(ASSE) commented that ``[w]hile not underestimating the serious nature
of any amputation, it must be noted that an amputation of a part of a
finger may, in the reasonable person's mind, is not as serious or
traumatic an event as the amputation of an arm, hand, leg or foot.
Further, other injuries like multiple broken bones, crushed vertebra,
head injuries can be more serious and life-altering than an amputation.
From that viewpoint, singling out amputations makes little sense other
than the perception that they are more easily recordable. However, even
that is questioned by our members'' (Ex. 46); Newport News Shipbuilding
made a similar comment (Ex. 125). The American Foundry Society
commented that the reporting requirement should be limited to
amputations involving at least one joint (Ex. 101). NUCA commented that
``[w]ith respect to all amputations as severe injuries, . . .
amputations . . . do not amount to a fatality or catastrophic event''
(Ex. 110).
    In addition, the American Chemistry Council commented that
rulemaking on the reporting of amputations be postponed ``[u]ntil a
holistic evaluation of [the National Emphasis Program (NEP) on
amputations and the Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP)] is
conducted'' (Ex. 76). Similarly, the Associated General Contractors of
America (AGC) commented that the reporting requirement for amputations
is ``unnecessary'' because ``[o]ver the past five years since the
effective date of the [amputations NEP] the agency has had an
opportunity to collect the necessary data to enforce and evaluate the
effectiveness of existing standards'' (Ex. 115).
    However, many other commenters supported the requirement in the
proposed rule to report all work-related amputations (Exs. 34, 112).
The Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable (PRR) commented that ``an amputation
as defined in the proposal [to include loss of bone] indicates a
serious traumatic injury and is thus properly included under the
reporting regulation'' (Ex. 38). NIOSH commented, ``Given the high
probability that most amputations require some form of medical care
through hospitals or emergency departments, OSHA should require the
reporting of all amputation cases'' (Ex. 66). NCOSH commented that
``[a]mputations are serious injuries with permanent consequences; thus,
it is important all of these cases be reported to OSHA'' (Ex. 75). The
USW commented that ``[l]essons can be learned from this amputation
while the events leading up to the incident are clear to the witnesses.
Amputees don't just happen, there were unsafe condition(s), change in
procedure, equipment or a number of other factors. This person's life
is changed forever'' (Ex. 86).

    The AFL-CIO referred to BLS data to support their statement that an
``amputation is a serious, severe, and significant event that can
result in some permanent impairment.'' According to BLS data from 2009,
the median number of days away from work (DAFW) for an amputation was
21 days, compared to a median of 8 days for all work-related injuries
and illnesses. The AFL-CIO added that the number of amputations
involving days away from work was 5,930, representing 0.6% of all DAFW
injuries/illnesses. The AFL-CIO commented that the proportion of
amputations among total injuries/illnesses is ``similar to, or less
than, 0.6% reported for injuries involving [DAFW] (given that most
amputations are likely to involve some number of [days away from
work]'' and concluded that ``[t]hus, it's evident to us that, given the
numbers of amputations that occur annually in the U.S., reporting all
amputations to OSHA would pose nothing more than a minimal burden on
employers'' (Ex. 69). In addition, the AFL-CIO stated that ``California
and Kentucky already require the reporting of amputations as part of
their state-administered plans, proving that such a requirement is
feasible'' (Ex. 59); the UAW made a similar comment (Ex. 77).
    Finally, Letitia Davis's comments also included data on
amputations, specifically the results of the referral of work-related
amputations to OSHA in Massachusetts (Ex. 84). ``In July 2010, the
Massachusetts Public Health Department initiated a protocol referring
work-related amputations with logically consistent body part codes to
OSHA for follow-up. In 2010, 22 private employers were referred to one
of three OSHA area offices. The 22 referrals resulted in 13 on-site
inspections and additional phone/fax initiatives. Among the 13
inspections, OSHA had already been notified about two of the injuries
(from city police or fire departments that responded to the site) and
had already initiated inspections at the time of the referrals. Nine of
the referrals leading to onsite inspections resulted in citations,
indicating shortcomings or failures of occupational health and safety
programming. These included citations related to lockout/tagout, lack
of machine guarding, failure to conduct a hazard assessment and the
general duty clause . . . Notably amputations were verified in nine of
the 13 onsite investigations. Four were found to be other injuries.
Even when amputations did not occur, OSHA found hazardous conditions
that were associated with other serious injuries. These findings
indicate that OSHA investigations prompted by case reports of
amputations are productive, and well-targeted, leading to
identification of serious workplace hazards and concrete steps to
eliminate hazards that cause or contribute to injuries. They suggest
that direct reporting of amputations to OSHA by employers would be an
effective means of targeting limited enforcement resources to high
priority problems.''
    Although these results are limited to the experience of OSHA's area
offices in Massachusetts, OSHA believes it is reasonable to expect
comparable findings and results in its other area offices across the
country. OSHA area offices operate using standardized procedures.
Reviews of OSHA inspection data have shown that inspections conducted
by area offices under national programs routinely have similar results
across the country.
    OSHA agrees with commenters who stated that amputations are serious
events. OSHA refers to BLS data showing that in 2010, half of fingertip
amputations involved 18 or more days away from work. OSHA finds that
all amputations are severe and significant workplace injuries,
including amputations of fingertips and fingers as well as amputations
of large body parts, such as hands, arms, and feet, and that reports of
amputations to OSHA can be an effective way of targeting workplace
hazards. In addition, the requirement to report work-related
amputations will help OSHA determine the causes of these injuries and
develop enforcement strategies and guidance to help prevent them.
    In addition, OSHA notes the existing California and Kentucky state
requirements to report work-related amputations, which are similar to
the requirements under this final rule, show that such requirements are
feasible.
    Finally, OSHA believes that comments such as those by Spurlock and
Higgins (Ex. 24), saying that amputations can often be attributed to
numerous hazards for which OSHA has no standard, or there are few,
practical hazard controls at an employer's disposal, actually support
OSHA's decision to require the reporting of work-related amputations.
Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act requires employers to ``. . . furnish to
each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are
free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause
death or serious physical harm to his employees.'' Section 5(a)(1) does
not make exceptions for hazards for which OSHA has no standards or
employers have few practical controls. In addition, reports of
amputations will provide OSHA with data to identify hazards and support
the development of further standards and practical controls. Thus,
employer reports of amputations, and OSHA intervention in workplaces
where amputations occurred, are both critical for complying with
Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act and preventing further serious injury or
death.
    The final rule requires employers to report to OSHA, within 24
hours, all amputations that result from a work-related incident within
24 hours of the incident (see Sec.  1904.39(a)(2) and (b)(6)).
    On the topic of the definition of an amputation, there were
comments on the definition in the proposed rule, as well as requests
for clarification. The proposed rule defined amputations according to
the 2007 release of the OIICS Manual published by BLS, as follows: ``An
amputation is the traumatic loss of a limb or other external body part,
including a fingertip. In order for an injury to be classified as an
amputation, bone must be lost. Amputations include loss of a body part
due to a traumatic incident, a gunshot wound, and medical amputations
due to irreparable traumatic injuries. Amputations exclude traumatic
injuries without bone loss and exclude enucleation (eye removal).''
    Nonetheless, several commenters requested a definition of
``amputation'' (Ex. 14, 17, 60, 101, 108).
    There were also comments about both the wording of the definition
and the implementation of the definition. Colony Tire Corporation asked
about reporting a finger that had been amputated, reattached, and then
later removed (Ex. 35). Dow Chemical Company commented that ``[t]he
proposed wording of Section 1904.39(b)(8) defines `amputation' in a
manner that is extremely unclear'' (Ex. 64). The American Chemistry
Council recommended that OSHA use the definition of amputations in the
2010 release of the OIICS Manual ``and clarify whether avulsions are
included, to avoid ambiguity'' (Ex. 76). IPC-Association Connecting
Electronics Industries (IPC) ``encourage[d] OSHA to amend the Field
Operations Manual (FOM) to include the definition'' in the proposed
rule (Ex. 47), and Kentucky ``recommend[ed] and respectfully
request[ed] that OSHA include a definition of amputation in 29 CFR
1904.46'', the definitions subpart of Part 1904 (Ex. 52).
    Finally, there were comments about whether the definition of
``amputation'' should require bone loss. The American Trucking
Associations (ATA) commented that ``the definition of an

`amputation' should require `loss of bone' (Ex. 65); NPRA made a
similar comment (Ex. 80). However, both David Bonauto M.D. M.P.H. (Ex.
56) and Letitia Davis Sc.D. Ed.M. (Ex. 84) provided data to support
their comments that the definition of amputations should not require
loss of bone because of the difficulties of identifying bone loss.
    David Bonauto's data (Ex. 56) consisted of 3,000 claims with
suspected amputation injuries in the Washington state fund workers
compensation claims data for the period 2006-2008; medical record
review validated 1,885 of these claims as amputations. Bonauto is the
occupational medicine physician and interim research director with the
Safety and Health Research Assessment Program in the Washington State
Department of Labor and Industries. He commented that ``. . . about 90%
had loss of the protruding body part from the injury. We could
determine bone loss in nearly 3 of 4 cases; however, this could only be
done retrospectively based on review of the medical records.
Determination of the injury resulting in bone loss could not be done
based on the initial report of injury. Most lower extremity amputations
resulted from surgical treatment of the injury (e.g., surgical removal
of a crushed foot) which often occurred after the initial injury event.
More than two thirds of the injuries resulting in the loss of a
protruding body part were not characterized as an `amputation' on the
initial report of accident by the health care provider. These cases
were often characterized as contusions, lacerations, and fractures but
ultimately resulted in the loss of a protruding body part . . . From
these data, the proposed rule might benefit by defining amputations as
`any injury resulting in the temporary or permanent loss of a
protruding body part'. Due to the poor initial documentation of the
injury, a requirement for bone loss in reports will lead to significant
underreporting.''
    Similarly, Letitia Davis's comments were based on amputation data
collected by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, with 696
work-related amputations treated in Massachusetts hospitals in 2007-
2008 (Ex. 84). She commented that ``[s]some amputations by definition
include bone loss, e.g. amputation of finger, foot, hand, but if only
the tip of a finger or toe is amputated, involvement of bone loss at
time of injury is not necessarily apparent and involves determination
by clinical review. Even upon clinical review, bone loss can be
ambiguous. In our experience reviewing amputation cases reported by
employers on OSHA logs and in workers' compensation claim reports for
amputations, bone loss is most often not specified. Thus we advise
against bone loss as a criterion for reporting or at least specifying
that cases with uncertain bone loss should be reported.''
    After careful consideration, OSHA finds that using the definition
of amputation in the 2010 release (OIICS Version 2.0) of the BLS OIICS
Manual will provide the greatest possible clarity and consistency. This
change from the proposed rule responds to commenters who recommended
that OSHA use the 2010 release of the OIICS manual, as well as to
commenters who recommended that the definition not include bone loss.
Thus, Section 1904.39(b)(11) of this final rule defines amputations as
the traumatic loss of a limb or other external body part (see Section
1904.39(b)(11) of this final rule). According to this definition, an
amputations include a part, such as a limb or appendage, that has been
severed, cut off, amputated (either completely or partially); fingertip
amputations with or without bone loss; medical amputations resulting
from irreparable damage; and amputations of body parts that have since
been reattached. Amputations do not include avulsions, enucleations,
deglovings, scalpings, severed ears, or broken or chipped teeth.
5. Required Reporting of Enucleations
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA asked: ``Should OSHA
require the reporting of enucleations?''
    Several commenters responded that OSHA should not specifically
require the reporting of enucleations (i.e., losses of an eye). The PRR
commented that an enucleation ``indicates a severe and traumatic injury
has occurred to the employee'' but that ``[t]here is some question
whether a severe injury leading to an enucleation would ever not fit
under the definition of in-patient hospitalization . . . and thus it
may be unnecessary to explicitly include this procedure'' (Ex. 38). The
PIA commented that ``[PIA] does not feel that the reporting of
enucleations would be appropriate . . . as the cause and circumstances
surrounding these types of incidents are vast and may or may not be
work related and in most cases within the printing industry would not
be the result of a work related'' event (Ex. 45). Ameren commented that
``Cases of . . . enucleation that do not result in hospitalization of
the employee would not likely warrant OSHA's examination'' (Ex. 72).
    Other commenters responded that OSHA should specifically require
the reporting of enucleations. NIOSH commented that ``[a]lthough
enucleations of the eye are an infrequent occurrence, reporting would
serve as a sentinel event for identifying workplaces at risk for other
preventable injuries including intraocular foreign bodies, penetrating
eye injuries, and other eye injuries where eye protective equipment may
not be used'' (Ex. 66). The AFL-CIO commented that ``the loss of an eye
is an extremely serious injury that can have significant impact on a
worker and leave him or her with a substantial impairment . . .[T]o the
extent that an enucleation event does not result in an in-patient
hospitalization, we believe OSHA should require employers to report all
work-related enucleations to ensure that every enucleation incident is
captured'' (Ex. 69). The Building and Construction Trades Department
(BTCD) of the AFL-CIO (Ex. 59), the UAW (Ex. 77), and the USW (Ex. 86)
made similar comments, as did the TWU, which added that ``adding
enucleations to the events requiring report would likely not result in
greater burden to employers since one would anticipate most of these
injuries to require, and be accounted for by requirements related to,
in-patient hospitalizations'' (Ex. 74).
    OSHA finds that the loss of an eye is a severe and significant
injury and that a requirement to report such injuries, irrespective of
in-patient hospitalization, can help identify workplaces where serious
eye hazards are present. Based on comments submitted to the proposed
rule, Section 1904.39(a)(2) of this rule includes a new requirement for
employers to report, within 24 hours, all losses of an eye resulting
from a work-related incident. Section 1904.39(b)(6) provides that this
reporting requirement applies only when the loss of the eye occurs
within 24 hours of the work-related incident.
6. Number of Work-Related Incidents Involving In-Patient
Hospitalizations, Including More Than 30 Days Afterwards
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA asked: ``Are there
additional data or estimates available regarding the number of work-
related incidents involving in-patient hospitalizations? Is there
information available on how many work-related hospitalizations occur
more than 30 days after the report of an injury or illness?''
    Comments on this question addressed three main topics.
    1. Work-related incidents involving in-patient hospitalization.

    2. Hospitalizations occurring more than 30 days after the report of
the injury/illness.
    3. Amputations occurring more than 30 days after a work-related
incident. The third issue arises from the requirement in Section
1904.39(b)(6) of the proposed rule for requiring employers to report
amputations that occurred up to 30 days after the work-related
incident.
    On work-related incidents involving in-patient hospitalizations,
commenters provided comments, as well as data and suggestions for data
sources.
    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce commented that even within a thirty-
day limit, ``the employee may be hospitalized after he or she is no
longer employed by the employer which would significantly complicate an
employer's ability to know about the hospitalization'' (Ex. 120).
    Stericycle commented that ``[r]ather than use data from OSHA logs
or Workers Compensation data to estimate single hospitalization
reports, OSHA should have collected data from emergency responders to
determine how many emergency calls were to the workplace'' (Ex. 82).
    NIOSH provided data on the patients with occupational injuries or
illnesses who were seen in the ED (Ex. 66): ``The NIOSH NEISS-Work data
provide national estimates of the number of patients treated in an ED
and released, treated and transferred, treated and admitted, held for
observation, and an estimate of patients that left without being seen
or left against medical advice . . . For 2009, it is estimated that
approximately 81,500 (3%) patients with occupational injuries or
illnesses seen in the ED were either admitted or transferred and
another 5,600 (0.2%) were held for observation. It is not known if
those held for observation were admitted or released. These data do not
include the length of time that passed between the injury or onset of
illness and ED treatment.''
    Letitia Davis provided data on work-related in-patient
hospitalizations in Massachusetts in FY 2008 (Ex. 84): ``There were
3,448 work-related hospitalizations in Massachusetts during October
2007-September 2008. The largest number was for injuries and poisonings
(N=1595; 46%) followed by musculoskeletal disorders (N=1184; 34%).
Information about time between workplace incident and hospitalization
was not available but information about admission type is informative.
Notably, 59% of work-related hospitalizations were for emergent or
urgent care; 1,337 (39%) were for elective procedures, most of which
(N-935; 70%) were for musculoskeletal disorders.''
    On work-related hospitalizations occurring more than 30 days after
the report of an injury or illness, David Bonauto provided data on
9,262 claims to the Washington State Fund workers compensation program
that resulted in in-patient hospitalization from 2006-2008 (Ex. 56). He
commented, ``Of these hospitalizations, 36% occurred within one day
following the occupational injury or illness event and nearly 50%
occurred greater than 31 days following the occupational injury or
illness. When differentiating the type of injury or illness using the
primary ICD-9 code on the hospital bill, nearly 90% of all inpatient
hospitalizations occurring within one day of the injury or illness
event were billed with an injury or poisoning diagnosis as opposed to a
disease diagnosis. Conversely, nearly 93% of all hospitalizations
occurring 31 days after the injury or illness event had a disease
diagnosis listed as the primary diagnosis on the bill.''
    In addition, there were comments about the proposed requirement to
report in-patient hospitalizations occurring within 30 days of the
incident. The Marshfield Clinic commented that `[t]he proposed changes
also give a 30 day period where hospitalization needs to be reported.
Since some surgeries require inpatient hospitalization; this will
require that surgeries be reported that . . . are not related to an
acute work injury. It would not appear that OSHA is interested in
getting notified of every employee that may be hospitalized due to a
need for a routine surgery that may be related to a work injury'' (Ex.
15). The American Chemistry Council commented that the reporting
requirement for in-patient hospitalization should ``exclude
hospitalization for chronic cases (such as carpal tunnel)'' if ``OSHA's
intent is to obtain information about acute injuries resulting from
serious, incident-specific hazards''; in addition, the final rule
``should clarify how in-patient hospitalizations for treatment of acute
injuries for which rehabilitation was unsuccessful (for example, a
tendon injury in the hand or knee that ultimately requires surgery to
repair, or back injuries that require later surgery) will be reported''
(Ex. 76). Stericycle commented that ``[the 30-day] timeframe may be too
long as with strains and sprains, 2-4 weeks of physical therapy or
other conservative treatment may be administered before an injured
worker may determine surgery is the best option. Then if surgery and
hospitalization occurs within the 30 days, the reporting requirement is
triggered . . . After 30 days, OSHA's quick response may be too late
and the employer may have already abated the hazard'' (Ex. 82).
    On the other hand, the UAW commented that ``[s]everal states,
including Alaska, Oregon, and Washington have established a 30 day
reporting period'' (Ex. 77).
    For the third issue, related to the requirement in the proposed
rule for reporting amputations occurring up to 30 days after the work-
related incident, the PIA commented that ``if amputations are to be
included as a reporting requirement, a reasonable scope should only
require reporting if the amputation occurs at the time of the incident
or at most, at the initial diagnosis of the attending medical
provider'' (Ex. 45).
    Both David Bonauto (Ex. 56) and Letitia Davis (Ex. 84) provided
data on this issue. David Bonauto provided data on 1,885 validated
amputations among Washington State Fund workers compensation claims
with medical record review in 2006-2008 (Ex. 56). He found that 89% of
amputations occurred at the time of injury, while 11% of the
amputations resulted from surgery after the injury (including on the
same day). However, while 92% of the 1,796 amputations to upper
extremities occurred at the time of injury, only 38% of the 91
amputations of lower extremities occurred at the time of injury. He
commented that ``specific provisions requiring reporting of late
amputations will more effectively capture lower extremity
amputations.''
    Letitia Davis provided data on work-related amputations treated in
Massachusetts hospitals in 2007-2008 (Ex. 84). She commented that ``the
great majority (92%) of work-related amputations involving hospital
treatment were treated within one day of injury incident. Only 4.1%
were treated more than 30 days after the injury incident. Again, OSHA
might consider limiting reporting to amputations that occur within 24
hours of the precipitating incidents. These data suggest that in doing
so, they would capture the great majority of the cases.''
    OSHA finds that limiting the reporting requirement to the
hospitalizations, amputations, and losses of an eye most likely to
require urgent or emergent care best serves OSHA's purposes of
surveillance and appropriate timely investigations of these events,
while limiting the burden on employers. The final rule requires
employers to report work-related in-patient hospitalizations,
amputations, and losses of an eye only if the event occurs within
twenty-four hours of the

work-related incident (see Sec.  1904.39(b)(6)).
7. Non-Telephone Methods of Reporting (Email, Fax, or Web-Based System)
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA asked: ``Should OSHA
allow reports to be made by means other than a telephone, such as by
email, fax, or a Web-based system?''
    Many commenters supported additional options for reporting. For
example, the Marshfield Clinic supported ``[a] system that allows
computer notification (either email or on-line)'' (Ex. 15). Safety
Compliance Services commented that ``OSHA should allow for computerized
reporting of incidents. However this capability needs to be
standardized so that systems can report the information directly
without requiring additional work or effort on the part of those
reporting'' (Ex. 29). Justin Barnes supported ``means such as email,
fax, and a web-based system'' (Ex. 34). The PIA commented that ``OSHA
should allow and make considerations of all means available with
today's technology including telephone, text, email, fax, or through a
web-based system'' (Ex. 45). The HDMA supported ``alternative methods
of reporting, such email, fax or Internet'' (Ex. 55). Gruber Horst
Johansen Hail Shank commented that ``it would be a great idea for OSHA
to add the ability to report fatalities and applicable incidents
through their Web site. Any system should include a verification and
email confirmation of the report for employers to save and/or print
out, so that they can demonstrate compliance. Development of smartphone
apps by OSHA . . . would also assist employers to quickly report
fatalities and applicable incidents'' (Ex. 60). The ATA commented that
``employers need flexibility in the method of reporting (i.e., phone
calls, emails, faxes, and web based systems)'' (Ex. 65). NIOSH
recommended that OSHA ``allow reports to be made by means other than
telephone, such as by email, fax, or a web-based system'' (Ex. 66).
Ameren commented that ``a web-based system would allow employers to
report while at the same time give OSHA an opportunity to capture data
for automatic analysis and trending'' (Ex. 72). The American Chemistry
Council commented that ``a mobile application, web or email based
reporting system would be appropriate, including the application of
formal controls to prevent false reporting'' (Ex. 76). The UAW
commented that ``OSHA should permit reporting by any communication
method that exists now or may exist in the future, provided that the
content of the report meets all existing OSHA requirements'' (Ex. 77).
Verizon supported ``the addition of electronic means as an option for
serious incident notification to OSHA, including email, facsimile and
web-based reporting tools'' (Ex. 78). NPRA recommended ``electronic
reporting in addition to phone, fax, and email'' (Ex. 80). Letitia
Davis commented that ``OSHA should allow employers to report by means
other than a telephone as long as confidentially of personal
identifiable health information can be maintained, e.g. by confidential
fax or secure electronic transmission'' (Ex. 84). The Pacific Maritime
Association commented that ``[i]n addition to the 800 number, an email,
Web site reporting tool or similar application would create a time
stamped record that both the employer and OSHA could find of use'' (Ex.
100). The RILA suggested that ``employers should be allowed flexibility
to report whether it is via phone, email or fax'' (Ex. 102). Ingalls
Shipbuilding ``urge[d] OSHA to expand reporting options to permit
electronic transmissions, including fax, email or a web-based system''
(Ex. 103); Newport News Shipbuilding made a similar comment (Ex. 125).
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce commented that ``OSHA should allow for
reporting via email, interactive Web site, texting and faxing to
provide maximum flexibility for employers and give them a record they
can use to demonstrate compliance'' (Ex. 120).
    On the other hand, a few commenters opposed additional options for
reporting. The AFL-CIO commented that ``the current requirement that
permits reporting . . . only by reporting the incident via a telephone
or in person should be retained in the final rule . . . We have
concerns that passive approaches such as email, fax or a Web-based
system, as opposed to an active oral reporting requirement, would not
assure the agency that all of the required information is obtained from
an employer and thus would result in incomplete reports'' (Ex. 69). The
USW ``strongly urge[d] OSHA to maintain the requirement that a phone
call is necessary to that the information is reported as soon as
possible to OSHA'' (Ex. 86). USMWF commented that, for hospitalizations
for acute, traumatic injuries and illnesses, ``notifications should be
made by telephone to ensure that OSHA receives all the key pieces of
information regarding the incident'' (Ex. 93).
    OSHA agrees with the comments supporting additional options for
reporting. However, OSHA also agrees with the comments on the
importance of obtaining all of the required information from the
employer. Therefore, Section 1904.39(a)(3) of this final rule provides
flexibility by allowing employers to choose among three options for
reporting a work-related fatality, in-patient hospitalization,
amputation, or loss of an eye to OSHA.
    First, as in the current regulation, an employer may report by
telephone or in person to the OSHA Area Office that is nearest to the
site of the incident.
    Second, as in the current regulation, an employer may report by
telephone to the OSHA toll-free central telephone number, 1-800-321-
OSHA (1-800-321-6742).
    Third, as a new option, an employer may report by electronic
submission using a fatality/injury/illness reporting application that
will be located on OSHA's public Web site at www.osha.gov. The
reporting application will include mandatory fields for the required
information. If the report does not include the required information in
the mandatory fields, the reporting application will not accept the
report. The mandatory fields, as specified in Section 1904.39(b)(2),
are the establishment name; the location of the work-related incident;
the time of the work-related incident; the type of reportable event
(i.e., fatality, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an
eye); the number of injured employees; the names of the injured
employees; the employer's contact person and his or her phone number;
and a brief description of the work-related incident. The public will
be given the opportunity to comment on this new electronic submission
option through the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) approval process when
OSHA applies to reauthorize the information collection.
    Section 1904.39(b)(1) makes clear that if the Area Office is
closed, the employer must report the work-related event by using either
the OSHA toll-free central telephone number or the reporting
application on OSHA's public Web site.
    The final rule does not include options for reporting by email,
fax, or text, because OSHA would not be able to ensure that employers
who reported using these options provided all of the required
information.
8. Time Periods for Required Reporting
    In the NPRM, OSHA asked: ``Are the reporting times of eight hours
for fatalities, eight hours for in-patient hospitalizations, and 24
hours for amputations generally appropriate time periods for requiring
reporting? What advantages or disadvantages would be

associated with these or any alternative time periods?''
    Comments primarily focused on four topics:
    1. The circumstances under which OSHA would consider that the
employer knew, or should have known, about the reportable event;
    2. When the reporting clock would start--with the occurrence of the
work-related incident, or with the occurrence of the reportable event;
    3. The appropriate reporting time period for in-patient
hospitalizations;
    4. The appropriate reporting time period for other events employers
would be required to report.
    For the circumstances under which OSHA would consider that the
employer knew, or should have known, about the reportable event,
Section 1904.39(b)(7) of the proposed rule provided that if employers
did not learn about a fatality, in-patient hospitalization, or
amputation right away, they would have been required to report it
within the specified time period after the fatality, in-patient
hospitalization, or amputation was reported to ``[the employer] or to
any of [the employer's] agent(s) or employee(s)''. Commenters on this
topic had two concerns. First, that OSHA might require employers to
report events they did not know about. Second, that OSHA might unfairly
penalize employers for not reporting events they did not know about.
    Related to an employer being required to report an event the
employer did not know about, Morganite Industries commented that ``[i]t
is not clear that an appropriate member of management would have the
information, allowing the required reporting to OSHA, just because any
individual employee has that information. For example, the injured
employee himself might know that he has been hospitalized, but his
knowing it does not mean that anyone with authority or ability to make
the report has that information'' (Ex. 20). Ingalls Shipbuilding made a
similar comment (Ex. 103), as did Dow Chemical (Ex. 64) and the Pacific
Maritime Association (Ex. 100). Dow Chemical commented that ``the
`clock' [should] start only when the incident, and the fact the worker
was hospitalized, have been communicated to the employee's supervisor
or to other employees whose responsibilities and position qualify them
to recognize the reporting requirement'' (Ex. 64). The Pacific Maritime
Association commented in addition that ``[i]njuries should be reported
to a direct supervisor or management. This is the only means in which
an employer can be in knowledge of the injury'' (Ex. 100).
    Related to an employer being penalized for not reporting an event
the employer did not know about, the Joint Poultry Industry Safety and
Health Council commented, ``While we recognize the 8 hour provision is
from the time the incident is reported to the employer, its agents or
employees, we believe the interpretation of what constitutes notice,
particularly notice to ``any of your agent(s) or employee(s)'' will
simply generate another cause of litigation if OSHA chooses to cite an
employer for failing to meet the 8 hour time requirement'' (Ex. 61).
The ATA commented that ``there is no provision for the Agency to NOT
impute knowledge of an injury to an employer--i.e., ``should have been
aware''--as in other OSHA rules. Companies may find themselves in a
position of being expected to know about an employee's private medical
information or a hospitalization outside of the purview of the
employer'' (Ex. 65); Fed Ex made a similar comment (Ex. 67). The
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) commented, ``The employer
may never know of the hospitalization until days or weeks later. Would
the employer be in violation for not reporting this incident to OSHA
when there was no knowledge of when the hospitalization took place?
Additionally, a worker could be injured on a weekend or overnight shift
and the employer is not notified of the worker's hospitalization until
the next business day. Would that employer be in violation for not
reporting the incident within eight hours?'' (Ex. 71). The Pacific
Maritime Association (Ex. 100) and the Shipbuilders Council of America
(Ex. 104) made similar comments. To address this concern, Verallia
suggested that the rule be amended to require notification ``within
[the specified time period] of the employer becoming aware'' of the
reportable event (Ex. 91).
    OSHA acknowledges commenters' concern about defining employer
notification to include reporting to ``any of [the employer's]
employee(s)''. Therefore, this rule removes this provision. Under
Section 1904.39(b)(7) of the final rule, employers are required to
report within the specified time period after the fatality, in-patient
hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye is reported to the
employer or to any of the employer's agent(s).
    OSHA does not agree with the comments about employers being
unfairly penalized for not reporting hospitalizations that they did not
know about.
    First, the current regulation, the proposed rule, and the final
rule all have a specific provision for employers who do not know about
an in-patient hospitalization or other reportable event. Under the
current regulation, if an employer does not learn about a reportable
incident right away, the employer must make the report within eight
hours of the time the incident is reported to the employer (see Section
1904.39(b)(7)). Under the proposed rule, if the employer did not learn
about a reportable incident right away, the employer would have to make
the report within eight hours for a fatality or in-patient
hospitalization, or twenty-four hours for an amputation, of the time
the incident was reported to the employer (see proposed Section
1904.39(b)(7)).
    Under the final rule, if the employer does not learn about a
reportable event (fatality, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or
loss of an eye) right away, the employer must make the report within
eight hours for a fatality, or twenty-four hours for an in-patient
hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye, of the time the event
is reported to the employer (see Section 1904.39(b)(7) of the final
rule).
    Second, as discussed above, employers at over 1.3 million
establishments in six states are already subject to the requirement to
report in-patient hospitalizations of fewer than three employees. If
these employers were being penalized for not reporting events they did
not know about, it seems likely that at least a few of them, or their
industry organizations, would have submitted comments on this issue
during this rulemaking. Instead, the only non-hypothetical comment
received by OSHA on this issue came from one of these six states, which
specifically commented that ``[e]xperience has established that
Kentucky's requirements do not exert an increase in the burden of
regulatory compliance'' (Ex. 52).
    OSHA therefore concludes that the requirement in the final rule to
report in-patient hospitalizations will not result in an unfair penalty
for employers. Under the final rule, as in the current regulation,
employers are only required to report work-related events that have
been reported to them or their agent(s).
    For the issue in the proposed rule of whether the reporting clock
would start with the occurrence of the work-related incident or with
the occurrence of the reportable event (fatality, in-patient
hospitalization, or amputation), the PRR, the IADC, Gruber Hurst
Johansen Hail Shank, NAM, and Verizon requested clarification (Exs. 38,
39, 60,

71, and 78). To address this issue, OSHA has revised the text in
Section 1904.39(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the final rule to make clear that,
consistent with OSHA's current reporting regulation in Section 1904.39,
the reporting clock starts with the occurrence of the reportable event.
Section 1904.39(b)(7) also provides instruction on when the reporting
clock starts to run in situations where the employer or the employer's
agent(s) does not learn about the reportable event (fatality, in-
patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye) right away.
    For example, if an employee suffers a work-related injury (the
work-related incident) at 9:00 a.m., and dies from that injury at 10:00
a.m., and the employer or the employer's agent(s) learn of the fatality
(the reportable event) at 10:00 a.m., then the employer would be
required to report the fatality (the reportable event) to OSHA within
eight hours of the fatality (the reportable event)--i.e., 6:00 p.m.
Similarly, if an employee is fatally injured as the result of a work-
related incident at 8:30 p.m. on Monday, but the employer or employer's
agent(s) do not learn of the fatality (the reportable event) until 9:00
a.m. the next day (Tuesday), then the employer would be required to
report the fatality (the reportable event) to OSHA within eight hours
of learning of the fatality (the reportable event)--i.e., by 5:00 p.m.
on Tuesday. Also, if an employee suffers a work-related injury (the
work-related incident) at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday and is hospitalized as
an in-patient, as a result of that injury, at 3:00 p.m., and the
employer or the employer's agent(s) learn of the in-patient
hospitalization for the injury at 3:00 p.m., then the employer would be
required to report the in-patient hospitalization (the reportable
event) within 24 hours of the in-patient hospitalization (the
reportable event)--i.e., by 3:00 p.m. on Friday.
    This would also be the case if the employer needs time to determine
whether a specific incident is work-related. For example, if an
incident leads to an employee's death at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, but the
employer does not have enough information to make a work-relatedness
determination until 11:00 a.m. on Monday, then the employer would be
required to report the fatality (the reportable event) within 8 hours
of learning that the fatality was due to a work-related incident--i.e.,
by 7:00 p.m. on Monday). The final rule states that if the employer
does not learn right away that the reportable event (fatality, in-
patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye) was the result
of a work-related incident, then the employer must make the report to
OSHA within the following time period after the employer or any of the
employer's agent(s) learn that the reportable event was the result of a
work-related incident: Eight (8) hours for a fatality, and twenty-four
(24) hours for an in-patient hospitalization, an amputation, or a loss
of an eye. (see Section 1904.39(b)(8))
    For the issue of the appropriate reporting time period for in-
patient hospitalizations, OSHA received many comments that the proposed
eight-hour reporting period for in-patient hospitalizations was too
short. The Marshfield Clinic commented that ``an employer is normally
going to know immediately'' about a fatality and ``probably would also
know'' about the hospitalization of three or more employees'', but that
``[t]his is not necessarily the case for the hospitalization of an
individual employee'' (Ex. 15). IBM commented that ``[i]t would be
difficult for us to be compliant with reporting any in-patient
hospitalizations within eight hours, especially with the travelling
employee, time zone issues, language barriers, communication issues''
(Ex. 22). Apogee Enterprises commented that eight hours may not be
enough time for an employer to determine work-relatedness, that an
employer may not find out about the hospitalization if the employee
does not go to the hospital from work, and that the privacy of medical
information ``can make it very difficult for the employer to find out
the cause of a hospitalization, especially in the proposed timeframe''
(Ex. 40). The HDMA commented that ``. . . many circumstances will arise
where . . . the full determination of the employee's condition has not
been determined within eight hours because the employee was admitted to
the hospital for a variety of reasons some of which may or may not be
work-related'' (Ex. 55). Ameren commented that ``[t]he determination of
work-relationship for a case involving a single hospitalization may not
be immediately obvious and could take more than 8 hours to be
resolved'' (Ex. 72). Verizon commented that ``[i]t is not practical to
expect all employers to be able to notify OSHA within eight hours of an
employee's admission into a hospital with a work-related condition'',
especially for employers ``whose employees often work alone or with a
co-worker at off-site locations and at hours other than normal business
hours'' (Ex. 78). The Pacific Maritime Association commented that ``the
employer may not have all of the necessary facts within eight hours . .
. this is too tight a deadline and is a recipe for false or misleading
information to OSHA'' (Ex. 100). The American Foundry Society commented
that ``the proposed 8-hour time frame does not offer a realistic time
frame,'' due to ``circumstances including patient privacy and
communication delays between a patient and employer or medical provider
and employer'' (Ex. 101). The American Supply Association commented
that ``the shift to an 8-hour reporting requirement . . . may interfere
with an employer who is also tending to the employee's injury during
this time. The uncertainties placed on the employer, in particular,
during a period when they are addressing employee safety is overly
burdensome'' (Ex. 111); the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning
Contractors National Association (SMACNA) made a similar comment (Ex.
122). The ARTBA commented that ``eight hours is unrealistic as it may
be difficult to quickly ascertain the root cause of the injury'' (Ex.
114).
    OSHA also received comments proposing alternate time periods,
including 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, and five days. Morganite
Industries commented that ``it is reasonable to expect that within 24
hours management will be made aware that an in-patient hospitalization
has occurred. It is then reasonable to believe that reporting to OSHA
is feasible within that same 24 hours'' (Ex. 20). Whirlpool
Corporation, the IADC, the HDMA, the American Chemistry Council,
Verizon, the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association (PIOGA),
RILA, and Ingalls Shipbuilding made similar comments (Exs. 31, 39, 55,
76, 78, 89, 102, and 103).
    NPRA recommended ``that OSHA at a minimum increase the reporting
time to 48 hours to allow the medical facility time to treat the
injured, if necessary, determine the need for hospitalization and
advise the employer'' (Ex. 80). Kentucky commented that ``[e]xperience
has proven that the reporting of a hospitalization after eight (8)
hours has passed . . . but before seventy-two (72) hours have elapsed,
is not detrimental to ensuring that a prompt investigation is
initiated, if needed, to ensure the prevention of additional injury or
illness'' (Ex. 52). Fed Ex similarly supported a 72-hour time period,
commenting that ``[s]eventy-two hours would give an employer adequate
time to gather and verify the information necessary to make an accurate
report to OSHA, and it is soon enough after an accident for OSHA to
make a meaningful investigation'' (Ex. 67).

    Dow Chemical recommended that ``if the Agency decides to require
reporting of every hospitalization, the deadline for reporting should
be (preferably) three business days, or (at the very tightest) the
following business day after the employer learns both that there was a
hospitalization, and that the injury was work-related'' (Ex. 64). The
Duke University Health System recommended ``a reporting period of five
days if OSHA is to achieve its goal of this regulation presenting only
a `relatively minor burden' for employers'' (Ex. 63).
    On the other hand, USMWF commented that ``8 hours is far too long a
time period. OSHA should change its regulation to require an employer
to immediately notify federal or State OSHA of a fatality or serious
incidents. The Mine Safety and Health Administration's (MSHA)
regulations require employers to notify the agency of serious incidents
within 15 minutes. OSHA should adopt equivalent requirements. We
believe that California OSHA requires immediate reporting and Utah OSHA
has a 1-hour reporting requirement'' (Ex. 93).
    In addition, multiple commenters recommended requiring the same
reporting time period of eight hours for non-fatal reportable events
(in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, and losses of an eye) as for
fatalities. The Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-
CIO commented that ``[t]he move to a single reporting time frame would
also benefit OSHA and employers. In the case of OSHA, the move to 8
hours for all serious incidents would provide the agency with more
timely information on which to base decisions. For employers, the use
of one reporting timeframe would simplify the reporting process'' (Ex.
59). The AFL-CIO, the TWU, the UAW, and the UFCW made similar comments
(Exs. 69, 74, 77, and 81).
    OSHA acknowledges the commenters' concern about the eight-hour
reporting time for in-patient hospitalizations in the proposed rule.
Accordingly, Section 1904.39(a)(2) of the final rule requires employers
to report in-patient hospitalizations within 24 hours of learning of
the in-patient hospitalization due to a work-related incident. Note
that, as discussed below, this will simplify the reporting process by
requiring a single reporting period (24 hours) for all of the non-fatal
events that employers are required to report. Note also that, because
the reporting time period for in-patient hospitalizations does not
begin until the employee has been formally admitted to the in-patient
service of a hospital or clinic for care or treatment (see Sec.
1904.39(b)(8)), the reporting requirement will not interfere with the
employer's efforts to provide the proper care for the employee whose
eventual in-patient hospitalization the employer will be required to
report.
    For the appropriate reporting time periods for other events
employers would be required to report, many of the same comments about
reporting time periods for in-patient hospitalizations applied.
    However, OSHA did receive some specific comments as well. For
amputations, Dow Chemical commented that ``if notification for
amputations is ultimately required, the deadline should be the end of
the next business day after the injury is classified as an amputation,
rather than within 24 hours. This would facilitate compliance, because
there would be greater certainty that the expert personnel who
understand the reporting requirement would be available. In addition,
it would allow for an accurate determination that the injury is, in
fact, an amputation'' (Ex. 64). The NPRA recommended a reporting time
period of 48 hours (Ex. 80).
    For amputations and losses of an eye, the USMWF commented that
``[t]he reporting should be made by the employer no later than 24 hours
after the employer learns that the amputation or eye loss occurred''
(Ex. 93).
    OSHA finds that a reporting time period of 24 hours for amputations
and losses of an eye will simplify the reporting process by requiring a
single reporting period (24 hours) for all of the non-fatal events that
employers are required to report. Section 1904.39(a)(2)) of this rule
requires employers to report amputations and losses of an eye to OSHA
within 24 hours.
Other Issues Raised by Commenters
    OSHA received multiple comments that the Agency does not have
enough resources to be able to collect, track, and use the additional
data from the new reporting requirements for in-patient
hospitalizations of one or two employees, amputations, and losses of an
eye. For example, Rexnord Industries commented that ``[t]here are
concerns with the ongoing budget debates and whether or not OSHA will
be able to give the appropriate attention that is needed to the new
information to drive the needed results'' (Ex. 28). The Tree Care
Industry Association commented that ``we do not understand how OSHA
would handle the additional workload . . . How would OSHA handle the
call volume when it increases from 4,600 to 210,000 calls per year?''
(Ex. 37). The National Safety Council commented that ``[s]ome members
have also expressed concerns regarding OSHA staffing constraints and
the ability of the agency to process and utilize the increased number
of submissions to the agency . . .'' (Ex. 58). Gruber Hurst Johansen
Hail Shank commented that ``[t]he proposed rule would require OSHA to
spend 52,682.25 hours to simply receive and record the reports . . .
This does not factor in the countless hours that would also be added by
the increased amount of inspections OSHA would presumably initiate
under the proposed rule'' (Ex. 60).
    Mercer ORC HSE Networks commented that they have ``serious
reservations about whether OSHA has the capacity or resources to
evaluate and utilize the new collected data on an ongoing basis in a
way that would significantly improve the targeting of its resources or,
at the end of the day, would result in improved worker safety and
health'' (Ex. 68). The American Chemistry Council commented that ``OSHA
has not demonstrated . . . how the Administration will utilize these
new data with its finite resources to target unsafe workplaces'' (Ex.
76). Verizon commented on its concern ``that the simple number of
notifications will overwhelm OSHA's resources . . .'' (Ex. 78). The
National Grain and Feed Association commented that ``this will not be a
prudent use of OSHA's existing resources since it will add another
time-consuming task to OSHA staff and prevent them from dealing with
the Agency's three core functions that include: 1) programmed
inspections; 2) investigation of fatalities; and 3) responding to
employee complaints'' (Ex. 96); the Shipbuilders Council of America and
the Corn Refiners Association made similar comments (Exs. 104, 109).
    The NAHB commented that it ``does not seem feasible for OSHA staff
to investigate each and every in-patient hospitalization given the
Agency's limited resources'' (Ex. 113). The ARTBA commented that they
``question whether OSHA is prepared to receive the additional
information stream that will be generated from the proposed changes''
(Ex. 114). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce commented that ``there is every
reason to believe that the significantly increased level of reporting
[the expansion of the hospitalization reporting requirement] will
generate will overwhelm OSHA's limited resources . . .'' (Ex. 120).
    OSHA agrees that it would overwhelm the resources of Federal OSHA
and the State Plan programs if the Agency conducted an inspection of
every workplace reporting a serious

occupational event under this rule. However, OSHA does not intend to do
this. Rather, OSHA will conduct report-related inspections only at
workplaces where reports indicate that an Agency inspection to
remediate hazards may be warranted. OSHA will conduct other
interventions at workplaces where reports indicate that an Agency
inspection to remediate hazards is not warranted. In either case, the
overall objective is for the reports to trigger activities that lead to
hazard abatement. OSHA will develop internal guidance for determining
whether to inspect or to conduct a different kind of intervention after
receiving a report of an in-patient hospitalization of one or two
workers, an amputation, or a loss of an eye. In either case, OSHA
follow-up with the employer is essential. Follow-up may be done via
email, phone, or fax, with regular reminders and deadlines. These
interventions will require OSHA to reallocate some of its inspection
resources. However, OSHA believes that ensuring the abatement of
hazards that resulted in serious injury or illness justifies these
changes.
    This approach is similar to OSHA's current approach for
investigating fatalities and hospitalizations of three or more
employees, as well as OSHA's approach for targeting inspections to the
highest-hazard workplaces. At present, OSHA does not inspect each
workplace with a report, per Section 1904.39 of the current regulation,
of a fatality or the hospitalization of three or more employees.
Rather, OSHA uses the information in the initial report to decide
whether or not the Agency should investigate the event. OSHA will
continue to use this approach under this final rule.
    Similarly, OSHA does not currently try to inspect all 7.5 million
establishments in the country. Rather, OSHA has a priority system
designed to allocate available OSHA inspection resources as effectively
as possible to ensure that the maximum feasible protection is provided
to working men and women. Case reports of sentinel safety and health
events, such as fatalities and hospitalizations, support OSHA's
application of this priority system and will continue to do so under
this final rule.
    Further, OSHA notes that six states, accounting for over 1.3
million establishments (18% of the national total) and 19.4 million
paid employees (17% of the national total), already require employers
to report in-patient hospitalizations of fewer than three employees,
evidently without overwhelming the resources of their programs or
compromising their abilities to conduct targeted inspections, respond
to worker complaints, and investigate fatalities. Indeed, one of these
states, Kentucky, specifically commented that ``[t]he Kentucky OSH
program believes its requirements support the prevention of additional
injuries or illnesses, effectively direct OSH program resources, and
reduce the state's occupational injury and illness rates'' (Ex. 52). In
addition, Kentucky also commented that ``[i]t is important to note that
neither OSHA's present reporting requirements or proposed rule, nor
Kentucky's state specific reporting requirements, compel OSHA or
Kentucky to investigate every reported hospitalization or amputation .
. . Not all hospitalizations or amputations reported to [Kentucky's]
Division of Compliance are investigated'' (Ex. 52).
    OSHA also received multiple comments about the Preliminary Economic
Analysis (PEA).
    The SBA-OA commented that OSHA should ``consider whether its wage
rate assumption is valid for many small businesses.'' The PEA uses the
assumption that reporting will be performed by a human resources
specialist with a compensation cost of $40.04 per hour, but ``many
small businesses do not employ such personnel and it is often the small
business owner or other senior person who conducts these activities''
(Ex. 94).
    The Pacific Maritime Association commented that ``private sector
workers . . . already work 40-hour weeks . . . [Unless] OSHA intends on
removing another set of duties imposed by regulations to free time and
make it available to perform these new recordkeeping tasks[, w]hen
imposing new regulations, OSHA should always estimate that the work
performed will have to be completed at the overtime rate of pay (of
time and a half)'' (Ex. 100).
    OSHA's response to these comments is in Section V of this
supplementary information.
    OSHA received multiple comments about the PEA's estimate of the
time required to report single in-patient hospitalizations and
amputations. Dow Chemical Company commented that the 15 minutes ``may
perhaps account for the time spent on the telephone, but it does not
include all the people who need to participate in, or be notified of,
the incident and the upcoming notification to OSHA'' (Ex. 64). The ATA
commented that ``[t]he [time] multiplier should, according to our
members, be 0.5 [hours] instead of 0.25, to accurately reflect current
time spent on this task'' (Ex. 65); Fed Ex made a similar comment (Ex.
67). Mercer ORC HSE Networks commented that ``OSHA focuses strictly on
the amount of time it takes an individual to `pick up a phone' and make
the report to OSHA. This is an unduly narrow view of the impact of the
proposal on employers'' (Ex. 68). NUCA commented that ``OSHA has
significantly underestimated the economic impact of obtaining injury
information on a construction site which does not necessarily have an
office. First, field personnel must stop what they are doing to collect
information, which must then be transmitted to the company office where
it must be reviewed and recorded. Along with the proposed additional
requirements to report to OSHA, which could require hours of
investigation to prepare for, the total time would easily exceed a mere
15 minutes'' (Ex. 110).
    In addition, OSHA received several comments that the PEA's time
assumption did not include the time required to adjust data systems to
the new reporting requirements. For example, the American Trucking
Association commented that ``[t]aking into consideration the
sophisticated internal systems that larger motor carries may use to
report inpatient hospitalization and amputations . . . ATA estimates--
again, based on member experience--that an additional 150-175 hours may
be required per employer, something that is not reflected in the Agency
cost estimate'' (Ex. 65). Fed Ex made a similar comment (Ex. 67).
    Finally, OSHA received several comments that the PEA's time
assumption did not include employer responses to the inspections that
might follow the reports. For example, the Tree Care Industry
Association commented that ``OSHA claims that the additional data-
gathering would be restricted to phone interviews, with a relatively
minor additional reporting burden estimated to be an average of 15
minutes per reported incident. However, with the proposed rule in place
there would be nothing to prevent the Agency from performing on-site
investigations of reported accidents . . . Obviously to superimpose an
OSHA on-site investigation on to the post-accident investigations that
companies already perform as part of their safety procedure creates a
significant additional burden for employers'' (Ex. 37); the Dow
Chemical Company and Fed Ex made similar comments (Exs. 64, 67).
    OSHA's responses to these comments are in Section V of this
supplementary information.
    The HDMA commented that OSHA should ``make allowance for
outstanding

circumstances--for instance, the proposed rule does not provide any
information on what allowances can be made for a disaster type of
situation where other issues arise that need to be addressed that would
impede the employer's ability to report to OSHA, due to natural
disasters such as snow storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, etc. or
manmade such as electrical failures, fires, etc. that the employer must
immediately focus on the disaster and its implications for public
safety reasons'' (Ex. 55).
    The Agency notes that previous OSHA rulemakings on reporting of
fatalities and in-patient hospitalizations have not explicitly made
allowance for emergencies and disasters, but that OSHA has nonetheless
taken such circumstances into account when they occurred. OSHA will
continue to do so under the final rule.
    The NAHB commented that ``OSHA's proposal is not consistent with
Executive Order 13563, `Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,' ''
because ``[n]othing in OSHA's proposal indicates how the rule is
intended to streamline regulatory requirements and reduced burdens on
industry'' and because the Agency ``should consider the impacts of this
proposal on small businesses and consider conducting additional
outreach before moving forward'' (Ex. 113). The SBA-OA (Ex. 94), RILA
(Ex. 102), and the ARTBA (Ex. 114) made similar comments.
    Executive Order 13563 requires regulatory agencies to consider the
effect of new regulations on economic growth, competitiveness, and job
creation. OSHA notes that, as discussed below in Section V-E, Economic
Impacts, the compliance costs for each affected firm are too small to
have any significant economic impacts, including impacts on economic
growth, competitiveness, and job creation. Additionally, the final rule
includes a new option for employers to report fatalities and other
reportable events through OSHA's public Web site, which should make it
easier for employers to fulfill their reporting obligations. Also,
under the final rule, the time for reporting all non-fatality
reportable events (i.e., in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, and
losses of an eye) to OSHA is 24 hours. For in-patient hospitalizations,
this is a change from the proposed rule, and it should reduce the
reporting burden on small employers. Therefore, the Agency believes the
reporting requirements in this rulemaking are consistent with Executive
Order 13563.
    Mercer ORC HSE Networks commented that they ``believe that [the
proposed rule] is emblematic of a larger problem; that the national
system for collecting and compiling data on occupational injuries and
illnesses is really a hodge-podge of disparate data requirements
developed by different Agencies to meet their own particular needs . .
. Consequently . . . we have no real handle on the occurrence (or
prevalence) of occupational illness in the United States, and many even
question the accuracy of the data we use to track injuries and acute
health conditions . . . The last study of the national injury and
illness data system was conducted over two decades ago by the National
Academy of Sciences. Although all of the findings were not implemented,
the 1987 report, Counting Injuries and Illnesses in the Workplace,
served as the basis for a major overhaul of the BLS safety and health
statistical programs. Mercer ORC Networks believes that we are overdue
for another systems-wide review . . . The initial cost for such a
review might seem high given the current budget climate. However, we
are convinced that the investment would be `drop in the bucket'
compared to the potential savings in program efficiencies and
improvements in prevention effectiveness'' (Ex. 68).
    OSHA agrees with Mercer ORC's assessment that improvement can and
should be made to the current occupational injury and illness
collecting and reporting system. OSHA believes this rulemaking
addresses some of the system shortfalls by expanding the data that are
collected (e.g., in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, and losses
of an eye) and by readjusting the scope of the regulation to cover
industries that will benefit from the availability and use of the
injury and illness information captured on the recordkeeping forms. In
addition to this rulemaking, the Agency has taken other steps to
address system shortfalls including increased enforcement and outreach
activities. BLS and NIOSH have also taken positive steps to identify
and address gaps in collecting and reporting on occupational injury and
illness data. Finally, as stated above, OSHA is planning a new re-
examination of the Agency's recordkeeping regulations. Improvement of
the system is an ongoing effort, and OSHA will consider Mercer ORC's
recommendation.

D. The Final Rule

    The final rule is similar to the proposed rule in requiring
employers to report all work-related fatalities, in-patient
hospitalizations, and amputations. However, there are also several
differences from the proposed rule. The differences include the time
periods for reporting the event, the time periods between the work-
related incident and the reportable event, definitions, and reporting
options. In addition, the final rule adds work-related losses of an eye
to the list of events that employers are required to report to OSHA.
    Under the final rule, employers must report the following events:
    1. Each fatality resulting from a work-related incident, within 8
hours of the death. This requirement applies to all fatalities
occurring within 30 days of a work-related incident. See Sec.
1904.39(a)(1) and (b)(6). This is the same as the current regulation
and the proposed rule.
    2. Each in-patient hospitalization resulting from a work-related
incident, within 24 hours of the hospitalization. This requirement
applies to all in-patient hospitalizations occurring within 24 hours of
a work-related incident. See Sec.  1904.39(a)(2) and (b)(6). Under the
proposed rule, employers would have been required to report all in-
patient hospitalizations within 8 hours, for hospitalizations occurring
within 30 days of a work-related incident. Under the current
regulation, employers are required to report, within 8 hours, in-
patient hospitalizations of three or more employees, for
hospitalizations occurring within 30 days of a work-related incident.
    3. Each amputation resulting from a work-related incident, within
24 hours of the amputation. This requirement applies to all amputations
occurring within 24 hours of a work-related incident. See Sec.
1904.39(a)(2) and (b)(6). Under the proposed rule, employers would have
been required to report all amputations within 24 hours, for
amputations occurring within 30 days of a work-related incident. Under
the current regulation, employers are not required to report
amputations.
    4. Each loss of an eye resulting from a work-related incident,
within 24 hours of the loss of an eye. This requirement applies to all
losses of an eye occurring within 24 hours of a work-related incident.
See Sec.  1904.39(a)(2) and (b)(6). The proposed rule would not have
required employers to report losses of an eye, and the current
regulation also does not require them to do so.
    Other major differences between the final rule and the proposed
rule include the following:
    1. In the final rule, the regulatory text provides an explicit
definition of in-patient hospitalization (see Sec.  1904.39(b)(9) and
(b)(10)). In the proposed rule, the regulatory text did

not include a definition. The final rule defines in-patient
hospitalization as a formal admission to the in-patient service of a
hospital or clinic for care or treatment. Employers do not have to
report in-patient hospitalizations that involve only observation and/or
diagnostic testing.
    2. In the final rule, the definition of amputations comes from the
2010 release (OIICS Version 2.0) of the BLS OIICS Manual (see Sec.
1904.39(b)(11)). In the proposed rule, the definition of amputations
came from the 2007 release of the BLS OIICS Manual. The final rule
defines amputations as the traumatic loss of a limb or other external
body part. Amputations include a part, such as a limb or appendage,
that has been severed, cut off, amputated (either completely or
partially); fingertip amputations with or without bone loss; medical
amputations resulting from irreparable damage; amputations of body
parts that have since been reattached. Amputations do not include
avulsions, enucleations, deglovings, scalpings, severed ears, or broken
or chipped teeth.
    3. In the final rule, employers have three options for reporting
the fatality, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye
(see Sec.  1904.39(a)(3) and (b)(1)): (1) by telephone or in person to
the OSHA Area Office that is nearest to the site of the incident; (2)
by telephone to the OSHA toll-free central telephone number, 1-800-321-
OSHA (1-800-321-6742); (3) by electronic submission using the fatality/
injury/illness reporting application located on OSHA's public Web site
at www.osha.gov. Under both the proposed rule and the current
regulation, only the first two options were available. The electronic
submission option is new for the final rule.
    4. In the final rule, if employers do not learn about a reportable
fatality, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye
when the event happens, they must report to OSHA within a specified
time period after the event has been reported to the employer or to any
of the employer's agent(s) (see Sec.  1904.39(b)(7)). Under both the
proposed rule and the current regulation, the specified time period
began after a report to the employer or to any of the employer's
agent(s) or employee(s).
    Overall, the final rule will provide OSHA with more information
about serious workplace injuries and illnesses. This information will
allow OSHA to carry out timely investigations of these events as
appropriate, leading to the mitigation of related hazards and the
prevention of further events at the workplaces where the events
occurred. This information will also help OSHA establish a
comprehensive database that the Agency, researchers, and the public can
use to identify hazards related to reportable events and to identify
industries and processes where these hazards are prevalent. Finally,
this information will be obtained cost-effectively, with a relatively
minimal estimated average burden on employers of 30 minutes per
reported incident.
    In addition, the final rule will make OSHA's reporting requirements
more similar to the requirements of other agencies. For example, the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) requires aircraft pilots or
operators to report aviation accidents involving death, serious injury,
or substantial damage to an aircraft, as well as non-accidents that
affect or could affect the safety of operations. The Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) requires railroads to complete reports and records
of accidents and incidents. These accidents and incidents include
significant injuries to or significant illnesses of railroad employees
diagnosed by a physician or other licensed health care professional.
They also include collisions, derailments, fires, explosions, acts of
God, or other events involving the operation of railroad on-track
equipment and causing reportable damages greater than the reporting
threshold for the year ($9,200 in 2010).
    Finally, the changes will make OSHA's reporting requirements more
similar to the current requirements in some states that administer
their own occupational safety and health program, as follows:
     Alaska requires employers to report, within 8 hours,
occupational accidents that result in the death or overnight
hospitalization of one or more employees (AS 18.60.058). This
requirement has been in effect since 1976.
     California requires employers to ``report immediately by
telephone or telegraph to the nearest District Office of the Division
of Occupational Safety and Health any serious injury or illness, or
death, of an employee occurring in a place of employment or in
connection with any employment.'' ``Immediately'' means ``as soon as
practically possible but not longer than 8 hours after the employer
knows or with diligent inquiry would have known of the death or serious
injury or illness'' (Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section
342(a)). ``Serious injury or illness'' means ``any injury or illness
occurring in a place of employment or in connection with any employment
which requires inpatient hospitalization for a period in excess of 24
hours for other than medical observation or in which an employee
suffers a loss of any member of the body or suffers any serious degree
of permanent disfigurement'' (Title 8, California Code of Regulations,
Section 330(h)). This requirement has been in effect since 1979.
     Kentucky requires employers to report workplace
fatalities, amputations, and hospitalizations. Employers must report
fatalities and hospitalizations of three or more employees within 8
hours, and amputations and hospitalizations of one or two employees
within 72 hours (803 KAR 2:180). This requirement has been in effect
since 2006.
     Oregon requires employers to report work-related incidents
that cause overnight hospitalizations, catastrophes, or fatalities,
including heart attacks and motor vehicle accidents. Employers must
report fatalities and catastrophes (three or more employees admitted to
a hospital) within 8 hours of the incident, and overnight
hospitalization of at least one employee for medical treatment within
24 hours of the incident (OAR-437-001-0700). The single-hospitalization
requirement has been in effect since 1992.
     Utah requires employers to report, within 8 hours of
occurrence, work-related fatalities, disabling, serious, or significant
injuries, and occupational disease incidents (Utah Occupational Safety
and Health Rule, R614-1-5.C). This requirement has been in effect since
2002.
     Washington requires employers to report, within 8 hours,
the death, or probable death, of any employee, or the in-patient
hospitalization of any employee (WAC<PHONE_NUMBER>5). This requirement
has been in effect since 2009.
    Note that, under the final rule, as under the proposed rule and the
current regulation, employers are not required to report events
resulting from motor vehicle accidents that occurred on a public street
or highway, but not in a construction work zone (see Section
1904.39(b)(3)). Employers are required to report events resulting from
motor vehicle accidents that occurred anywhere else, including in a
construction work zone on a public street or highway, or on other
roadways, or off-road.
    A summary comparison of the proposed rule and the final rule is
below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Proposed rule           Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities.................  Employers required to  Employers required
                              report each fatality   to report each
                              within 8 hours of      fatality within 8
                              the death, for all     hours of the death,
                              fatalities occurring   for all fatalities
                              within 30 days of      occurring within 30
                              the work-related       days of the
                              incident.              incident.
Hospitalizations...........  Employers required to  Employers required
                              report each in-        to report each in-
                              patient                patient
                              hospitalization        hospitalization
                              within 8 hours of      within 24 hours of
                              the hospitalization,   the
                              for all                hospitalization,
                              hospitalizations       for all
                              occurring within 30    hospitalizations
                              days of the work-      occurring within 24
                              related incident.      hours of the work-
                                                     related incident.
                             No definition of in-   In-patient
                              patient                hospitalization
                              hospitalization.       defined as a formal
                                                     admission to the in-
                                                     patient service of
                                                     a hospital or
                                                     clinic for care or
                                                     treatment.
Amputations................  Employers required to  Employers required
                              report each            to report each
                              amputation within 24   amputation within
                              hours of the           24 hours of the
                              amputation, for all    amputation, for all
                              amputations            amputations
                              occurring within 30    occurring within 24
                              days of the work-      hours of the work-
                              related incident.      related incident.
                             Definition comes from  Definition comes
                              BLS OIICS Manual       from BLS OIICS
                              2007.                  Manual 2010.
Losses of an eye...........  No requirement.......  Employers required
                                                     to report each loss
                                                     of an eye within 24
                                                     hours of the loss
                                                     of an eye, for all
                                                     losses of an eye
                                                     occurring within 24
                                                     hours of the work-
                                                     related incident.
Reporting options..........  Two options: by        Three options: by
                              telephone or in        telephone or in
                              person to OSHA Area    person to OSHA Area
                              Office; or by          Office; or by
                              telephone to 1-800-    telephone to 1-800-
                              321-OSHA.              321-OSHA; or by
                                                     electronic
                                                     submission on
                                                     OSHA.gov.
Knowledge of event.........  Employer required to   Employer required to
                              report if event        report if event
                              (fatality, in-         (fatality, in-
                              patient                patient
                              hospitalization,       hospitalization,
                              amputation) is         amputation, loss of
                              reported to            an eye) is reported
                              employer, employer's   to employer or
                              agent(s), or           employer's
                              employee(s).           agent(s).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

A. Introduction

    OMB has determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory
action'' within the context of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This
rulemaking has net annualized costs of $9 million, with total
annualized new costs of $20.6 million to employers, total annualized
cost savings of $11.5 million for employers who no longer have to meet
certain recordkeeping requirements, and average annualized costs of $82
per year for the most-affected firms (those newly required to keep
records every year). Thus, this rulemaking imposes far less than $100
million in annual costs on the economy, and does not meet the other
criteria specified for an unfunded mandate under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532(a) or a ``major rule'' under the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). Consequently, OMB has
determined that this rule is not ``economically significant'' within
the meaning of Section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866.
    This Final Economic Analysis (FEA) addresses the costs, benefits,
economic impacts, and feasibility of the final rule as required by the
OSH Act as interpreted by the courts. This FEA is also designed to meet
the principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. The final rule would make
two changes to the existing recording and reporting requirements in 29
CFR part 1904. It would change the industries that are partially
exempted from keeping records of occupationally-related injuries and
illnesses, and it would change the requirements for reporting certain
work-related injury and illness events. The affected establishments are
only partially exempt from keeping these records because, while they
are exempt from routine OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping
requirements, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) may require any
establishment to respond to its Survey of Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses (SOII), and OSHA may require any establishment to respond to
its annual injury and illness survey. The costs to those firms required
to respond to the SOII are covered in the BLS's information collection
request for the survey; costs to other establishments that OSHA may
require to respond to its annual injury and illness survey are subject
to future OSHA information collection requests and their approval by
the OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
    The existing OSHA regulation partially exempts all employers with
10 or fewer employees and all establishments in specific lower-hazard
industry sectors from routinely keeping OSHA records. The existing
industry partial exemptions were determined by identifying industries
with relatively low lost workday injury/illness (LWDII) rates at the 3-
digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code level. This final
rule would retain the partial exemption for employers with 10 or fewer
employees. It also would update the list of partially-exempted
industries to reflect more recent data on days away from work, job
restriction, or job transfer (DART) rates and would convert the
industry classifications to the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS). These changes would lead to new costs for employers who
would be newly required to keep records, but there would also be cost
savings for employers who would no longer be required to keep records.
    The existing regulation requires employers to report all work-
related fatalities and work-related incidents involving three or more
hospitalizations to OSHA within eight hours. The final rule would
require employers to report any work-related fatality to OSHA within 8
hours and any in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye
occurring within 24 hours of a work-related incident to OSHA within 24
hours. The final rule would thus increase the number of events that
employers must report to OSHA.
    The remaining sections of this FEA are: (B) the Industrial Profile;
(C) Costs of the Final Regulation; (D) Benefits; (E) Technological
Feasibility; (F) Economic Feasibility and Impacts; (G) Regulatory
Flexibility Certification; and (H) Appendix.
    OSHA received a variety of comments in response to the Preliminary
Economic Analysis (PEA). The Agency responds to these comments in
detail in the relevant sections; this introduction summarizes the
nature of the comments. The SBA Office of Advocacy recommended that
OSHA carefully consider any small business comments it receives (Ex.
94). OSHA notes that it has carefully considered all comments. While
many commenters expressed views on OSHA's approach to deciding what
industries would be partially exempted, none objected to OSHA's
methodology for estimating the number

of establishments, firms, employees, and injuries or illnesses that
would be partially exempted. There were some comments that provide
alternative approaches to estimating various elements of the number of
in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, and losses of an eye. These
are fully discussed in the industrial profile section.
    OSHA received many comments on the Agency's estimated compliance
costs. OSHA increased some cost estimates in response to these
comments, and responds to these comments in the cost section. However,
no commenters suggested that the change in reporting requirements would
be economically infeasible. Although one commenter suggested that this
rule would be ``much more than a minor burden to industry'' (Ex. 63),
no one suggested that it would impose a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. However, some commenters also
said that OSHA would have found it useful to conduct a Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel (Exs. 115, 120) pursuant to the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 609). This issue
is discussed further in Section V-F Regulatory Flexibility
Certification.
    One commenter, the National Association of Home Builders (Ex. 113),
questioned whether OSHA was complying with E.O. 13563, which requires
that regulatory agencies take into consideration the effect of new
regulations on economic growth, competitiveness, and job creation. OSHA
notes that, as discussed below in Section V-E, Economic Impacts, the
compliance costs for each affected firm are too small to have any
significant economic impacts, including impacts on economic growth,
competitiveness, and job creation. The NAHB (Ex. 113) commented that
``OSHA's proposal is not consistent with Executive Order 13563,
`Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review' '', because ``[n]othing in
OSHA's proposal indicates how the rule is intended to streamline
regulatory requirements and reduced burdens on industry.'' E.O. 13563
does not require that all proposals indicate how the rule is intended
to streamline regulatory requirements and reduce burdens on industry.
This portion of the E.O. applies only to those proposals that result
from analyses chosen for the purpose of retrospective review.
    ARTBA argued that OSHA had failed to adequately consider small
business burdens as required by E.O. 13563. This issue is further
discussed in Section V-F, which discusses OSHA's analysis of small
business burdens.
    Some commenters questioned whether OSHA had adequately demonstrated
the benefits of this regulation. OSHA provides additional discussion of
the potential benefits of this rule in its revised benefits discussion.
    There were no comments on the discussion of environmental impacts.

B. Industrial Profile

    The purposes of this section are to provide information about the
industries that would be affected by the recordkeeping provisions of
the final rule, including the number of affected establishments and the
structure of employment within these industries, as well as to provide
estimates of the numbers of additional in-patient hospitalizations,
amputations, and losses of an eye that will be reported annually under
the reporting provisions of the final rule. Because current regulations
already require the reporting of work-related fatalities, OSHA has not
estimated the number of reportable fatalities for this FEA.
Partial Exemption
    OSHA identified all of the affected establishments in industries
that would be newly required to keep records and all of the affected
establishments in industries that would be newly partially exempt from
keeping records. This identification was complicated by the fact that
the current regulation classifies employers by SIC codes, a
classification system dating back to the 1930s that is no longer used
in government statistics. There is not a simple one-to-one translation
for industry classification codes between SIC and its replacement,
NAICS. Some SIC industries were divided among several NAICS industries,
while other SIC industries were combined to form a single NAICS
industry. As a result, OSHA had to determine how employers previously
classified by 1987 SIC code would now be classified using the 2007
NAICS codes.
    OSHA's decision to convert the listing of partially-exempt
employers from SIC codes to NAICS codes drew widespread support from
participants in the rulemaking. Winslow Sargeant, Chief Council for the
SBA Office of Advocacy, stated that he ``applauds OSHA's proposed
transition from SIC to NAICS and believes this change will result in
improved data for OSHA programs'' (Ex. 94). Mr. Sargeant's comments
were representative of the overwhelmingly positive comments OSHA
received concerning the transition from SIC to NAICS (Exs. 24, 52, 59,
69, 77, 78, 81, 85, 86, 90, 93, 99, 100, 112, 119, 120, 122, 124).
Nonetheless, one commenter expressed concern that it would not be
possible to compare data between the years covered by SIC and the years
covered by NAICS (Ex. 29). However, data comparisons for industries are
almost entirely based on SOII data, which are already collected on a
NAICS basis. Whether OSHA uses SIC or NAICS codes to define exemptions
will have no effect on industry time series data. OSHA's expectation is
that switching to NAICS codes from the seldom-used SIC code system will
decrease uncertainty in classification, save time, reduce confusion,
and lower the opportunity for errors in reporting the industry an
employer belongs to, a belief echoed by some commenters (Exs. 24, 59,
85). OSHA believes that the change to NAICS will improve the quality of
data, since the NAICS represents a more modern system of industry
classification.
    In many cases, OSHA's process of converting classification systems
meant that a single SIC code was divided into several NAICS codes, and
conversely, a single NAICS code might contain establishments from
multiple SIC codes. For maximum accuracy, this analysis was conducted
at the six-digit NAICS level. The data resulting from this analysis are
presented in the Appendix to this FEA.
    Because there were no objections to the methodology used in the PEA
for converting SIC codes to NAICS codes, OSHA has continued to use that
same methodology. OSHA first examined the 1997 Economic Census: Bridge
between SIC and NAICS Tables (Census Bureau, 1997). These tables show,
for 1997, the percentages of the establishments in each SIC code that
were transferred into each NAICS code. Next OSHA examined the 2002
Economic Census: Bridge between 2002 NAICS and 1997 NAICS Tables
(Census Bureau 2002). The bridge tables likewise show, for 2002, the
percentages of the establishments in 1997 NAICS codes that were
transferred into 2002 NAICS codes. Affected establishments in a SIC
code partially exempted under the existing rule but classified in a
non-partially-exempted NAICS code under the final rule would be newly
subject to the recordkeeping requirements. These establishments, not
partially exempted under the final rule, would incur new recordkeeping
costs.
    After identifying by 6-digit NAICS code (2002) the portions of the
industries that would be newly required to keep records, OSHA used 2006
data from the Census Bureau's Statistics of

U.S. Businesses (SUSB) to determine the corresponding numbers of
establishments and employees (Census Bureau, 2008) in those NAICS
industries. The SUSB provides not only the total number of
establishments and employees in an industry, but also a breakdown of
employees and establishments by the size of the firm that owns the
establishment. For this FEA, OSHA is updating the PEA to incorporate
the most recent 2010 SUSB data (Census Bureau, 2012). In the interest
of using the best available data, OSHA uses the 2007 NAICS codes to be
consistent with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) North
American Industry Classification System--Revision for 2007 (OMB, 2006).
    The National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (Ex. 41)
recommended that OSHA update their analysis from the 2002 to the 2007
NAICS code system, which the Agency has done for this FEA. As a result
of the 2007 NAICS revision, there has been a significant change to
NAICS 525930, Real Estate Investment Trusts. The 2007 NAICS update
split NAICS 525930 into five different industries: 531110, Lessors of
Residential Buildings and Dwellings; 531120, Lessors of Nonresidential
Buildings (except Miniwarehouses); 531130, Lessors of Miniwarehouses
and Self-Storage Units; 531190, Lessors of Other Real Estate Property;
and 525990, Other Financial Vehicles. In the 2001 OSHA rulemaking, Real
Estate Investment Trusts were partially exempted from keeping records
by virtue of being classified under SIC 67, Holding and Other
Investment Offices. However, as indicated in Appendix A, the final rule
does not partially exempt NAICS 5311 Lessors of Real Estate, and
therefore NAICS industries 531110, 531120, 531130 and 531190 will be
newly required to keep injury and illness records. NAICS 525990 Other
Financial Vehicles continues to be partially exempt from recordkeeping
requirements under the final rule.
    The 2007 NAICS revision also reclassified a few industries. To
assign these industries to the correct NAICS category, OSHA used the
2002 NAICS to 2007 NAICS Concordance (Census Bureau, 2007). NAICS
517211, Paging, and NAICS 517212, Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications--both of which were required to keep records under
the 2001 rulemaking but were classified as newly partially exempt from
keeping records under the proposed rule--were merged into NAICS 517210,
Wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite), and will
continue to be newly partially exempt from keeping records under the
final rule. NAICS 518112, Web Search Portals, has become NAICS 519130,
Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals. NAICS
518112 was required to keep records under the 2001 rulemaking, was
newly partially exempt from keeping records under the proposed rule,
and (as NAICS 519130) will continue to be newly partially exempt from
keeping records under the final rule.
    Satellite telecommunications was classified as NAICS 517310 in the
2002 NAICS but was classified as NAICS 517911 in the 2007 NAICS. Other
Telecommunications was classified as NAICS 517910 in the 2002 NAICS but
as NAICS 517919 in the 2007 NAICS. NAICS 517310 and NAICS 517910 were
both required to keep records under the 2001 rulemaking; were newly
partially exempt from keeping records in the proposed rule, and will
continue to be newly partially exempt from keeping records in the final
rule.
    SUSB data report establishments by employment size classification,
with one class being all employers with 10 to 19 employees. However,
the current regulation, proposed rule, and final rules cover employers
with 11 or more employees. To deduct employers with exactly 10
employees, OSHA estimated that such employers represent one tenth of
all employers with 10 to 19 employees. This approach probably
overestimates the number of covered firms because there are more firms
in the lower end of a given size category.
    OSHA then estimated the number of newly-affected establishments and
employees in each industry by multiplying the total number of
establishments and employees in the industry by the percentage of
affected establishments that were identified using the SIC--NAICS
bridge tables described above. Then, the Agency calculated the number
of newly-recordable injuries and illnesses for 2010 by dividing the
total number of injuries and illness reported per industry by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2011a) by total employment in the
industry, and multiplying the resulting rate by the number of affected
employees in the industry. OSHA used BLS data at the most detailed
NAICS level for which data were available--at the six-digit NAICS level
where those data were available and the lowest level data available
otherwise.
    Table V-1 presents data for the industries with establishments that
would be newly required to keep records. The table shows the four-digit
NAICS code, industry name, the number of affected establishments, the
number of affected employees, and an estimate of the number of
recordable injuries and illnesses, based on historical data, for newly-
affected employers. Table V-1 shows that OSHA estimates that the final
rule will require 220,000 establishments, employing 5.5 million
employees and having 153,000 injuries and illnesses per year, that were
previously partially exempted from recordkeeping requirements to now
keep records.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE14.000

    Having used the bridge tables and other data sources described
above to identify the segment of the NAICS industries that would be
newly required to keep records, OSHA used a similar methodology to
determine the number of affected employees and recordable injuries and
illnesses for establishments that would no longer be required to
regularly keep records. Table V-2 shows, for each affected industry
that would no longer be required to keep records, the four-digit NAICS
code, industry name, number of affected establishments, number of
affected employees, and estimated number of injuries and illnesses that
would no longer be recorded. OSHA estimates that as a result of the
revision to the list of partially-exempt industries, 160,000
establishments, with 4.1 million employees and an estimated 56,000
injuries and illnesses per year, would no longer need to keep records
routinely.
    Based on the ICR estimates (OSHA, 2011), OSHA currently requires
1,563,000 establishments to record injuries and illnesses. This total
represents approximately 54 percent of all establishments with more
than ten employees and 22 percent of all establishments. The change
from SIC to NAICS would increase the number of establishments required
to record injuries and illnesses to 1,592,000, a four percent increase
in the number of establishments recording, and an increase from 54 to
56 percent of all establishments with more than 10 employees.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE14.001

Reporting of Fatalities, In-Patient Hospitalizations, Amputations, and
Losses of an Eye
    The final rule would require that employers report all work-related
fatalities, in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, and losses of an
eye to OSHA. This requirement would affect all industries, all
employers, and all 7.5 million establishments subject to OSHA
authority. Because OSHA already requires the reporting of work-related
fatalities, this economic analysis focuses on the new requirement for
reporting all work-related in-patient hospitalizations, all
amputations, and all losses of an eye. The current regulation requires
the reporting of work-related hospitalizations of three or more
workers. The number of such multiple hospitalizations represents a
trivial portion of all work-related in-patient hospitalizations. For
example, in Fiscal Year 2010, there were a total of 14 such reports to
OSHA (OSHA, 2010). OSHA therefore estimated the total number of work-
related in-patient hospitalizations without deducting the very small
number of multiple hospitalizations that are already reported.
    In the PEA, OSHA noted that it is difficult to estimate the number
of in-patient hospitalizations that would need to be reported under the
final rule. One commenter asked that OSHA collect information from
emergency responders (Ex. 87). OSHA recognizes the value of emergency
responder data, but such data do not normally provide the distinctions
OSHA needs to determine if the injury or illness is work-related and if
the case meets OSHA's definition of an in-patient hospitalization.
    In the PEA, OSHA examined a number of existing estimates and
approaches to making such estimates. First, OSHA noted that NIOSH
estimated that in 2004, a total of 68,000 work-related emergency
department (ED) visits resulted in hospitalization (CDC, 2007). In its
comments on the PEA, NIOSH estimates that for 2009, approximately
81,500 patients admitted to emergency rooms with occupational injuries
or illnesses were either admitted or transferred to hospitals and
another 5,600 patients were held for observation (Ex. 66). This
estimate (81,500) may be a high estimate of the number of
hospitalizations that will be required to be reported under this rule,
as it may include patients admitted only for diagnostic testing or
observation, or admitted more than 24 hours after the work-related
incident. On the other hand, the estimate may be too low because not
all hospital admissions occur through emergency rooms.
    In the PEA, OSHA noted that Dembe et al. (Dembe, et al., 2003)
estimate that, based on 1997-1999 data from the Nationwide Inpatient
Sample (NIS), there were 210,000 in-patient hospital admissions per
year (or 630,000 over the three-year period) paid for by Workers'
Compensation insurance. OSHA also noted that studies in Massachusetts
(1996-2001) and Louisiana (1998-2007) came up with figures ranging from
150,000 to 275,000 workers'-compensation-related hospitalizations per
year when state-level data were extrapolated to the nation as a whole.
In the PEA, OSHA relied on an estimate of 210,000 hospitalizations but
noted this might be an overestimate, as it included elective
hospitalizations not covered by the proposed rule.
    Statistics compiled by BLS indicate that 20.1 million occupational
injuries and illnesses were reported in 1997-1999 in the United States
(BLS, 2012). Dembe et al. recognize that there are significant
differences in data collection methodologies between the NIS and BLS,
and possible under-reporting or misclassification of occupational
injuries and illnesses in those databases (Murphy, et al., 1996; Leigh,
et al., 2000). The available statistics nevertheless allow for Dembe et
al. to infer that about 3 percent of workplace injuries and illnesses
result in the hospitalization of the affected worker. In the PEA, OSHA
failed to note that Dembe et al. also estimate that 46.8 percent of all
workers' compensation hospital admissions are classified as
``elective''; therefore the remaining 53.2 percent of all workers
compensation hospital admissions would then be classified as ``non-
elective''. Since the OSHA reporting requirement would only apply to
``non-elective'' admissions, OSHA estimated for the proposed rule that
there would have been 107,000 \1\ hospitalizations in 2001 based on
Dembe and BLS data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 20.1M BLS Injuries and Illnesses between 1997-1999/3 years =
6.7M.
    6.7M Injuries and Illnesses x 3% of workplace injuries and
illnesses resulting in hospitalization = 0.2M.
    0.2M Hospitalizations x 53.2% non-elective hospitalizations =
107,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter thought that the hospitalizations estimate derived by
Dembe et al. was too low (Ex. 82). OSHA, recognizing the differences
between the NIS and BLS, determined that a range of inpatient
hospitalizations for non-elective procedures could be derived. Using
the NIS estimate of 210,000 in-patient hospital admissions and Dembe et
al.'s estimate of the percentage of non-elective workers' compensation-
related hospitalizations, OSHA now estimates that there were 112,000
non-elective hospitalizations \2\ for 2001. If OSHA instead applies
Dembe et al.'s estimate of the percentage of workplace injuries and
illnesses that result in hospitalization--3 percent--and the estimate
of ``non-elective'' procedures--53.2 percent--to the 4.1 million
injuries and illnesses reported by the BLS for 2009, OSHA estimates
that there were roughly 66,000 \3\ inpatient hospitalizations for non-
elective procedures, a value that may lie near the low end of the true
range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Dembe's estimated hospitalizations: 210,000 x 53.2% non-
elective hospitalizations = 112,000.
    \3\ 4.1M BLS Injuries and Illnesses for 2009 x 3% of workplace
injuries and illnesses resulting in hospitalization = 123,000.
    123,000 Hospitalizations x 53.2% non-elective hospitalizations =
65,436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using Massachusetts data for FY 2008, Letitia Davis from the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health commented that 39 percent of
hospitalizations were for elective procedures (Ex. 84). Davis also
notes that Massachusetts studied inpatient hospitalizations during
1996-2000 and, using payments by workers' compensation as an indicator
of work-relatedness, identified an annual average of 4,091 work-related
inpatient hospitalizations (Ex. 84). Using employment data to
extrapolate the 4,091 hospitalizations in Massachusetts to the entire
United States, OSHA calculates that 157,843 \4\ work-related
hospitalizations would occur annually nationwide. Narrowing the total
to non-elective hospitalizations using Davis's alternative methodology
and her estimate of the percentage of hospitalizations in Massachusetts
that are non-elective (61 percent), OSHA calculates that 96,000 non-
elective work-related hospitalizations occur nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ MA Employment = 2.97M; U.S. Employment = 114.51M; MA
Hospitalizations = 4,091.
    Ratio MA Employment to U.S. Employment = 2.97M/114.51M = 2.59%.
    Inflator MA to U.S. = 1/2.59% = 38.58.
    U.S. Hospitalizations extrapolated from MA Hospitalizations =
4,901 x 38.58 = 157,843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, a variety of methodologies were examined to estimate
the number of non-elective hospitalization paid for by workers'
compensation. The resulting estimates range from 66,000 (extrapolation
of Dembe to 2009) to 96,000 (extrapolation from Massachusetts data) to
112,000 (Dembe estimate for 2001) non-elective, occupationally-related
hospitalizations annually.
    It is also possible to make an estimate of the number of single in-
patient hospitalizations reported in states that currently require
reporting of single in-

patient hospitalizations. There are six states \5\ that currently
require employers to report occupationally-related single-patient
hospitalizations. Employers in these states report a hospitalization to
the relevant State Plan Area Office, which then completes an OSHA Form
36 based on that information. OSHA's Office of Statistical Analysis
reports that during 2002-2010, a total of 38,000 such forms were
completed, for an average of 4,200 forms completed annually. Assuming a
consistent rate of occupationally-related single-patient
hospitalizations across all fifty states, the number of forms submitted
by these six states can be extrapolated to all fifty states in the U.S.
This yields an estimate of 25,000 \6\ annual, reportable, single-
patient hospitalizations. OSHA believes that this low estimate, as
compared to those developed above, may be the result of failure by
employers to report hospitalizations that should have been reported.
The result may be a realistic estimate of how many hospitalizations
will actually be reported to OSHA, but the Agency prefers to use, for
costing and economic feasibility purposes, an estimate based on what
the regulation would require if employers fully complied, such as the
estimates above based on non-elective hospitalizations paid for by
workers' compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Alaska, California, Kentucky, Oregon, Utah and Washington
all require the reporting of single-patient hospitalizations.
    \6\ 6 State Employment = 19,381,966. 50 State Employment =
114,509,626.
    Ratio 6 State Employment to total U.S. Employment = 16.93%.
    6 State inflator to 50 states = 1/16.93% = 5.91.
    Average 6 State hospitalizations from 2002-2010 = 4,222.
    Average 6 State hospitalizations extrapolated to U.S. = 4,222 x
5.91 = 24,946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the final rule, employers would not have to report
hospitalizations that occur more than 24 hours after the work-related
incident. Therefore, scheduled or planned hospitalizations would not
normally be reportable. As discussed above, Davis (Ex. 84) estimates
that 39 percent of all hospitalizations are for elective procedures,
while Dembe et al. estimate that 46.8 percent of all hospitalizations
are for elective procedures. Whereas Davis is only examining
Massachusetts data, Dembe et al. are comparing data across 24 states.
OSHA believes that Dembe's sample of 24 states is likely to be more
representative of the U.S. than Davis's sample and has therefore
elected to use Dembe et al.'s estimate of 46.8 percent to derive the
number of work-related hospitalizations that are either scheduled or
elective. OSHA has opted to use the upper end of the range of estimated
work-related hospitalizations as its estimate of overall reported
hospitalizations, with the result that, based on Dembe's estimate of
the number of non-elective hospitalization paid for by workers'
compensation in 2001, an estimated 112,000 hospitalizations per year
will be reported to the Agency as a result of this final rule.
    According to BLS, in 2009, there were 5,930 amputations that
involved days away from work (BLS, 2010). In its preliminary estimates,
OSHA assumed that all amputation and losses of an eye would result in
hospitalization. The more serious amputation cases will clearly require
in-patient hospitalization. Likewise, the loss of an eye usually
results in a hospitalization. OSHA estimated this in the proposal, and
there were no objections. OSHA continues to estimate that the loss of
an eye normally involves a hospitalization. OSHA notes (but, for the
basis of the analysis, does not rely on) Moshfeghi's support of this in
his 2000 article: A Review of Enucleation (Moshfeghi, et al., 2000).
However, in a comment on the proposed rule, Letitia Davis reported
that, for FY 2008 in Massachusetts, only 22 percent of all amputations
resulted in in-patient hospitalizations and that 4 percent of all
amputations resulted in hospitalization more than 24 hours after the
injury (Ex. 84). Based on Davis's results for Massachusetts, OSHA has
adjusted its preliminary nationwide estimate of in-patient
hospitalizations and amputations.
    Amputations that result in in-patient hospitalizations (22 percent
of all amputations) have been accounted for in the estimate of 112,000
total in-patient hospitalizations above, and therefore affected
employers will not incur an additional reporting burden for amputations
resulting in in-patient hospitalizations as a result of the requirement
to report amputations. Amputations that occur more than 24 hours after
the work-related incident that leads to the amputation (4 percent) will
not be reportable under the final rule because they occur outside of
the required time for amputations to be reported; therefore affected
employers will not incur an additional reporting burden. The remaining
4,389 amputations (74 percent of 5,930 BLS-reported amputations) will
require additional reporting to OSHA. For this FEA, OSHA has
conservatively rounded up this figure to 5,000 amputations and has
included that estimate in the total number of events that will need to
be reported annually.
    To summarize, OSHA estimates that a total of 112,000 single in-
patient hospitalizations (including 1,300 amputations that require
hospitalization, as well as all losses of an eye) and 5,000 amputations
not involving hospitalization will need to be reported to OSHA annually
as a result of this final rule. OSHA suspects that the resulting total
of 117,000 in-patient hospitalizations and amputations is an
overestimate of the actual number of events that would require
reporting under the final rule. OSHA could find no evidence to indicate
how many occupational injuries result in the loss of an eye in a year
and received no comments from stakeholders providing estimates of the
number of occupationally-related enucleation. Because the loss of an
eye is likely to require hospitalization, the estimated 117,000 single
in-patient hospitalizations and amputations should account for cases of
losses of an eye. OSHA is confident that an estimate of 117,000 reports
accounts for all reportable single in-patient hospitalizations, eye
losses, and amputations.

C. Costs of the Final Regulation

Overview
    This section presents OSHA's estimate of the costs and cost savings
of the final rule. The time requirements for the activities associated
with the final rule have been developed through previous rulemakings
and information collection requests that have been subject to extensive
notice and comment. For the purpose of analyzing the costs of the
proposed rule, OSHA relied primarily on past estimates of the time
needed to complete recordkeeping activities; these past estimates of
unit time requirements have already been subject to multiple
opportunities for public comment, as they have been used in ICRs
multiple times. OSHA is continuing to rely primarily on these estimates
where they seem appropriate in light of the record. Past ICRs provide
estimates of the costs of all aspects of recordkeeping for new firms,
and these estimates were adopted in the preliminary analysis. Past ICRs
also provided estimates of the costs of reporting fatalities. For its
preliminary analysis, OSHA assumed that the costs of reporting
hospitalizations and amputations would have the same time requirements
as fatalities. (The specific past estimates on which OSHA relied are
cited for each time estimate.)
    During the comment period of the proposed rule, OSHA received three
general comments on the overall costs. One commenter, Marshfield
Clinic, argued that being on the list of

industries partially exempt from keeping records wasn't a time savings
for establishments that have been selected by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) to keep records for the BLS Survey of Occupational
Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) (Ex. 15). Marshfield Clinic asked that
OSHA develop a trigger mechanism for determining the ideal number of
employers responsible for keeping the records, regardless of their
NAICS classification. The concept of an ideal number of employers
responsible for maintaining the OSHA injury and illness records would
only be valid if OSHA were compiling injury and illness data for
statistical purposes and were striving for a representative sample.
However, OSHA's data collection efforts serve a different purpose, and
therefore developing an ideal number of responsible employers is not in
keeping with OSHA's data collection purposes. OSHA asks for injury and
illness records to help OSHA, employees, and employers determine an
employer's past experience with worker health and safety. BLS selects
different businesses to keep records for the SOII each year, so that,
for example, reporting this year doesn't require an employer to report
in future years. BLS incurs the paperwork burden for their survey
requirements. OSHA is aware that some businesses will not realize a
full cost savings during the years when they are required to keep
records for BLS or other federal agencies. OSHA recognizes that (1)
there will be some cost savings in years when they report to BLS,
because of differences in the specific reporting requirements (such as
the need to certify OSHA but not BLS records), and (2) there will be a
cost savings in the years when they are not required to keep records.
For this FEA, OSHA has not assessed employer burden for BLS or any
other type of recordkeeping, nor does OSHA believe that such an
assessment is necessary in order to demonstrate the feasibility of the
final rule. Because OSHA and BLS do not account for any overlap in
their requirements, the combined estimated burdens of the two agencies
for recording injuries and illnesses almost certainly exceed the actual
burdens.
    Some commenters (Exs. 64, 65, 67) suggested specific kinds of costs
that might have been overlooked in OSHA's preliminary cost estimates.
The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) was concerned that ``one legal opinion
as to whether an injury is recordable could cost far more than [what
OSHA has estimated].'' (Ex. 64). OSHA's experience is that borderline
cases that require a legal opinion on recordability are extremely rare.
In the overwhelming majority of recordkeeping cases, the recordability
is clear-cut. For those cases where it is not, the already necessary
determination of whether the case is compensable under workers'
compensation may help to resolve the issue. For the remaining cases,
most employers will find it less expensive to record an uncertain case
than to seek a legal opinion. Also, as stated elsewhere in this
document, OSHA has several resources available free of charge on its
Web site that can help employers determine recordability.
    Another rulemaking participant, FedEx Corporation (FedEx),
commented that complying with the 8-hour reporting requirement for in-
patient hospitalizations would require new protocols and procedures
that would necessitate 150-175 hours annually (Ex. 67). The American
Trucking Association made a very similar comment (Ex. 65). OSHA
believes that extending the reporting deadline from 8 hours to 24
hours, and making clear that this deadline is from the time the
employer first learns of the reportable event (in-patient
hospitalization, amputation, loss of an eye) resulting from a work-
related incident, will relieve the need for the elaborate system for
tracking potential hospitalizations that these commenters envisioned.
The following subsection presents OSHA's estimate of the time
requirements and other unit values associated with the compliance
activities expected by OSHA following the effective date of the final
rule.
Unit Costs
    Initial training of recordkeepers is expected to require one hour
per establishment and will apply only to current partially-exempt
establishments that would be newly required to keep records (OSHA,
2001). A commenter (Ex. 17) noted that this requirement would signify
the need for retraining of both human resource and safety
professionals. OSHA, based on its experience inspecting establishments
and discussing recordkeeping with stakeholders, believes that the
average establishment that employs 25 workers will only assign the task
of understanding of the details of recordkeeping to one employee per
establishment. This analytical assumption is consistent with OSHA's
Supporting Statement to the Information Collection Request (ICR)
transmitted to OMB in 2011 (OSHA, 2011). Some commenters argued that
much more extensive training would be needed. For example, Holman
Automotive Group (Ex. 124) and the National Association of Automobile
Dealers argued that training might involve a one-day course at a cost
of $300, plus the cost of employee time, travel expenses, etc. OSHA
believes this is an overestimate of potential training costs, as the
Agency's own Web site provides training on recordkeeping that can
easily be completed in less than one hour. It should be noted that
there is a trade-off between time spent on training and time spent on
individual records. A recordkeeper at a very large establishment with
many injuries and illnesses in the course of a year may find it more
efficient to have more extensive initial training in order to spend
less time on each individual record. On the other hand, a recordkeeper
who records only two or three injuries/illnesses a year will be better
off learning about the complexities of the system only if such
complexities ever actually arise in their establishment, resulting in
lower initial training costs but more time spent recording each case.
OSHA's estimates are designed to represent an average across large and
small firms and establishments, taking into account both situations
where more extensive initial training is provided as well as situations
where little or no initial training is done. OSHA also notes that
injury and illness recordkeeping development and training can account
for much more than just keeping records of injuries and illnesses under
29 CFR part 1904; in other words, these types of administrative
functions address not just other OSHA requirements but also
requirements for other agencies, such as BLS and workers' compensation
insurers. The one hour estimate presented in this FEA accounts for only
the incremental addition of training needed for OSHA-required recording
of injuries and illnesses.
    Training of recordkeepers to account for turnover was estimated to
take one hour per establishment, and a turnover rate of 20 percent per
year was applied in the cost algorithm, resulting in an average of 0.2
hours per establishment per year to train newly-hired recordkeepers.
This estimate applies to costs for current partially-exempt
establishments that would be newly required to keep records and will
contribute to cost savings for establishments that would no longer be
required to keep records (OSHA, 2001). As discussed below, in the PEA,
OSHA estimated that this task would be performed by a Human Resource
Specialist, but for this FEA, OSHA has decided that it would be more
accurate to use the higher salary of an

Occupational Health and Safety Specialist (OHSS). A person with these
higher qualifications will typically be better able than a human
resources specialist to carry out the required duties in the estimated
times.
    The final rule will require the completing, posting, and certifying
of the OSHA Form 300A annually. OSHA estimates that 0.47 hours per
establishment, as calculated in the ICR, will be needed to complete and
post the form, and 0.5 hours will be needed to certify the log entries,
for a total of 0.97 hours per establishment. This estimate applies on a
per-establishment basis to costs for current partially-exempt
establishments that would be newly required to keep records and to cost
savings for establishments that would no longer be required to keep
records (OSHA, 2011).
    In addition to the per-establishment costs incurred to complete,
post, and certify the OSHA Form 300A annually, there are also costs for
each injury and illness recorded. These costs include the costs for
completing the OSHA Form 301, entering each injury and illness on to
the OSHA Form 300, and responding to requests for copies of the OSHA
Form 301. OSHA estimated in the ICR that 0.38 hours per recordable
injury or illness will be expended to comply with these requirements
(OSHA, 2011). This estimate applies to costs for current partially-
exempt establishments that would be newly required to keep records and
to cost savings for establishments that would no longer be required to
keep records (OSHA, 2011).
    OSHA received several comments on its time estimate of 15 minutes