hazards, promote bettercooperation between employers andemployees in reducing hazards, andcontribute to safer, more healthfulworkplaces.

OSHA asks for input on (A) whetheremployees should be notified that theirindividual injuries and illnesses havebeen entered into the records, (B) the


possible mechanisms employers coulduse to meet such a requirement and thedegree of flexibility employers shouldbe given, (C) any other ideas on methodsfor improving employee involvement inthe injury and illness recordkeepingsystem, and (D) cost (including burden)and benefit information on eachalternative.

Issue 8. Access to the OSHA formsand the privacy of injured or illemployees. The current regulation andthe proposed regulatory text bothrequire that employees, formeremployees, and their designatedrepresentatives have access to the entireOSHA injury and illness log, whichincludes personal identifiers.Furthermore, the current regulationdoes not provide employees or theirdesignated representatives access to theOSHA injury and illness supplementaryforms while the proposed regulatorytext provides employees orrepresentatives designated byemployees access to all OSHA injuryand illness supplementary records(proposed OSHA Form 301, IncidentRecord) of the establishment.

OSHA’s historical practice of allowingemployee access to all of theinformation on the log permitsemployees and their designatedrepresentatives to be totally informedabout the employer’s recordkeepingpractices, and the occupational injuriesand illnesses recorded in the workplace.However, this total accessibility mayinfringe on an individual employee’sprivacy interest. At the same time, theneed to access individuals’ IncidentRecords to adequately evaluate thesafety and health environment of theestablishment has been expressed.

These two interests—the privacyinterests of the individual employeeversus the interest in access to healthand safety information concerning one’sown workplace—are potentially at oddswith one another. For injury and illnessrecordkeeping purposes, OSHA hastaken the position that an employee’sinterest in access to health and safetyinformation on the OSHA formsconcerning one’s own workplace carriesgreater weight than an individual’s rightto privacy. More complete access to thedetailed injury and illness records hasthe potential for increasing employeeinvolvement in workplace safety andhealth programs and therefore has thepotential for improving workingconditions. Analysis of injury andillness data provides a wealth ofinformation for injury and illnessprevention programs. Analyses byworkers, in addition to analyses by theemployer, lead to the potential ofdeveloping methods to diminish

workplace hazards through additionalor different perspectives.

OSHA is considering alternatives tothe existing and proposed regulatorytext to address the conflict between theprivacy interests of the individual andthe interest in total access to health andsafety information concerning one’sown workplace. One alternative to theregulatory text would be to require theremoval of personal identifiers for onlycertain types of cases that might havehigher privacy concerns than others.

The alternative described above raisesadditional questions to which the publicis invited to respond. What other piecesof information, if any, on the currentlyproposed forms (proposed Forms 300and 301—see section IV of thispreamble) ought to be consideredpersonal identifiers and included on theside of the form which is not disclosedonce it is folded over? If only certaintypes of cases should be shielded,which types of cases ought to beconsidered ‘‘confidential’’ and subject tohaving the personal identifiersremoved? Should a coding system beused for these cases to enable somepeople, but not others, to have access tothe entry information, and if so, whattype of system? Who should have accessto the personal identifier information?Should the right to access anindividual’s Incident Record be limitedto that individual?

It is OSHA’s intention to make theforms readily accessible to employeesand employee representatives who canuse the information to affect safety andhealth conditions at the workplace.OSHA does not intend to provide accessto the general public. OSHA asks forinput on possible methodologies forproviding easy access to workers whilerestricting access to the general public.OSHA also asks for input on thepossible benefits and costs of makingthe information accessible, and anynegative results that could occur fromsuch access. Specifically, for employerswho use State workers compensation,insurance, or other forms as equivalentsto the OSHA form, are there dataelements contained on those formswhich could not be released toemployees or their designatedrepresentatives? If so, what are thosedata elements? How would this affectthe employer’s ability to use equivalentforms?

OSHA invites the public to suggestother options or alternative regulatorylanguage which would address thisissue of confidentiality and access toinformation. Please include anyinformation on costs and benefits thatwill result from these alternatives,

including any ideas on how to quantifythose costs and benefits.

Issue 9. The development of computersoftware to assist employers in the taskof recordkeeping. To make injury andillness recordkeeping easier foremployers, OSHA is considering thedevelopment of recordkeeping computersoftware. Once developed, the programcould have the following minimumfeatures:

(a) employ a decision-making logic fordetermining if an injury or illness isrecordable, and if so the properclassification, and include questions toelicit the necessary information tocomplete and generate the OSHArequired records;

(b) automatic form(s) generation;(c) the ability to assist the employer

in evaluating the entered data throughseveral preset analytical tools (e.g.tables, charts, etc.);

(d) contain a tutorial section to assistemployers in training employees inproper recordkeeping procedures;

(e) be in the public domain and/or beavailable at cost to the public.

OSHA is requesting comments on allfacets of this approach towarddevelopment of software. In addition,OSHA would like to know whatpercentage of employers havecomputers to assist them in theirbusiness? What percentage of employerscurrently use computers for trackingemployee-related information (payroll,timekeeping, etc.)? Should thedistribution be through the Government,public domain shareware distribution,or other channels? Should OSHAdevelop the software or only providespecifications of its requirements?

IV. Proposed OSHA FormsIn conjunction with this proposed

rulemaking, the OSHA recordkeepingforms are also being modified. OSHA iscontinuing to try to reduce theemployer’s paperwork burden throughthese modifications and reducing thenumber of duplicate questions on theforms. At this point, some duplicatequestions remain and are needed foreach form to ‘‘stand alone’’. OSHAbelieves if the duplication were reducedfurther, employers would be required torefer frequently to both forms at thesame time, which would add additionalburden. OSHA requests comment onany of these modifications, theremaining duplications, or any otherrelated issues to the proposed forms.

The forms are being included in thispreamble for informational purposes.

The OSHA 200 Log will be replacedwith the OSHA 300 Log which includesreformatted columns and an additionalcolumn for the employer’s use. The


proposed elimination of the requirementthat employers distinguish betweeninjuries and illnesses in order to recorda case would eliminate the need forseparate groups of columns for injuriesand illnesses on the Log. The proposedelimination of the requirement to countdays of restricted work activity alsoeliminates the need for the restrictedday count columns found on the OSHA200 Log. The result is a simplified formthat fits on standard size paper whichcan easily be copied and kept on apersonal computer. This also results inspace to create an employer use columnwhich can be utilized by employers totailor the Log to meet the needs of theirparticular safety and health program.For example, this column could be usedby employers to enter causation, orinjury and illness codes, or otherinformation useful to the company. Thisemployer use column may provideemployers with additional flexibility,reducing their need to maintainmultiple sets of records for variouspurposes.

Cases that end in permanent workrestrictions, job transfer, or terminationof employment will be noted by placingan asterisk next to the employee’s name.This information could provideemployers, employees, inspectors andresearchers with another measure ofseverity for injuries and illnesses. Astatement will be included on thesummary portion informing employees,former employees, and their designatedrepresentatives of their right to accessthe entire Log.

A disclaimer will be included on theLog which states ‘‘Cases listed below are

not necessarily eligible for Workers’Compensation or other insurance.Listing a case below does notnecessarily mean that the employer orworker was at fault or that an OSHAstandard was violated’’. The intent ofthis disclaimer is to dispel the mistakenbelief that recording a case on the Logaffects workers’ compensation orestablishes a finding of fault.

Some stakeholders have expressed theneed for a column containinginformation on cases involvingmusculoskeletal disorders such as lowback pain, tendinitis, and carpal tunnelsyndrome. OSHA solicits comment onthe inclusion of an MSD column on theform.

The Supplementary Record ofOccupational Injuries and Illnesses(OSHA No.101) will be replaced withthe OSHA Injury and Illness IncidentRecord (OSHA Form 301) in order tocollect more useful information.Additional questions will be added togather data on the events leading up tothe injury or illness; on the equipment,material, or substance involved; and onthe activity taking place when the injuryor illness occurred. An employer usesection will be added to provide theemployer with space to record anyadditional information that is desired. Astatement will be included on the formnotifying employees, former employees,and their designated representatives oftheir right to access all OSHA injury andillness records of the establishment.

While the new OSHA 300 Logpresents information on injuries andillnesses in a condensed format, anIncident Record provides more detailed

information about the affected worker,the injury or illness, workplace factorsassociated with the accident, and a briefdescription of how the injury or illnessoccurred.

Currently, many employers use theirinsurance or State workers’compensation forms in place of thesupplementary record. This reduces theburden on employers by allowing themto fill out a single form for multiplepurposes. Several States have notifiedOSHA that they intend to modify theirforms to qualify as equivalents to theOSHA form. OSHA anticipates thatmany other States will also modify theirforms to qualify as equivalents to theOSHA form so employers may continueto have the benefit of interchangeableforms. OSHA is currently working withthe International Association ofIndustrial Accident Boards andCommissions (IAIABC) to standardizethe recording forms for occupationalinjuries and illnesses.

OSHA also requests comment on theconcept of a single form which wouldmeet all of the informational needs ofthe recordkeeping system. What itemswould be included? What format wouldbe used? How would the use of a singleform, as opposed to two forms, affect theemployers ability to use State Workers—Compensation forms as equivalents tothe OSHA form?

Information concerning theestablishment name and address and theemployee’s social security number,regular job title, and the department inwhich the injured person is regularlyemployed will no longer be requested.BILLING CODE 4510–26–P


BILLING CODE 4510–26–C


V. Legal Authority

The primary purpose of theOccupational Safety and Health Act (theAct), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., is to assureso far as possible, safe and healthfulworking conditions for every Americanworker over the period of his or herworking lifetime. The Secretary’sresponsibilities under the Act aredefined largely by its enumeratedpurposes, which include:

Encouraging employers andemployees in their efforts to reduce thenumber of occupational safety andhealth hazards at their places ofemployment, and to stimulateemployers and employees to institutenew and to perfect existing programs forproviding safe and healthful workingconditions. [29 U.S.C. 651(b)(1)]

Building upon advances already madethrough employer and employeeinitiative for providing safe andhealthful working conditions. [29 U.S.C.651(b)(4)]

Providing for research in the field ofoccupational safety and health * * *developing innovative methods,techniques, and approaches for dealingwith occupational safety and healthproblems. [29 U.S.C. 651(b)(5)]

Exploring ways to discover latentdiseases, establishing causalconnections between diseases and workin environmental conditions, andconducting other research relating tohealth problems * * * [29 U.S.C.651(b)6)]

Providing medical criteria which willassure insofar as practicable that noemployee will suffer diminished health,functional capacity, or life expectancyas a result of his [or her] workexperience. [29 U.S.C. 651(b)(7)]

Providing for appropriate reportingprocedures with respect to occupationalsafety and health which will helpachieve the objectives of this Act andaccurately describe the nature of theoccupational safety and healthproblems. [29 U.S.C. 651(b)(12)]

Encouraging joint labor-managementefforts to reduce injuries and diseasearising out of employment. [29 U.S.C.651(b)(13)]

Several sections of the Act providelegal authority for promulgation andenforcement of this regulation. Asummary of relevant sections isprovided below:

Section 8(c)(1) of the Act, requireseach employer to ‘‘make, keep andpreserve, and make available to theSecretary [of Labor] or the Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, suchrecords regarding his activities relatingto this Act as the Secretary, incooperation with the Secretary of Health

and Human Services, may prescribe byregulation as necessary or appropriatefor the enforcement of this Act or fordeveloping information regarding thecauses and prevention of occupationalaccidents and illnesses.’’ Section 8(c)(2)further provides that the ‘‘Secretary, incooperation with the Secretary of Healthand Human Services, shall prescriberegulations requiring employers tomaintain accurate records of, and tomake periodic reports on, work-relateddeaths, injuries and illnesses other thanminor injuries requiring only first aidtreatment and which do not involvemedical treatment, loss ofconsciousness, restriction of work ormotion, or transfer to another job.’’Section 8(c)(3) empowers the Secretaryto require employers to make, keep, andpreserve records regarding activitiesrelated to the Act. In particular, section8(c)(3) gives the Secretary authority torequire employers to ‘‘maintain accuraterecords of employee exposures topotentially toxic materials or harmfulphysical agents which are required to bemonitored or measured under Section6.’’ [29 U.S.C. 657(c)]

Section 8(g)(1) authorizes theSecretary ‘‘to compile, analyze, andpublish, either in summary or detailedform, all reports or information obtainedunder this section.’’ Section 8(g)(2) ofthe Act empowers the Secretary ‘‘toprescribe such rules and regulations ashe may deem necessary to carry out hisresponsibilities under the Act.’’ [29U.S.C. 657(g)]

Section 9 empowers the Secretary toissue a citation to an employer who theSecretary believes ‘‘has violated arequirement * * * of any regulationsprescribed pursuant to this Act’’ andmay, pursuant to Section 10, assess apenalty under Section 17. [29 U.S.C. 658and 659]

Section 20 empowers the Secretary ofLabor and the Secretary of Health andHuman Services to consult on researchand related activities, ‘‘includingstudies of psychological factorsinvolved, and relating to innovativemethods, techniques, and approachesfor dealing with occupational safety andhealth problems.’’ The Secretary ofHHS, on the basis of such research,‘‘* * * and other information availableto him, shall develop criteria dealingwith toxic materials and harmfulphysical agents and substances whichwill describe exposure levels that aresafe for various periods of employment,including but not limited to theexposure levels at which no employeewill suffer impaired health or functionalcapacities or diminished life expectancyas a result of his work experience.’’Also, the Secretary of HHS shall

conduct research ‘‘to explore newproblems, including those created bynew technology in occupational safetyand health, which may requireameliorative action beyond that whichis otherwise provided for in theoperating provisions of this Act.’’Section 20 empowers the Secretary ofLabor to disseminate informationobtained by the Secretaries of Labor andHHS under this section to employers,employees, and organizations thereof.[29 U.S.C. 669]

Section 24 requires the Secretary to‘‘develop and maintain an effectiveprogram of collection, compilation, andanalysis of occupational safety andhealth statistics * * * The Secretaryshall compile accurate statistics on workinjuries and illnesses which shallinclude all disabling, serious, orsignificant injuries and illnesses,whether or not involving loss of timefrom work, other than minor injuriesrequiring only first aid treatment andwhich do not involve medicaltreatment, loss of consciousness,restriction of work or motion, or transferto another job.’’ Section 24 alsoempowers the Secretary to ‘‘promote,encourage, or directly engage inprograms of studies, information andcommunication concerningoccupational safety and healthstatistics.’’ Finally, Section 24 requiresemployers to ‘‘file such reports with theSecretary as he shall prescribe byregulation, as necessary to carry out hisfunctions under this chapter.’’ [29U.S.C. 673]

VI. State PlansThe 25 States and territories with

their own OSHA approved occupationalsafety and health plans must adopt acomparable rule. These 25 States are:Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii,Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, NewMexico, North Carolina, Oregon, PuertoRico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah,Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands,Washington, and Wyoming; andConnecticut and New York (for Stateand local Government employees only).The current 29 CFR 1952.4 requires thatsuch States with approved State plansunder section 18 of the OSH Act (29U.S.C. 667), must adopt recordkeepingand reporting regulations which are‘‘substantially identical’’ to those setforth in 29 CFR Part 1904. Therefore, thedefinitions used must be identical toensure the uniformity of collectedinformation. In addition, § 1952.4provides that employer variances orexceptions to State recordkeeping orreporting requirements in a State planState must be approved by the Bureau


of Labor Statistics. Similarly, a State ispermitted to require supplementalreporting or recordkeeping data, but thatState must obtain approval from theBureau of Labor Statistics to insure thatthe additional data will not interferewith ‘‘the primary uniform reportingobjectives.’’ The proposed revision of 29CFR 1952.4 keeps the same substantiverequirements for the State Plan States,but reflects the organizational shift ofsome responsibilities of the Bureau ofLabor Statistics to OSHA. See also thememorandum of understanding betweenOSHA and BLS effective January 1, 1991(ex. 6).

VII. Regulatory Impact Assessment

The average establishment affected bythe proposed changes to therecordkeeping requirements wouldincur a net reduction in recordkeepingcosts. Thus the proposed rule will notimpose adverse economic impacts onfirms in the regulated community. Theproposed exemption from the regulationof all non-construction establishmentswith fewer than 20 employees willmean that most small entities willexperience an even larger cost savings.Nor is any significant internationaleffect expected.

VIII. Regulatory FlexibilityCertification

Pursuant to the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the AssistantSecretary certifies that the proposed rulewill not have a significant adverseimpact on a substantial number of smallentities. The proposed rule exemptsconstruction employers with less thaneleven employees and non-constructionemployers with less than twentyemployees from most of therequirements, and would not have adifferential impact on small businesses.

IX. Environmental Impact Assessment

In accordance with the requirementsof the National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),Council on Environmental QualityNEPA regulations (40 CFR Part 1500 etseq.), and the Department of Labor’sNEPA regulations (29 CFR Part 11), the

Assistant Secretary has determined thatthis proposed rule will not have asignificant impact on the externalenvironment.

X. FederalismThis proposed rule has been reviewed

in accordance with Executive Order12612 (52 FR 41685), regardingFederalism. Because this rulemakingaction involves a ‘‘regulation’’ issuedunder section 8 of the OSH Act, and nota ‘‘standard’’ issued under section 6 ofthe Act, the rule does not preempt Statelaw, see 29 U.S.C. § 667 (a). The effectof the proposed rule on States isdiscussed above in Section VI, StatePlans.

XI. Public ParticipationInterested persons are requested to

submit written comments on the issuesraised in this proposal. Responses to thequestions raised in the proposal are alsoencouraged. Whenever possible,solutions should be included where thecomments are of a critical nature.Written submissions must clearlyidentify the provisions of the proposalwhich are addressed and the positiontaken on each issue.

These comments must be postmarkedby May 2, 1996. Comments are to besubmitted in writing in quadruplicate,or 1 original (hard copy) and 1 disk(5 1⁄4or 3 1⁄2) in WP 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0 or ascii.Note: Any information not contained ondisk; e.g., studies, articles, etc. must besubmitted in quadruplicate. Commentsof 10 pages or less may be transmittedby facsimile to (202) 219–5046 providedthe original and 4 copies of thecomment are sent to the Docket Officerthereafter. All comments shall besubmitted to: Docket Officer, Docket No.R–02, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, Room N–2625, U.S.Department of Labor, 200 ConstitutionAvenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210,telephone (202) 219–7894.

All written comments received withinthe specified comment period will bemade a part of the record and will beavailable for inspection and copying atthe above Docket Office address.

A public meeting will be held inWashington, D.C. in the U.S.

Department of Labor auditorium at 200Constitution Avenue, N.W. beginning at8:30 AM on March 26, 1996 andextending through March 28th, ifnecessary. The purpose of the meetingis to give the public an opportunity toprovide information to OSHAconcerning the proposed rule. Notices ofintention to appear at the publicmeeting should identify person andorganization, the amount of timerequested for presenting views, thesubject matter, and a brief summary ofthe intended presentation. The amountof time available for each presenter maybe limited by OSHA, if necessary.Notices to appear must be postmarkedon or before March 5, 1996. Notice ofintention to appear at the meeting is tobe sent to Mr. Tom Hall, OSHA Divisionof Consumer Affairs, Docket No. R–02,Room N–3647, U.S. Department ofLabor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,Washington, D.C., 20210.

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

The proposed regulation containsinformation collections which aresubject to review by the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) underthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.The title, summary, description of need,respondent description and estimatedreporting and recordkeeping burden areshown below. Included in the estimateof burden is the time and effort forreviewing instructions, searchingexisting data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed,completing and reviewing the collectionof information, and financial resourcesexpended for developing, acquiring,installing, and utilizing technology andsystems to meet the informationcollection requirements.

Title: Recording and ReportingOccupational Injuries and Illnesses.

Summary: OSHA is revising 29 CFR1904 and the associated Forms (OSHANo. 200 and OSHA No. 101), and inaddition to providing numerousclarifications and minor modifications,this revision makes several majorchanges as follows:

Concept Change/requirement

Exemptions ......................................................... Expand the Small Employer exemption and modify the Low Hazard Industry (SIC) exemption.Injury and Illness Records for construction sub-

contractors.Require site controlling employers in the construction industry to maintain additional records

on workers other then their own employees.Computerization .................................................. Allow employers to maintain their OSHA injury and illness records on computer file without

corresponding hard copies.Injury vs Illness ................................................... Eliminate the employer responsibility to distinguish between injuries and illnesses.Recordable condition .......................................... Redefine the criteria outlining what is a recordable occupational injury or illness.Forms .................................................................. The forms will be requesting modified information and will be renumbered as the OSHA Form

300 (OSHA Injury and Illness Log and Summary) and the OSHA Form 301 (OSHA Injuryand Illness Incident Record).


Description of need: The OSHA Form300, Log and Summary; the OSHA Form301, Incident Record; and therecordkeeping regulations will provideemployers with the means and specificinstructions needed to maintain recordsof work-related injuries and illnesses.

Accurate records are necessary for theoptimal prioritization of OSHA’s scarceresources. For example, inspectionpriorities are largely based on estimatesof occupational injury and illness datacollected from employers. The data alsoplay an important part in theadministrative procedures mandated by

the Supreme Court that allow OSHA toobtain search warrants to conduct safetyand health inspections. Others using thedata include State and local governmentagencies, academia, employers, tradeassociations, labor, and the generalpublic.

Efforts to the fulfill the Congressionalmandate that the Federal governmentprotect employees from safety andhealth dangers on the job would beseverely hampered by incomplete,inconsistent, and inaccurate data. Therevision of the recordkeepingrequirements is an attempt to improve

the accuracy, completeness andconsistency of these records, whilereducing the paperwork burden to theregulated community.

Respondent description:Approximately 620,000 private sectoremployer establishments will berequired to maintain the OSHA Injuryand Illness Log and Summary andIncident Records, though a smallnumber of them will not have arecordable case in any given year andwill only have to post the summary partof the OSHA Form 300.

Estimated Burden:

EMPLOYERS’ BURDEN FOR THE PROPOSED REVISED REQUIREMENTS

Actions Number of cases Unit hours per case Total bur-den hours

Complete OSHA 301 (Includes research of instructions and case de-tails to complete the form).

508,895 Forms ............................ .28 (17 min/60 min) ... 142,490

Complete OSHA 300 (Includes research of instructions and case de-tails to complete the form).

5,088,948 Line entries ................ .166 (10 min/60 min) . 844,765

Injury and illness records for construction subcontract workers ........... 74,822 Line entries ..................... .166 (10 min/60 min) . 12,420Fixed burden (Set-up, Summary, and Posting of OSHA 300) .............. 620,879 Establishments .............. .30 (18 min/60 min) ... 186,264Learning System—Turnover .................................................................. 124,176 Establishments .............. .42 (25 min/60 min) ... 52,153Disclosure burden * ................................................................................ 444,222 employee requests ........ .016 (1 min/60 min) ... 7,107

40,000 Inspections ...................... .033 (2 min/60 min) ... 1,320

Total Annual Burden Hours ........................................................ ..................................................... .................................... 1,246,519

Learning New System Implementation year only .................................. 458,518 Establishments .............. .25 (15 min/60 min) ... 114,629162,361 Establishments .............. .42 (25 min/60 min) ... 68,192

Total Burden Hours for Implementation Year Only .................... ..................................................... .................................... 1,429,340

*Based on estimates of OSHA compliance inspections conducted during 1993.

This is an annual decrease in burdenof 246,191 hours from the estimate ofthe current injury and illnessrecordkeeping requirements, after asmaller decrease of 63,370 hours in theinitial year of implementation due totime required to learn the new system.The decrease in hours is primarily dueto the simplification of definitions andthe reduction of information required onthe OSHA Log and supplementaryforms.

The agency has submitted a copy ofthe proposed rule to OMB in accordancewith 44 U.S.C. § 3507(d) of thePaperwork Reduction Act for its reviewof these information collections.Interested persons are invited to sendcomments regarding this burdenestimate or any other aspect of thiscollection of information, including (1)an evaluation of whether the proposedcollection of information ensures thatthe collection of information isnecessary for the proper performance ofthe functions of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility; (2) an evaluation of theaccuracy of the agency’s estimate ofburden of the proposed collection of

information, including the validity ofthe methodology and assumptions used;(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility,and clarity of the information to becollected; and (4) how to minimize theburden of the collection of information,including through the use of appropriateautomated, electronic, mechanical orother technological collectiontechniques or other forms of informationtechnology, e.g. permitting electronicsubmission of responses. In addition,OSHA requests comment on the natureand extent of any cost burdens, (i.e.,monetary costs) that employers wouldincur due to changes in paperworkrequirements that would be necessitatedby this proposal. Comments should besent to OSHA Office of Statistics, 200Constitution Avenue, N.W.,Washington, DC 20210 and to the Officeof Information and Regulatory Affairs,OMB, Room 10235, New ExecutiveOffice Building, Washington, DC 20503,Attn. Desk Officer for OSHA. Commentson the issues covered by the PaperworkReduction Act are most useful to OMBif received within 30 days of publicationof the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

and no later than within 60 days ofpublication.

List of Subjects

29 CFR Part 1904

Recording and reporting ofoccupational injuries and illnesses,statistical surveys of occupationalinjuries and illnesses, occupationalsafety and health, State plans.

29 CFR Part 1952

Recording and reporting ofoccupational injuries and illnesses,variances to State recording andreporting requirements, injury andillness statistics, State plans.

XIII. Authority

This document was prepared underthe direction of Joseph A. Dear,Assistant Secretary of Labor forOccupational Safety and Health, U.S.Department of Labor, 200 ConstitutionAvenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

Accordingly, pursuant to sections8(c), 8(g), 20 and 24 of the OccupationalSafety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.657, 673), Secretary of Labor’s Order No.1–90 (55 FR 9033), and 5 U.S.C. 553, it


is proposed to revise 29 CFR Part 1904and to amend part 1952 as set forthbelow.

Signed in Washington, DC., this 26 day ofJanuary, 1996.Joseph A. Dear,Assistant Secretary of Labor.

PART 1904—[AMENDED]

1. 29 CFR Part 1904 would be revisedto read as follows:

PART 1904—RECORDING ANDREPORTING OCCUPATIONALINJURIES AND ILLNESSES

Sec.1904.1 Purpose.1904.2 Coverage and exemptions.1904.3 Definitions.1904.4 OSHA Injury and Illness Log and

Summary (OSHA Form 300 orEquivalent).

1904.5 OSHA Injury and Illness IncidentRecord (OSHA Form 301 or Equivalent).

1904.6 Preparation, certification andposting of the year-end summary.

1904.7 Location of records.1904.8 Period covered.1904.9 Retention and updating of

occupational injury and illness records.1904.10 Change of ownership.1904.11 Access to records.1904.12 Reporting of fatality or multiple

hospitalization incidents.1904.13 Reports by employers.1904.14 Recordkeeping under approved

State plans.1904.15 Petitions for recordkeeping

exceptions.1904.16 Falsification of, or failure to keep

records or provide reports.1904.17 Subcontractor records for major

construction projects.Appendix A to Part 1904—Work-Relatedness.Appendix B to Part 1904—Recording of

Specific Conditions.Appendix C to Part 1904—Decision Tree for

Recording Occupational Injuries andIllnesses.

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 657, 658, 660, 666,669, 673, Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 1–90 (55 FR 9033), and 5 U.S.C. 553.

§ 1904.1 Purpose.

(a) The purpose of this Part is torequire employers to record and reportwork-related injuries, illnesses and

fatalities. The records: assist employersand employees in their efforts todiscover, evaluate and addressworkplace hazards; assist occupationalsafety and health officials in carryingout enforcement and consultationprograms; aid in the development andevaluation of safety and healthstandards; are used to developinformation and conduct researchregarding the causes and prevention ofoccupational injuries and illnesses; andaccurately describe the nature ofoccupational safety and health problemsfor the Nation, State or establishment.

(b) The records required in this Partprovide descriptive informationconcerning the incidence ofoccupational injuries and illnesses,regardless of fault or preventability.Recording an injury or illness does notnecessarily mean that the employer oremployee was at fault, that an OSHAstandard was violated, or that theemployee is eligible for workers’compensation or other insurancebenefits. Recordable workplace injuriesand illnesses result from a variety ofworkplace events or exposures,including but not limited to: accidents,exposure to toxic materials or harmfulphysical agents, intentional acts ofviolence, or naturally occurring eventssuch as a tornado or earthquake.

(c) The regulations in this Part werepromulgated in consultation with theSecretary of Health and HumanServices.

§ 1904.2 Coverage and exemptions.Coverage and exemptions are

summarized below and specified in thefollowing table. See table to determinecoverage and exemptions.

(a) Coverage. (1) All employerscovered by the Act, regardless of size orStandard Industrial Classification (SIC),are required to:

(i) Comply with the reportingrequirements of § 1904.12 of this Part,concerning fatalities or multiplehospitalizations; and

(ii) Upon being notified in writing byan authorized government agency,maintain an OSHA Injury and Illness

Log and Summary and make reportsunder § 1904.13 of this Part.

(2) Additionally, employers inspecific industries listed in columns Aand B on the following table arerequired to comply with otherregulations in this Part 1904, except asprovided in paragraph (b) of thissection.

(b) Exemptions. Exemptions fromcoverage are based upon size and theStandard Industrial Classification (SIC)of the employer:

(1) Size. (i) Construction employerswith 10 or fewer employees for theentire previous calendar year areexempt from the regulations of this Part1904, except as noted in paragraph (a)(1)of this section. See column D of theCoverage and Exemption Table inparagraph (b)(2) of this section.

(ii) Employers in industries other thanconstruction with 19 or feweremployees for the entire previouscalendar year are exempt from theregulations of this Part 1904, except asnoted in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.See column D of the Coverage andExemption Table in paragraph (b)(2) ofthis section.

(2) Standard Industrial Classification(SIC) code. Within the coveredindustries (column B), certain specificindustries (at the 3-digit SIC level) areexempt from the regulations of this Part1904, except as noted in paragraph (a)(1)of this section. See column C for the listof exempt SICs.

Note to paragraph (b)(2): StandardIndustrial Classification (SIC) shall bedetermined using the Standard IndustrialClassification Manual, Executive Office of thePresident, Office of Management and Budget.All size thresholds or exemptions are basedon the number of employees of the entirefirm or corporation, not the number ofemployees in an individual establishment.

Coverage and Exemption TableNote 1 to Coverage and Exemption Table:

All employers covered by the OSH Act,regardless of size or SIC code are required tocomply with §§ 1904.12 and 1904.13. Thefollowing table refers to coverage andexemptions to the other requirements of Part1904.

Covered employers Exemptions to employers listed in column B

(A) Industry divi-sion (B) Specific industry (C) By SIC (D) By size

Construction ......... All Industries (SIC 15–17) ....................................... ...................................................... 10 or fewer employees for theentire previous calendar year.

Mining ................... All Industries not covered by MSHA ....................... ...................................................... 19 or fewer employees for theentire previous calendar year.

Agriculture ............ All Industries (SIC 01–09)Manufacturing ...... All Industries (SIC 20–39)Transportation &

Utilities.All Industries (SIC 40–49)

Wholesale ............ All Industries (SIC 50–51)


Covered employers Exemptions to employers listed in column B

(A) Industry divi-sion (B) Specific industry (C) By SIC (D) By size

Retail .................... SIC 52 Building Materials, Hardware Garden Sup-ply and Mobile Home Dealers,.

SIC 525 Hardware Stores.

SIC 53 General Merchandise Stores,SIC 54 Food Stores,SIC 553 Auto and Home Supply Stores,SIC 555 Boat Dealers,SIC 571 Home Furniture and Furnishings Stores,SIC 58 Eating and Drinking Places,SIC 596 Nonstore Retailers,SIC 598 Fuel Dealers.

Finance, Insurance& Real Estate.

SIC 651 Real Estate Operators and Lessors andSIC 655 Land Subdividers and Developers.

Services ............... SIC 70 Hotels, Rooming Houses, Camps andOther Lodging Places;.

SIC 752 Automobile Parking;

SIC 721 Laundry, Cleaning, and Garment Serv-ices;.

SIC 764 Reupholstery and Fur-niture Repair;

SIC 734 Services to Dwellings and Other Build-ings;.

SIC 793 Bowling Centers;

SIC 735 Miscellaneous Equipment Rental andLeasing;.

SIC 801 Offices and Clinics ofDoctors of Medicine;

SIC 736 Personnel Supply Services; ...................... SIC 807 Medical and Dental Lab-oratories; and

SIC 75 Automotive Repair, Services, and Parking; SIC 809 Miscellaneous Healthand Allied Services, Not Else-where Classified.

SIC 76 Miscellaneous Repair Services;SIC 79 Amusement and Recreation Services;SIC 80 Health Services;SIC 833 Job Training and Vocational Rehabilita-

tion Services;SIC 836 Residential Care;SIC 842 Arboreta and Botanical or Zoological Gar-

dens; andSIC 869 Membership Organizations Not Elsewhere

Classified.

Note 2 to Coverage and Exemption Table: Some States with their own occupational safety and health programs do not recognize the Federalrecordkeeping exemptions. Contact your nearest OSHA office or State agency to find out if State requirements differ.

Note 3 to Coverage and Exemption Table: SICs are from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987: U.S. Office of Management andBudget. Contact your nearest OSHA office or State agency for help in determining your SIC.

Note 4 to Coverage and Exemption Table: The size exemption is based on the employment of the entire firm, not of an individual establish-ment. Employees include part-time workers and corporate officers.

Note 5 to Coverage and Exemption Table: Employers normally exempt from the recordkeeping requirements must still comply with the follow-ing:

(1) Report any occupational fatality or event resulting in the hospitalization of 3 or more employees as required by Section 1904.12; and(2) Maintain an OSHA Injury and Illness log and Summary and submit reports if directed in writing to do so by an authorized government agen-

cy as required by Section 1904.13.Note 6 to Coverage and Exemption Table: Example of how to read the Coverage and Exemption Table: Employers in SIC 52 (Building Mate-

rials, Hardware Garden Supply and Mobile Home Dealers) are covered by the regulation except for employers with 19 or fewer employees in theprevious calendar year and Hardware Stores (SIC 525) of any size.

§ 1904.3 Definitions.

The following definitions apply toemployer recording and reporting ofoccupational fatalities, injuries andillnesses.

Act means the Occupational Safetyand Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1590et seq., 29 U.S. 651 et seq.). Thedefinitions contained in section (3) ofthe Act and related interpretations shallbe applicable to such terms when usedin this Part 1904.

Days away from work means thenumber of days the employee wouldhave worked but could not because ofan occupational injury or illness. Daysaway from work do not include the daythe employee was injured or became ill

and days on which the employee wouldnot have worked even though able towork (e.g. weekends, holidays, pre-scheduled vacation days, etc.). Thecount of days away from work ceaseswith the termination of employment ifthe termination is completely unrelatedto the employee’s injury or illness. If thetermination is related to the employee’sinjury or illness, the employer mustenter an estimate of the number of daysthat would have been missed had theemployee not been terminated. Forextended cases that result in 180 ormore days away from work, an entry of‘‘180’’ or ‘‘180+’’ in the days away fromwork column shall be considered anaccurate count.

Employee as defined in section 3 ofthe Act, means an employee of anemployer who is employed in abusiness of his or her employer whichaffects commerce.

Note to definition of ‘‘Employee’’: Thereare a variety of circumstances which result inan employee/employer relationship forOSHA recordkeeping purposes. Thefollowing is meant to be illustrative only, andnot meant to be an exhaustive list. Employeesinclude corporate officers as well as full-time, part-time, temporary and limitedservice workers who receive any form ofcompensation for their services. Employeesinclude persons who may be labeled‘‘independent contractors’’, or migrantworkers, and persons who are provided by atemporary help service or personnel leasingagent when they are supervised on a day-to-


day basis by the employer utilizing theirservices. Day-to-day supervision occurswhen, in addition to specifying the output,product or result to be accomplished by theperson’s work, the employer supervises thedetails, means, methods and processes bywhich the work is to be accomplished.Employees do not include sole proprietors,partners, family members of farm employersor domestic household workers whenemployed in the home (baby sitters,housekeepers, gardeners, etc.).

Establishment means:(1) A single physical location that is

in operation for 60 calendar days orlonger where business is conducted orwhere services or industrial operationsare performed. (For example: A factory,mill, grocery store, construction site,hotel, farm, ranch, hospital, centraladministrative office, or warehouse.)The establishment includes the primarywork facility and other areas such asrecreational and storage facilities,restrooms, hallways, etc. Theestablishment does not includecompany parking lots.

(2) When distinct and separateeconomic activities are performed at asingle physical location, each activitymay represent a separate establishment.For example, contract constructionactivities conducted at the samephysical location as a lumber yard maybe treated as separate establishments.According to the Standard IndustrialClassification (SIC) Manual, ExecutiveOffice of the President, Office ofManagement and Budget, (1987) eachdistinct and separate activity should beconsidered an establishment when noone industry description from the SICmanual includes such combinedactivities, and the employment in eachsuch economic activity is significant,and separate reports can be prepared onthe number of employees, their wagesand salaries, sales or receipts, or othertypes of establishment information.

First aid means the followingtreatments for work-related injuries andillnesses. This list is a comprehensivelist of all treatments considered first aidfor recordkeeping purposes. Thesetreatments are considered ‘‘first aid’’,regardless of the provider, thus theymay be provided by a physician, nurse,or other health care provider and arestill considered first aid.

(1) Visit(s) to a health care providerlimited to observation

(2) Diagnostic procedures, includingthe use of prescription medicationssolely for diagnostic purposes (e.g. eyedrops to dilate pupils)

(3) Use of nonprescriptionmedications, including antiseptics

(4) Simple administration of oxygen(5) Administration of tetanus or

diphtheria shot(s) or booster(s)

(6) Cleaning, flushing or soakingwounds on skin surface

(7) Use of wound coverings such asbandages, gauze pads, etc.

(8) Use of any hot/cold therapy (e.g.compresses, soaking, whirlpools, non-prescription skin creams/lotions forlocal relief, etc.) except formusculoskeletal disorders (SeeMandatory Appendix B)

(9) Use of any totally non-rigid, non-immobilizing means of support (e.g.elastic bandages)

(10) Drilling of a nail to relievepressure for subungual hematoma

(11) Use of eye patches(12) Removal of foreign bodies not

embedded in the eye if only irrigationor removal with a cotton swab isrequired

(13) Removal of splinters or foreignmaterial from areas other than the eyesby irrigation, tweezers, cotton swabs orother simple means

Health care provider is a personoperating within the scope of his or herlicense, registration or certification inhealth care.

Injury or illness is any sign, symptom,or laboratory abnormality whichindicates an adverse change in anemployee’s anatomical, biochemical,physiological, functional, orpsychological condition.

Medical treatment includes anymedical care or treatment beyond ‘‘firstaid’’.

Responsible Company Official is theperson accountable for certifying theaccuracy and completeness of theentries on the OSHA Injury and IllnessLog and Summary. This person must beeither an owner of the company, anofficer of the corporation, the highestranking company official working at theestablishment, or the immediatesupervisor of the highest rankingcompany official working at theestablishment.

Restricted work activity means theemployee is not capable of performingat full capacity for a full shift:

(1) The task he or she was engaged inat the time of injury or onset of illness(the task includes all facets of theassignment the employee wasperforming); OR

(2) His or her daily work activity(daily work activity includes allassignments the employee was expectedto perform on the day of injury or onsetof illness).

Site controlling employer is anemployer in the construction industry(SIC codes 15, 16 and 17) withcontractual, legal and/or practicalcontrol over the performance, timing, orcoordination of other employers’ workon a construction project with an initial

total contract value of one milliondollars ($1,000,000) or more. Anemployer (such as a general contractor)that retains another employer to workon the project is presumed to havesufficient control over thesubcontractor’s performance to beconsidered a site controlling employer.In addition, an employer (such as aconstruction manager) is a sitecontrolling employer if it hasmanagerial or supervisory authoritywith respect to employers engaged onthe project, regardless of whether it hasa contractual relationship with thoseemployers.

Subcontractor employees areemployees of construction firms (in SICs15, 16, and 17) who are present at aconstruction project in connection withtheir job(s) who are not employees ofthe site controlling employer at thatconstruction project.

Work environment means theestablishment and other locations whereemployees are engaged in work or arepresent as a condition of theiremployment.

Work-related. An injury or illness iswork-related if an event or exposure inthe work environment either caused orcontributed to the resulting condition,or aggravated a pre-existing condition.Work-relatedness is presumed forinjuries and illnesses resulting fromevents or exposures occurring at theemployer’s establishment. Work-relatedness is not presumed for injuriesand illnesses resulting from events orexposures away from the employer’sestablishment; they are consideredwork-related only if the worker isengaged in a work activity or is presentas a condition of employment. SeeMandatory Appendix A to part 1904 fora discussion of work-relatedness andcriteria for rebutting the presumption ofwork-relatedness.

§ 1904.4 OSHA Injury and Illness Log andSummary (OSHA Form 300 or Equivalent).

(a) Each employer shall maintain foreach establishment an OSHA Injury andIllness Log and Summary [OSHA Form300 (formerly OSHA No. 200)] orequivalent form for recordable injuriesand illnesses experienced by his or heremployees. Employers with multipleestablishments may maintain aconsolidated log for establishmentsemploying no more than 20 employees.Employers who exercise this optionmust enter the address of the affectedemployee’s establishment in thedepartment column for each recordedinjury or illness.

(b) Each employer shall enter everyrecordable injury and illness within 7calendar days of receiving information


that a recordable injury or illness hasoccurred. A recordable injury or illnessis one which meets all of the followingfour criteria:

(1) An injury or illness exists (see thedefinition of injury or illness foradditional information); and

(2) The injury or illness is work-related (see the definition of work-related and Appendix A to part 1904 foradditional information); and

(3) The injury or illness is new. A newinjury or illness does not result from therecurrence of a pre-existing condition ifno new or additional workplaceincident or exposure occurs. Arecurrence of a previous work relatedinjury or illness is presumed to be a newcase when it either (1) results from anew work event or exposure, or (2) 45days have elapsed since medicaltreatment, restricted work or days awayfrom work were discontinued and thelast signs or symptoms wereexperienced;

(Note: This presumption is rebuttable bymedical evidence indicating that the priorcase had not been resolved.)

and(4) The injury or illness meets one or

more of the following:(i) results in death or loss of

consciousness,(ii) results in day(s) away from work,

restricted work activity or job transfer,(iii) requires medical treatment

beyond first aid, or(iv) is a recordable condition listed in

the Mandatory Appendix B to part 1904.(5) See Appendix C to part 1904 for

a decision tree for recordingoccupational injuries and illnesses.

(c) Any employer may maintain theOSHA Injury and Illness Log andSummary (OSHA Form 300) on anequivalent form, by means of dataprocessing equipment, or both, when allof the following conditions are met:

(1) The equivalent form or computerprintout is as readable andunderstandable as the OSHA Form 300to a person familiar with the OSHAForm 300.

(2) The equivalent form or computerprintout must contain, at a minimum,the same information as found on theOSHA Form 300.

§ 1904.5 OSHA Injury and Illness IncidentRecord (OSHA Form 301 or Equivalent).

(a) In addition to the OSHA Injuryand Illness Log and Summary (OSHAForm 300) provided for under Section§ 1904.4(a) of this Part, each employer,shall complete an OSHA Injury andIllness Incident Record [OSHA Form301 (formerly OSHA Form 101)] foreach recordable injury or illness

experienced by employees of thatestablishment, within 7 calendar days ofreceiving information that a recordableinjury or illness has occurred. EachOSHA Form 301 must contain theunique case or file number relating it tothe corresponding case entry on theOSHA Form 300.

(b) An employer may maintain theOSHA Form(s) 301 on an equivalentform(s), by means of data processingequipment, or both, when all of thefollowing conditions are met:

(1) The equivalent form or computerprintout is as readable andunderstandable as the OSHA Form 301to a person familiar with the OSHAForm 301.

(2) The equivalent form or computerprintout must contain, all of theinformation found on the OSHA Form301, or must be supplemented by anOSHA Form 301 containing the missinginformation. The detailed informationconcerning the injury or illness(questions 16, 17 and 18) must be askedin the same order and using identicallanguage from the Form 301. All otherquestions may be asked in any mannerand in any order.

§ 1904.6 Preparation, certification andposting of the year-end summary.

(a) Each employer shall post a year-end summary of occupational injuriesand illnesses for each establishment.This summary shall consist of the year’sinjury and illness totals from the OSHAForm 300 or equivalent, calendar yearcovered, company name, establishmentname, establishment address, annualaverage number of employees, the totalhours worked by all employees, and theemployee access and employer penaltystatements as found on the OSHA Form300. If no injuries or illnesses occurredduring the year: Zeroes must be enteredon the totals line; annual averagenumber of employees and total hoursworked by all employees must beentered; and the form shall be posted.Note: The OSHA 300 Log may be usedfor the summary. The postingrequirement may be met by simplycopying and posting the portion of the300 Log to the right of column A.

(b) A responsible company official(see the definition of responsiblecompany official for furtherinformation) shall sign the summary ofoccupational injuries and illnesses tocertify that he or she has examined theOSHA Injury and Illness Log andSummary and that the entries on theform and the year-end summary aretrue, accurate and complete.

(c)(1) Each employer shall post a copyof the establishment’s year-endsummary in each establishment in the

same manner that notices are requiredto be posted under 29 CFR 1903.2(a)(1).The summary shall be completed andposted no later than February 1 of theyear following the calendar year coveredby the summarized records, and shallremain in place until January 31 of thefollowing year.

(2) For employees who do notprimarily report to or work at a singleestablishment, employers shall satisfythis posting requirement by presentingor mailing a copy of the summary toeach employee who is on the payroll atany time during the month of Januaryfollowing the calendar year covered bythe year-end summary.

(3) For employers who maintain aconsolidated log of small establishmentsunder § 1904.4(a), employers shallsatisfy this posting requirement byposting a year-end summary based onthe consolidated log in eachestablishment.

(4) Multi-establishment employers donot have to post year-end summaries forestablishments that have permanentlyclosed during the calendar year.

§ 1904.7 Location of records.(a) The records required by §§ 1904.4,

1904.5, 1904.6 and 1904.17 foremployees and ‘‘subcontractoremployees’’ who report to or work at asingle establishment, such as a factory,construction site, grocery store, hospital,warehouse, central administrativeoffice, etc. shall be kept at theestablishment.

(b) Records for employees who reportto a particular establishment but workelsewhere shall be kept at theestablishment where the employeesreport each day.

(c) For employees who normallyreport to one establishment but areinjured or become ill at anotherestablishment within the samecompany, a recordable injury or illnessshall be entered on the Log of theestablishment in which they wereinjured or became ill.

(d) Records for employees who do notreport to any establishment on a regularbasis may be kept at the transient worksite(s) for each operation or group ofoperations or they may be kept at anestablished central location by:

(1) Having the address and telephonenumber of the central location availableat each worksite; and

(2) Having personnel available at thecentral location during normal businesshours to provide information from therecords kept there.

(e) Any employer may keep the OSHAForm 300 or OSHA Form(s) 301 at alocation other than the establishment, aslong as the information is retrievable in


accordance with the provisions definedin § 1904.11, Access to records.

§ 1904.8 Period covered.

Records shall be kept on a calendaryear basis.

§ 1904.9 Retention and updating of work-related injury and illness records.

(a) Retention. OSHA Forms 300 and301 or equivalents, year-end summaries,and injury and illness records for‘‘subcontractor employees’’ as requiredunder § 1904.17 of this Part shall beretained for 3 years following the end ofthe year to which they relate.

(b) Updating. During the retentionperiod, employers must revise theOSHA Form 300 or equivalent toinclude newly discovered recordableinjuries or illnesses. Employers mustrevise the OSHA Form 300 to reflectchanges which occur in previouslyrecorded injuries and illnesses. If thedescription or outcome of a casechanges, remove the original entry andenter the new information to reflect themore severe consequence. Employersmust revise the year-end summary atleast quarterly if such changes haveoccurred.

Note to § 1904.9: Employers are notrequired to update OSHA Form 301 to reflectchanges in previously recorded cases.

§ 1904.10 Change of ownership.

Where an establishment has changedownership, each employer shall beresponsible for recording and reportingoccupational injuries and illnesses onlyfor that period of the year during whichhe or she owned such establishment,but the new owner shall retain allrecords of the establishment kept by theprior owner, as required by § 1904.9(a)of this Part.

§ 1904.11 Access to records.

(a) Government Representatives. Eachemployer shall provide, upon a requestmade in person or in writing, copies ofthe OSHA Forms 300 and 301 orequivalents, and year-end summaries fortheir own employees, and injury andillness records for ‘‘subcontractoremployees’’ as required under this Partto any authorized representative of theSecretary of Labor or Secretary of Healthand Human Services or to anyauthorized representative of a Stateaccorded jurisdiction for occupationalsafety and health for the purposes ofcarrying out the Act.

(1) When the request is made inperson, the information must beprovided in hard copy (paper printout)within 4 hours. If the information isbeing transmitted to the establishmentfrom some other location, using telefax

or other electronic transmission, theemployer may provide a copy to thegovernment representative present atthe establishment or to the governmentrepresentative’s office.

(2) When the request is made inwriting, the information must beprovided within 21 days of receipt ofthe written request, unless the Secretaryrequests otherwise.

(b) Employee(s), former employee(s)and/or their designatedrepresentative(s). (1) Upon request, theemployer shall make the OSHA Form300 or equivalent available for viewingby an employee(s), former employee(s),and/or their designated representative(s)by the close of business on the nextscheduled work day. The employee,former employee, and/or theirdesignated representative(s) shall haveaccess to the entire OSHA Form 300(Log), including personal identifiers, forany establishment in which theemployee is or has been employed. Thisincludes access to the current Log andall Logs retained and maintainedpursuant to § 1904.9.

(2) Upon request, the employer shallmake available to an employee(s) orformer employee(s) for viewing his orher OSHA Form(s) 301 or equivalent forhis or her own recordable injury orillness by the close of business on thenext scheduled workday.

(3) The employer shall also makecopies available within 7 calendar dayswhenever an individual who has a rightto view a record(s) listed in paragraphs(b) (1) and (2) of this section requests acopy, either in person or in writing. Theemployer shall not, in writing orotherwise, attempt to restrict theemployees’ use of such copies. Theemployer shall assure that either:

(i) A copy of the record(s) is providedwithout cost to the individual;

(ii) The necessary copying facilities(e.g., photocopying) are made availablewithout cost to the individual forcopying the record(s); or

(iii) The record(s) is loaned to theindividual for a reasonable time toenable a copy to be made.

(4) Whenever a record has beenpreviously provided without cost to anemployee(s), former employee(s) and/ortheir designated representative(s), theemployer may charge reasonable, non-discriminatory administrative costs (i.e.search and copying expenses but notincluding overhead expenses) for arequest by the same person foradditional copies of the record, exceptthat an employer shall not charge for aninitial request of a copy of an updatedor corrected record.

(5) Upon request, the employer shallmake available to an employee(s),

former employee(s) or his or herdesignated representative access to allOSHA Form(s) 301 or equivalent.Access shall be provided in a reasonabletime. The employer may charge areasonable fee for searching and copyingexpenses.

(c) Nothing in this section shall bedeemed to preclude employees andtheir designated representatives fromcollectively bargaining to obtain accessto information relating to occupationalinjuries and illnesses in addition to theinformation made available under thissection.

(d) In the case of a deceased or legallyincapacitated employee, the employee’slegal representative(s) may directlyexercise all the employee’s rights underthis section.

§ 1904.12 Reporting of fatality or multiplehospitalization incidents.

(a) Within 8 hours after the death ofany employee from a work-relatedincident or the in-patienthospitalization of three or moreemployees as a result of a work-relatedincident, the employer(s) of eachemployee so affected shall, report thefatality/multiple hospitalization bytelephone or in person to the AreaOffice of the Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA), U.S.Department of Labor, that is nearest tothe site of the incident during regularbusiness hours, or by using the OSHAemergency toll-free central telephonenumber (1–800–321–OSHA [6742])during non business hours. Note: Thesite controlling employer or designeewill be responsible for making thereport if no more than two employees ofa single employer were hospitalized but,collectively, three or more workers werehospitalized as in-patients.

(b) This requirement applies to eachsuch fatality or hospitalization of threeor more employees which occurs withinthirty (30) days of an incident.

(c) Exception: If the employer doesnot learn of a reportable incident at thetime it occurs and the incident wouldotherwise be reportable underparagraphs (a) and (b) of this section,the employer shall make the reportwithin 8 hours of the time the incidentis reported to any agent or employee ofthe employer.

(d) Each report required by thissection shall relate the followinginformation: establishment name,location of incident, time of theincident, number of fatalities orhospitalized employees, contact person,phone number, and a brief descriptionof the incident.


§ 1904.13 Reports by employers.(a) Section 24 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.

673, directs the Secretary of Labor, inconsultation with the Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, to developand maintain a program of collection,compilation, and analysis ofoccupational safety and health statistics.Section 24 also requires employers tofile reports with the Secretary on ‘‘thebasis of records made and kept pursuantto Section 8(c) of this Act.’’ Section 8(c),29 U.S.C. 657(c), requires each employerto ‘‘make, keep and preserve, and makeavailable to the Secretary or theSecretary of Health and HumanServices, such records regarding hisactivities relating to this Act’’ asprescribed by regulation forenforcement of the Act or ‘‘fordeveloping information regarding thecauses and prevention of occupationalaccidents and illnesses.’’ Section 8(c)also directs the Secretary of Labor, incooperation with the Secretary of Healthand Human Services, to prescriberegulations requiring employers tomaintain accurate records of, and tomake periodic reports on work-relateddeaths, injuries, and illnesses.

(b) Pursuant to the statutory authoritydescribed above, the Secretary of Laborand Secretary of Health and HumanServices may request reports fromemployers regarding the employers’activities relating to the Act. Theserequests for reports shall be in writing,shall describe what information must bereported, and may include a request forcopies of records kept pursuant to 29CFR Part 1904, information that theemployer is required to maintain byregulations or standards promulgatedpursuant to the Act, informationrequired to participate in periodicsurveys of occupational injuries andillnesses, and/or information necessaryto determine rates of injury, illness orexposure, such as employment andhours of work. Note: Employers who areotherwise exempted under § 1904.2 ofthis Part, shall upon notification by theSecretary of Labor or Secretary of Healthand Human Services, maintain theOSHA Log and Summary on Injuriesand Illnesses for any year in which theyare notified that they have been selectedfor participation in a data collectionprogram of occupational injuries andillnesses.

(c) The employer shall file therequested reports with the Secretarywithin 21 calendar days of receipt of therequest, unless the Secretary requestsotherwise.

(d) Nothing in any State planapproved under section 18(c) of the Actshall affect the duties of employers tosubmit required reports.

§ 1904.14 Recordkeeping under approvedState plans.

(a) Recordkeeping and reportingrequirements promulgated by Stateplans are required to be substantiallyidentical to this Part (see 29 CFR1902.3(k) and 29 CFR 1952.4). Stateplans shall promulgate recordkeepingand reporting requirements that areidentical to the Federal requirements fordetermining the types of injuries andillnesses that will be entered into therecords and the manner in which theyare entered. All other recordkeeping andreporting requirements that arepromulgated by State plans shall be atleast as effective as the Federalrequirements.

(b) Records maintained by anemployer and reports submitted,pursuant to and in accordance with therequirements of an approved State planunder section 18 of the Act, shall beregarded as compliance with this Part.

(c) State and local governmentagencies are exempt from Federal OSHArecordkeeping in States under thejurisdiction of Federal OSHA. However,in States with their own OSHAapproved safety and health programs,State and local government agenciesmust keep injury and illness records inaccordance with State law and 29 CFR1952.4.

§ 1904.15 Petitions for recordkeepingexceptions.

All requests or variances forrecordkeeping exceptions shall be madein accordance with the procedures setforth in 29 CFR 1905. Any exceptiongranted prior to [Effective date of finalrule] is null and void.

§ 1904.16 Falsification of, or failure to keeprecords or provide reports.

(a) Section 17(g) of the Act providesthat ‘‘Whoever knowingly makes anyfalse statement, representation, orcertification in any application, record,report, plan or other document filed orrequired to be maintained pursuant tothis Act shall, upon conviction, bepunished by a fine of not more than$10,000, or by imprisonment, for notmore than 6 months or both.’’

(b) Failure to maintain records or filereports as required by Part 1904, or asrequired by the forms and instructionsissued under Part 1904, may result inthe issuance of citations and assessmentof penalties as provided for in sections9, 10, and 17 of the Act.

(c) An employee who is subject toretaliatory discrimination by his or heremployer for filing a report of a work-related injury or illness is protected bySection 11(c) of the OSH Act and 29CFR 1977 Discrimination Against

Employees Exercising Rights Under theWilliams-Steiger Occupational Safetyand Health Act of 1970. An employerwho violates section 11(c) may berequired to reinstate or rehire a firedemployee with back pay.

§ 1904.17 Subcontractor records for majorconstruction projects.

(a) Any site controlling employer inthe construction industry (SICs 15, 16and 17), for construction projects withan initial total contract value of onemillion dollars ($1,000,000) or more,shall maintain a separate occupationalinjury and illness record (subcontractorrecord) for recordable injuries andillnesses sustained by ‘‘subcontractoremployees’’ (not considered employeesof the site controlling employer) whileworking at the construction project. Onthe subcontractor record, the sitecontrolling employer is only required torecord occupational injuries andillnesses of ‘‘subcontractor employees’’who are employed by a constructionfirm who had eleven (11) or more fulland/or part-time employees at any onetime during the calendar yearimmediately preceding the currentcalendar year. (Note: The size thresholdis based on the number of employees ofthe entire firm or corporation, not of anindividual establishment.)

(b) The site controlling employer shallcomply with the requirements of§ 1904.4(b) in determining whichinjuries and illnesses are recordable onthe subcontractor record, and when torecord them. The injury and illnessinformation for each recordable caseoccurring to ‘‘subcontractor employees’’shall include the person’s name,company, date of the event whichresulted in the injury or illness, and abrief description of the injury or illness.The site controlling employer shall alsoinclude the location of the site and theperiod of time covered on the record.The site controlling employer shallmaintain all subcontractor recordspertaining to one construction site in aconsolidated file by calendar year. Thesite controlling employer has the optionof using a separate OSHA Form 300, anequivalent form, or a collection ofrecords to satisfy this requirement. Note:The employer of the ‘‘subcontractoremployee’’ is not relieved of theresponsibility of completing the OSHAForm 300 or equivalent as required by§ 1904.4(a).

(c) For those construction projectswhere there is more than one sitecontrolling employer, those employersmay agree to assign the responsibilityfor maintaining the subcontractorrecords to one of the site controllingemployers by means of a written


agreement. When such a writtenagreement exists, the other sitecontrolling employers on the project arenot required to maintain thesubcontractor record regardless ofwhether they may be deemed to be sitecontrolling employers.

(d) The site controlling employer isnot required to complete an OSHA Form301 for injuries or illnesses experiencedby ‘‘subcontractor employees’’. Note:The employer of the ‘‘subcontractoremployee’’ is not relieved of theresponsibility of completing the OSHAForm 301 or equivalent as required by§ 1904.5(a).

(e) The site controlling employer isnot required to prepare a year-endsummary for injuries and illnessesexperienced by ‘‘subcontractoremployees’’. Note: The employer of the‘‘subcontractor employee’’ is notrelieved of the responsibility ofcompleting the year-end summary asrequired by § 1904.6(a).)

(f) The site controlling employer isnot required to update the injury andillness records for ‘‘subcontractoremployees’’. Note: The employer of the‘‘subcontractor employee’’ is notrelieved of the responsibilities to updatethe injury and illness records asrequired by § 1904.9(a).

Appendix A to Part 1904—Work-Relatedness (Mandatory)

If an event or exposure in the workenvironment either caused or contributed toan injury or illness, or aggravated a pre-existing condition, then the case isconsidered work-related. Work-relatedness ispresumed for injuries and illnesses resultingfrom events or exposures occurring at theemployer’s establishment. Injuries orillnesses occurring away from theestablishment are considered work-relatedonly if the worker is engaged in a workactivity or is present as a condition of his orher employment.

A. Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses—Special Situations: Injuries or illnesses areconsidered to be work-related if they occurin the following situations:

1. While the employee is engaged in workactivity or apprenticeship/vocational trainingrequired by the employer.

2. While the employee is on break, in therest room or in storage areas when located onthe employer’s premises.

3. While the employee is performing workfor pay or compensation at home, if theinjury or illness is directly related to theperformance of work rather than the generalhome environment or setting.

4. While the employee is traveling onbusiness, including to and from customercontacts.

5. While the employee is engaged in workactivity where a vehicle is considered thework environment (e.g. truck, taxi, etc.).

B. Non Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses.The following injuries and illnesses are notconsidered work-related. Only the followingmay be used to rebut the presumption ofwork-relatedness that applies to injuries andillnesses occurring at the employers’establishment:

1. Injuries or illnesses will not beconsidered work-related if they occur toindividuals present at their employer’sestablishment as a member of the generalpublic rather than as a worker.

2. Injuries or illnesses will not beconsidered work-related if they involvesymptoms that surface at work but solelyresult from a non-work-related event orexposure outside of the work environment.

3. Injuries or illnesses will not beconsidered work-related if they result solelyfrom voluntary participation in wellnessprograms, medical, fitness and recreationalactivities (e.g. exercise classes, blooddonations, physicals, flu shots, racquetball,baseball, etc.).

4. Injuries or illnesses will not beconsidered work-related if they solely resultfrom a worker eating, drinking or preparinghis or her own food when unrelated tooccupational factors.

5. Injuries or illnesses will not beconsidered work-related if they are solely theresult of workers doing personal tasks(unrelated to their employment) at theestablishment outside of normal workinghours.

6. Cases will not be considered work-related if they result solely from acts ofviolence committed by one’s family or ex-spouse when unrelated to the worker’semployment, including intentionally self-inflicted injuries.

7. Injuries or illnesses will not beconsidered work-related if they occur oncompany parking lots and access roads whileemployees are arriving at or leaving work.

8. An injury or illness will not beconsidered work-related if the worker wasnever engaged in any duty at work that couldhave placed stress on the affected body partor was never exposed to any chemical orphysical agent at work that could beassociated with the observed injury orillness.

9. An injury or illness will not beconsidered work-related if the case resultssolely from activity in voluntary communityor civic projects away from the employer’sestablishment.

10. An injury or illness will not beconsidered work-related if the case resultssolely from normal body movements, i.e.walking unencumbered, talking, tying a shoe,sneezing, coughing, provided the activitydoes not involve a job-related motion and thework environment does not contribute to theinjury or illness.

11. Mental illness will not be consideredwork-related, except mental illnessesassociated with post-traumatic stress.

C. Travel Status.1. Employees in travel status (i.e. traveling

on company business) should be consideredengaged in work-related activities during allof their time spent in the ‘‘interest of theircompany’’. This includes, but is not limited

to, travel to and from customer contacts,conducting job tasks, and entertaining orbeing entertained for the purpose oftransacting, discussing, or promotingbusiness.

2. When traveling employees check into ahotel, motel or other lodging, they establisha ‘‘home away from home’’. Thereafter, theiractivities are evaluated in the same manneras for non-traveling employees. For example,injuries sustained when commuting from ahotel to a temporary work site are not work-related, just as injuries sustained during anemployee’s normal commute from apermanent residence to an office would notbe considered work-related.

3. While an employee is in travel status,the following situations are not consideredwork-related:

i. Normal commuting between theemployee’s temporary residence and his orher job; and

ii. Situations where the employee departsfrom a reasonably direct route of work-related travel for personal reasons (e.g., a sidetrip for a vacation).

D. Employees who work in their own home.An injury or illness will be considered work-related if it occurs while the employee isperforming work for pay or compensation inthe home, if the injury or illness is directlyrelated to the performance of work ratherthan the general home environment orsetting.

E. Employees who live at the employer’sestablishment.

1. Some workplaces provide living quartersfor employees. Off-shore oil rigs, ships andconstruction sites at remote locationscommonly provide their employees withliving accommodations.

2. In these workplaces, injuries or illnessesare presumed to be work-related if theemployee is on-duty or engaged in a workactivity. The injury or illness is alsoconsidered work-related if the employee washarmed as a result of a serious workplaceaccident such as a chemical release, fire,explosion, shipwreck, steam release, orbuilding collapse.

3. All other injuries and illnesses occurringduring off-duty hours are considered non-work-related.

Appendix B to Part 1904—Recording ofSpecific Conditions (Mandatory)

The purpose of this appendix is to provideinformation for the recording of specificconditions which may not be captured by theother recordability criteria. For purposes ofOSHA-mandated recordkeeping, theconditions listed in this appendix areconsidered Recordable Injuries and Illnesseswhen the condition listed is work-related.The employer shall evaluate, for OSHAinjury and illness recordkeeping purposes,all information received as a result ofmedical surveillance required by an OSHAstandard.

Conditions not included in this Appendixthat otherwise meet the criteria in the§ 1904.4.(c) must be recorded.


TABLE OF SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

System Condition Recording criteria

Multi-system ......................... Carbon monoxide poi-soning.

Elevated carboxyhemoglobin levels and/or diagnosis by a health care provider.

Mercury ..................... 15 micrograms or greater per liter (µg/L) of whole blood or 35 micrograms or greater pergram (µg/g) creatinine in urine and/or diagnosis of mercury poisoning by a health careprovider.

Lead .......................... 40 micrograms or greater per 100 grams (µg/100g) of whole blood and/or diagnosis oflead poisoning by a health care provider.

Cadmium ................... —3 micrograms or greater per gram (µg/g) creatinine in urine; or—B2-microglobulin 300 micrograms or greater per gram (µg/g) creatinine in urine; or—5 micrograms of cadmium or greater per liter (µg/L) of whole blood.

Benzene .................... Phenol level of 75 milligrams or greater per liter (mg/L) of urine or abnormal bloodcounts.

Musculo-skeletal system ...... Fractures of thebones or teeth.

Positive X-ray and/or diagnosis by a health care provider.

Musculoskeletal dis-orders.

Diagnosis by a health care provider and/or objective finding(s) (e.g. positive Tinel’s,Phalen’s or Finkelstein’s test; or swelling, redness indicative of inflammation, deform-ity, loss of motion, etc.)

Musculoskeletal disorders may occur in the neck, back, shoulder, arm, hand, fingers, legand/or foot. Examples of musculoskeletal disorders include but are not limited to car-pal tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, epicondylitis, synovitis, thoracic root lesions,Raynaud’s syndrome, and tarsal tunnel syndrome.

For musculoskeletal disorders only, medical treatment shall include two or more applica-tions of hot/cold therapy as directed by a health care provider.

Sensory organs .................... UV burning of the cor-nea or retina.

Recognition/diagnosis of welder’s flash or flashburn.

Hearing loss .............. An average shift of 15 decibels (dB) or more at 2000, 3000, and 4000 hertz in one orboth ears. The change in hearing may be adjusted for presbycusis (age related hear-ing loss). The record of the injury or illness may be deleted if a retest performed with30 days disproves the original shift. Once a 15 dB shift has occurred, the baseline (forrecordkeeping purposes) should be adjusted to reflect this result. A subsequent testrevealing an additional 15 dB shift from this new or revised baseline value is a new in-jury or illness. Work-relationship is presumed if an employee is exposed to an 8 hourtime weighted average sound level of noise equaling or exceeding 85 dB(A).

Skin ...................................... Burns (heat, chemicaland radiation burns).

Third degree burns (and first and second degree burns requiring medical treatment be-yond first aid, restricted work activity, days away from work, loss of consciousness ordeath).

Skin disorders ........... Lasting beyond 48 hours, including but not limited to allergic or irritant contact dermatitis.Lacerations ................ Requiring closure including but not limited to the use of sutures, adhesive closures and

staples.Respiratory system .............. Asthma and other ob-

structive airway dis-eases.

—Initial episode, regardless of duration, diagnosed by a health care provider. Or

—Any recurrent episode, regardless of duration, that results in the administration of pre-scription drugs and/or diagnosis by a health care provider.

Note: Obstructive airway diseases include but are not limited to reactive airways dys-function syndrome (RADS), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), andchronic obstructive bronchitis.

Pneumoconiosis (e.g.asbestosis, silico-sis, coal worker’spneumoconiosis,beryllium disease,etc.).

Diagnosis by a health care provider, radiography profusion category of 1/1 or greater bythe International Labor Organization (ILO) classification system.

Mesothelioma ............ Diagnosis by a health care provider, pleural plaques and/or pleural thickening.Byssinosis ................. Diminished pulmonary function (an FEV1 of less than 80% of the predicted value)and/or

diagnosis by a health care provider when worker has been exposed to dust from cot-ton or flax which has not undergone wet treatments.

Tuberculosis infectionor disease.

First positive tuberculin skin test reaction indicative of new infection, except pre-place-ment; Or

Diagnosis of active tuberculosis by a health care provider. A case of tuberculosis dis-ease or tuberculosis infection is presumed to be work-related in the following indus-tries: correctional facilities; health care facilities; homeless shelters; long-term care fa-cilities for the elderly; and drug treatment centers. The employer may rebut this pre-sumption of work relationship by providing evidence that the employee is known tohave had a non-work exposure to active TB. Examples include situations in which (1)An employee is living in a household with a person diagnosed with active TB or (2) thePublic Health Department lists the employee as a contact to a case of active TB.

For all other industries a case would be considered work-related under the following cir-cumstance: An employee tests positive for tuberculosis infection after being exposedto a person within the work environment known to have tuberculosis disease. Thecase of the person with TB disease, however, would not be presumed work-related ifthere was no known exposure within the work environment.


TABLE OF SPECIFIC CONDITIONS—Continued

System Condition Recording criteria

Respiratory system .............. Hypersensitivity pneu-monitis (non-asth-matic allergicbreathing disorderscaused by organicdust and other anti-genic aerosols).

Diagnosis by a health care provider of woodworker’s lung, farmer’s lung, malt worker’slung, mushroom worker’s lung, cheese washer’s lung, miller’s lung, etc. when theworker has been exposed to the relevant substance.

Toxic inhalation in-jury—breathing dis-orders (such asMetal FumeFever)due to inhal-ing chemicals.

Diagnosis by a health care provider and/or respiratory distress requiring overnight hos-pitalization.

Miscellaneous ...................... Bloodborne pathogendiseases.

Any workplace bloodborne pathogen exposure incident (as defined in 1910.1030(b)) thatresults in a positive blood test or diagnosis by a health care provider indicating AIDS,HIV seroconversion, hepatitis B or hepatitis C; Or

Any laceration or puncture wound that involves contact with another person’s blood orother potentially infectious materials.

Note: to protect employee confidentiality, employers shall record occupationally acquiredbloodborne pathogen diseases, such as hepatitis B, simply as the initial bloodborneexposure incident and note the exposure type (e.g. needlestick). Seroconversion andspecific type of bloodborne disease shall not be recorded.

Hepatitis (toxic or in-fectious).

Positive blood test and/or diagnosis by a health care provider.

Work-related injuries and illnesses are recorded if they result in death, loss of consciousness, days away from work, restricted work activ-ity, medical treatment beyond first aid, or the criteria in this table.

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P


Appendix C to Part 1904—DecisionTree for Recording OccupationalInjuries and Illnesses

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C


PART 1952—[AMENDED]

2. The authority citation for Part 1952continues to read as follows:

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 667; 29 CFR Part1902, Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 1–90 (55FR 9033).

3. Section 1952.4 would be revised toread as follows:

§ 1952.4 Injury and illness recordkeepingand reporting requirements.

(a) Injury and illness recordkeepingand reporting requirements promulgatedby State plans are required to besubstantially identical to 29 CFR Part1904. State plans shall promulgaterecordkeeping and reporting

requirements that are identical to theFederal requirements for determiningthe types of injuries and illnesses thatwill be entered into the records and themanner in which they are entered. Allother recordkeeping and reportingrequirements that are promulgated byState plans shall be at least as effectiveas the Federal requirements.

(b) A State is not prohibited fromrequiring supplementary reporting orrecordkeeping data, but such additionaldata must be approved by theOccupational Safety and HealthAdministration to insure that there willbe no interference with the uniformreporting objectives.

(c) Variances to State injury andillness recordkeeping and reportingrequirements under an approved planmust be obtained from the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration of theU.S. Department of Labor. Therefore, aState may not grant a variance torecordkeeping and reportingrequirements under their ownprocedures.

(d) In order to insure the uniformityof the injury and illness statistics, aState must recognize all variancesgranted by the Occupational Safety andHealth Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–1942 Filed 2–1–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

february 2, 1996 federal register · federal register/vol. 61, no. 23/friday, february 2,...

Documents