OSHA

Recordkeeping 

Handbook

The Regulation and Related 

Interpretations for Recording 

and Reporting Occupational 

Injuries and Illnesses 

www.osha.gov

OSHA 3245-09R 2005
Employers are responsible for providing a safe and

healthful workplace for their employees. OSHA’s

role is to assure the safety and health of America’s

workers by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach and education; establishing

partnerships; and encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety and health. For more

information, visit www.osha.gov.

This handbook provides a general overview of a

particular topic related to OSHA regulation. It does

not alter or determine compliance responsibilities

in OSHA standards or the Occupational Safety and

Health Act of 1970. Because interpretations and

enforcement policy may change over time, you

should consult current OSHA administrative interpretations and decisions by the Occupational

Safety and Health Review Commission and the

Courts for additional guidance on OSHA compliance requirements.

This publication is in the public domain and may

be reproduced, fully or partially, without permission. Source credit is requested but not required.

This information is available to sensory impaired

individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 693-

1999; teletypewriter (TTY) number: (877) 889-5627.
OSHA

Recordkeeping Handbook

The Regulation and Related Interpretations for Recording

and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

U.S. Department of Labor

Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis

Office of Statistical Analysis

OSHA 3245-03R

2006

This OSHA Web-based Recordkeeping Handbook

is a compendium of existing agency-approved

recordkeeping materials, including the regulatory

text from the 2001 final rule on Occupational Injury

and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements

(“the Recordkeeping rule”) and relevant explanatory excerpts from the preamble to the rule; chapter 5 of the agency's Recordkeeping Policies and

Procedures Manual; Frequently Asked Questions

(FAQs); and OSHA letters of interpretation. This

Web-based handbook is intended to be a resource

for businesses of all sizes, as well as OSHA's compliance safety and health officers, compliance

assistance specialists, and OSHA State-plans. The

information in the handbook is accessible by

means of a user-friendly search engine that relies

on simple point-and-click technology. The handbook is designed to answer recordkeeping questions raised by employers, employees, and members of the OSHA family who are familiar with the

basic requirements of the rule but wish to obtain

additional information on specific recordkeeping

issues. Users will also find the handbook useful

as a research and training tool. The handbook can

be accessed through the link below, which directs

users to the file. Because the handbook is Webbased, it will be possible to update letters of interpretation and add FAQs to the file quickly as new

questions about the rule are raised. 

iii OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

Introduction
i v OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH

Act) requires covered employers to prepare and

maintain records of occupational injuries and illnesses. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in the U.S. Department of Labor is responsible for administering the recordkeeping system established by the Act. The OSH Act and recordkeeping regulations in 29 CFR 1904 and 1952 provide

specific recording and reporting requirements which

comprise the framework for the nationwide occupational safety and health recording system.

Under this system, it is essential that data recorded

by employers be uniform and accurate to assure the

consistency and validity of the statistical data which

is used by OSHA for many purposes, including

inspection targeting, performance measurement

under the Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA), standards development, resource allocation,

Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) eligibility, and

"low-hazard" industry exemptions. The data also aid

employers, employees and compliance officers in

analyzing the safety and health environment at the

employer’s establishment and is the source of

information for the OSHA Data Initiative (ODI) and

the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Annual Survey.

In January 2001, OSHA issued a final rule revising

the § 1904 and § 1952 Occupational Injury and Illness

Recording and Reporting Requirements (Recordkeeping) regulations, the first revision since 1978.

The goals of the revision were to simplify the system, clarify ongoing concepts, produce more useful

information and better utilize modern technology.

The new regulation took effect on January 1, 2002.

As part of OSHA’s extended outreach efforts, the

agency also produced a Recordkeeping Policies and

Procedures Manual (CPL 2-0.135, December 30, 2004),

which contained, along with other related information, a variety of Frequently Asked Questions. In

addition, in 2002, a detailed Injury and Illness

Recordkeeping website was established containing

links to helpful resources related to Recordkeeping,

including training presentations, applicable Federal

Register notices, and OSHA’s recordkeeping-related

Letters of Interpretation. (See www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/index.html).

This publication brings together relevant information

from the Recordkeeping rule, the policies and procedures manual and the website. It is organized by regulatory section and contains the specific final regulatory language, selected excerpts from the relevant

OSHA decision analysis contained in the preamble to

the final rule, along with recordkeeping-related

Frequently Asked Questions and OSHA’s enforcement guidance presented in the agency’s Letters of

Interpretation. The user will find this information

useful in understanding the Recordkeeping requirements and will be able to easily locate a variety of

specific and necessary information pertaining to

each section of the rule.

The information included here deals only with the

requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health

Act of 1970 and Parts 1904 and 1952 of Title 29, Code

of Federal Regulations, for recording and reporting

occupational injuries and illnesses. Some employers

may be subject to additional recordkeeping and

reporting requirements not covered in this document. Many specific OSHA standards and regulations have additional requirements for the maintenance and retention of records for medical surveillance, exposure monitoring, inspections, and other

activities and incidents relevant to occupational safety and health, and for the reporting of certain information to employees and to OSHA. For information

on these requirements, which are not covered in this

publication, employers should refer directly to the

OSHA standards or regulations, consult OSHA’s website for additional information (www.osha.gov), or

contact their OSHA regional office or participating

State agency.

For recordkeeping and reporting questions not covered in this publication, employers may contact their

OSHA regional office or the participating State

agency serving their jurisdiction.

Preface
Recordkeeping Handbook

Roadmap vi

Section 1904.0

Purpose 1

REGULATION 1

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 1

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 2

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 2

Section 1904.1

Partial exemption for employers

with 10 or fewer employees 3

REGULATION 3

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 3

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 4

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 4

Section 1904.2 

Partial exemption for establishments in certain industries 5

REGULATION 5

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 6

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 9

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 9

Section 1904.3 

Keeping records for more 

than one agency 10

REGULATION 10

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 10

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 10

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 10

Section 1904.4 

Recording criteria 11

REGULATION 11

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 12

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 12

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 12

Section 1904.5 

Determination of 

work-relatedness 13

REGULATION 13

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 15

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 22

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 25

Contents

Section 1904.6 

Determination of new cases 37

REGULATION 37

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 37

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 41

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 42

Section 1904.7

General recording criteria 47

REGULATION 47

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 51

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 78

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 78

Section 1904.8

Recording criteria for 

needlestick and sharps injuries 75

REGULATION 75

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 75

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 78

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 78

Section 1904.9

Recording criteria for cases 

involving medical removal 

under OSHA standards 79

REGULATION 79

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 79

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 80

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 80

Section 1904.10

Recording criteria for cases 

involving occupational

hearing loss 81

REGULATION 81

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 82

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 92

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 92

Section 1904.11

Recording criteria for workrelated tuberculosis cases 96

REGULATION 96

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 96

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 98

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 98

v OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 
v i OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

Section 1904.34 

Change in business ownership 136

REGULATION 136

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 136

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 136

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 136

Section 1904.35 

Employee involvement 137

REGULATION 137

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 138

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 143

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 144

Section 1904.36 

Prohibition against 

discrimination 147

REGULATION 147

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 147

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 147

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 147

Section 1904.37 

State recordkeeping

regulations 148

REGULATION 148

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 148

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 149

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 150

Section 1904.38 

Variances from the 

recordkeeping rule 1151

REGULATION 151

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 152

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 153

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 153

Section 1904.39 

Reporting fatalities and 

multiple hospitalization 

incidents to OSHA 154

REGULATION 154

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 155

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 157

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 157

Deletion 1904.12

Recording criteria for cases 

involving work-related

musculoskeletal disorders 99

Sections 1904.12 – 1904.28

(Reserved) 100

Section 1904.29 

Forms 100

REGULATION 100

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 101

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 109

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 110

Section 1904.30 

Multiple business 

establishments 113

REGULATION 113

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 113

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 115

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 115

Section 1904.31 

Covered employees 116

REGULATION 116

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 116

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 120

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 120

Section 1904.32 

Annual summary 127

REGULATION 127

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 127

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 131

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 132

Section 1904.33 

Retention and updating 134

REGULATION 134

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 134

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 135

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 135
vii OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

Section 1904.40 

Providing records to

government representatives 158

REGULATION 158

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 158

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 160

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 160

Section 1904.41 

Annual OSHA injury and 

illness survey of ten or 

more employers 161

REGULATION 161

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 161

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 162

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 162

Section 1904.42 

Requests from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics for data 163

REGULATION 163

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 163

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 164

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 164

Section 1904.46 

Definitions 165

REGULATION 165

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 166

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 172

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 172

Section 1952.4 

Injury and illness recording 

and reporting requirements 174

REGULATION 174

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION 174

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 174

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION 174
viii OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

Recordkeeping Handbook Roadmap

This roadmap will assist readers in locating regulatory language, decision analyses, frequently asked questions

and enforcement guidance letters concerning sections 1904 and 1952 of the OSHA Recordkeeping regulations.

Purpose of Rule:

See 1904.0

Exempt Employers:

See 1904.1

Exempt Establishments:

See 1904.2

Requirements of More Than One Agency:

See 1904.3

Which Injuries to Record:

See 1904.4 

1904.5

1904.6 

1904.7

Which Injuries are Work-related:

See 1904.5

When an Injury Represents a New Case:

See 1904.6

Needlestick and Sharps Injuries:

See 1904.8

Medical Removal Cases:

See 1904.9

Hearing Loss Cases:

See 1904.10

Tuberculosis Cases:

See 1904.11

Musculoskeletal Disorder Cases:

See 1904.12

The Recording Forms:

See 1904.29

Multiple Business Establishments:

See 1904.30

Employee Coverage:

See 1904.31

The Annual Summary:

See 1904.32

Records Retention and Updating:

See 1904.33

Changes in Business Ownership:

See 1904.34

Employee Involvement:

See 1904.35

Prohibition Against Discrimination:

See 1904.36

State Recordkeeping Regulations:

See 1904.37

Variances from the Rule:

See 1904.38

Fatality/Multiple Hospitalization

Requirements:

See 1904.39

Providing Records to Government 

Representatives:

See 1904.40

OSHA’s Annual Injury/Illness Survey:

See 1904.41

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Requests:

See 1904.42

Definitions:

See 1904.46

State-Plan State Requirements:

See 1952.4
Section 1904.0 

Purpose 

(66 FR 6122, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.0

Subpart A – Purpose (66 FR 6122, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Section 1904.0

The purpose of this rule (Part 1904) is to require employers to record and report work-related fatalities, injuries

and illnesses.

Note to Section 1904.0: Recording or reporting a work-related injury, illness, or fatality does not mean that the

employer or employee was at fault, that an OSHA rule has been violated, or that the employee is eligible for

workers’ compensation or other benefits.

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.0 

(66 FR 5933-5935, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

§1904.0 

Subpart A. Purpose

The Purpose section of the final rule explains why

OSHA is promulgating this rule. The Purpose section

contains no regulatory requirements and is intended

merely to provide information. A Note to this section

informs employers and employees that recording a

case on the OSHA recordkeeping forms does not

indicate either that the employer or the employee

was at fault in the incident or that an OSHA rule has

been violated. Recording an injury or illness on the

Log also does not, in and of itself, indicate that the

case qualifies for workers’ compensation or other

benefits. Although any specific work-related injury or

illness may involve some or all of these factors, the

record made of that injury or illness on the OSHA

recordkeeping forms only shows three things: (1) that

an injury or illness has occurred; (2) that the employer has determined that the case is work-related (using

OSHA’s definition of that term); and (3) that the case

is non-minor, i.e., that it meets one or more of the

OSHA injury and illness recording criteria....

Many cases that are recorded in the OSHA system

are also compensable under the State workers’ compensation system, but many others are not. However,

the two systems have different purposes and scopes.

The OSHA recordkeeping system is intended to collect, compile and analyze uniform and consistent

nationwide data on occupational injuries and illnesses. The workers’ compensation system, in contrast, is

not designed primarily to generate and collect data

but is intended primarily to provide medical coverage

and compensation for workers who are killed, injured

or made ill at work, and varies in coverage from one

State to another....

As a result of these differences between the two

systems, recording a case does not mean that the case

is compensable, or vice versa. When an injury or illness occurs to an employee, the employer must independently analyze the case in light of both the OSHA

recording criteria and the requirements of the State

workers’ compensation system to determine whether

the case is recordable or compensable, or both....

1 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.0 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.0 Purpose

Question 0-1. Why are employers required to keep

records of work-related injuries and illnesses?

The OSH Act of 1970 requires the Secretary of Labor

to produce regulations that require employers to

keep records of occupational deaths, injuries, and illnesses. The records are used for several purposes.

Injury and illness statistics are used by OSHA.

OSHA collects data through the OSHA Data Initiative

(ODI) to help direct its programs and measure its
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.0 

Section 1904.0 Purpose

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.

§1904.0 

2

own performance. Inspectors also use the data during inspections to help direct their efforts to the hazards that are hurting workers.

The records are also used by employers and

employees to implement safety and health programs

at individual workplaces. Analysis of the data is a

widely recognized method for discovering workplace

safety and health problems and for tracking progress

in solving those problems.

The records provide the base data for the BLS

Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses,

the Nation’s primary source of occupational injury

and illness data.

Question 0-2. What is the effect of workers’ compensation reports on the OSHA records?

The purpose section of the rule includes a note to

make it clear that recording an injury or illness neither affects a person’s entitlement to workers’ compensation nor proves a violation of an OSHA rule.

The rules for compensability under workers’ compensation differ from state to state and do not have

any effect on whether or not a case needs to be

recorded on the OSHA 300 Log. Many cases will be

OSHA recordable and compensable under workers’

compensation. However, some cases will be compensable but not OSHA recordable, and some cases

will be OSHA recordable but not compensable under

workers’ compensation.
§1904.1 

3

Section 1904.1 

Partial exemption for employers 

with 10 or fewer employees 

(66 FR 6122, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.1

Subpart B – Scope (66 FR 6122, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Note to Subpart B: All employers covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) are covered

by these Part 1904 regulations. However, most employers do not have to keep OSHA injury and illness

records unless OSHA or the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) informs them in writing that they must keep

records. For example, employers with 10 or fewer employees and business establishments in certain industry classifications are partially exempt from keeping OSHA injury and illness records.

Section 1904.1 Partial exemption for employers 

with 10 or fewer employees

(a) Basic requirement.

(1) If your company had ten (10) or fewer employees

at all times during the last calendar year, you do not

need to keep OSHA injury and illness records unless

OSHA or the BLS informs you in writing that you must

keep records under Section 1904.41 or Section 1904.42.

However, as required by Section 1904.39, all employers

covered by the OSH Act must report to OSHA any workplace incident that results in a fatality or the hospitalization of three or more employees.

(2) If your company had more than ten (10)

employees at any time during the last calendar year,

you must keep OSHA injury and illness records

unless your establishment is classified as a partially

exempt industry under Section 1904.2.

(b) Implementation.

(1) Is the partial exemption for size based on the

size of my entire company or on the size of an individual business establishment?

The partial exemption for size is based on the

number of employees in the entire company.

(2) How do I determine the size of my company to

find out if I qualify for the partial exemption for size? 

To determine if you are exempt because of size,

you need to determine your company’s peak employment during the last calendar year. If you had no

more than 10 employees at any time in the last calendar year, your company qualifies for the partial

exemption for size.

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.1 

(66 FR 5935-5939, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.1 Partial exemption for employers 

with 10 or fewer employees

The Size-Based Exemption in the Former Rule

The original OSHA injury and illness recording and

reporting rule issued in July 1971 required all

employers covered by the OSH Act to maintain injury

and illness records. In October 1972, an exemption

from most of the recordkeeping requirements was

put in place for employers with seven or fewer

employees. In 1977, OSHA amended the rule to

exempt employers with 10 or fewer employees, and

that exemption has continued in effect to this day....

The Size-Based Exemption in the Final Rule

...Under the final rule (and the former rule), an

employer in any industry who employed no more

than 10 employees at any time during the preceding

calendar year is not required to maintain OSHA

records of occupational illnesses and injuries during

the current year unless requested to do so in writing

by OSHA (under Section 1904.41) or the BLS (under

Section 1904.42). If an employer employed 11 or

more people at a given time during the year, however, that employer is not eligible for the size-based

partial exemption....

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 
... [U]nder the 10 or fewer employee partial

exemption threshold, more than 80% of employers in

OSHA’s jurisdiction are exempted from routinely

keeping records....

...[T]he final rule clarifies that the 10 or fewer size

exemption is applicable only if the employer had

fewer than 11 employees at all times during the previous calendar year. Thus, if an employer employs 

11 or more people at any given time during that year,

the employer is not eligible for the small employer

exemption in the following year. This total includes

all workers employed by the business. All individuals

who are “employees” under the OSH Act are counted

in the total; the count includes all full time, part time,

temporary, and seasonal employees. For businesses

that are sole proprietorships or partnerships, the

owners and partners would not be considered

employees and would not be counted. Similarly, for

family farms, family members are not counted as

employees. However, in a corporation, corporate officers who receive payment for their services are considered employees. [See Section 1904.31, Covered

Employees.]

Consistent with the former rule, the final rule

applies the size exemption based on the total number of employees in the firm, rather than the number

of employees at any particular location or establishment...because the resources available in a given

business depend on the size of the firm as a whole,

not on the size of individual establishments owned

by the firm. In addition, the analysis of injury records

should be of value to the firm as a whole, regardless

of the size of individual establishments. Further, an

exemption based on individual establishments would

be difficult to administer, especially in cases where

an individual employee, such as a maintenance

worker, regularly reports to work at several establishments.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.1 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.1 Partial exemption for employers with 10 or fewer employees

This section will be developed as questions and answers become available.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.1 

Section 1904.1 Partial exemption for employers with 10 or fewer employees

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.1 

4
§1904.2 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 5

Section 1904.2 

Partial exemption for establishments 

in certain industries 

(66 FR 6122, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.2

Subpart B – Scope (66 FR 6122, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Section 1904.2 Partial exemption for establishments

in certain industries 

(a) Basic requirement.

(1) If your business establishment is classified in a

specific low hazard retail, service, finance, insurance

or real estate industry listed in Appendix A to this

Subpart B, you do not need to keep OSHA injury and

illness records unless the government asks you to

keep the records under Section 1904.41 or Section

1904.42. However, all employers must report to

OSHA any workplace incident that results in a fatality

or the hospitalization of three or more employees

(see Section 1904.39).

(2) If one or more of your company’s establishments are classified in a non-exempt industry, you

must keep OSHA injury and illness records for all of

such establishments unless your company is partially

exempted because of size under Section 1904.1.

(b) Implementation.

(1) Does the partial industry classification exemption apply only to business establishments in the

retail, services, finance, insurance or real estate

industries (SICs 52-89)? 

Yes, business establishments classified in agriculture; mining; construction; manufacturing; transportation; communication; electric, gas and sanitary

services; or wholesale trade are not eligible for the

partial industry classification exemption.

(2) Is the partial industry classification exemption

based on the industry classification of my entire company or on the classification of individual business

establishments operated by my company? 

The partial industry classification exemption

applies to individual business establishments. If a

company has several business establishments

engaged in different classes of business activities,

some of the company’s establishments may be

required to keep records, while others may be exempt.

(3) How do I determine the Standard Industrial

Classification code for my company or for individual

establishments? 

You determine your Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) code by using the Standard

Industrial Classification Manual, Executive Office of

the President, Office of Management and Budget.

You may contact your nearest OSHA office or State

agency for help in determining your SIC.

Non-Mandatory Appendix A to Subpart B – 

Partially Exempt Industries

Employers are not required to keep OSHA injury

and illness records for any establishment classified in

the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

codes, unless they are asked in writing to do so by

OSHA, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), or a state

agency operating under the authority of OSHA or the

BLS. All employers, including those partially exempted by reason of company size or industry classification, must report to OSHA any workplace incident

that results in a fatality or the hospitalization of three

or more employees (see Section 1904.39).

SIC code Industry description

525 Hardware Stores

542 Meat and Fish Markets

544 Candy, Nut, and Confectionery Stores

545 Dairy Products Stores

546 Retail Bakeries

549 Miscellaneous Food Stores

551 New and Used Car Dealers

552 Used Car Dealers

554 Gasoline Service Stations

557 Motorcycle Dealers

56 Apparel and Accessory Stores

SIC code Industry description

573 Radio, Television, & Computer Stores

58 Eating and Drinking Places

591 Drug Stores and Proprietary Stores

592 Liquor Stores

594 Miscellaneous Shopping Goods Stores

599 Retail Stores, Not Elsewhere Classified

60 Depository Institutions (banks & savings 

institutions)

61 Nondepository Institutions

62 Security and Commodity Brokers

63 Insurance Carriers

Appendix A -- Partially Exempt Industries
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.2 

6

SIC code Industry description

64 Insurance Agents, Brokers, & Services

653 Real Estate Agents and Managers

654 Title Abstract Offices

67 Holding and Other Investment Offices

722 Photographic Studios, Portrait

723 Beauty Shops

724 Barber Shops

725 Shoe Repair and Shoeshine Parlors

726 Funeral Services and Crematories

729 Miscellaneous Personal Services

731 Advertising Services

732 Credit Reporting and Collection Services

733 Mailing, Reproduction, & Stenographic 

Services

737 Computer and Data Processing Services

738 Miscellaneous Business Services

764 Reupholstery and Furniture Repair

78 Motion Picture

791 Dance Studios, Schools, and Halls

792 Producers, Orchestras, Entertainers

SIC code Industry description

793 Bowling Centers

801 Offices & Clinics Of Doctors Of Medicine

802 Offices and Clinics Of Dentists

803 Offices & Clinics Of Doctors Of Osteopathy

804 Offices & Clinics Of Other Health Practitioners

807 Medical and Dental Laboratories

809 Health and Allied Services, Not Elsewhere 

Classified

81 Legal Services

82 Educational Services (schools, colleges, 

universities and libraries)

832 Individual and Family Services

835 Child Day Care Services

839 Social Services, Not Elsewhere Classified

841 Museums and Art Galleries

86 Membership Organizations

87 Engineering, Accounting, Research, 

Management, and Related Services

899 Services, not elsewhere classified

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.2 

(66 FR 5939-5945, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.2 Partial exemption for establishments

in certain industries

Section 1904.2 of the final rule partially exempts

employers with establishments classified in certain

lower-hazard industries. Lower-hazard industries

are those Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

code industries within SICs 52-89 that have an

average Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred

(DART) rate at or below 75% of the national average DART rate. 

You determine your Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) code by using the Standard

Industrial Classification Manual, Executive Office of

the President, Office of Management and Budget.

You may contact your nearest OSHA office or State

agency for help in determining your SIC.

Employers with establishments in those industry

sectors shown in Appendix A are not required routinely to keep OSHA records for their establishments.

They must, however, keep records if requested to

do so by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in connection with its Annual Survey (section 1904.42) or by

OSHA in connection with its Data Initiative (section

1904.41). In addition, all employers covered by the

OSH Act must report a work-related fatality, or an

accident that results in the hospitalization of three

or more employees, to OSHA within 8 hours (section 1904.39).

In 1982, OSHA exempted establishments in a

number of service, finance and retail industries

from the duty to regularly maintain the OSHA Log

and Incident Report (47 FR 57699 (Dec. 28, 1982)).

This industry exemption to the Part 1904 rule was

intended to “reduce paperwork burden on employers without compromising worker safety and

health.” ... 

Although the 1982 Federal Register notice discussed the possibility of revising the exempt industry list on a routine basis, the list of partially

exempt industries compiled in 1982 has remained

unchanged until this revision of the Part 1904

rule....

...[N]on-mandatory Appendix A of the final rule

identifies industries for exemption at the 3-digit SIC

code level. Although this approach does make the

list of exempt industries longer and more detailed,

it also targets the exemption more effectively than

did the former rule’s list. For example, the final rule
§1904.2 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 7

does not exempt firms in many of the more hazardous 3-digit SIC industries that are embedded

within lower rate 2-digit SIC industries. It does,

however, exempt firms in relatively low-hazard 3-

digit SIC industries, even though they are classified

in higher hazard 2-digit SIC industries. Where Days

Away, Restricted, or Transferred (DART, formerly

LWDI) rate calculations exempt all of the 3-digit SIC

industries within a given 2-digit industry, the

exempt industry list in Appendix A displays only

the 2-digit SIC classification. This approach merely

provides a shorter, simpler list.

For multi-establishment firms, the industry

exemption is based on the SIC code of each establishment, rather than the industrial classification of

a firm as a whole. For example, some larger corporations have establishments that engage in different business activities. Where this is the case, each

establishment could fall into a different SIC code,

based on its business activity. The Standard

Industrial Classification manual states that the

establishment, rather than the firm, is the appropriate unit for determining the SIC code. Thus,

depending on the SIC code of the establishment,

one establishment of a firm may be exempt from

routine recordkeeping under Part 1904, while

another establishment in the same company may

not be exempt....

OSHA has evaluated other approaches but has

decided that the 3-digit DART rate method is both

simpler and more equitable than the former 2-digit

method. By exempting lower-hazard industry sectors within SICs 52-89, OSHA hopes both to concentrate its recordkeeping requirements in sectors

that will provide the most useful data and to minimize paperwork burden. No exemption method is

perfect: any method that exempts broad classes of

employers from recordkeeping obligations will

exempt some more hazardous workplaces and

cover some less hazardous workplaces. OSHA has

attempted to minimize both of these problems by

using the most current injury and illness statistics

available, and by applying them to a more detailed

industry level within the retail, financial and service

sectors than was formerly the case. OSHA has also

limited the scope of the exemptions by using an

exemption threshold that is well below the national

average, including only those industries that have

average DART rates that are at or below 75% of the

national average DART rate. The rule also limits the

exempt industries to the retail, financial and service

sectors, which are generally less hazardous than

the manufacturing industry sector....

The final rule makes clear that, when a “leased”

or “temporary” employee is supervised on a dayto-day basis by the using firm, the using firm must

enter that employee’s injuries and illnesses on the

using firm’s establishment Log and other records.

Injuries and illnesses occurring to a given employee should only be recorded once, either by the temporary staffing firm or the using firm, depending on

which firm actually supervises the temporary

employees on a day-to-day basis. (see the discussion for Section 1904.31, Covered employees, for

an in-depth explanation of these requirements.)...

After a review of the recent BLS data, OSHA’s

own experience, and the record of this rulemaking,

OSHA has decided that it is appropriate to require

firms in industries within the SIC 01 through 51

codes to comply with OSHA’s requirements to keep

records. Thus, the final rule, like the proposed rule

and the rule published in 1982, does not exempt

firms with more than 10 employees in the industry

divisions of agriculture, mining, construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation and

public utilities (SICs 01-52) from routine recordkeeping.

Although OSHA no longer restricts its inspection

targeting schemes to employers in these SICs,

these industries have traditionally been, and continue to be, the focus of many of the Agency’s

enforcement programs. OSHA believes that it is

important for larger employers (i.e., those with

more than 10 employees) in these industries to

continue to collect and maintain injury and illness

records for use by the employer, employees and

the government. As noted in the comments there is

a wide variation in injury/illness rates among establishments classified in these industries. Further, as

a whole, these industries continue to have injury

and illness rates that are generally higher than the

private sector average and will thus benefit from

the information that OSHA-mandated records can

provide about safety and health conditions in the

workplace. In 1998, the lost workday injury and illness rate for the entire private sector was 3.1. As

can be seen in the following table of lost workday

injury and illness rates by industry division, all of

the covered divisions exceeded 75% of the national

average LWDI rate (2.325) for the private sector as a

whole, while the exempted industry divisions had

substantially lower rates. 
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.2 

8

Industry Sector 1998 Lost Workday

Injury and Illness Rate

Agriculture, forestry and fishing (SIC 01) 3.9

Mining (SIC 10-14) 2.9

Construction (SIC 15-17) 4.0

Manufacturing (SIC 20-39) 4.7

Transportation, communications, electric, 

gas and sanitary services (SIC 40-49) 4.3

Wholesale trade (SIC 50 & 51) 3.3

Retail trade (SIC 52-59) 2.7

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 

(SIC 60-67) 0.7

Services (SIC 70-87) 2.4

(U.S. Department of Labor Press Release 

USDL 98-494, December 16, 1999)

...The Agency finds that continuing, and improving on, the Agency’s longstanding approach of partially exempting those industries in SIC codes 52-89

that have DART rates, based on 3 years of BLS data,

below 75% of the private-sector average strikes the

appropriate balance between the need for injury and

illness information on the one hand, and the paperwork burdens created by recording obligations, on

the other. The BLS Annual Survey will, of course,

continue to provide national job-related statistics for

all industries and all sizes of businesses. As it has

done in the past, the BLS will sample employers in

the partially exempt industries and ask each sampled

employer to keep OSHA records for one year. In the

following year, BLS will collect the records to generate estimates of occupational injury and illness for

firms in the partially exempt industries and size classes, and combine those data with data for other industries to generate estimates for the entire U.S. private

sector. These procedures ensure the integrity of the

national statistics on occupational safety and health.

The list of partially exempted industry sectors in

this rule is based on the current (1987) revision of the

SIC manual. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) is charged with maintaining and revising the

system of industrial classification that will replace the

SIC. The new system is used by U.S. statistical agencies (including the BLS). Under the direction of OMB,

the U.S. government has adopted a new, comprehensive system of industrial classification that will

replace the SIC. The new system is called the North

American Industrial Classification System (NAICS).

NAICS will harmonize the U.S. classification system

with those of Canada and Mexico and make it easier

to compare various economic and labor statistics

among the three countries....

Although the NAIC industry classification system

has been formally adopted by the United States, the

individual U.S. statistical agencies (including the BLS)

are still converting their statistical systems to reflect

the new codes and have not begun to publish statistics using the new industry classifications. The new

system will be phased into the nation’s various statistical systems over the next several years. The BLS

does not expect to publish the first occupational

injury and illness rates under the new system until

the reference year 2003. Given the lag time between

the end of the year and the publication of the statistics, data for a full three-year period will not be available before December of 2006.

Because data to revise the Part 1904 industry

exemption based on the NAIC system will not be

available for another five years, OSHA has decided to

update the industry exemption list now based on the

most recent SIC-based information available from

BLS for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998. OSHA will

conduct a future rulemaking to update the industry

classifications to the NAIC system when BLS publishes injury and illness data that can be used to make

appropriate industry-by-industry decisions....

OSHA agrees with those commenters who

favored regular updating of the SIC code exemption

list. For the list to focus Agency resources most effectively on the most hazardous industries, it must be

up-to-date. Industries that are successful in lowering

their rates to levels below the exemption threshold

should be exempted, while those whose rates rise

sufficiently to exceed the criterion should receive

additional attention. Unfortunately, the change in

industry coding systems from the Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) system to the North American

Industry Classification (NAIC) system will require a

future rulemaking to shift to that system. Therefore,

there is no value in adding an updating mechanism

at this time. The automatic updating issue will be

addressed in the same future rulemaking that

addresses the NAIC system conversion.

Partial Exemptions for Employers Under the

Jurisdiction of OSHA-Approved State Occupational

Safety and Health Plans 

...For those States with OSHA-approved State plans,

the state is generally required to adopt Federal OSHA

rules, or a State rule that is at least as effective as the

Federal OSHA rule. States with approved plans do

not need to exempt employers from recordkeeping,

either by employer size or by industry classification,

as the final Federal OSHA rule does, although they
§1904.2 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 9

may choose to do so. For example, States with

approved plans may require records from a wider

universe of employers than Federal OSHA does.

These States cannot exempt more industries or

employers than Federal OSHA does, however,

because doing so would result in a State rule that is

not as effective as the Federal rule. 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.2 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.2 Partial exemption for establishments in certain industries

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.2 

Section 1904.2 Partial exemption for establishments in certain industries

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.

Question 2-1. How can I get help to find my SIC Code

and determine if I’m partially exempt from the

recordkeeping rule?

You can access the statistics section of OSHA’s internet home page, at http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/. Go

to the website and choose SIC Manual and follow the

directions. If you still cannot determine your SIC

code, you can call an OSHA area office, or, if you are

in a state with an OSHA-approved state plan, call

your State Plan office. See the OSHA Office Directory.

Question 2-2. Do States with OSHA-approved State

plans have the same industry exemptions as Federal

OSHA?

States with OSHA-approved plans may require

employers to keep records for the State, even though

those employers are within an industry exempted by

the Federal rule.

Question 2-3. Do professional sports teams qualify

for the partial industry exemption in section 1904.2? 

No. Only those industry classifications listed in

Appendix A to Subpart B qualify for the partial industry exemption in section 1904.2. Professional sports

teams are classified under Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) code 794, which is not one of the

listed exempt classifications.
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.3 

1 0

Section 1904.3 

Keeping records for more than 

one agency

(66 FR 6123, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.3

Subpart B – Scope (66 FR 6122, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Section 1904.3 Keeping records for more than 

one agency

If you create records to comply with another government agency’s injury and illness recordkeeping

requirements, OSHA will consider those records as

meeting OSHA’s Part 1904 recordkeeping requirements if OSHA accepts the other agency’s records

under a memorandum of understanding with that

agency, or if the other agency’s records contain the

same information as this Part 1904 requires you to

record. You may contact your nearest OSHA office or

State agency for help in determining whether your

records meet OSHA’s requirements.

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.3 

(66 FR 5945, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.3 Recordkeeping under the requirements of other Federal agencies

Section 1904.3 of the final rule provides guidance for

employers who are subject to the occupational injury

and illness recording and reporting requirements of

other Federal agencies. Several other Federal agencies have similar requirements, such as the Mine

Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), the

Department of Energy (DOE), and the Federal

Railroad Administration (FRA). The final rule at section 1904.3 tells the employer that OSHA will accept

these records in place of the employer’s Part 1904

records under two circumstances: (1) if OSHA has

entered into a memorandum of understanding

(MOU) with that agency that specifically accepts the

other agency’s records, the employer may use them

in place of the OSHA records, or (2) if the other

agency’s records include the same information

required by Part 1904, OSHA would consider them 

an acceptable substitute.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.3 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.3 Keeping records for more than one agency

This section will be developed as questions and answers become available.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.3 

Section 1904.3 Keeping records for more than one agency

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.
§1904.4 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 1 1

Section 1904.4 

Recording criteria 

(66 FR 6123, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.4

Subpart C – Recordkeeping Forms and Recording Criteria (66 FR 6123, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Note to Subpart C: This Subpart describes the work-related injuries and illnesses that an employer must

enter into the OSHA records and explains the OSHA forms that employers must use to record work-related

fatalities, injuries, and illnesses.

Section 1904.4 Recording criteria

(a) Basic requirement.

Each employer required by this Part to keep

records of fatalities, injuries, and illnesses must

record each fatality, injury and illness that:

(1) Is work-related; and 

(2) Is a new case; and

(3) Meets one or more of the general recording

criteria of Section 1904.7 or the application to specific

cases of Section 1904.8 through Section 1904.11.

(b) Implementation.

(1) What sections of this rule describe recording criteria for recording work-related injuries and illnesses? 

The table below indicates which sections of the

rule address each topic.

(i) Determination of work-relatedness. See Section

1904.5.

(ii) Determination of a new case. See Section

1904.6.

(iii) General recording criteria. See Section 1904.7.

(iv) Additional criteria. (Needlestick and sharps

injury cases, tuberculosis cases, hearing loss

cases, medical removal cases, and musculoskeletal disorder cases). See Section 1904.8 through

Section 1904.11.

(2) How do I decide whether a particular injury or

illness is recordable?

The decision tree for recording work-related

injuries and illnesses below shows the steps involved

in making this determination.

Did the employee experience an injury or illness?

Is the injury or illness work-related?

Is the injury or illness a new case?

Update the previously 

recorded injury or illness 

entry if necessary.

Does the injury or illness meet the 

general recording criteria or the 

application to specific cases?

Do not record the injury or illness. Record the injury or illness.

NO

NO

NO YES

NO

YES

YES

YES
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.4 

1 2

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.4 

(66 FR 5945-5946, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.4 Recording Criteria

Section 1904.4 of the final rule contains provisions

mandating the recording of work-related injuries and

illnesses that must be entered on the OSHA 300

(Log) and 301 (Incident Report) forms. It sets out the

recording requirements that employers are required

to follow in recording cases.

Paragraph 1904.4(a) of the final rule mandates that

each employer who is required by OSHA to keep

records must record each fatality, injury or illness

that is work-related, is a new case and not a continuation of an old case, and meets one or more of the

general recording criteria in section 1904.7 or the

additional criteria for specific cases found in sections

1904.8 through 1904.11. Paragraph (b) contains provisions implementing this basic requirement.

Paragraph 1904.4(b)(1) contains a table that points

employers and their recordkeepers to the various

sections of the rule that determine which work-related injuries and illnesses are to be recorded. These

sections lay out the requirements for determining

whether an injury or illness is work-related, if it is a

new case, and if it meets one or more of the general

recording criteria. In addition, the table contains a

row addressing the application of these and additional criteria to specific kinds of cases (needlestick and

sharps injury cases, tuberculosis cases, hearing loss

cases, medical removal cases, and musculoskeletal

disorder cases). The table in paragraph 1904.4(b)(1) is

intended to guide employers through the recording

process and to act as a table of contents to the sections of Subpart C.

Paragraph (b)(2) is a decision tree, or flowchart,

that shows the steps involved in determining

whether or not a particular injury or illness case must

be recorded on the OSHA forms. It essentially

reflects the same information as is in the table in

paragraph 1904.4(b)(1), except that it presents this

information graphically.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.4 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.4 Recording criteria

Question 4-1. Does an employee report of an injury

or illness establish the existence of the injury or illness for recordkeeping purposes?

No. In determining whether a case is recordable, the

employer must first decide whether an injury or illness, as defined by the rule, has occurred. If the

employer is uncertain about whether an injury or illness has occurred, the employer may refer the

employee to a physician or other health care professional for evaluation and may consider the health

care professional’s opinion in determining whether

an injury or illness exists. [Note: If a physician or

other licensed health care professional diagnoses a

significant injury or illness within the meaning of

Section1904.7(b)(7) and the employer determines that

the case is work-related, the case must be recorded.]

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.4 

Section 1904.4 Recording criteria

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.
§1904.5 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 1 3

Section 1904.5 

Determination of work-relatedness 

(66 FR 6123, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.5

Subpart C – Recordkeeping Forms and Recording Criteria (66 FR 6123, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Note to Subpart C: This Subpart describes the work-related injuries and illnesses that an employer must

enter into the OSHA records and explains the OSHA forms that employers must use to record work-related

fatalities, injuries, and illnesses.

Section 1904.5 Determination of work-relatedness

(a) Basic requirement.

You must consider an injury or illness to be workrelated if an event or exposure in the work environment

either caused or contributed to the resulting condition

or significantly aggravated a pre-existing injury or illness. Work-relatedness is presumed for injuries and illnesses resulting from events or exposures occurring in

the work environment, unless an exception in Section

1904.5(b)(2) specifically applies.

(b) Implementation.

(1) What is the “work environment”? 

OSHA defines the work environment as “the establishment and other locations where one or more

employees are working or are present as a condition

of their employment. The work environment includes

not only physical locations, but also the equipment

or materials used by the employee during the course

of his or her work.”

(2) Are there situations where an injury or illness

occurs in the work environment and is not considered work-related? 

Yes, an injury or illness occurring in the work environment that falls under one of the following exceptions is not work-related, and therefore is not recordable.

1904.5(b)(2) You are not required to record injuries and illnesses if ...

(i) At the time of the injury or illness, the employee was present in the work environment as a 

member of the general public rather than as an employee.

(ii) The injury or illness involves signs or symptoms that surface at work but result solely from 

a non-work-related event or exposure that occurs outside the work environment.

(iii) The injury or illness results solely from voluntary participation in a wellness program or in 

a medical, fitness, or recreational activity such as blood donation, physical examination, 

flu shot, exercise class, racquetball, or baseball.

(iv) The injury or illness is solely the result of an employee eating, drinking, or preparing food or 

drink for personal consumption (whether bought on the employer’s premises or brought in). 

For example, if the employee is injured by choking on a sandwich while in the employer’s 

establishment, the case would not be considered work-related.

Note: If the employee is made ill by ingesting food contaminated by workplace contaminants 

(such as lead), or gets food poisoning from food supplied by the employer, the case would be 

considered work-related. 

(v) The injury or illness is solely the result of an employee doing personal tasks (unrelated to their 

employment) at the establishment outside of the employee’s assigned working hours.

(vi) The injury or illness is solely the result of personal grooming, self medication for a non-workrelated condition, or is intentionally self-inflicted.

(vii) The injury or illness is caused by a motor vehicle accident and occurs on a company parking lot or 

company access road while the employee is commuting to or from work.
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.5 

1 4

(viii) The illness is the common cold or flu (Note: contagious diseases such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, 

hepatitis A, or plague are considered work-related if the employee is infected at work).

(ix) The illness is a mental illness. Mental illness will not be considered work-related unless the 

employee voluntarily provides the employer with an opinion from a physician or other licensed 

health care professional with appropriate training and experience (psychiatrist, psychologist, 

psychiatric nurse practitioner, etc.) stating that the employee has a mental illness that is workrelated.

(3) How do I handle a case if it is not obvious

whether the precipitating event or exposure occurred

in the work environment or occurred away from work?

In these situations, you must evaluate the employee’s work duties and environment to decide whether

or not one or more events or exposures in the work

environment either caused or contributed to the

resulting condition or significantly aggravated a preexisting condition.

(4) How do I know if an event or exposure in the

work environment “significantly aggravated” a preexisting injury or illness?

A preexisting injury or illness has been significantly aggravated, for purposes of OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping, when an event or exposure in

the work environment results in any of the following:

(i) Death, provided that the preexisting injury or

illness would likely not have resulted in death but

for the occupational event or exposure.

(ii) Loss of consciousness, provided that the preexisting injury or illness would likely not have

resulted in loss of consciousness but for the occupational event or exposure.

(iii) One or more days away from work, or days of

restricted work, or days of job transfer that otherwise would not have occurred but for the occupational event or exposure.

(iv) Medical treatment in a case where no medical

treatment was needed for the injury or illness

before the workplace event or exposure, or a

change in medical treatment was necessitated by

the workplace event or exposure.

(5) Which injuries and illnesses are considered

pre-existing conditions?

An injury or illness is a preexisting condition if it

resulted solely from a non-work-related event or

exposure that occurred outside the work environment.

(6) How do I decide whether an injury or illness is

work-related if the employee is on travel status at the

time the injury or illness occurs?

Injuries and illnesses that occur while an employee is on travel status are work-related if, at the time

of the injury or illness, the employee was engaged in

work activities “in the interest of the employer.”

Examples of such activities include travel to and from

customer contacts, conducting job tasks, and entertaining or being entertained to transact, discuss, or

promote business (work-related entertainment

includes only entertainment activities being engaged

in at the direction of the employer). 

Injuries or illnesses that occur when the employee

is on travel status do not have to be recorded if they

meet one of the exceptions listed below.

1904.5(b)(6) If the employee has... You may use the following to determine if an injury or illness is work-related

(i) checked into a hotel When a traveling employee checks into a hotel, motel, or into another temor motel for one or porary residence, he or she establishes a “home away from home.” You must 

more days. evaluate the employee’s activities after he or she checks into the hotel, motel, 

or other temporary residence for their work-relatedness in the same manner 

as you evaluate the activities of a non-traveling employee. When the employee

checks into the temporary residence, he or she is considered to have left the 

work environment. When the employee begins work each day, he or she 

re-enters the work environment. If the employee has established a “home 

away from home” and is reporting to a fixed worksite each day, you also do 

not consider injuries or illnesses work-related if they occur while the employee

is commuting between the temporary residence and the job location.

( ii) taken a detour for Injuries or illnesses are not considered work-related if they occur while the 

personal reasons. employee is on a personal detour from a reasonably direct route of travel 

(e.g., has taken a side trip for personal reasons).
§1904.5 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 1 5

(b)(7) How do I decide if a case is work-related

when the employee is working at home? 

Injuries and illnesses that occur while an employee is working at home, including work in a home

office, will be considered work-related if the injury or

illness occurs while the employee is performing work

for pay or compensation in the home, and the injury

or illness is directly related to the performance of

work rather than to the general home environment or

setting. For example, if an employee drops a box of

work documents and injures his or her foot, the case

is considered work-related. If an employee’s fingernail is punctured by a needle from a sewing machine

used to perform garment work at home, becomes

infected and requires medical treatment, the injury is

considered work-related. If an employee is injured

because he or she trips on the family dog while rushing to answer a work phone call, the case is not considered work-related. If an employee working at

home is electrocuted because of faulty home wiring,

the injury is not considered work-related.

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.5 

(66 FR 5946-5962, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.5 Determination of work-relatedness

This section of the final rule sets out the requirements employers must follow in determining

whether a given injury or illness is work-related.

Paragraph 1904.5(a) states that an injury or illness

must be considered work-related if an event or exposure in the work environment caused or contributed

to the injury or illness or significantly aggravated a

pre-existing injury or illness. It stipulates that, for

OSHA recordkeeping purposes, work relationship is

presumed for such injuries and illnesses unless an

exception listed in paragraph 1904.5(b)(2) specifically

applies.

Implementation requirements are set forth in

paragraph (b) of the final rule. Paragraph (b)(1)

defines “work environment” for recordkeeping purposes and makes clear that the work environment

includes the physical locations where employees are

working as well as the equipment and materials used

by the employee to perform work. 

Paragraph (b)(2) lists the exceptions to the presumption of work-relatedness permitted by the final

rule; cases meeting the conditions of any of the listed

exceptions are not considered work-related and are

therefore not recordable in the OSHA recordkeeping

system.

Section 8(c)(2) of the OSH Act directs the

Secretary to issue regulations requiring employers to

record “work-related” injuries and illnesses. It is

implicit in this wording that there must be a causal

connection between the employment and the injury

or illness before the case is recordable. For most

types of industrial accidents involving traumatic

injuries, such as amputations, fractures, burns and

electrocutions, a causal connection is easily determined because the injury arises from forces, equipment, activities, or conditions inherent in the employment environment. Thus, there is general agreement

that when an employee is struck by or caught in

moving machinery, or is crushed in a construction

cave-in, the case is work-related. It is also accepted

that a variety of illnesses are associated with exposure to toxic substances, such as lead and cadmium,

used in industrial processes. Accordingly, there is little question that cases of lead or cadmium poisoning

are work-related if the employee is exposed to these

substances at work. 

On the other hand, a number of injuries and illnesses that occur, or manifest themselves, at work

are caused by a combination of occupational factors,

such as performing job-related bending and lifting

motions, and factors personal to the employee, such

as the effects of a pre-existing medical condition. In

many such cases, it is likely that occupational factors

have played a tangible role in causing the injury or

illness, but one that cannot be readily quantified as

“significant” or “predominant” in comparison with

the personal factors involved. 

Injuries and illnesses also occur at work that do

not have a clear connection to a specific work activity, condition, or substance that is peculiar to the

employment environment. For example, an employee may trip for no apparent reason while walking

across a level factory floor; be sexually assaulted by

a co-worker; or be injured accidentally as a result of

an act of violence perpetrated by one co-worker

against a third party. In these and similar cases, the

employee’s job-related tasks or exposures did not
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.5 

1 6

create or contribute to the risk that such an injury

would occur. Instead, a causal connection is established by the fact that the injury would not have

occurred but for the conditions and obligations of

employment that placed the employee in the position

in which he or she was injured or made ill.

The final rule’s test for work-relationship and its

similarity to the former and proposed rules. -- The

final rule requires that employers consider an injury

or illness to be “work-related” if an event or exposure in the work environment either caused or contributed to the resulting condition or significantly

aggravated a pre-existing injury or illness. Work

relatedness is presumed for injuries and illnesses

resulting from events or exposures occurring in the

work environment, unless an exception in Section

1904.5(b)(2) specifically applies.

Under paragraph 1904.5(b)(1), the “work environment” means “the establishment and other locations

where one or more employees are working or are

present as a condition of their employment. The

work environment includes not only physical locations, but also equipment or materials used by the

employee during the course of his or her work.” ...

Who Makes the Determination?

...OSHA has concluded that requiring employers to

rely on a health care professional for the determination of the work-relatedness of occupational injuries

and illnesses would be burdensome, impractical, and

unnecessary. Small employers, in particular, would

be burdened by such a provision. Further, if the professional is not familiar with the injured worker’s job

duties and work environment, he or she will not have

sufficient information to make a decision about the

work-relatedness of the case. OSHA also does not

agree that health care professional involvement is

necessary in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Employers have been making work-relatedness

determinations for more than 20 years and have performed this responsibility well in that time. This does

not mean that employers may not, if they choose,

seek the advice of a physician or other licensed

health care professional to help them understand the

link between workplace factors and injuries and illnesses in particular cases; it simply means that

OSHA does not believe that most employers will

need to avail themselves of the services of such a

professional in most cases.

Accordingly, OSHA has concluded that the determination of work-relatedness is best made by the

employer, as it has been in the past. Employers are

in the best position to obtain the information, both

from the employee and the workplace, that is necessary to make this determination. Although expert

advice may occasionally be sought by employers in

particularly complex cases, the final rule provides

that the determination of work-relatedness ultimately

rests with the employer.

The Final Rule’s Exceptions to the Geographic

Presumption

Paragraph 1904.5(b)(2) of the final rule contains eight

exceptions to the work environment presumption

that are intended to exclude from the recordkeeping

system those injuries and illnesses that occur or

manifest in the work environment, but have been

identified by OSHA, based on its years of experience

with recordkeeping, as cases that do not provide

information useful to the identification of occupational injuries and illnesses and would thus tend to skew

national injury and illness statistics. These eight

exceptions are the only exceptions to the presumption permitted by the final rule.

(i) Injuries or illnesses will not be considered

work-related if, at the time of the injury or illness, the

employee was present in the work environment as a

member of the general public rather than as an

employee.

This exception, which is codified at paragraph

1904.5(b)(2)(i), is based on the fact that no employment relationship is in place at the time an injury or

illness of this type occurs. A case exemplifying this

exception would occur if an employee of a retail

store patronized that store as a customer on a nonwork day and was injured in a fall. This exception

allows the employer not to record cases that occur

outside of the employment relationship when his or

her establishment is also a public place and a worker

happens to be using the facility as a member of the

general public. In these situations, the injury or illness has nothing to do with the employee’s work or

the employee’s status as an employee, and it would

therefore be inappropriate for the recordkeeping system to capture the case....

(ii) Injuries or illnesses will not be considered

work-related if they involve symptoms that surface at

work but result solely from a non-work-related event

or exposure that occurs outside the work environment. 

OSHA’s recordkeeping system is intended only to

capture cases that are caused by conditions or exposures arising in the work environment. It is not

designed to capture cases that have no relationship

with the work environment. For this exception to

apply, the work environment cannot have caused,
§1904.5 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 1 7

contributed to, or significantly aggravated the injury

or illness. This exception is consistent with the position followed by OSHA for many years and reiterated

in the final rule: that any job-related contribution to

the injury or illness makes the incident work-related,

and its corollary--that any injury or illness to which

work makes no actual contribution is not work-related. An example of this type of injury would be a diabetic incident that occurs while an employee is working. Because no event or exposure at work contributed in any way to the diabetic incident, the case

is not recordable. This exception allows the employer

to exclude cases where an employee’s non-work

activities are the sole cause of the injury or illness....

(iii) Injuries and illnesses will not be considered

work-related if they result solely from voluntary participation in a wellness program or in a medical, fitness,

or recreational activity such as blood donation, physical, flu shot, exercise classes, racquetball, or baseball. 

This exception allows the employer to exclude

certain injury or illness cases that are related to personal medical care, physical fitness activities and voluntary blood donations. The key words here are

“solely” and “voluntary.” The work environment cannot have contributed to the injury or illness in any

way for this exception to apply, and participation in

the wellness, fitness or recreational activities must be

voluntary and not a condition of employment. 

This exception allows the employer to exclude cases

that are related to personal matters of exercise, recreation, medical examinations or participation in blood

donation programs when they are voluntary and are

not being undertaken as a condition of work. For

example, if a clerical worker was injured while performing aerobics in the company gymnasium during

his or her lunch hour, the case would not be workrelated. On the other hand, if an employee who was

assigned to manage the gymnasium was injured

while teaching an aerobics class, the injury would be

work-related because the employee was working at

the time of the injury and the activity was not voluntary. Similarly, if an employee suffered a severe reaction to a flu shot that was administered as part of a

voluntary inoculation program, the case would not

be considered work-related; however, if an employee

suffered a reaction to medications administered to

enable the employee to travel overseas on business,

or the employee had an illness reaction to a medication administered to treat a work-related injury, the

case would be considered work-related....

(iv) Injuries and illnesses will not be considered

work-related if they are solely the result of an

employee eating, drinking, or preparing food or drink

for personal consumption (whether bought on the

premises or brought in). 

An example of the application of this exception

would be a case where the employee injured himself

or herself by choking on a sandwich brought from

home but eaten in the employer’s establishment;

such a case would not be considered work-related

under this exception. On the other hand, if the

employee was injured by a trip or fall hazard present

in the employer’s lunchroom, the case would be considered work-related. In addition, a note to the exception makes clear that if an employee becomes ill as a

result of ingesting food contaminated by workplace

contaminants such as lead, or contracts food poisoning from food items provided by the employer, the

case would be considered work-related. As a result, if

an employee contracts food poisoning from a sandwich brought from home or purchased in the company cafeteria and must take time off to recover, the

case is not considered work related. On the other

hand, if an employee contracts food poisoning from

a meal provided by the employer at a business meeting or company function and takes time off to recover, the case would be considered work related. Food

provided or supplied by the employer does not

include food purchased by the employee from the

company cafeteria, but does include food purchased

by the employer from the company cafeteria for business meetings or other company functions. 

(v) Injuries and illnesses will not be considered

work-related if they are solely the result of employees doing personal tasks (unrelated to their employment) at the establishment outside of their assigned

working hours. 

This exception, which responds to inquiries

received over the years, allows employers limited

flexibility to exclude from the recordkeeping system

situations where the employee is using the employer’s establishment for purely personal reasons during

his or her off-shift time. For example, if an employee

were using a meeting room at the employer’s establishment outside of his or her assigned working

hours to hold a meeting for a civic group to which he

or she belonged, and slipped and fell in the hallway,

the injury would not be considered work-related. On

the other hand, if the employee were at the employer’s establishment outside his or her assigned working hours to attend a company business meeting or a

company training session, such a slip or fall would

be work-related. 

(vi) Injuries and illnesses will not be considered

work-related if they are solely the result of personal

grooming, self-medication for a non-work-related
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.5 

1 8

detecting, diagnosing and verifying mental illnesses;

and the sensitivity and privacy concerns raised by

mental illnesses. Therefore, the final rule requires

employers to record only those mental illnesses verified by a health care professional with appropriate

training and experience in the treatment of mental illness, such as a psychiatrist, psychologist, or psychiatric nurse practitioner. The employer is under no

obligation to seek out information on mental illnesses from its employees, and employers are required

to consider mental illness cases only when an

employee voluntarily presents the employer with an

opinion from the health care professional that the

employee has a mental illness and that it is work

related. In the event that the employer does not

believe the reported mental illness is work-related,

the employer may refer the case to a physician or

other licensed health care professional for a second

opinion. OSHA also emphasizes that work-related

mental illnesses, like other illnesses, must be recorded only when they meet the severity criteria outlined

in Section 1904.7. In addition, for mental illnesses, the

employee’s identity must be protected by omitting

the employee’s name from the OSHA 300 Log and

instead entering “privacy concern case” as required

by Section 1904.29.

Proposed Exception....The Case Results Solely From

Normal Body Movements, not Job-Related Motions

or Contribution from the Work Environment.

...OSHA has decided not to include a recordkeeping

exception for injuries or illnesses associated with

normal body movements in the final rule....Further,

the final rule already makes clear that injuries and illnesses that result solely from non-work causes are

not considered work-related and therefore are

excluded from the Log, and establishes the requirements employers must follow to determine workrelationship for an injury or illness when it is unclear

whether the precipitating event occurred in the workplace or elsewhere (see paragraph 1904.5(b)(3)).

According to the requirements in that section, the

employer must evaluate the employee’s work duties

and the work environment to decide whether it is

more likely than not that events or exposures in the

work environment either caused or contributed to the

condition or significantly aggravated a pre-existing

condition. If so, the case is work-related.

Additional Exceptions Suggested by Commenters

but Not Adopted [in the final rule].

...Acts of God:...OSHA has not adopted such an

exception because doing so would not be in keeping

condition, or are intentionally self-inflicted. 

This exception allows the employer to exclude

from the Log cases related to personal hygiene, selfadministered medications and intentional self-inflicted injuries, such as attempted suicide. For example, a

burn injury from a hair dryer used at work to dry the

employee’s hair would not be work-related. Similarly,

a negative reaction to a medication brought from

home to treat a non-work condition would not be

considered a work-related illness, even though it first

manifested at work. 

(vii) Injuries will not be considered work-related if

they are caused by motor vehicle accidents occurring

in company parking lots or on company access roads

while employees are commuting to or from work.

This exception allows the employer to exclude

cases where an employee is injured in a motor vehicle accident while commuting from work to home or

from home to work or while on a personal errand.

For example, if an employee was injured in a car

accident while arriving at work or while leaving the

company’s property at the end of the day, or while

driving on his or her lunch hour to run an errand, the

case would not be considered work-related. On the

other hand, if an employee was injured in a car accident while leaving the property to purchase supplies

for the employer, the case would be work-related.

Some injuries and illnesses that occur in company

parking lots are clearly caused by work conditions or

activities--e.g., being struck by a car while painting

parking space indicators on the pavement of the lot,

slipping on ice permitted to accumulate in the lot by

the employer--and by their nature point to conditions

that could be corrected to improve workplace safety

and health.

(viii) Common colds and flu will not be considered

work-related.

Paragraph 1904.5(b)(2)(viii) allows the employer to

exclude cases of common cold or flu, even if contracted while the employee was at work. However, in the

case of other infectious diseases such as tuberculosis,

brucellosis, and hepatitis C, employers must evaluate

reports of such illnesses for work relationship, just as

they would any other type of injury or illness.

(ix) Mental illness will not be considered workrelated unless the employee voluntarily provides the

employer with an opinion from a physician or other

licensed health care professional with appropriate

training and experience (psychiatrist, psychologist,

psychiatric nurse practitioner, etc.) stating that the

employee has a mental illness that is work-related.

Recording work-related mental illnesses involves

several unique issues, including the difficulty of
§1904.5 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 1 9

with the geographic presumption underpinning this

final rule, and would exclude cases that are in fact

work-related. For example, if a worker was injured in

a flood while at work, the case would be work-related, even though the flood could be considered an act

of God. Accordingly, if workplace injuries and illnesses result from these events, they must be entered

into the records (for a more detailed discussion of

this point, see the Legal Authority section, above).

Phobias:...OSHA has not included an exception from

recording in the final recordkeeping regulation for

phobias or any other type of mental illness. Voluntary

participation in a medical activity. OSHA also believes

that it would be unreasonable to omit a case of loss

of consciousness resulting from the administration of

a blood test for lead exposure at work. These tests

are necessitated by the employee’s exposure to lead

at work and are required by OSHA’s lead standard (29

CFR 1910.1025). The other scenarios presented by

these commenters, involving spiders, snakes, etc.,

would also be work-related under the geographic

presumption.

Illegal activities and horseplay:...OSHA has not

adopted any of these recommended exceptions in

the final recordkeeping rule because excluding

these injuries and illnesses would be inconsistent

with OSHA’s longstanding reliance on the geographic presumption to establish work-relatedness.

Furthermore, the Agency believes that many of the

working conditions pointed to in these comments

involve occupational factors, such as the effectiveness of disciplinary policies and supervision. Thus,

recording such incidents may serve to alert both

the employer and employees to workplace safety

and health issues.

Non-occupational degenerative conditions:...

such as high blood pressure, arthritis, coronary

artery disease, heart attacks, and cancer that can

develop regardless of workplace exposure. OSHA

has not added such an exception to the rule, but

the Agency believes that the fact that the rule

expects employers confronted with such cases to

make a determination about the extent to which, if

at all, work contributed to the observed condition

will provide direction about how to determine the

work-relatedness of such cases. For example, if

work contributes to the illness in some way, then it

is work-related and must be evaluated for its

recordability. On the other hand, if the case is wholly caused by non-work factors, then it is not workrelated and will not be recorded in the OSHA

records. 

Determining Whether the Precipitating Event 

or Exposure Occurred in the Work Environment 

or Elsewhere

Paragraph 1904.5(b)(3) of the final rule provides guidance on applying the geographic presumption when

it is not clear whether the event or exposure that precipitated the injury or illness occurred in the work

environment or elsewhere. If an employee reports

pain and swelling in a joint but cannot say whether

the symptoms first arose during work or during

recreational activities at home, it may be difficult for

the employer to decide whether the case is workrelated. The same problem arises when an employee

reports symptoms of a contagious disease that

affects the public at large, such as a staphylococcus

infection (“staph” infection) or Lyme disease, and the

workplace is only one possible source of the infection. In these situations, the employer must examine

the employee’s work duties and environment to

determine whether it is more likely than not that one

or more events or exposures at work caused or contributed to the condition. If the employer determines

that it is unlikely that the precipitating event or exposure occurred in the work environment, the employer

would not record the case. In the staph infection

example given above, the employer would consider

the case work-related, for example, if another

employee with whom the newly infected employee

had contact at work had been out with a staph infection. In the Lyme disease example, the employer

would determine the case to be work-related if, for

example, the employee was a groundskeeper with

regular exposure to outdoor conditions likely to

result in contact with deer ticks.

In applying paragraph 1904.5(b)(3), the question

employers must answer is whether the precipitating

event or exposure occurred in the work environment.

If an event, such as a fall, an awkward motion or lift,

an assault, or an instance of horseplay, occurs at

work, the geographic presumption applies and the

case is work-related unless it otherwise falls within

an exception. Thus, if an employee trips while walking across a level factory floor, the resulting injury is

considered work-related under the geographic presumption because the precipitating event -- the tripping accident -- occurred in the workplace. The case

is work-related even if the employer cannot determine why the employee tripped, or whether any particular workplace hazard caused the accident to

occur. However, if the employee reports an injury at

work but cannot say whether it resulted from an

event that occurred at work or at home, as in the

example of the swollen joint, the employer might
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.5 

2 0

Death, providing that the preexisting injury or illness

would likely not have resulted in death but for the

occupational event or exposure; (ii) Loss of consciousness, providing that the preexisting injury or

illness would likely not have resulted in loss of consciousness but for the occupational event or exposure; (iii) A day or days away from work or of restricted work, or a job transfer that otherwise would not

have occurred but for the occupational event or

exposure; or (iv) Medical treatment where no medical treatment was needed for the injury or illness

before the workplace event or exposure, or a change

in the course of medical treatment that was being

provided before the workplace event or exposure.

OSHA’s decision not to require the recording of cases

involving only minor aggravation of preexisting conditions is consistent with the Agency’s efforts in this

rulemaking to require the recording only of nonminor injuries and illnesses; for example, the final

rule also no longer requires employers to record

minor illnesses on the Log.

Preexisting Conditions

Paragraph 1904.5(b)(5) stipulates that pre-existing

conditions, for recordkeeping purposes, are conditions that resulted solely from a non-work-related

event or exposure that occurs outside the employer’s

work environment. Pre-existing conditions also

include any injury or illness that the employee experienced while working for another employer.

Off Premises Determinations

...In the final rule, (paragraph 1904.5(b)(1)) the same

concept is carried forward in the definition of the

work environment, which defines the environment as

including the establishment and any other location

where one or more employees are working or are

present as a condition of their employment.

Thus, when employees are working or conducting

other tasks in the interest of their employer but at a

location away from the employer’s establishment,

the work-relatedness of an injury or illness that arises

is subject to the same decision making process that

would occur if the case had occurred at the establishment itself. The case is work-related if one or more

events or exposures in the work environment either

caused or contributed to the resulting condition or

significantly aggravated a pre-existing condition, as

stated in paragraph 1904.5(a). In addition, the exceptions for determining work relationship at paragraph

1904.5(b)(2) and the requirements at paragraph

1904.5(b)(3) apply equally to cases that occur at or

away from the establishment. 

determine that the case is not work-related because

the employee’s work duties were unlikely to have

caused, contributed to, or significantly aggravated

such an injury.

Significant Workplace Aggravation of a 

Pre-existing Condition

In paragraph 1904.5(b)(4), the final rule...requires that

the amount of aggravation of the injury or illness that

work contributes must be “significant,” i.e., nonminor, before work-relatedness is established. The

preexisting injury or illness must be one caused

entirely by non-occupational factors....

OSHA agrees that non-work-related injuries and

illnesses should not be recorded on the OSHA Log.

To ensure that non-work-related cases are not

entered on the Log, paragraph 1904.5(b)(2)(ii)

requires employers to consider as non-work-related

any injury or illness that “involves signs or symptoms that surface at work but result solely from a

non-work-related event or exposure that occurs outside the work environment.”

The Agency also believes that preexisting injury

or illness cases that have been aggravated by events

or exposures in the work environment represent

cases that should be recorded on the Log, because

work has clearly worsened the injury or illness.

OSHA is concerned, however, that there are some

cases where work-related aggravation affects the preexisting case only in a minor way, i.e., in a way that

does not appreciably worsen the preexisting condition, alter its nature, change the extent of the medical

treatment, trigger lost time, or require job transfer.

Accordingly, the final rule requires that workplace

events or exposures must “significantly” aggravate a

pre-existing injury or illness case before the case is

presumed to be work-related. Paragraph 1904.5(a)

states that an injury or illness is considered workrelated if “an event or exposure in the work environment either caused or contributed to the resulting

condition or significantly aggravated a pre-existing

injury or illness.”

Paragraph 1904.5(b)(4) of the final rule defines

aggravation as significant if the contribution of the

aggravation at work is such that it results in tangible

consequences that go beyond those that the worker

would have experienced as a result of the preexisting

injury or illness alone, absent the aggravating effects

of the workplace. Under the final rule, a preexisting

injury or illness will be considered to have been significantly aggravated, for the purposes of OSHA

injury and illness recordkeeping, when an event or

exposure in the work environment results in: (i)
§1904.5 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 2 1

As an example, the work-environment presumption clearly applies to the case of a delivery driver

who experiences an injury to his or her back while

loading boxes and transporting them into a building.

The worker is engaged in a work activity and the

injury resulted from an event--loading/unloading--

occurring in the work environment. Similarly, if an

employee is injured in an automobile accident while

running errands for the company or traveling to

make a speech on behalf of the company, the

employee is present at the scene as a condition of

employment, and any resulting injury would be

work-related.

Employees on Travel Status

The final rule continues (at Section 1904.5(b)(6))

OSHA’s longstanding practice of treating injuries and

illnesses that occur to an employee on travel status

as work-related if, at the time of the injury or illness,

the employee was engaged in work activities “in the

interest of the employer.” Examples of such activities include travel to and from customer contacts,

conducting job tasks, and entertaining or being entertained if the activity is conducted at the direction of

the employer.

The final rule contains three exceptions for travelstatus situations. The rule describes situations in

which injuries or illnesses sustained by traveling

employees are not considered work-related for OSHA

recordkeeping purposes and therefore do not have to

be recorded on the OSHA 300 Log. First, when a traveling employee checks into a hotel, motel, or other

temporary residence, he or she is considered to have

established a “home away from home.” At this time,

the status of the employee is the same as that of an

employee working at an establishment who leaves

work and is essentially “at home.” Injuries and illnesses that occur at home are generally not considered work related. However, just as an employer may

sometimes be required to record an injury or illness

occurring to an employee working in his or her

home, the employer is required to record an injury or

illness occurring to an employee who is working in

his or her hotel room (see the discussion of working

at home, below).

Second, if an employee has established a “home

away from home” and is reporting to a fixed worksite each day, the employer does not consider

injuries or illnesses work-related if they occur while

the employee is commuting between the temporary

residence and the job location. These cases are parallel to those involving employees commuting to and

from work when they are at their home location, and

do not have to be recorded, just as injuries and illnesses that occur during normal commuting are not

required to be recorded.

Third, the employer is not required to consider an

injury or illness to be work-related if it occurs while

the employee is on a personal detour from the route

of business travel. This exception allows the employer to exclude injuries and illnesses that occur when

the worker has taken a side trip for personal reasons

while on a business trip, such as a vacation or sightseeing excursion, to visit relatives, or for some other

personal purpose....

OSHA has decided not to limit the recording of

occupational injuries and illnesses to those cases that

are preventable, fall within the employer’s control, or

are covered by the employer’s safety and health program. The issue is not whether the conditions could

have, or should have, been prevented or whether

they were controllable, but simply whether they are

occupational, i.e., are related to work. This is true

regardless of whether the employee is injured while

on travel or while present at the employer’s workplace. An employee who is injured in an automobile

accident or killed in an airline crash while traveling

for the company has clearly experienced a workrelated injury that is rightfully included in the OSHA

injury and illness records and the Nation’s occupational injury and illness statistics....

...[T]he Agency believes that employees who are

engaged in management, sales, customer service

and similar jobs must often entertain clients, and that

doing so is a business activity that requires the

employee to work at the direction of the employer

while conducting such tasks. If the employee is

injured or becomes ill while engaged in such work,

the injury or illness is work-related and should be

recorded if it meets one or more of the other criteria

(death, medical treatment, etc.). Gastroenteritis, for

example...is one type of injury or illness that may

occur in this situation, but employees are also injured

in accidents while transporting clients to businessrelated events at the direction of the employer or by

other events or exposures arising in the work environment.

On the other hand, not all injuries and illnesses

sustained in the course of business-related entertainment are reportable. To be recordable, the entertainment activity must be one that the employee

engages in at the direction of the employer.

Business-related entertainment activities that are

undertaken voluntarily by an employee in the exercise of his or her discretion are not covered by the

rule. For example, if an employee attending a profes-
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.5 

2 2

sional conference at the direction of the employer

goes out for an evening of entertainment with

friends, some of whom happen to be clients or customers, any injury or illness resulting from the entertainment activities would not be recordable. In this

case, the employee was socializing after work, not

entertaining at the direction of the employer.

Similarly, the fact that an employee joins a private

club or organization, perhaps to “network” or make

business contacts, does not make any injury that

occurs there work-related....

...OSHA notes that the recordkeeping regulation

does not apply to travel outside the United States

because the OSH Act applies only to the confines of

the United States (29 U.S.C. Section 652(4)) and not

to foreign operations. Therefore, the OSHA recordkeeping regulation does not apply to non-U.S. operations, and injuries or illnesses that may occur to a

worker traveling outside the United States need not

be recorded on the OSHA 300 Log.

Working at Home

The final rule also includes provisions at Section

1904.5(b)(7) for determining the work-relatedness of

injuries and illnesses that may arise when employees

are working at home. When an employee is working

on company business in his or her home and reports

an injury or illness to his or her employer, and the

employee’s work activities caused or contributed to

the injury or illness, or significantly aggravated a preexisting injury, the case is considered work-related

and must be further evaluated to determine whether

it meets the recording criteria. If the injury or illness

is related to non-work activities or to the general

home environment, the case is not considered workrelated.

The final rule includes examples to illustrate how

employers are required to record injuries and illnesses occurring at home. If an employee drops a box of

work documents and injures his or her foot, the case

would be considered work-related. If an employee’s

fingernail was punctured and became infected by a

needle from a sewing machine used to perform garment work at home, the injury would be considered

work-related. If an employee was injured because he

or she tripped on the family dog while rushing to

answer a work phone call, the case would not be

considered work-related. If an employee working at

home is electrocuted because of faulty home wiring,

the injury would not be considered work-related....

...Injuries and illnesses occurring while the

employee is working for pay or compensation at

home should be treated like injuries and illnesses

sustained by employees while traveling on business.

The relevant question is whether or not the injury or

illness is work-related, not whether there is some element of employer control. The mere recording of

these injuries and illnesses as work-related cases

does not place the employer in the role of insuring

the safety of the home environment....

...OSHA has recently issued a compliance directive (CPL 2-0.125)....That document clarifies that

OSHA will not conduct inspections of home offices

and does not hold employers liable for employees’

home offices. The compliance directive also notes

that employers required by the recordkeeping rule to

keep records “will continue to be responsible for

keeping such records, regardless of whether the

injuries occur in the factory, in a home office, or elsewhere, as long as they are work-related, and meet

the recordability criteria of 29 CFR Part 1904.”

With more employees working at home under

various telecommuting and flexible workplace

arrangements, OSHA believes that it is important to

record injuries and illnesses attributable to work

tasks performed at home. If these cases are not

recorded, the Nation’s injury and illness statistics

could be skewed. For example, placing such an

exclusion in the final rule would make it difficult to

determine if a decline in the overall number or rate of

occupational injuries and illnesses is attributable to a

trend toward working at home or to a change in the

Nation’s actual injury and illness experience. Further,

excluding these work-related injuries and illnesses

from the recordkeeping system could potentially

obscure previously unidentified causal connections

between events or exposures in the work environment and these incidents. 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.5 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.5 Determination of work-relatedness

Question 5-1. If a maintenance employee is cleaning

the parking lot or an access road and is injured as a

result, is the case work-related?

Yes, the case is work-related because the employee is

injured as a result of conducting company business

in the work environment. If the injury meets the general recording criteria of Section 1904.7 (death, days

away, etc.), the case must be recorded.

Question 5-2. Are cases of workplace violence considered work-related under the new Recordkeeping rule?
§1904.5 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 2 3

The Recordkeeping rule contains no general exception, for purposes of determining work-relationship,

for cases involving acts of violence in the work environment. However, some cases involving violent acts

might be included within one of the exceptions listed

in section 1904.5(b)(2). For example, if an employee

arrives at work early to use a company conference

room for a civic club meeting and is injured by some

violent act, the case would not be work-related under

the exception in section 1904.5(b)(2)(v).

Question 5-3. What activities are considered “personal grooming” for purposes of the exception to the

geographic presumption of work-relatedness in 

section 1904.5(b)(2)(vi)?

Personal grooming activities are activities directly

related to personal hygiene, such as combing and

drying hair, brushing teeth, clipping fingernails and

the like. Bathing or showering at the workplace when

necessary because of an exposure to a substance at

work is not within the personal grooming exception

in section 1904.5(b)(2)(vi). Thus, if an employee slips

and falls while showering at work to remove a contaminant to which he has been exposed at work, and

sustains an injury that meets one of the general

recording criteria listed in section 1904.7(b)(1), the

case is recordable.

Question 5-4. What are “assigned working hours”

for purposes of the exception to the geographic presumption in section 1904.5(b)(2)(v)?

“Assigned working hours,” for purposes of section

1904.5(b)(2)(v), means those hours the employee is

actually expected to work, including overtime.

Question 5-5. What are “personal tasks” for purposes

of the exception to the geographic presumption in

section 1904.5(b)(2)(v)?

“Personal tasks” for purposes of section

1904.5(b)(2)(v) are tasks that are unrelated to the

employee’s job. For example, if an employee uses a

company break area to work on his child’s science

project, he is engaged in a personal task.

Question 5-6. If an employee stays at work after normal work hours to prepare for the next day’s tasks

and is injured, is the case work-related? For example,

if an employee stays after work to prepare air-sampling pumps and is injured, is the case work-related?

12

A case is work-related any time an event or exposure

in the work environment either causes or contributes

to an injury or illness or significantly aggravates a

pre-existing injury or illness, unless one of the exceptions in section 1904.5(b)(2) applies. The work environment includes the establishment and other locations where one or more employees are working or

are present as a condition of their employment. The

case in question would be work-related if the

employee was injured as a result of an event or

exposure at work, regardless of whether the injury

occurred after normal work hours.

Question 5-7. If an employee voluntarily takes work

home and is injured while working at home, is the

case recordable?

No. Injuries and illnesses occurring in the home environment are only considered work-related if the

employee is being paid or compensated for working

at home and the injury or illness is directly related to

the performance of the work rather than to the general home environment.

Question 5-8. If an employee’s pre-existing medical

condition causes an incident which results in a subsequent injury, is the case work-related? For example, if an employee suffers an epileptic seizure, falls,

and breaks his arm, is the case covered by the exception in section 1904.5(b)(2)(ii)?

Neither the seizures nor the broken arm are recordable. Injuries and illnesses that result solely from

non-work-related events or exposures are not recordable under the exception in section 1904.5(b)(2)(ii).

Epileptic seizures are a symptom of a disease of nonoccupational origin, and the fact that they occur at

work does not make them work-related. Because

epileptic seizures are not work-related, injuries resulting solely from the seizures, such as the broken arm

in the case in question, are not recordable.

Question 5-9. This question involves the following

sequence of events: Employee A drives to work,

parks her car in the company parking lot and is walking across the lot when she is struck by a car driven

by employee B, who is commuting to work. Both

employees are seriously injured in the accident. Is

either case work-related?

Neither employee’s injuries are recordable. While the

employee parking lot is part of the work environment

under section 1904.5, injuries occurring there are not

work-related if they meet the exception in section

1904.5(b)(2)(vii). Section 1904.5(b)(2)(vii) excepts

injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents occurring

on the company parking lot while the employee is
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.5 

2 4

commuting to and from work. In the case in question, both employees’ injuries resulted from a motor

vehicle accident in the company parking lot while the

employees were commuting. Accordingly, the exception applies.

Question 5-10. How does OSHA define a “company

parking lot” for purposes of Recordkeeping?

Company parking lots are part of the employer’s

premises and therefore part of the establishment.

These areas are under the control of the employer,

i.e. those parking areas where the employer can limit

access (such as parking lots limited to the employer’s

employees and visitors). On the other hand, a parking area where the employer does not have control

(such as a parking lot outside of a building shared by

different employers, or a public parking area like

those found at a mall or beneath a multi-employer

office building) would not be considered part of the

employers establishment (except for the owner of

the building or mall), and therefore not a company

parking lot for purposes of OSHA recordkeeping. 

Question 5-11. An employee experienced an injury or

illness in the work environment before they had

“clocked in” for the day. Is the case considered

work- related even if that employee was not officially

“on the clock” for pay purposes?

Yes. For purposes of OSHA recordkeeping, injuries

and illnesses occurring in the work environment are

considered work-related. Punching in and out with a

time clock (or signing in and out) does not affect the

outcome for determining work-relatedness. If the

employee experienced a work-related injury or illness, and it meets one or more of the general recording criteria under section 1904.7, it must be entered

on the employer’s OSHA 300 log. 

Question 5-12. Is work-related stress recordable as a

mental illness case?

Mental illnesses, such as depression or anxiety disorder, that have work-related stress as a contributing factor, are recordable if the employee voluntarily provides

the employer with an opinion from a physician or

other licensed health care professional with appropriate training and experience (psychiatrist, psychologist,

psychiatric nurse practitioner, etc.) stating that the

employee has a mental illness that is work-related,

and the case meets one or more of the general recording criteria. See sections 1904.5(b)(2)(ix) and 1904.7. 

Question 5-13. If an employee dies or is injured or

infected as a result of terrorist attacks, should it be

recorded on the OSHA Injury and Illness Log? Should

it be reported to OSHA?

Yes, injuries and illnesses that result from a terrorist

event or exposure in the work environment are considered work-related for OSHA recordkeeping purposes. OSHA does not provide an exclusion for violence-related injury and illness cases, including

injuries and illnesses resulting from terrorist attacks. 

Within eight (8) hours after the death of any employee from a work-related incident or the in-patient hospitalization of three or more employees as a result of

a work-related incident, an employer must orally

report the fatality/multiple hospitalization by telephone or in person to the OSHA Area that is nearest

to the site of the incident. An employer may also use

the OSHA toll-free central telephone number, 1-800-

321-OSHA (1-800-321-6742). 

B. Section 1904.5(a) states that “[the employer] must

consider an injury or illness to be work-related if an

event or exposure in the work environment either

caused or contributed to resulting condition or significantly aggravated a pre-existing condition. Workrelatedness is presumed for injuries and illnesses

resulting from events or exposures occurring in the

work environment * * *” Under this language, a case

is presumed work-related if, and only if, an event or

exposure in the work environment is a discernable

cause of the injury or illness or of a significant aggravation to pre-existing condition. The work event or

exposure need only be one of the discernable causes; it need not be the sole or predominant cause.

Section 1904.5(b)(2) states that a case is not recordSETTLEMENT AGREEMENT: Section 1904.5 

Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting - 66:66943-66944, December 27, 2001

On November 16, 2001, OSHA entered into a settlement agreement with the National Association of

Manufacturers (NAM) to resolve NAM’s legal challenge to OSHA’s revised recordkeeping regulations in

29 CFR Part 1904, Occupational Injury and Illness

Recording and Reporting Requirements. As part of

the agreement, OSHA agreed to publish a copy of

the OSHA-NAM settlement agreement in the Federal

Register within 30 days. 
§1904.5 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 2 5

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION : Section 1904.5 

Section 1904.5 Determination of work-relatedness.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Letters of interpretation explain

these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional

employer obligations. These letters constitute OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed.

Note that OSHA enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to

time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. 

Letters of Interpretation constitute OSHA’s interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may

not be applicable to any situation not delineated within the original correspondence.

Letter of interpretation related to section 1904.5(b)(6) –

Recordability of a fatal traffic accident in a foreign project location.

August 26, 2004 

Mr. John A. Dempsey, Jr.

Vice President

PFD International LLC

One Fluor Daniel Drive

Sugarland, TX 77478 

Dear Mr. Dempsey: 

We in OSHA’s Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis are responding to your letter dated Friday,

April 16, 2004 in which you request guidance on the proper recordability classification of a recent

motor vehicle fatality that occurred in one of your foreign project locations. 

I will assume that you realize that the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and therefore the 29

CFR Part 1904 OSHA Recordkeeping Regulation, apply only within the jurisdictional boundaries

of the United States and certain locations listed in Section 4(a), 29 USC §653(a) of the Act. 

If the accident had occurred in a location subject to OSHA jurisdiction, the fatality appears, from

the facts recounted in your letter, to be recordable. A fatality is work-related, and therefore record

able, if it occurred while the employee was traveling “in the interest of the employer,” such as driving to attend a work meeting, see 29 CFR §1904.5(b)(6). Please note that the employee’s pay status at the time of the accident does not affect the work relatedness of the case. An exception would

able if it “involves signs or symptoms that surface at

work but result solely from a non-work-related event

or exposure that occurs outside the work environment.” This language is intended as a restatement of

the principle expressed in 1904.5(a), described above.

Regardless of where signs or symptoms surface, a

case is recordable only if a work event or exposure is

a discernable cause of the injury or illness or of a significant aggravation to a pre-existing condition.

Section 1904.5(b)(3) states that if it is not obvious

whether the precipitating event or exposure occurred

in the work environment or elsewhere, the employer

“must evaluate the employee’s work duties and environment to decide whether or not one or more

events or exposures in the work environment caused

or contributed to the resulting condition or significantly aggravated a pre-existing condition.” This

means that the employer must make a determination

whether it is more likely than not that work events or

exposures were a cause of the injury or illness, or a

significant aggravation to a pre-existing condition. If

the employer decides the case is not work-related,

and OSHA subsequently issues a citation for failure

to record, the Government would have the burden of

proving that the injury or illness was work-related.
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.5 

2 6

Letter of interpretation related to sections 1904.5, 1904.5(a), 1904.5(b)(2), 1904.6, 1904.6(a), 1904.7 and 1904.31 –

Evaluation of seven scenarios for work-relatedness and recordkeeping requirements.

January 15, 2004 

Ms. Leann M. Johnson-Koch

1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-2412 

Dear Ms. Johnson-Koch: 

Thank you for your E-mail to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904.

Your letter was forwarded to my office by Richard Fairfax, Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Programs. The Division of Recordkeeping Requirements is responsible for the administration of

the OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping system nationwide. Please excuse the delay in responding to your request. 

In your letter, you ask OSHA to clarify the following scenarios to ensure accurate and consistent

guidance to your members for purposes of OSHA Recordkeeping requirements. I will address your

scenarios by first restating each one and then answering it. 

Scenario 1:

• An employee reported to work at 7:00 a.m. 

• At 12:15 p.m. the employee reported that his toes on his left foot had started swelling and his

foot had started hurting. 

• The employee wanted to go to a doctor for evaluation. 

• On the First Report of Injury, that the employee completed before he went to the doctor, the

employee indicated that the cause of the illness was “unknown (feet wet at cooling tower).” 

• When answering the doctor’s question: “How did injury occur?” the employee answered that

the only thing he could think of was that his feet were wet all the previous day due to work in the

morning at a cooling tower. The cooling tower water is treated to remove bacteria and then used

in process operations in the plant. 

apply if the accident occurred while the employee was on a personal detour from a reasonably

direct route of travel, see 29 CFR §1904.5(b)(6)(ii). Since you stated that you do not know whether

or not the employee took any personal side trip(s) from the normal highway route to the meeting,

the exception would not apply. 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information

helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot

create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules.

In addition, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep

apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you

have any further questions, please contact the Division of Recordkeeping Requirements at 202-693-

1702. 

Sincerely, 

Keith Goddard, Director

Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis
§1904.5 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 2 7

• The doctor described the illness/injury as foot edema/cellulitis. 

• The doctor also prescribed the injury as an occupational disease, prescribed an antibiotic, and

the employee missed one day of work. 

• The company sent the employee to a second doctor who said to continue using the antibiotic. 

• Neither doctor could state conclusively that the foot edema/cellulitis was or was not due to the

employee’s feet being wet due to work at the cooling tower. 

• Neither doctor is a specialist in skin disorders. 

• During an incident review at the site, the employee again said he did not know if his feet being

wet all day the previous day caused the injury/illness. 

• The employee also stated that he had not worn the personal protective equipment, rubber boots,

prescribed for this task. 

The company determined that this injury/illness is not work-related (did not occur in the course of

or as a result of employment), since neither physician nor the employee can state with certainty

that the injury/illness was caused by the employee’s feet being wet all day due to work at the cooling tower. Since the injury/illness was determined to not be work-related, then the company

deemed the incident non-recordable. 

Response: A case is work-related if it is more likely than not that an event or exposure in the work

environment was a cause of the injury or illness. The work event or exposure need only be one of

the causes; it not need to be the sole or predominant cause. In this case, the fact that neither the

physician nor the employee could state with certainty that the employee’s edema was caused by

working with wet feet is not dispositive. The physician’s description of the edema as an “occupational disease,” and the employee’s statement that working with wet feet was “the only thing he

could of” as the cause, indicate that it is more likely than not that working with wet feet was a

cause. The case should be recorded on the OSHA 300 Log. 

Scenario 2:

An employee must report to work by 8:00 a.m. 

• The employee drove into the company parking lot at 7:30 a.m. and parked the car. 

• The employee exited the car and proceeded to the office to report to work. 

• The parking lot and sidewalks are privately owned by the facility and both are within the property line, but not the controlled access points (i.e., fence, guards). 

• The employee stepped onto the sidewalk and slipped on the snow and ice. 

• The employee suffered a back injury and missed multiple days of work. 

The company believes that the employee was still in the process of the commute to work since the

employee had not yet checked in at the office. Since a work task was not being performed, the site

personnel deemed the incident not work-related and therefore not recordable. 

Response: Company parking lots and sidewalks are part of the employer’s establishment for

recordkeeping purposes. Here, the employee slipped on an icy sidewalk while walking to the office

to report for work. In addition, the event or exposure that occurred does not meet any of the

work-related exceptions contained in 1904.5(b)(2). The employee was on the sidewalk because of

work; therefore, the case is work-related regardless of the fact that he had not actually checked in. 

Scenario 3: 

The employee described in Scenario 2 missed 31 days of work due to the back injury. 

• On day 31, the doctor provided a release for returning to work. 

• The next morning (day 32), when the employee was due to report to work, the employee stated

that his back was hurting, and the employee did not report to work. 

• The employee scheduled a doctor’s appointment, with the same doctor, and visited the doctor on

day 33. 

• The doctor issued a statement stating that the employee was not able to return to work. 

Since the employee was released to return to work, the company does not believe it has to count

the intervening two days on the OSHA log. 

Response: The employer would have to enter the additional days away from work on the OSHA

300 log based on receiving information from the physician or other licensed health care professional that the employee was unable to work.
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.5 

2 8

Scenario 4: 

• An employee reports to work. 

• Several hours later, the employee goes outside for a “smoke break.” 

• The employee slips on the ice and injures his back. 

Since the employee was not performing a task related to the employee’s work, the company has

deemed this incident non-work related and therefore not recordable. 

Response: Under Section 1904.5(b)(2)(v), an injury or illness is not work-related if it is solely the

result of an employee doing personal tasks (unrelated to their employment) at the establishment

outside of the employee’s assigned working hours. In order for this exception to apply, the case

must meet both of the stated conditions. The exception does not apply here because the injury or

illness occurred within normal working hours. Therefore, your case in question is work-related,

and if it meets the general recording criteria under Section 1904.7 the case must be recorded. 

Scenario 5: 

• An employee drives into the company parking lot at 7:30 a.m., exits his car, and proceeds to

cross the parking lot to clock-in to work. 

• A second employee, also on the way to work, approaches the first employee, and the two individuals get into a physical altercation in the parking lot. The first employee breaks an arm during

the altercation. 

• The employee goes to the doctor and receives medical treatment for his injury. 

The company deems this non-work related, and therefore non-recordable, since the employees had

not yet reported to work and a work task was not being performed at the time of the altercation. 

Response: The recordkeeping regulation contains no general exception for purposes of determining

work-relationship for cases involving acts of violence in the work environment. Company parking

lots/access roads are part of the employer’s premises and therefore part of the employer’s establishment. Whether the employee had not clocked in to work does not affect the outcome for determining work-relatedness. The case is recordable on the OSHA log, because the injury meets the general

recording criteria contained in Section 1904.7. 

Scenario 6: 

• An employee injured a knee performing work-related activities in 2001. 

• The accident was OSHA recordable and subject to worker’s compensation. 

• The employee had arthroscopic knee surgery eleven months later and was released to full duty a

month and a half after the arthroscopic surgery. 

• The employee had a second knee injury three months after the return to work release (after the

first surgery). 

• Post-surgery (second surgery), the doctor prescribed Vioxx® as an anti-inflammatory. 

• Approximately one and one-half months after the second knee surgery, the employee was given

another full release to return to work full duty and returned to work. 

• However, the doctor told the employee to continue to take Vioxx® as prescribed (as needed) and

to return to the doctor as needed. 

• The employee scheduled a follow-up appointment with the doctor. 

• The day before the appointment, the employee bumped his knee at work. 

• During his scheduled doctor’s appointment (was to be the last follow-up visit) the employee mentioned the latest incident (bumping the knee) to the doctor and showed him where the pain was

occurring due to bumping his knee. 

• The doctor stated that the employee had an inflamed tendon (Grade 1 lateral collateral ligament

sprain) that was not part of the initial surgery (patellar tendonitis). 

• The doctor stated in the diagnosis that the original injury that required knee surgery was resolved.

• The doctor told the employee to continue taking Vioxx® for the inflamed tendon. 

Since the employee was already taking the medication prescribed (Vioxx®), the site does not

believe this is recordable as a second incident. 

Response: In the recordkeeping regulation, the employer is required to follow any determination a

physician or other licensed health care professional has made about the status of a new case. The

inflamed tendon is a new case because the employee had completely recovered from the previous

injury and illness and a new event or exposure had occurred in the work environment. Therefore,

for purposes of OSHA recordkeeping, the employer would enter the case on the OSHA 300 log as

appropriate. 
§1904.5 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 2 9

Scenario 7:

• A site hired numerous temporary workers at its plant. 

• Three temporary workers were injured.

• They each received injuries that were recordable on the OSHA 300 Log. 

• The employees were under the direct supervision of the site. 

Is it correct that these injuries were recordable on the site log or should they have been recordable

on the temp agency log? What are the criteria related to temporary workers that need to be

reviewed to determine which OSHA log is appropriate for recording the injury/illness? 

Response: Section 1904.31 states that the employer must record the injuries and illnesses that occur

to employees not on its payroll if it supervises them on a day-to-day basis. Day-to-day supervision

generally exists when the employer “supervises not only the output, product, or result to be accomplished by the person’s work, but also the details, means, methods, and processes by which the

work objective is accomplished.” 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information

helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters

explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create

additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements

discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. In addition, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep appraised

of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any

further questions, please contact the Division of Recordkeeping Requirements, at 202-693-1702. 

Sincerely, 

Frank Frodyma

Acting Director 

January 13, 2004 

William K. Principe

Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC

Suite 2400

230 Peachtree Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1557 

Dear Mr. Principe: 

Thank you for your comments pertaining to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s

(OSHA) Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904.

Please accept my apology for the delay in our response. 

Specifically, you ask OSHA to clarify in each scenario you describe; whether the employee who sustains an injury or illness while he or she is engaged in an activity such as walking or bending is

considered work-related. As you note, a case is presumed work-related under the recordkeeping

rule if an event or exposure in the work environment is a discernable cause of the injury or illness.

The work event or exposure need only be one of the discernable causes; it need not be the sole or

predominant cause. The preamble to the rule contains a passage that is relevant in determining

whether this presumption applies in the scenarios in your letter. The preamble states, in relevant

part, as follows: 

Letter of interpretation related to sections 1904.5(a), 1904.5(b)(4) and 1904.6 –

Determining work-relatedness when the work event or exposure is only one of the discernable causes; not the

sole or predominant cause.
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.5 

3 0

In applying [the presumption of work-relatedness], the question employers must answer is

whether there is an identifiable event or exposure which occurred in the work environment and

resulted in the injury or illness. “Thus, if an employee trips while walking across a level factory

floor, the resulting injury is considered work-related under the geographic presumption because

the precipitating event - the tripping accident - occurred in the workplace. The case is workrelated even if the employer cannot determine why the employee tripped, or whether any particular workplace hazard caused the accident to occur.” 

In each of the eight scenarios in your letter, the activity engaged in by the employee at the time of

the injury (walking, tripping, climbing a staircase, sneezing, bending down) is an “event” which

would trigger application of the presumption. In the absence of evidence to overcome the presumption, the injury is work-related. Thus, in the absence of evidence to overcome the presumption, an

ankle injury caused by a trip that occurred while the employee was walking down a level seamless

hallway at work is work-related, regardless of whether the accident is attributable to a defect in the

hall. By the same reasoning, if the activity of walking down a hallway caused the employee’s knee

to buckle or to sprain the ankle, the injury is work-related. If an injury or illness did not result

from an identifiable event or exposure in the work environment, but only manifested itself during

work, the injury is not work-related. For example, if the employee had a non-occupational event or

exposure, and there is no evidence of a work-related event or exposure that was a cause of the

injury or illness, the injury should not be recorded. 

You also ask whether the determination of work-relationship would be affected by the existence of

a pre-existing condition, whether work-related or non-work-related, affecting the same body part

that is injured. Under the rule, a pre-existing condition is an injury or illness resulting solely from a

non-work-related event or exposure. If an employee’s pre-existing condition is worsened as a result

of an event or exposure at work, the case is not work-related unless the work event or exposure

“significantly aggravated” the preexisting condition (i.e., the case meets the recording criteria contained in Section 1904.5(b)(4). If the employee with a pre-existing work-related injury to a body

part suffers a subsequent work-related injury of the same type to the same body part, the subsequent injury is recordable (assuming the general recording criteria are met) if it is a “new case” as

discussed in Section 1904.6. 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information

helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters

explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create

additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements

discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. In addition, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep appraised

of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any

further questions, please contact the Division of Recordkeeping Requirements, at 202-693-1702. 

Sincerely, 

Frank Frodyma

Acting Director

Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 3 1

§1904.5 

Letter of interpretation related to section 1904.5(b)(2) – 

Clarification of Recordkeeping’s work-related exception.

July 22, 2003 

Jeff Romine, CSP, CPEA

Safety Manager

Shaw Industries, Inc.

Mail Drop 021-01

PO Drawer 2128

Dalton, GA 30722-2128 

Dear Mr. Romine: 

Thank you for your May 9, 2003 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

regarding the Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904. 

Specifically, you ask OSHA to clarify the work-related exception specified at 1904.5(b)(2)(v) in which an

injury or illness is solely the result of an employee doing personal tasks (unrelated to their employment)

at the establishment outside of the employee’s assigned working hours. You indicate an employee experienced an injury in the work environment during his or her assigned working hours, but feel the task was

unrelated to the employee’s job, therefore would not be considered work-related. In order to correctly

apply the work-related exception 1904.5(b)(2)(v), the case must meet both of the following conditions.

The case must involve first, personal tasks at the establishment and second, must have occurred outside

of the employee’s assigned working hours. The nature of the activity in which the employee is engaged

in at the time of the event or exposure, the degree of employer control over the employee’s activity, the

preventability of the incident, or the concept of fault do not affect the determination of work-relationship. For purposes of OSHA recordkeeping, the case did not meet the entire criteria under section

1904.5(b)(2)(v). 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain

these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional

employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note

that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we

update our guidance in response to new information. To keep appraised of such developments, you can

consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please contact the

Division of Recordkeeping Requirements at 202-693-1702. 

Sincerely, 

John L. Henshaw

Assistant Secretary
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.5 

3 2

November 19, 2002 

Baruch Fellner, Esq.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-5306 

Re: December 12, 2001 Recordkeeping Training

Dear Mr. Fellner: 

This is in response to your letter to Joseph Woodward dated January 15, 2002 regarding OSHA’s

December 12, 2001 recordkeeping training broadcast. Your letter has been referred to me for response

because it involves interpretation of the new recordkeeping rule. Your letter questions the accuracy of the

on-the-air responses given to two questions phoned in during the broadcast and expresses concern that

certain interpretations of the recordkeeping rule reflected in the settlement agreement in the NAM v. Chao

litigation have not been explicitly incorporated into OSHA’s training and outreach materials. After reviewing the transcript of the broadcast and the content of the other web-based training materials, I agree that

it would be useful to supplement or clarify some information provided, as discussed below. 

First, during the broadcast, a caller asked the following question: “If an employee is simply walking down

a hallway and let’s say that there is no pre-existing injury and they simply just pull a muscle in their leg

while they’re walking down, is that considered work related?” One of the OSHA panelists answered: 

You know, what we have is we have a presumption of work relationship if it occurs from an event or

exposure within the work environment. So, this person is walking down the hall and, if there is no

event or exposure that led to the condition, then I don’t think that presumption would apply. Do you

agree with that, Jim? 

The second OSHA panelist responded: “It sounds like a work-related case to me. I mean, it sounds like

the person was injured while they were in the work environment and, yeah, I would consider that a

work-related case.” 

As the differing responses given by the panelists may suggest, the question as posed provides too little

information about the factual context of the injury to make a conclusive determination about causation.

We therefore believe that the most helpful way to clarify the response is to set forth the principles that

should be followed in determining whether an injury is work-related. Under the recordkeeping rule, an

injury or illness is presumed work-related if (and only if) an event or exposure in the work environment is

a discernable cause of the injury or illness or a significant aggravation to a pre-existing condition. The

work event or exposure need only be one of the discernable causes; it need not be the sole or predominant

cause (§29 CFR 1904.5(a); Compliance Directive Chapter. 2, Sec. IC). As a corollary, the rule recognizes

that a case is not recordable if it involves signs or symptoms that surface at work but result solely from a

non-work-related event or activity that occurs outside the work environment (§29 CFR 1904.5(b);

Compliance Directive Chapter. 2, Sec. IC). The rule also provides guidance for situations in which it is not

clear which of these categories an injury falls into. If it is not obvious whether the precipitating event

occurred in the work environment or elsewhere, the employer is to evaluate the employee’s work duties

and environment and make a determination whether it is more likely than not that work events or exposures were a cause of the injury or illness or of a significant aggravation of a pre-existing condition (§29

CFR 1904.5(b)(3)). The employer may consult a health care professional for assistance in making this

determination if it wishes. 

Letters of interpretation related to sections 1904.5(a), 1904.5(b) and 1904.5(b)(3) – 

Clarification on determining if an injury or illness is work-related and the recordability of the administration 

of oxygen.
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 3 3

§1904.5 

These principles should be applied to the question posed. If it is obvious in context that walking or some

other work event or exposure was a cause of the injury, the case is work-related. If it is obvious work

events or exposures were not a cause, but rather symptoms surfaced at work but resulted solely from nonwork-related activities, the case is not work-related. If it is unclear, the employer should evaluate the

employee’s work duties and environment and determine whether it is more likely than not that work events

or exposures were a cause. OSHA will post a clarification of its answer to this question on its web page. 

Second, later in the broadcast, a caller asked the following question: “If oxygen is given by emergency

response personnel on the way to the hospital, is that considered to be OSHA recordable, if he does not have

any medical treatment at the hospital?” The OSHA panelist answered, “Under the new rule, oxygen is considered medical treatment. So, if the person has an injury or illness, you know, if they’re exhibiting some signs of

difficulty and they’re given oxygen, then that’s now considered medical treatment (emphasis added).” 

Contrary to your reading, I do not understand the question to assume that no injury or illness requiring

medical treatment was present; rather, the question is whether the administration of oxygen is medical

treatment that makes a case recordable. The question and answer, reasonably read together, indicate that

a case is recordable if an employee with a work-related injury or illness is given oxygen in an ambulance

on the way to the hospital, even though no further medical treatment is provided at the hospital. I believe

that this information is accurate as it stands. However, to avoid any possibility of confusion, I have recommended that the training given to compliance officers emphasize that employees must have sustained

an injury or illness, as defined by the recordkeeping rule, before the administration of oxygen, or any

other medical treatment, makes the case recordable. 

Finally, I have discussed your general comments about the training materials with other responsible officials in the agency. OSHA agrees it would be helpful to include references to the compliance directive. It is

appropriate that interpretive language in the settlement agreement be reflected in the Agency’s training

materials, such as the Power Point slides, where such incorporation would be relevant and useful. 

The Associate Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health has reviewed this letter and agrees that the

Agency’s position is consistent with the settlement agreement in NAM v. Chao. 

The Office of Training and Education is reviewing the recordkeeping training and outreach materials and

will make all necessary revisions as soon as possible.

Thank you for bringing this matter to the Agency’s attention. I hope I addressed all of your issues and

concerns. 

Sincerely, 

Frank Frodyma, Acting Director

OSHA Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.5 

3 4

November 19, 2002 

Joseph Woodward, Esq.

Associate Solicitor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Department of Labor

Office of the Solicitor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room S-4004

Washington, DC 20210 

Re: December 12, 2001 OSHA Recordkeeping Training 

While we very much appreciate the proactive efforts being made by the agency to provide training

as it implements the new rule, I am writing on behalf of NAM to express my concern that the

Department of Labor’s keynote training presentation regarding the new recordkeeping rule, its

December 12, 2001 satellite “webcast,” contained information inconsistent with our settlement

agreement and omitted information central to that agreement. 

First, as you know, an injury or illness is not presumed to be work-related unless “an event or

exposure in the work environment is a discernable cause of the injury or illness or of a significant

aggravation to a pre-existing condition.” See, inter alia, Settlement Agreement section 2(B) (emphasis added). The Settlement Agreement restates this important principle: “Regardless of where signs

or symptoms surface, a case is recordable only if a work event or exposure is a discernible cause of

the injury or illness or of a significant aggravation to a pre-existing condition.” Id. (emphasis

added). In other words, it is not the location where signs or symptoms surface, it is the discernible

work-related event that defines causation and triggers recordation. In response to a question

regarding a pulled muscle that occurred in the workplace, but with which no identifiable workrelated event or exposure could be identified, the representative from OSHA’s Office of Statistics

correctly noted that “if there is no event or exposure that led to the condition, I don’t think that

presumption [of work-relatedness] would apply.” Transcript at pp. 44-45.* Another authoritative

OSHA spokesperson, however, disagreed with his colleague and stated, “It sounds like a work

related case to me. It sounds like the person was injured while they were in the work environment

and, yeah, I would consider that a work related case.” Id. at p. 45 (emphasis added). I am concerned that this response and OSHA’s training materials impart an erroneous view of the so-called

geographic presumption. Unfortunate events which occur to an individual while he is at work and

engaged in normal life functions, such as walking over an even surface and pulling a muscle,

should not be presumed to be work-related simply because they occur at work. Absent some other

identifiable work-related event or exposure in the work environment, such a conclusion clearly

conflicts with the “discernable cause” rule to which OSHA agreed in the settlement. Any training

to the contrary ignores the agreement’s imposition on the Secretary of Labor the burden of proof

regarding work-relatedness and is contrary to its substantive provisions. 

Second, our settlement agreement clearly specifies that the existence of an injury or illness is a

threshold inquiry and that, even where, for example, oxygen is administered, in the context of

workplace exposure to a toxic substance, if an injury or illness did not occur, the case remains nonrecordable. See Settlement Agreement at sections 2(E), (F); accord Transcript at p. 86 (discussing

non-recordability of precautionary administration of antibiotics). In response to a question relating

to this specific issue, which assumed the prophylactic administration of oxygen without any toxic

exposure or medical treatment, however, OSHA’s spokesperson replied that, “Under the new rule,

oxygen is considered medical treatment. So if the person has an injury or illness ... if they’re

exhibiting some signs of difficulty and they’re given oxygen, then that’s now considered medical

treatment.” Transcript at p. 46 (emphasis added).

* The transcript of the training session is available at

http://www.vodium.com/vs_data/transcript/labor8NG8Y91T.txt. 
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 3 5

§1904.5 

The problem with the response is two-fold: (1) It ignores the question’s assumption that no injury

or illness requiring medical treatment was present and (2) it equates “some sign of difficulty” with

an illness or injury. As you know, the settlement expressly states that an employee must exhibit

symptoms of an injury or illness in order for the administration of oxygen to constitute recordable

medical treatment. Settlement Agreement at section 2(F). “Some signs of difficulty,” particularly in

the absence of any medical treatment, would not necessarily constitute “symptoms of an injury or 

illness.” For example; a professional football player who leaves the field winded and who takes a

breath of oxygen might be experiencing “some signs of difficulty” but might not be suffering from

“symptoms of an injury or illness.” Thus, the answer to the question as posed should have clearly

been that the administration of oxygen, absent other medical treatment or related injury or illness,

is not recordable. Without further clarification, I am concerned that the OSHA reply might have

led participants to conclude that almost all administrations of oxygen are presumptively recordable

cases. 

Third, I am generally concerned that OSHA’s training materials (including the satellite presentation

and the materials contained on OSHA’s web site) completely omit any reference to a number of significant interpretations in the settlement agreement. For example, neither the satellite training nor

the Power Point “Comprehensive Presentation” on OSHA’s web site address the preventive transfer

issue, an important clarification contained in our settlement agreement. See Settlement Agreement

at section 2(C). I respectfully suggest that this issue should be discussed in order to provide full

context for any understanding of restricted work. The training materials also fail to discuss the

“discernable cause” concept, and the “more likely than not” analysis employed when causation is

unclear. Instead, the materials leave the regulated community with the misimpression that unless

“symptoms arising in [the] work environment are solely due to [a] non-work-related event or exposure,” they are otherwise recordable. See Comprehensive Presentation at Slide 16 (emphasis

added); see also id. at Slide 13 (restating geographic presumption without clarification from settlement agreement). Appropriate clarification would have resolved the confusion attendant to the first

issue described above. Additionally, the discussion of hearing loss causation at pages 63 to 64 of

the satellite training transcript would have been an appropriate point at which to apply these principles. 

Finally, we believe that future training should identify the compliance directive, which incorporates

the settlement agreement, as an important source of clarification for recordkeeping questions. For

example, at pages 77, 78, 90 and 91, the trainers identified a number of sources of information,

but did not mention the compliance directive. 

Our principal concern is that if these issues are not presented clearly during OSHA’s primary training sessions, they will not be executed properly by OSHA’s field staff. OSHA’s compliance officers

will provide advice and issue citations based upon an erroneous understanding of these critical

issues, and the principles embodied in the compliance directive will not be consistently and correctly applied throughout the nation. 

Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a constructive dialogue as employees, employers and OSHA work together to implement the new rule. 

Sincerely, 

Baruch A. Fellner 

cc: The Honorable John Henshaw

The Honorable Christopher Spear

Mr. Tevi Troy
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.5 

3 6

February 6, 2002

Beth Nelson

State of Wyoming

Department of Employment

Cheyenne Business Center

1510 East Pershing Blvd.

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 

Dear Ms. Nelson: 

This is in response to your letter dated August 14, 2002. Thank you for your comments pertaining

to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904. 

OSHA revised its injury and illness recordkeeping requirements under the following rulemaking

procedures. On February 2, 1996, the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

requesting public comment on the proposed revision to the recordkeeping requirements. OSHA

received more than 450 comments and held six days of public meetings. OSHA analyzed all information from the public meetings and developed its final rule based upon that analysis. On January

19, 2001, OSHA published its final rule. 

Specifically, you ask OSHA to reconsider requiring employers to record and report work-related

fatalities, injuries and illnesses incurred due to no fault of the employer or employee. You also provide an example of a case that illustrates your concerns. We are assuming that the auto accident in

your example meets OSHA’s definition of work-relatedness. In the final rule, OSHA notes that

many circumstances that lead to a recordable work-related injury or illness are “beyond the

employer’s control.” Nevertheless, because such an injury or illness was caused, contributed to, or

significantly aggravated by an event or exposure at work, it must be recorded on the OSHA form

(assuming that it meets one or more of the recording criteria and does not qualify for an exception

to the geographic presumption). This approach is consistent with the no-fault recordkeeping system

OSHA has historically adopted, which includes work-related injuries and illnesses, regardless of the

level of employer control or non-control involved. The concept of fault has never been a consideration in any recordkeeping system of the U.S. Department of Labor. Both the Note to Subpart A of

the final rule and the new OSHA Form 300 expressly state that recording a case does not indicate

fault, negligence, or compensability. In addition, OSHA recognizes that injury and illness rates do

not necessarily indicate a lack of interest in safety and health or success or failure per se. OSHA

feels it is to the benefit of all parties to go beyond the numbers and look at an employer’s safety

and health program. 

I hope that you find this information useful. Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and

health and OSHA. If you have any further questions, please contact the Division of Recordkeeping

Requirements, at 202-693-1702. 

Sincerely, 

John L. Henshaw 

cc: Adam Finkel, Regional Administrator

Steve Foster, Wyoming OSHA Program Manager

Letter of interpretation related to sections 1904.5(a), 1904.5(b)(3) and 1904.5(b)(4) – 

OSHA’s no-fault recordkeeping system requires recording work-related injuries and illnesses, regardless of 

the level of employer control or non-control involved.
§1904.6 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 3 7

Section 1904.6 

Determination of new cases 

(66 FR 6123, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.6

Subpart C – Recordkeeping forms and recording criteria (66 FR 6123, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Note to Subpart C: This Subpart describes the work-related injuries and illnesses that an employer must

enter into the OSHA records and explains the OSHA forms that employers must use to record work-related

fatalities, injuries, and illnesses.

Section 1904.6 Determination of new cases

(a) Basic requirement.

You must consider an injury or illness to be a

“new case” if:

(1) The employee has not previously experienced

a recorded injury or illness of the same type that

affects the same part of the body, or

(2) The employee previously experienced a recorded injury or illness of the same type that affected the

same part of the body but had recovered completely

(all signs and symptoms had disappeared) from the

previous injury or illness and an event or exposure in

the work environment caused the signs or symptoms

to reappear.

(b) Implementation.

(1) When an employee experiences the signs or

symptoms of a chronic work-related illness, do I need

to consider each recurrence of signs or symptoms to

be a new case? 

No, for occupational illnesses where the signs or

symptoms may recur or continue in the absence of

an exposure in the workplace, the case must only be

recorded once. Examples may include occupational

cancer, asbestosis, byssinosis and silicosis.

(2) When an employee experiences the signs or

symptoms of an injury or illness as a result of an

event or exposure in the workplace, such as an

episode of occupational asthma, must I treat the

episode as a new case?

Yes, because the episode or recurrence was

caused by an event or exposure in the workplace, the

incident must be treated as a new case.

(3) May I rely on a physician or other licensed

health care professional to determine whether a case

is a new case or a recurrence of an old case?

You are not required to seek the advice of a physician or other licensed health care professional.

However, if you do seek such advice, you must follow the physician or other licensed health care professional’s recommendation about whether the case

is a new case or a recurrence. If you receive recommendations from two or more physicians or other

licensed health care professionals, you must make a

decision as to which recommendation is the most

authoritative (best documented, best reasoned, or

most authoritative), and record the case based upon

that recommendation.

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.6 

(66 FR 5962-5967, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.6 Determination of new cases

Employers may occasionally have difficulty in determining whether new signs or symptoms are due to a

new event or exposure in the workplace or whether

they are the continuation of an existing work-related

injury or illness. Most occupational injury and illness

cases are fairly discrete events, i.e., events in which

an injury or acute illness occurs, is treated, and then

resolves completely. For example, a worker may suffer a cut, bruise, or rash from a clearly recognized

event in the workplace, receive treatment, and recover fully within a few weeks. At some future time, the

worker may suffer another cut, bruise or rash from

another workplace event. In such cases, it is clear
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.6 

4 0

that the two injuries or illnesses are unrelated events,

and that each represents an injury or illness that

must be separately evaluated for its recordability.

However, it is sometimes difficult to determine

whether signs or symptoms are due to a new event

or exposure, or are a continuance of an injury or illness that has already been recorded. This is an

important distinction, because a new injury or illness

requires the employer to make a new entry on the

OSHA 300 Log, while a continuation of an old recorded case requires, at most, an updating of the original

entry. 

The basic requirement at Section 1904.6(a) states

that the employer must consider an injury or illness a

new case to be evaluated for recordability if (1) the

employee has not previously experienced a recorded

injury or illness of the same type that affects the

same part of the body, or (2) the employee previously experienced a recorded injury or illness of the

same type that affected the same part of the body

but had recovered completely (all signs and symptoms of the previous injury or illness had disappeared) and an event or exposure in the work environment caused the injury or illness, or its signs or

symptoms, to reappear.

Section 1904.6(b)(1) addresses chronic work-related cases that have already been recorded once and

distinguishes between those conditions that will

progress even in the absence of workplace exposure

and those that are triggered by events in the workplace. There are some conditions that will progress

even in the absence of further exposure, such as

some occupational cancers, advanced asbestosis,

tuberculosis disease, advanced byssinosis, advanced

silicosis, etc. These conditions are chronic; once the

disease is contracted it may never be cured or completely resolved, and therefore the case is never

“closed” under the OSHA recordkeeping system,

even though the signs and symptoms of the condition may alternate between remission and active disease.

However, there are other chronic work-related illness conditions, such as occupational asthma, reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADs), and sensitization (contact) dermatitis, that recur if the ill individual is exposed to the agent (or agents, in the case

of cross-reactivities or RADs) that triggers the illness

again. It is typical, but not always the case, for individuals with these conditions to be symptom-free if

exposure to the sensitizing or precipitating agent

does not occur.

The final rule provides, at paragraph (b)(1), that

the employer is not required to record as a new case

a previously recorded case of chronic work-related illness where the signs or symptoms have recurred or

continued in the absence of exposure in the workplace. This paragraph recognizes that there are occupational illnesses that may be diagnosed at some

stage of the disease and may then progress without

regard to workplace events or exposures. Such diseases, in other words, will progress without further

workplace exposure to the toxic substance(s) that

caused the disease. Examples of such chronic workrelated diseases are silicosis, tuberculosis, and

asbestosis. With these conditions, the ill worker will

show signs (such as a positive TB skin test, a positive

chest roentgenogram, etc.) at every medical examination, and may experience symptomatic bouts as

the disease progresses.

Paragraph 1904.6(b)(2) recognizes that many

chronic occupational illnesses, however, such as occupational asthma, RADs, and contact dermatitis, are

triggered by exposures in the workplace. The 

difference between these conditions and those

addressed in paragraph 1904.6(b)(1) is that in these

cases exposure triggers the recurrence of symptoms

and signs, while in the chronic cases covered in the

previous paragraph, the symptoms and signs recur

even in the absence of exposure in the workplace. 

Paragraph 1904.6(b)(3) addresses how to record a

case for which the employer requests a physician or

other licensed health care professional (HCP) to make

a new case/continuation of an old case determination. Paragraph (b)(3) makes clear that employers are

to follow the guidance provided by the HCP for

OSHA recordkeeping purposes. In cases where two

or more HCPs make conflicting or differing recommendations, the employer is required to base his or

her decision about recordation based on the most

authoritative (best documented, best reasoned, or

most persuasive) evidence or recommendation.

OSHA has historically recognized that it is generally an easier matter to differentiate between old and

new cases that involve injuries than those involving

illnesses: the Guidelines stated that “the aggravation

of a previous injury almost always results from some

new incident involving the employee * * * [w]hen

work-related, these new incidents should be recorded

as new cases on the OSHA forms, assuming they

meet the criteria for recordability * * *”. However,

the Guidelines also stated that “certain illnesses, such

as silicosis, may have prolonged effects which recur

over time. The recurrence of these symptoms should

not be recorded as a new case on the OSHA forms. *

* * Some occupational illnesses, such as certain dermatitis or respiratory conditions, may recur as the
§1904.6 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 3 9

result of new exposures to sensitizing agents, and

should be recorded as new cases.” ...

...In the final rule, OSHA has decided against the

proposed approach of determining case resolution

based on a certain number of days during which the

injured or ill employee did not lose time, receive

treatment, have signs or symptoms, or be restricted

to light duty. OSHA agrees with those commenters

who argued that the proposed approach was too prescriptive and did not allow for the variations that naturally exist from one injury and illness case to the

next. Further, the record contains no convincing evidence to support a set number of days as appropriate. OSHA thus agrees with those commenters who

pointed out that adoption of a fixed time interval

would result in the overrecording of some injury and

illness cases and the underrecording of others, and

thus would impair the quality of the records. 

Further, OSHA did not intend to create an “injury

free” time zone during which an injury or illness

would not be considered a new case, regardless of

cause, as . . . suggested. Instead, OSHA proposed

that a case be considered a new case if either condition applied: the case resulted from a new event or

exposure or 45 days had elapsed without signs,

symptoms, or medical treatment, restricted work, or

days away from work. There are clearly cases where

an event or exposure in the workplace would be

cause for recording a new case. A new injury may

manifest the same signs and symptoms as the previous injury but still be a new injury and not a continuation of the old case if, for example, an employee

sustains a fall and fractures his or her wrist, and four

months later falls again and fractures the wrist in the

same place. This occurrence is not a continuation of

the fracture but rather a new injury whose recordability must be evaluated. The final rule’s approach to

recurrence/new case determinations avoids this and

other recording problems because it includes no day

count limit and relies on one of the basic principles

of the recordkeeping system, i.e., that injuries or illnesses arising from events or exposures in the workplace must be evaluated for recordability.

In response to those commenters who raised

issues about inconsistency between the OSHA system and workers’ compensation, OSHA notes that

there is no reason for the two systems, which serve

different purposes (recording injuries and illnesses

for national statistical purposes and indemnifying

workers for job-related injuries and illnesses) to use

the same definitions. Accordingly, the final rule does

not rely on workers’ compensation determinations to

identify injuries or illness cases that are to be considered new cases for recordkeeping purposes....

...OSHA has not included any provisions in the

final rule that require an employer to rely on a physician or other licensed health care professional or that

tell a physician or other licensed health care professional how to treat an injured or ill worker, or when

to begin or end such treatment. In the final rule

OSHA does require the employer to follow any determination a physician or other licensed health care

professional has made about the status of a new

case. That is, if such a professional has determined

that a case is a new case, the employer must record

it as such. If the professional determines that the

case is a recurrence, rather than a new case, the

employer is not to record it a second time. In addition, the rule does not require the employee, or the

employer, to obtain permission from the physician or

other licensed health care professional before the

employee can return to work. OSHA believes that the

employer is capable of, and often in the best position

to, make return-to-work decisions....

...”A recurrence of a previous work-related injury

or illness should only be considered a new case when

the injury or illness has completely healed. Severe

muscle and nerve damage can take many weeks or

months to properly heal.” The final rule takes such

differences into account, as follows. If the previous

injury or illness has not healed (signs and symptoms

have not resolved), then the case cannot be considered resolved. The employer may make this determination or may rely on the recommendation of a physician or other licensed health care professional when

doing so. Clearly, if the injured or ill employee is still

exhibiting signs or symptoms of the previous injury

or illness, the malady has not healed, and a new case

does not have to be recorded. Similarly, if work activities aggravate a previously recorded case, there is no

need to consider recording it again (although there

may be a need to update the case information if the

aggravation causes a more severe outcome than the

original case, such as days away from work)....

Because the OSHA system is intended to measure

the incidence of occupational injury and illness, each

individual injury or illness should be recorded only

once in the system. However, an employee can experience the same type of injury or illness more than

once. For example, if a worker cuts a finger on a

machine in March, and is then unfortunate enough to

cut the same finger again in October, this worker has

clearly experienced two separate occupational

injuries, each of which must be evaluated for its

recordability. In other cases, this evaluation is not as

simple. For example, a worker who performs forceful
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.6 

4 2

manual handling injures his or her back in 1998,

resulting in days away from work, and the case is

entered into the records. In 1999 this worker has

another episode of severe work-related back pain and

must once again take time off for treatment and recuperation. The question is whether or not the new

symptoms, back pain, are continuing symptoms of

the old injury, or whether they represent a new injury

that should be evaluated for its recordability as a

new case. The answer in this case lies in an analysis

of whether or not the injured or ill worker has recovered fully between episodes, and whether or not the

back pain is the result of a second event or exposure

in the workplace, e.g., continued manual handling. If

the worker has not fully recovered and no new event

or exposure has occurred in the workplace, the case

is considered a continuation of the previous injury or

illness and is not recordable....

...The term “new case” tends to suggest to some

that the case is totally original, when in fact new

cases for OSHA recordkeeping purposes include

three categories of cases; (1) totally new cases where

the employee has never suffered similar signs or

symptoms while in the employ of that employer, (2)

cases where the employee has a preexisting condition that is significantly aggravated by activities at

work and the significant aggravation reaches the

level requiring recordation, and (3) previously recorded conditions that have healed (all symptoms and

signs have resolved) and then have subsequently

been triggered by events or exposures at work.

Both new injuries and recurrences must be evaluated for their work-relatedness and then for whether

they meet one or more of the recording criteria;

when these criteria are met, the case must be recorded. If the case is a continuation of a previously

recorded case but does not meet the “new case” criteria, the employer may have to update the OSHA

300 Log entry if the original case continues to

progress, i.e., if the status of the case worsens. For

example, consider a case where an employee has

injured his or her back lifting a heavy object, the

injury resulted in medical treatment, and the case

was recorded as a case without restricted work or

days away. If the injury does not heal and the

employer subsequently decides to assign the worker

to restricted work activity, the employer is required

by the final rule to change the case classification and

to track the number of days of restricted work. If the

case is a previous work-related injury that did not

meet the recording criteria and thus was not recorded, future developments in the case may require it to

be recorded. For example, an employee may suffer

an ankle sprain tripping on a step. The employee is

sent to a health care professional, who does not recommend medical treatment or restrictions, so the

case is not recorded at that time. If the injury does

not heal, however, and a subsequent visit to a physician results in medical treatment, the case must then

be recorded....

OSHA and employers and employees need data

on recurring cases because recurrence is an important indicator of severity over the long term. Just as

the number of days away is a useful indicator of

health and safety risk at a particular establishment,

so is the total number of injury and illness events

and of exposures resulting in health consequences

that occur in an establishment or industry. Further,

any realistic assessment of occupational safety and

health conditions should reflect the fact that some

but not all injuries and illnesses have long-term consequences.

...In other words, a safety and health analysis

should give less weight to an injury or illness that

has a clear and relatively quick recovery without

impairment of any kind and an injury or illness that is

chronic in nature or one that involves recurring

episodes that are retriggered by workplace events or

exposures.

Ignoring the fact that an occupational injury or illness is a recurrence occasioned by an event or exposure in the workplace would result in an underestimate of the true extent of occupational injury and illness and deprive employers, employees, and safety

and health professionals of essential information of

use in illness prevention. The other extreme, requiring employers to record on-going signs or symptoms

repeatedly, even in the absence of an event or exposure in the workplace, would result in overstating the

extent of illness. In terms of the recordkeeping system, deciding how most appropriately to handle new

cases requires a balanced approach that minimizes

both overrecording and underrecording. OSHA has

dealt with this problem in the final rule by carefully

defining the circumstances under which a chronic

and previously recorded injury or illness must be

considered closed and defining the circumstances

under which a recurrence is to be considered a new

case and then evaluated to determine whether it

meets one or more of the recordability criteria....

...The final rule uses one set of criteria for determining whether any injury or illness, including a

musculoskeletal disorder, is to be treated as a new

case or as the continuation of an “old” injury or illness. First, if the employee has never had a recorded

injury or illness of the same type and affecting the
§1904.6 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 4 1

same part of the body, the case is automatically 

considered a new case and must be evaluated for

recordability. This provision will handle the vast

majority of injury and illness cases, which are new

cases rather than recurrences or case continuations.

Second, if the employee has previously had a recorded injury or illness of the same type and affecting the

same body part, but the employee has completely

recovered from the previous injury or illness, and a

new workplace event or exposure causes the injury

or illness (or its signs or symptoms) to reappear, the

case is a recurrence that the employer must evaluate

for recordability. 

The implementation section of Section 1904.6

describes these requirements and includes explanations applying to two special circumstances. In the

first case, paragraph 1904.6(b)(1) the employee has

experienced a chronic injury or illness of a type that

will progress regardless of further workplace exposure. Cases to which this provision applies are serious, chronic illness conditions such as occupational

cancer, asbestosis, silicosis, chronic beryllium disease, etc. These occupational conditions generally

continue to progress even though the worker is

removed from further exposure. These conditions

may change over time and be associated with recurrences of symptoms, or remissions, but the signs

(e.g., positive chest roentgenogram, positive blood

test) generally continue to be present throughout the

course of the disease.

The second kind of case, addressed in paragraph

1904.6(b)(b)(2), requires employers to record chronic

illness cases that recur as a result of exposures in the

workplace. These conditions might include episodes

of occupational asthma, reactive airways dysfunction

syndrome (RADS), or contact allergic dermatitis, for

example.

Paragraph 1904.6(b)(3) recognizes the role of

physicians and other licensed health care professionals that the employer may choose to rely on when

tracking a “new case” or making a continuation of an

old case determination. If a physician or other

licensed health care professional determines that an

injury or illness has been resolved, the employer

must consider the case to be resolved and record as

a new case any episode that causes the signs and

symptoms to recur as a result of exposure in the

workplace. On the other hand, if the HCP consulted

by the employer determines that the case is a chronic

illness of the type addressed by paragraph

1904.6(b)(1), the employer would not record the case

again. In either case, the employer would evaluate it

for work-relatedness and then determine whether the

original entry requires updating or the case meets

the recording criteria. Paragraph (b)(3) also recognizes that the employer may ask for input from more

than one HCP, or the employer and employee may

each do so, and in such cases, the rule requires the

employer to rely on the one judged by the employer

to be most authoritative.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.6 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.6 Determination of new cases

Question 6-1. How is an employer to determine

whether an employee has “recovered completely”

from a previous injury or illness such that a later

injury or illness of the same type affecting the same

part of the body resulting from an event or exposure

at work is a “new case” under section 1904.6(a)(2)? If

an employee’s signs and symptoms disappear for a

day and then resurface the next day, should the

employer conclude that the later signs and symptoms represent a new case?

An employee has “recovered completely” from a

previous injury or illness, for purposes of section

1904.6(a)(2), when he or she is fully healed or cured.

The employer must use his best judgment based on

factors such as the passage of time since the symptoms last occurred and the physical appearance of

the affected part of the body. If the signs and symptoms of a previous injury disappear for a day only to

reappear the following day, that is strong evidence

the injury has not properly healed. The employer

may, but is not required to, consult a physician or

other licensed health care provider (PLHCP). Where

the employer does consult a PLHCP to determine

whether an employee has recovered completely from

a prior injury or illness, it must follow the PLHCP’s

recommendation. In the event the employer receives

recommendations from two or more PLHCPs, the

employer may decide which recommendation is the

most authoritative and record the case based on that

recommendation.
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.6 

4 2

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.6 

Section 1904.6 Determination of new cases

Letter of interpretation related to sections 1904.5, 1904.5(a), 1904.5(b)(2), 1904.6, 1904.6(a), 1904.7 and 1904.31 –

Evaluation of seven scenarios for work-relatedness and recordkeeping requirements.

January 15, 2004 

Ms. Leann M. Johnson-Koch

1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-2412 

Dear Ms. Johnson-Koch: 

Thank you for your E-mail to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding

the Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904. Your letter was forwarded to my office by Richard Fairfax, Director, Directorate of Enforcement Programs. The

Division of Recordkeeping Requirements is responsible for the administration of the OSHA injury and

illness recordkeeping system nationwide. Please excuse the delay in responding to your request. 

In your letter, you ask OSHA to clarify the following scenarios to ensure accurate and consistent guidance to your members for purposes of OSHA Recordkeeping requirements. I will address your scenarios

by first restating each one and then answering it. 

Scenario 1:

• An employee reported to work at 7:00 a.m. 

• At 12:15 p.m. the employee reported that his toes on his left foot had started swelling and his foot

had started hurting. 

• The employee wanted to go to a doctor for evaluation. 

• On the First Report of Injury, that the employee completed before he went to the doctor, the employee

indicated that the cause of the illness was “unknown (feet wet at cooling tower).” 

• When answering the doctor’s question: “How did injury occur?” the employee answered that the only

thing he could think of was that his feet were wet all the previous day due to work in the morning at a

cooling tower. The cooling tower water is treated to remove bacteria and then used in process operations in the plant. 

• The doctor described the illness/injury as foot edema/cellulitis. 

• The doctor also prescribed the injury as an occupational disease, prescribed an antibiotic, and the

employee missed one day of work. 

• The company sent the employee to a second doctor who said to continue using the antibiotic. 

• Neither doctor could state conclusively that the foot edema/cellulitis was or was not due to the

employee’s feet being wet due to work at the cooling tower. 

• Neither doctor is a specialist in skin disorders. 

• During an incident review at the site, the employee again said he did not know if his feet being wet all

day the previous day caused the injury/illness. 

• The employee also stated that he had not worn the personal protective equipment, rubber boots, prescribed for this task. 

The company determined that this injury/illness is not work-related (did not occur in the course of or as

a result of employment), since neither physician nor the employee can state with certainty that the

injury/illness was caused by the employee’s feet being wet all day due to work at the cooling tower. Since

the injury/illness was determined to not be work-related, then the company deemed the incident nonrecordable. 

Response: A case is work-related if it is more likely than not that an event or exposure in the work environment was a cause of the injury or illness. The work event or exposure need only be one of the causes; it

does not need to be the sole or predominant cause. In this case, the fact that neither the physician nor the

employee could state with certainty that the employee’s edema was caused by working with wet feet is not

dispositive. The physician’s description of the edema as an “occupational disease,” and the employee’s

statement that working with wet feet was “the only thing he could think of” as the cause, indicate that it is

more likely than not that working with wet feet was a cause. The case should be recorded on the OSHA

300 Log. 
Scenario 2: 

An employee must report to work by 8:00 a.m. 

• The employee drove into the company parking lot at 7:30 a.m. and parked the car. 

• The employee exited the car and proceeded to the office to report to work. 

• The parking lot and sidewalks are privately owned by the facility and both are within the property

line, but not the controlled access points (i.e., fence, guards). 

• The employee stepped onto the sidewalk and slipped on the snow and ice. 

• The employee suffered a back injury and missed multiple days of work. 

The company believes that the employee was still in the process of the commute to work since the

employee had not yet checked in at the office. Since a work task was not being performed, the site personnel deemed the incident not work-related and therefore not recordable. 

Response: Company parking lots and sidewalks are part of the employer’s establishment for recordkeeping purposes. Here, the employee slipped on an icy sidewalk while walking to the office to report for

work. In addition, the event or exposure that occurred does not meet any of the work-related exceptions

contained in 1904.5(b)(2). The employee was on the sidewalk because of work; therefore, the case is

work-related regardless of the fact that he had not actually checked in. 

Scenario 3: 

The employee described in Scenario 2 missed 31 days of work due to the back injury. 

• On day 31, the doctor provided a release for returning to work. 

• The next morning (day 32), when the employee was due to report to work, the employee stated that

his back was hurting, and the employee did not report to work. 

• The employee scheduled a doctor’s appointment, with the same doctor, and visited the doctor on day 33.

• The doctor issued a statement stating that the employee was not able to return to work. 

Since the employee was released to return to work, the company does not believe it has to count the

intervening two days on the OSHA log. 

Response: The employer would have to enter the additional days away from work on the OSHA 300 log

based on receiving information from the physician or other licensed health care professional that the

employee was unable to work.

Scenario 4: 

• An employee reports to work. 

• Several hours later, the employee goes outside for a “smoke break.” 

• The employee slips on the ice and injures his back. 

Since the employee was not performing a task related to the employee’s work, the company has deemed

this incident non-work related and therefore not recordable. 

Response: Under Section 1904.5(b)(2)(v), an injury or illness is not work-related if it is solely the result

of an employee doing personal tasks (unrelated to their employment) at the establishment outside of the

employee’s assigned working hours. In order for this exception to apply, the case must meet both of the

stated conditions. The exception does not apply here because the injury or illness occurred within normal

working hours. Therefore, your case in question is work-related, and if it meets the general recording criteria under Section 1904.7 the case must be recorded. 

Scenario 5:

• An employee drives into the company parking lot at 7:30 a.m., exits his car, and proceeds to cross the

parking lot to clock-in to work. 

• A second employee, also on the way to work, approaches the first employee, and the two individuals

get into a physical altercation in the parking lot. The first employee breaks an arm during the altercation. 

• The employee goes to the doctor and receives medical treatment for his injury. 

The company deems this non-work related, and therefore non-recordable, since the employees had not

yet reported to work and a work task was not being performed at the time of the altercation. 

Response: The recordkeeping regulation contains no general exception for purposes of determining

work-relationship for cases involving acts of violence in the work environment. Company parking

lots/access roads are part of the employer’s premises and therefore part of the employer’s establishment.

Whether the employee had not clocked in to work does not affect the outcome for determining workrelatedness. The case is recordable on the OSHA log, because the injury meets the general recording criteria contained in Section 1904.7. 

§1904.6 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 4 3
Scenario 6: 

• An employee injured a knee performing work-related activities in 2001. 

• The accident was OSHA recordable and subject to worker’s compensation. 

• The employee had arthroscopic knee surgery eleven months later and was released to full duty a

month and a half after the arthroscopic surgery. 

• The employee had a second knee injury three months after the return to work release (after the first

surgery). 

• Post-surgery (second surgery), the doctor prescribed Vioxx® as an anti-inflammatory. 

• Approximately one and one-half months after the second knee surgery, the employee was given another full release to return to work full duty and returned to work. 

• However, the doctor told the employee to continue to take Vioxx® as prescribed (as needed) and to

return to the doctor as needed. 

• The employee scheduled a follow-up appointment with the doctor. 

• The day before the appointment, the employee bumped his knee at work. 

• During his scheduled doctor’s appointment (was to be the last follow-up visit) the employee mentioned

the latest incident (bumping the knee) to the doctor and showed him where the pain was occurring due

to bumping his knee. 

• The doctor stated that the employee had an inflamed tendon (Grade 1 lateral collateral ligament

sprain) that was not part of the initial surgery (patellar tendonitis). 

• The doctor stated in the diagnosis that the original injury that required knee surgery was resolved. 

• The doctor told the employee to continue taking Vioxx® for the inflamed tendon. 

Since the employee was already taking the medication prescribed (Vioxx®), the site does not believe this

is recordable as a second incident. 

Response: In the recordkeeping regulation, the employer is required to follow any determination a physician or other licensed health care professional has made about the status of a new case. The inflamed

tendon is a new case because the employee had completely recovered from the previous injury and illness

and a new event or exposure had occurred in the work environment. Therefore, for purposes of OSHA

recordkeeping, the employer would enter the case on the OSHA 300 log as appropriate. 

Scenario 7: 

• A site hired numerous temporary workers at its plant. 

• Three temporary workers were injured. 

• They each received injuries that were recordable on the OSHA 300 Log. 

• The employees were under the direct supervision of the site. 

Is it correct that these injuries were recordable on the site log or should they have been recordable on the

temp agency log? What are the criteria related to temporary workers that need to be reviewed to determine which OSHA log is appropriate for recording the injury/illness? 

Response: Section 1904.31 states that the employer must record the injuries and illnesses that occur to

employees not on its payroll if it supervises them on a day-to-day basis. Day-to-day supervision generally

exists when the employer “supervises not only the output, product, or result to be accomplished by the

person’s work, but also the details, means, methods, and processes by which the work objective is

accomplished.” 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain

these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional

employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note

that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. In addition, from time to

time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep appraised of such developments,

you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please contact the Division of Recordkeeping Requirements, at 202-693-1702. 

Sincerely, 

Frank Frodyma

Acting Director

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.6 

4 4
January 13, 2004 

William K. Principe

Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC

Suite 2400

230 Peachtree Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1557 

Dear Mr. Principe: 

Thank you for your comments pertaining to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s

(OSHA) Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904.

Please accept my apology for the delay in our response. 

Specifically, you ask OSHA to clarify in each scenario you describe whether the employee who sustains an injury or illness while he or she is engaged in an activity such as walking or bending is considered work-related. As you note, a case is presumed work-related under the recordkeeping rule if

an event or exposure in the work environment is a discernable cause of the injury or illness. The

work event or exposure need only be one of the discernable causes; it need not be the sole or predominant cause. The preamble to the rule contains a passage that is relevant in determining

whether this presumption applies in the scenarios in your letter. The preamble states, in relevant

part, as follows: 

In applying [the presumption of work-relatedness], the question employers must answer is

whether there is an identifiable event or exposure which occurred in the work environment and

resulted in the injury or illness. “Thus, if an employee trips while walking across a level factory

floor, the resulting injury is considered work-related under the geographic presumption because

the precipitating event - the tripping accident - occurred in the workplace. The case is workrelated even if the employer cannot determine why the employee tripped, or whether any particular workplace hazard caused the accident to occur.” 

In each of the eight scenarios in your letter, the activity engaged in by the employee at the time of

the injury (walking, tripping, climbing a staircase, sneezing, bending down) is an “event” which

would trigger application of the presumption. In the absence of evidence to overcome the presumption, the injury is work-related. Thus, in the absence of evidence to overcome the presumption, an

ankle injury caused by a trip that occurred while the employee was walking down a level seamless

hallway at work is work-related, regardless of whether the accident is attributable to a defect in the

hall. By the same reasoning, if the activity of walking down a hallway caused the employee’s knee

to buckle or to sprain the ankle, the injury is work-related. If an injury or illness did not result

from an identifiable event or exposure in the work environment, but only manifested itself during

work, the injury is not work-related. For example, if the employee had a non-occupational event or

exposure, and there is no evidence of a work-related event or exposure that was a cause of the

injury or illness, the injury should not be recorded. 

You also ask whether the determination of work-relationship would be affected by the existence of

a pre-existing condition, whether work-related or non-work-related, affecting the same body part

that is injured. Under the rule, a pre-existing condition is an injury or illness resulting solely from a

non-work-related event or exposure. If an employee’s pre-existing condition is worsened as a result

of an event or exposure at work, the case is not work-related unless the work event or exposure

“significantly aggravated” the preexisting condition (i.e., the case meets the recording criteria contained in Section 1904.5(b)(4)). If the employee with a pre-existing work-related injury to a body

part suffers a subsequent work-related injury of the same type to the same body part, the subsequent injury is recordable (assuming the general recording criteria are met) if it is a “new case” as

discussed in Section 1904.6. 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information

helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters 

Letter of interpretation related to sections 1904.5(a), 1904.5(b)(4) and 1904.6 –

Determining work-relatedness when the work event or exposure is only one of the discernable causes; not

the sole or predominant cause.

§1904.6 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 4 5
explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create

additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements

discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. In addition, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep appraised

of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please contact the Division of Recordkeeping Requirements, at 202-693-1702. 

Sincerely, 

Frank Frodyma

Acting Director

Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.6 

4 6
§1904.7 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 4 7

Section 1904.7 

General recording criteria 

(66 FR 6126, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.7

Subpart C – Recordkeeping forms and recording criteria (66 FR 6123, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Note to Subpart C: This Subpart describes the work-related injuries and illnesses that an employer must

enter into the OSHA records and explains the OSHA forms that employers must use to record work-related

fatalities, injuries, and illnesses.

Section 1904.7 General Recording Criteria

(a) Basic requirement.

You must consider an injury or illness to meet the

general recording criteria, and therefore to be recordable, if it results in any of the following: death, days

away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of

consciousness. You must also consider a case to

meet the general recording criteria if it involves a significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or

other licensed health care professional, even if it

does not result in death, days away from work,

restricted work or job transfer, medical treatment

beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.

(b) Implementation.

(1) How do I decide if a case meets one or more of

the general recording criteria? 

A work-related injury or illness must be recorded

if it results in one or more of the following:

(i) Death. See Section 1904.7(b)(2).

(ii) Days away from work. See Section

1904.7(b)(3).

(iii) Restricted work or transfer to another job. See

Section 1904.7(b)(4).

(iv) Medical treatment beyond first aid. See

Section 1904.7(b)(5).

(v) Loss of consciousness. See Section

1904.7(b)(6). 

(vi) A significant injury or illness diagnosed by a

physician or other licensed health care professional. See Section 1904.7(b)(7).

(2) How do I record a work-related injury or illness

that results in the employee’s death? 

You must record an injury or illness that results in

death by entering a check mark on the OSHA 300 Log

in the space for cases resulting in death. You must

also report any work-related fatality to OSHA within

eight (8) hours, as required by Section 1904.39.

(3) How do I record a work-related injury or illness

that results in days away from work? 

When an injury or illness involves one or more

days away from work, you must record the injury or

illness on the OSHA 300 Log with a check mark in the

space for cases involving days away and an entry of

the number of calendar days away from work in the

number of days column. If the employee is out for an

extended period of time, you must enter an estimate

of the days that the employee will be away, and

update the day count when the actual number of

days is known.

(i) Do I count the day on which the injury occurred

or the illness began? 

No, you begin counting days away on the day

after the injury occurred or the illness began.

(ii) How do I record an injury or illness when a

physician or other licensed health care professional recommends that the worker stay at home but

the employee comes to work anyway? 

You must record these injuries and illnesses on

the OSHA 300 Log using the check box for cases

with days away from work and enter the number

of calendar days away recommended by the

physician or other licensed health care professional. If a physician or other licensed health care professional recommends days away, you should

encourage your employee to follow that recommendation. However, the days away must be

recorded whether the injured or ill employee follows the physician or licensed health care professional’s recommendation or not. If you receive

recommendations from two or more physicians or

other licensed health care professionals, you may

make a decision as to which recommendation is

the most authoritative, and record the case based

upon that recommendation.

(iii) How do I handle a case when a physician or

other licensed health care professional recommends that the worker return to work but the

employee stays at home anyway?

In this situation, you must end the count of days

away from work on the date the physician or
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.7 

4 8

other licensed health care professional recommends that the employee return to work.

(iv) How do I count weekends, holidays, or other

days the employee would not have worked anyway?

You must count the number of calendar days the

employee was unable to work as a result of the

injury or illness, regardless of whether or not the

employee was scheduled to work on those day(s).

Weekend days, holidays, vacation days or other

days off are included in the total number of days

recorded if the employee would not have been

able to work on those days because of a workrelated injury or illness.

(v) How do I record a case in which a worker is

injured or becomes ill on a Friday and reports to

work on a Monday, and was not scheduled to

work on the weekend? 

You need to record this case only if you receive

information from a physician or other licensed

health care professional indicating that the

employee should not have worked, or should

have performed only restricted work, during the

weekend. If so, you must record the injury or illness as a case with days away from work or

restricted work, and enter the day counts, as

appropriate.

(vi) How do I record a case in which a worker is

injured or becomes ill on the day before scheduled time off such as a holiday, a planned vacation, or a temporary plant closing? 

You need to record a case of this type only if you

receive information from a physician or other

licensed health care professional indicating that

the employee should not have worked, or should

have performed only restricted work, during the

scheduled time off. If so, you must record the

injury or illness as a case with days away from

work or restricted work, and enter the day counts,

as appropriate.

(vii) Is there a limit to the number of days away

from work I must count? 

Yes, you may “cap” the total days away at 180 calendar days. You are not required to keep track of

the number of calendar days away from work if

the injury or illness resulted in more than 180 calendar days away from work and/or days of job

transfer or restriction. In such a case, entering 180

in the total days away column will be considered

adequate.

(viii) May I stop counting days if an employee

who is away from work because of an injury or illness retires or leaves my company? 

Yes, if the employee leaves your company for

some reason unrelated to the injury or illness,

such as retirement, a plant closing, or to take

another job, you may stop counting days away

from work or days of restriction/job transfer. If the

employee leaves your company because of the

injury or illness, you must estimate the total number of days away or days of restriction/job transfer

and enter the day count on the 300 Log.

(ix) If a case occurs in one year but results in days

away during the next calendar year, do I record

the case in both years? 

No, you only record the injury or illness once. You

must enter the number of calendar days away for

the injury or illness on the OSHA 300 Log for the

year in which the injury or illness occurred. If the

employee is still away from work because of the

injury or illness when you prepare the annual

summary, estimate the total number of calendar

days you expect the employee to be away from

work, use this number to calculate the total for the

annual summary, and then update the initial log

entry later when the day count is known or reaches the 180-day cap.

(4) How do I record a work-related injury or illness

that results in restricted work or job transfer? 

When an injury or illness involves restricted work

or job transfer but does not involve death or days

away from work, you must record the injury or illness on the OSHA 300 Log by placing a check mark

in the space for job transfer or restriction and an

entry of the number of restricted or transferred days

in the restricted workdays column.

(i) How do I decide if the injury or illness resulted

in restricted work? 

Restricted work occurs when, as the result of a

work-related injury or illness:

(A) You keep the employee from performing

one or more of the routine functions of his or her

job, or from working the full workday that he or

she would otherwise have been scheduled to

work; or

(B) A physician or other licensed health care

professional recommends that the employee not

perform one or more of the routine functions of

his or her job, or not work the full workday that he

or she would otherwise have been scheduled to

work.

(ii) What is meant by “routine functions”?

For recordkeeping purposes, an employee’s routine functions are those work activities the

employee regularly performs at least once per

week.
§1904.7 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 4 9

tions is “Yes,” then the case does not involve a

work restriction and does not have to be recorded

as such. If the answer to one or both of these

questions is “No,” the case involves restricted

work and must be recorded as a restricted work

case. If you are unable to obtain this additional

information from the physician or other licensed

health care professional who recommended the

restriction, record the injury or illness as a case

involving restricted work.

(viii) What do I do if a physician or other licensed

health care professional recommends a job

restriction meeting OSHA’s definition, but the

employee does all of his or her routine job functions anyway? 

You must record the injury or illness on the OSHA

300 Log as a restricted work case. If a physician or

other licensed health care professional recommends a job restriction, you should ensure that

the employee complies with that restriction. If you

receive recommendations from two or more

physicians or other licensed health care professionals, you may make a decision as to which recommendation is the most authoritative, and

record the case based upon that recommendation.

(ix) How do I decide if an injury or illness involved

a transfer to another job? 

If you assign an injured or ill employee to a job

other than his or her regular job for part of the

day, the case involves transfer to another job.

Note: This does not include the day on which the

injury or illness occurred.

(x) Are transfers to another job recorded in the

same way as restricted work cases? 

Yes, both job transfer and restricted work cases

are recorded in the same box on the OSHA 300

Log. For example, if you assign, or a physician or

other licensed health care professional recommends that you assign, an injured or ill worker to

his or her routine job duties for part of the day

and to another job for the rest of the day, the

injury or illness involves a job transfer. You must

record an injury or illness that involves a job

transfer by placing a check in the box for job

transfer.

(xi) How do I count days of job transfer or 

restriction?

You count days of job transfer or restriction in the

same way you count days away from work, using

Section 1904.7(b)(3)(i) to (viii), above. The only 

difference is that, if you permanently assign the

injured or ill employee to a job that has been

modified or permanently changed in a manner

(iii) Do I have to record restricted work or job

transfer if it applies only to the day on which the

injury occurred or the illness began?

No, you do not have to record restricted work or

job transfers if you, or the physician or other

licensed health care professional, impose the

restriction or transfer only for the day on which

the injury occurred or the illness began.

(iv) If you or a physician or other licensed health

care professional recommends a work restriction,

is the injury or illness automatically recordable as

a “restricted work” case? 

No, a recommended work restriction is recordable

only if it affects one or more of the employee’s

routine job functions. To determine whether this is

the case, you must evaluate the restriction in light

of the routine functions of the injured or ill employee’s job. If the restriction from you or the

physician or other licensed health care professional keeps the employee from performing one or

more of his or her routine job functions, or from

working the full workday the injured or ill employee would otherwise have worked, the employee’s

work has been restricted and you must record the

case.

(v) How do I record a case where the worker

works only for a partial work shift because of a

work-related injury or illness? 

A partial day of work is recorded as a day of job

transfer or restriction for recordkeeping purposes,

except for the day on which the injury occurred or

the illness began.

(vi) If the injured or ill worker produces fewer

goods or services than he or she would have produced prior to the injury or illness but otherwise

performs all of the routine functions of his or her

work, is the case considered a restricted work

case? 

No, the case is considered restricted work only if

the worker does not perform all of the routine

functions of his or her job or does not work the

full shift that he or she would otherwise have

worked.

(vii) How do I handle vague restrictions from a

physician or other licensed health care professional, such as that the employee engage only in

“light duty” or “take it easy for a week”? 

If you are not clear about the physician or other

licensed health care professional’s recommendation, you may ask that person whether the

employee can do all of his or her routine job functions and work all of his or her normally assigned

work shift. If the answer to both of these ques-
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.7 

5 0

that eliminates the routine functions the employee

was restricted from performing, you may stop the

day count when the modification or change is

made permanent. You must count at least one day

of restricted work or job transfer for such cases.

(5) How do I record an injury or illness that

involves medical treatment beyond first aid? 

If a work-related injury or illness results in medical

treatment beyond first aid, you must record it on the

OSHA 300 Log. If the injury or illness did not involve

death, one or more days away from work, one or

more days of restricted work, or one or more days of

job transfer, you enter a check mark in the box for

cases where the employee received medical treatment but remained at work and was not transferred

or restricted.

(i) What is the definition of medical treatment? 

“Medical treatment” means the management and

care of a patient to combat disease or disorder.

For the purposes of Part 1904, medical treatment

does not include:

(A) Visits to a physician or other licensed health

care professional solely for observation or counseling;

(B) The conduct of diagnostic procedures, such

as x-rays and blood tests, including the administration of prescription medications used solely for

diagnostic purposes (e.g., eye drops to dilate

pupils); or

(C) “First aid” as defined in paragraph (b)(5)(ii)

of this section.

(ii) What is “first aid”? 

For the purposes of Part 1904, “first aid” means

the following:

(A) Using a non-prescription medication at nonprescription strength (for medications available in

both prescription and non-prescription form, a

recommendation by a physician or other licensed

health care professional to use a non-prescription

medication at prescription strength is considered

medical treatment for recordkeeping purposes);

(B) Administering tetanus immunizations (other

immunizations, such as Hepatitis B vaccine or

rabies vaccine, are considered medical treatment);

(C) Cleaning, flushing or soaking wounds on the

surface of the skin;

(D) Using wound coverings such as bandages,

Band-AidsTM, gauze pads, etc.; or using butterfly

bandages or Steri-StripsTM (other wound closing

devices such as sutures, staples, etc., are considered medical treatment);

(E) Using hot or cold therapy;

(F) Using any non-rigid means of support, such

as elastic bandages, wraps, non-rigid back belts,

etc. (devices with rigid stays or other systems

designed to immobilize parts of the body are considered medical treatment for recordkeeping purposes);

(G) Using temporary immobilization devices

while transporting an accident victim (e.g., splints,

slings, neck collars, back boards, etc.).

(H) Drilling of a fingernail or toenail to relieve

pressure, or draining fluid from a blister;

(I) Using eye patches;

(J) Removing foreign bodies from the eye using

only irrigation or a cotton swab;

(K) Removing splinters or foreign material from

areas other than the eye by irrigation, tweezers,

cotton swabs or other simple means;

(L) Using finger guards;

(M) Using massages (physical therapy or chiropractic treatment are considered medical treatment for recordkeeping purposes); or

(N) Drinking fluids for relief of heat stress.

(iii) Are any other procedures included in first aid? 

No, this is a complete list of all treatments considered first aid for Part 1904 purposes.

(iv) Does the professional status of the person

providing the treatment have any effect on what is

considered first aid or medical treatment? 

No, OSHA considers the treatments listed in

Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii) of this Part to be first aid

regardless of the professional status of the person

providing the treatment. Even when these treatments are provided by a physician or other

licensed health care professional, they are considered first aid for the purposes of Part 1904.

Similarly, OSHA considers treatment beyond first

aid to be medical treatment even when it is provided by someone other than a physician or other

licensed health care professional.

(v) What if a physician or other licensed health

care professional recommends medical treatment

but the employee does not follow the recommendation? 

If a physician or other licensed health care professional recommends medical treatment, you

should encourage the injured or ill employee to

follow that recommendation. However, you must

record the case even if the injured or ill employee

does not follow the physician or other licensed

health care professional’s recommendation.

(6) Is every work-related injury or illness case

involving a loss of consciousness recordable? 

Yes, you must record a work-related injury or illness if the worker becomes unconscious, regardless
§1904.7 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 5 1

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.7 

(66 FR 5968-5998, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

of the length of time the employee remains unconscious.

(7) What is a “significant” diagnosed injury or illness that is recordable under the general criteria

even if it does not result in death, days away from

work, restricted work or job transfer, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness? 

Work-related cases involving cancer, chronic irreversible disease, a fractured or cracked bone, or a

punctured eardrum must always be recorded under

the general criteria at the time of diagnosis by a

physician or other licensed health care professional.

Note to Section 1904.7: OSHA believes that most

significant injuries and illnesses will result in one of

the criteria listed in Section 1904.7(a): death, days

away from work, restricted work or job transfer, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness. However, there are some significant injuries,

such as a punctured eardrum or a fractured toe or

rib, for which neither medical treatment nor work

restrictions may be recommended. In addition, there

are some significant progressive diseases, such as

byssinosis, silicosis, and some types of cancer, for

which medical treatment or work restrictions may not

be recommended at the time of diagnosis but are

likely to be recommended as the disease progresses.

OSHA believes that cancer, chronic irreversible diseases, fractured or cracked bones, and punctured

eardrums are generally considered significant

injuries and illnesses, and must be recorded at the

initial diagnosis even if medical treatment or work

restrictions are not recommended, or are postponed,

in a particular case. 

Section 1904.7 General recording criteria.

Section 1904.7 contains the general recording criteria

for recording work-related injuries and illnesses. This

section describes the recording of cases that meet

one or more of the following six criteria: death, days

away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, loss of

consciousness, or diagnosis as a significant injury or

illness by a physician or other licensed health care

professional.

Paragraph 1904.7(a)

Paragraph 1904.7(a) describes the basic requirement

for recording an injury or illness in the OSHA recordkeeping system. It states that employers must record

any work-related injury or illness that meets one or

more of the final rule’s general recording criteria.

There are six such criteria: death, days away from

work, days of restricted work or job transfer, medical

treatment beyond first aid, loss of consciousness, or

diagnosis by a physician or other licensed heath care

professional as a significant injury or illness....

Paragraph 1904.7(b)

Paragraph 1904.7(b) tells employers how to record

cases meeting each of the six general recording criteria and states how each case is to be entered on the

OSHA 300 Log. Paragraph 1904.7(b)(1) provides a

simple decision table listing the six general recording

criteria and the paragraph number of each in the final

rule. It is included to aid employers and recordkeepers in recording these cases.

1904.7(b)(2) Death

Paragraph 1904.7(b)(2) requires the employer to

record an injury or illness that results in death by

entering a check mark on the OSHA 300 Log in the

space for fatal cases. This paragraph also directs

employers to report work-related fatalities to OSHA

within 8 hours and cross references the fatality and

catastrophe reporting requirements in Section

1904.39 of the final rule, Reporting fatalities and multiple hospitalizations to OSHA....

Paragraph 1904.7(b)(3) Days Away From Work

Paragraph 1904.7(b)(3) contains the requirements for

recording work-related injuries and illnesses that

result in days away from work and for counting the

total number of days away associated with a given

case. Paragraph 1904.7(b)(3) requires the employer to

record an injury or illness that involves one or more

days away from work by placing a check mark on the

OSHA 300 Log in the space reserved for day(s) away

cases and entering the number of calendar days

away from work in the column reserved for that purpose. This paragraph also states that, if the employee
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.7 

5 2

is away from work for an extended time, the employer must update the day count when the actual number of days away becomes known....

Paragraphs 1904.7(b)(3)(i) through (vi) implement

the basic requirements. Paragraph 1904.7(b)(3)(i)

states that the employer is not to count the day of

the injury or illness as a day away, but is to begin

counting days away on the following day. Thus, even

though an injury or illness may result in some loss of

time on the day of the injurious event or exposure

because, for example, the employee seeks treatment

or is sent home, the case is not considered a daysaway-from-work case unless the employee does not

work on at least one subsequent day because of the

injury or illness. The employer is to begin counting

days away on the day following the injury or onset of

illness....

Paragraphs 1904.7(b)(3)(ii) and (iii) direct employers how to record days-away cases when a physician

or other licensed health care professional (HCP) recommends that the injured or ill worker stay at home

or that he or she return to work but the employee

chooses not to do so. OSHA requires employers to

follow the physician’s or HCP’s recommendation

when recording the case. Further, whether the

employee works or not is in the control of the

employer, not the employee. That is, if an HCP recommends that the employee remain away from work

for one or more days, the employer is required to

record the injury or illness as a case involving days

away from work and to keep track of the days; the

employee’s wishes in this case are not relevant, since

it is the employer who controls the conditions of

work. Similarly, if the HCP tells the employee that he

or she can return to work, the employer is required

by the rule to stop counting the days away from

work, even if the employee chooses not to return to

work. OSHA is aware that there may be situations

where the employer obtains an opinion from a physician or other health care professional and a subsequent HCP’s opinion differs from the first. (The subsequent opinion could be that of an HCP retained by

the employer or the employee.) In this case, the

employer is the ultimate recordkeeping decisionmaker and must resolve the differences in opinion;

he or she may turn to a third HCP for this purpose, or

may make the recordability decision himself or herself.

Paragraph 1904.7(b)(3)(iv) specifies how the

employer is to account for weekends, holidays, and

other days during which the employee was unable to

work because of a work-related injury or illness during a period in which the employee was not scheduled to work. The rule requires the employer to count

the number of calendar days the employee was

unable to work because of the work-related injury or

illness, regardless of whether or not the employee

would have been scheduled to work on those calendar days....

Paragraph 1904.7(b)(3)(v) tells the employer how

to count days away for a case where the employee is

injured or becomes ill on the last day of work before

some scheduled time off, such as on the Friday

before the weekend or the day before a scheduled

vacation, and returns to work on the next day that he

or she was scheduled to work. In this situation, the

employer must decide if the worker would have been

able to work on the days when he or she was not at

work. In other words, the employer is not required to

count as days away any of the days on which the

employee would have been able to work but did not

because the facility was closed, the employee was

not scheduled to work, or for other reasons unrelated

to the injury or illness. However, if the employer

determines that the employee’s injury or illness

would have kept the employee from being able to

work for part or all of time the employee was away,

those days must be counted toward the days away

total.

Paragraph 1904.7(b)(3)(vi) allows the employer to

stop counting the days away from work when the

injury or illness has resulted in 180 calendar days

away from work. When the injury or illness results in

an absence of more than 180 days, the employer

may enter 180 (or 180+) on the Log....

Paragraph 1904.7(b)(3)(vii) specifies that employers whose employees are away from work because

of a work-related injury or illness and who then

decide to leave the company’s employ or to retire

must determine whether the employee is leaving or

retiring because of the injury or illness and record

the case accordingly. If the employee’s decision to

leave or retire is a result of the injury or illness, this

paragraph requires the employer to estimate and

record the number of calendar days away or on

restricted work/job transfer the worker would have

experienced if he or she had remained on the

employer’s payroll. This provision also states that, if

the employee’s decision was unrelated to the injury

or illness, the employer is not required to continue to

count and record days away or on restricted work/job

transfer.

Paragraph 1904.7(b)(3)(viii) directs employers how

to handle a case that carries over from one year to

the next. Some cases occur in one calendar year and

then result in days away from work in the next year.
§1904.7 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 5 3

For example, a worker may be injured on December

20th and be away from work until January 10th. The

final rule directs the employer only to record this

type of case once, in the year that it occurred. If the

employee is still away from work when the annual

summary is prepared (before February 1), the

employer must either count the number of days the

employee was away or estimate the total days away

that are expected to occur, use this estimate to calculate the total days away during the year for the annual summary, and then update the Log entry later

when the actual number of days is known or the case

reaches the 180-day cap allowed in Section

1904.7(b)(3)(v)....

...OSHA has decided to require employers to

count calendar days, both for the totals for days

away from work and the count of restricted workdays....

Changing to a calendar day counting system will

also make it easier to count days away or restricted

for part-time workers, because the difficulties of

counting scheduled time off for part-time workers

will be eliminated. This will, in turn, mean that the

data for part-time workers will be comparable to that

for full-time workers, i.e., days away will be comparable for both kinds of workers, because scheduled

time will not bias the counting method. Calendar day

counts will also be a better measure of severity,

because they will be based on the length of disability

instead of being dependent on the individual

employee’s work schedule. This policy will thus create more complete and consistent data and help to

realize one of the major goals of this rulemaking: to

improve the quality of the injury and illness data. 

OSHA recognizes that moving to calendar day

counts will have two effects on the data. First, it will

be difficult to compare injury and illness data gathered under the former rule with data collected under

the new rule. This is true for day counts as well as

the overall number and rate of occupational injuries

and illnesses. Second, it will be more difficult for

employers to estimate the economic impacts of lost

time. Calendar day counts will have to be adjusted to

accommodate for days away from work that the

employee would not have worked even if he or she

was not injured or ill. This does not mean that calendar day counts are not appropriate in these situations, but it does mean that their use is more complicated in such cases. Those employers who wish to

continue to collect additional data, including scheduled workdays lost, may continue to do so. However,

employers must count and record calendar days for

the OSHA injury and illness Log.

Thus, on balance, OSHA believes that any problems introduced by moving to a calendar-day system

will be more than offset by the improvements in the

data from one case to the next and from one

employer to another, and by the resulting improvements in year-to-year analysis made possible by this

change in the future, i.e., by the improved consistency and quality of the data.

The more difficult problem raised by the shift to

calendar days occurs in the case of the injury or illness that results on the day just before a weekend or

some other prescheduled time off. Where the worker

continues to be off work for the entire time because

of the injury or illness, these days are clearly appropriately included in the day count. As previously discussed, if a physician or other licensed health care

professional issues a medical release at some point

when the employee is off work, the employer may

stop counting days at that point in the prescheduled

absence. Similarly, if the HCP tells the injured or ill

worker not to work over the scheduled time off, the

injury was severe enough to require days away and

these must all be counted. In the event that the worker was injured or became ill on the last day before

the weekend or other scheduled time off and returns

on the scheduled return date, the employer must

make a reasonable effort to determine whether or

not the employee would have been able to work on

any or all of those days, and must count the days

and enter them on the Log based on that determination. In this situation, the employer need not count

days on which the employee would have been able

to work, but did not, because the facility was closed,

or the employee was not scheduled to work, or for

other reasons unrelated to the injury or illness....

Capping the Count of Lost Workdays

...After a review of the evidence submitted to the

record, OSHA has decided to include in the final rule

a provision that allows the employer to stop counting

days away from work or restricted workdays when

the case has reached 180 days....

Selection of the Day Count Cap

...After careful consideration, OSHA has decided to

cap the day counts at 180 days and to express the

count as days rather than months....

OSHA has decided to cap the counts at 180 days

to eliminate any effect such capping might have on

the median days away from work data reported by

BLS....
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.7 

5 4

case, you must evaluate the restriction in light of the

routine functions of the injured or ill employee’s job.

If the restriction from you or the physician or other

licensed health care professional keeps the employee from performing one or more of his or her routine

job functions, or from working the full workday the

injured or ill employee would otherwise have

worked, the employee’s work has been restricted and

you must record the case.

(v) How do I record a case where the worker works

only for a partial work shift because of a work-related

injury or illness?

A partial day of work is recorded as a day of job

transfer or restriction for recordkeeping purposes,

except for the day on which the injury occurred or

the illness began.

(vi)If the injured or ill worker produces fewer

goods or services than he or she would have produced prior to the injury or illness but otherwise performs all of the activities of his or her work, is the

case considered a restricted work case?

No. The case is considered restricted work only if

the worker does not perform all of the routine functions of his or her job or does not work the full shift

that he or she would otherwise have worked.

(vii) How do I handle vague restrictions from a

physician or other licensed health care professional,

such as that the employee engage only in “light

duty” or “take it easy for a week”?

If you are not clear about a physician or other

licensed health care professional’s recommendation, you may ask that person whether the

employee can perform all of his or her routine job

functions and work all of his or her normally

assigned work shift. If the answer to both of these

questions is “Yes,” then the case does not involve

a work restriction and does not have to be recorded as such. If the answer to one or both of these

questions is “No,” the case involves restricted work

and must be recorded as a restricted work case. If

you are unable to obtain this additional information from the physician or other licensed health

care professional who recommended the restriction, record the injury or illness as a case involving

job transfer or restricted work.

(viii) What do I do if a physician or other

licensed health care professional recommends a

job restriction meeting OSHA’s definition but the

employee does all of his or her routine job functions anyway?

You must record the injury or illness on the

OSHA 300 Log as a restricted work case. If a

physician or other licensed health care professional recommends a job restriction, you should

ensure that the employee complies with that

restriction. If you receive recommendations

Paragraph 1904.7(b)(4) Restricted Work or Transfer to

Another Job

Another class of work-related injuries and illnesses

that Section 8(c) of the Act identifies as non-minor

and thus recordable includes any case that results in

restriction of work or motion...or transfer to another

job. 

Final Rule’s Restricted Work and Job Transfer

Provisions, and OSHA’s Reasons for Adopting Them

Paragraph 1904.7(b)(4) contains the restricted work

and job transfer provisions of the final rule....

The final rule’s requirements in paragraph

1904.10(b)(4) of the final rule state:

(4) How do I record a work-related injury or illness

that involves restricted work or job transfer?

When an injury or illness involves restricted work

or job transfer but does not involve death or days

away from work, you must record the injury or illness on the OSHA 300 Log by placing a check mark

in the space for job transfer or restricted work and

entering the number of restricted or transferred days

in the restricted work column.

(i) How do I decide if the injury or illness resulted

in restricted work?

Restricted work occurs when, as the result of a

work-related injury or illness:

(A) You keep the employee from performing one or

more of the routine functions of his or her job, or

from working the full workday that he or she

would otherwise have been scheduled to work; or

(B) A physician or other licensed health care professional recommends that the employee not perform one or more of the routine functions of his or

her job, or not work the full workday that he or she

would otherwise have been scheduled to work.

(ii) What is meant by “routine functions”?

For recordkeeping purposes, an employee’s routine functions are those work activities the employee

regularly performs at least once per week.

(iii) Do I have to record restricted work or job

transfer if it applies only to the day on which the

injury occurred or the illness began?

No. You do not have to record restricted work or

job transfers if you, or the physician or other

licensed health care professional, impose the restriction or transfer only for the day on which the injury

occurred or the illness began.

(iv) If you or a physician or other licensed health

care professional recommends a work restriction, is

the injury or illness automatically recordable as a

“restricted work” case?

No. A recommended work restriction is recordable

only if it affects one or more of the employee’s routine job functions. To determine whether this is the
§1904.7 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 5 5

whether a suitable job is available, and assignment

of the employee to that job. All such restricted work

cases are recordable, even if the health care professional allows some discretion in defining the type or

duration of the restriction....

...[T]he Congress has directed that the recordkeeping system capture data on non-minor work-related

injuries and illnesses and specifically on restricted

work cases, both so that the national statistics on

such injuries and illnesses will be complete and so

that links between the causes and contributing factors to such injuries and illnesses will be identified

(29 U.S.C. 651(b)). Days away and restricted work/job

transfer cases together constitute two of the most

important kinds of job-related injuries and illnesses,

and it would be inappropriate not to record these

serious cases....

Under the final rule, employers are not required

to record a case as a restricted work case if the

restriction is imposed on the employee only for the

day of the injury or onset of illness.... 

...OSHA has made this change to bring the recording of restricted work cases into line with that for

days away cases: under the final rule, employers are

not required to record as days away or restricted

work cases those injuries and illnesses that result in

time away or time on restriction or job transfer lasting only for the day of injury of illness onset....

...Under the final rule (see section 1904.9), mandated removals made in accordance with an OSHA

health standard must be recorded either as days

away from work or as days of restricted work activity,

depending on the specific action an employer takes.

Since these actions are mandated, no disincentive to

record is created by this recordkeeping rule....

...Transfers or restrictions taken before the

employee has experienced an injury or illness do not

meet the first recording requirement of the recordkeeping rule, i.e., that a work-related injury or illness

must have occurred for recording to be considered at

all. A truly preventive medical treatment, for example, would be a tetanus vaccination administered

routinely to an outdoor worker. However, transfers or

restrictions whose purpose is to allow an employee

to recover from an injury or illness as well as to keep

the injury or illness from becoming worse are recordable because they involve restriction or work transfer

caused by the injury or illness. All restricted work

cases and job transfer cases that result from an

injury or illness that is work-related are recordable on

the employer’s Log.

As the regulatory text for paragraph (b)(4) makes

clear, the final rule’s requirements for the recording

from two or more physicians or other licensed

health care providers, you may make a decision

as to which recommendation is the most

authoritative, and record the case based upon

that recommendation.

...The final rule’s concept of restricted work is

based both on the type of work activities the injured

or ill worker is able to perform and the length of time

the employee is able to perform these activities. The

term “routine functions of the job” in paragraphs

1904.7(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii) clarifies that OSHA considers an employee who is unable, because of a workrelated injury or illness, to perform the job activities

he or she usually performs to be restricted in the

work he or she may perform....

...OSHA agrees that it makes little sense to consider an employee who is prevented by an injury or illness from performing a particular job function he or

she never or rarely performed to be restricted....

For example, OSHA finds that, for the purposes of

recordkeeping, an activity that is performed only

once per month is not performed “regularly.” ...

...In the final rule, OSHA has decided that defining

restricted work as work that an employee would regularly have performed at least once per week is

appropriate, i.e., OSHA believes that the range of

activities captured by this interval of time will generally reflect the range of an employee’s usual work

activities. Activities performed less frequently than

once per week reflect more uncommon work activities that are not considered routine duties for the

purposes of this rule. However, the final rule does

not rely on the duties the employee actually performed during the week when he or she was injured

or became ill. Thus, even if an employee did not perform the activity within the last week, but usually

performs the activity once a week, the activity will be

included....

The final rule’s restricted work provisions also

clarify that work restriction must be imposed by the

employer or be recommended by a health care professional before the case is recordable. Only the

employer has the ultimate authority to restrict an

employee’s work, so the definition is clear that,

although a health care professional may recommend

the restriction, the employer makes the final determination of whether or not the health care professional’s recommended restriction involves the employee’s

routine functions. Restricted work assignments may

involve several steps: an HCP’s recommendation, or

employer’s determination to restrict the employee’s

work, the employer’s analysis of jobs to determine
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.7 

5 6

occupational illness, because employers will know

that they must record these cases when they result in

medical treatment beyond first aid, regardless of

whether or not a physician or other licensed health

care professional has made a diagnosis....

...Under the final rule, employers will be able to

rely on a single list of 14 first aid treatments. These

treatments will be considered first aid whether they

are provided by a lay person or a licensed health

care professional. However, the final rule includes the

following definition of medical treatment; “management and care of a patient for the purpose of combating disease or disorder;” this definition excludes

observation and counseling, diagnostic procedures,

and the listed first aid items.... 

...The following discussion describes the definitions of first aid and medical treatment in the final

rule and explains the Agency’s reasons for including

each item on the first aid list.

Final Rule

The final rule, at Section 1904.7(b)(5)(i), defines medical treatment as the management and care of a

patient for the purpose of combating disease or disorder. For the purposes of Part 1904, medical treatment does not include:

(A) Visits to a physician or other licensed health care

professional solely for observation or counseling; 

(B) The conduct of diagnostic procedures, such as xrays and blood tests, including the administration of

prescription medications used solely for diagnostic

purposes (e.g., eye drops to dilate pupils); or

(C) “First aid” as defined in paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this

section.

The final rule, at paragraph (b)(5)(ii), defines first

aid as follows:

(A) Using a nonprescription medication at nonprescription strength (for medications available in both

prescription and non-prescription form, a recommendation by a physician or other licensed health care

professional to use a non-prescription medication at

prescription strength is considered medical treatment for recordkeeping purposes).

(B) Administering tetanus immunizations (other

immunizations, such as hepatitis B vaccine or rabies

vaccine, are considered medical treatment).

(C) Cleaning, flushing or soaking wounds on the surface of the skin;

(D) Using wound coverings, such as bandages, BandAids®, gauze pads, etc.; or using butterfly bandages

or Steri-Strips® (other wound closing devices, such

as sutures, staples, etc. are considered medical treatment);

(E) Using hot or cold therapy;

(F) Using any non-rigid means of support, such as

of restricted work cases are similar in many ways to

those pertaining to restricted work under the former

rule. First, the final rule only requires employers to

record as restricted work cases those cases in which

restrictions are imposed or recommended as a result

of a work-related injury or illness. A work restriction

that is made for another reason, such as to meet

reduced production demands, is not a recordable

restricted work case. For example, an employer

might “restrict” employees from entering the area in

which a toxic chemical spill has occurred or make an

accommodation for an employee who is disabled as

a result of a non-work-related injury or illness. These

cases would not be recordable as restricted work

cases because they are not associated with a workrelated injury or illness. However, if an employee has

a work-related injury or illness, and that employee’s

work is restricted by the employer to prevent exacerbation of, or to allow recuperation from, that injury or

illness, the case is recordable as a restricted work

case because the restriction was necessitated by the

work-related injury or illness. In some cases, there

may be more than one reason for imposing or recommending a work restriction, e.g., to prevent an

injury or illness from becoming worse or to prevent

entry into a contaminated area. In such cases, if the

employee’s work-related illness or injury played any

role in the restriction, OSHA considers the case to be

a restricted work case.

Second, for the definition of restricted work to

apply, the work restriction must be decided on by the

employer, based on his or her best judgment or on

the recommendation of a physician or other licensed

health care professional. If a work restriction is not

followed or implemented by the employee, the injury

or illness must nevertheless be recorded on the Log

as a restricted case....

Third, like the former rule, the final rule’s definition of restricted work relies on two components:

whether the employee is able to perform the duties

of his or her pre-injury job, and whether the employee is able to perform those duties for the same period of time as before.

Paragraph 1904.7(b)(5) Medical Treatment Beyond

First Aid

...As a result of this final rule, OSHA will now apply

the same recordability criteria to both injuries and illnesses (see the discussion of this issue in the Legal

Authority section of this preamble). The Agency

believes that doing so will simplify the decision-making process that employers carry out when determining which work-related injuries and illnesses to

record and will also result in more complete data on
§1904.7 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 5 7

illness occurs and at the location (e.g., workplace)

where the injury or illness occurred.

• First aid generally consists of one-time or shortterm treatment.

• First aid treatments are usually simple and require

little or no technology.

• First aid can be administered by people with little

training (beyond first aid training) and even by the

injured or ill person.

• First aid is usually administered to keep the condition from worsening, while the injured or ill person is

awaiting medical treatment.

The final rule’s list of treatments considered first

aid is based on the record of the rulemaking, OSHA’s

experience in implementing the recordkeeping rule

since 1986, a review of the BLS Recordkeeping

Guidelines, letters of interpretation, and the professional judgment of the Agency’s occupational physicians and nurses....

OSHA agrees that counseling should not be considered medical treatment and has expressly excluded it from the definition of medical treatment. Counseling is often provided to large groups of workers

who have been exposed to potentially traumatic

events. Counseling may be provided on a short-term

basis by either a licensed health care professional or

an unlicensed person with limited training. OSHA

believes that capturing cases where counseling was

the only treatment provided do not rise to the level of

recording; other counseling cases, where prescription medications, days away from work, or restricted

work activity is involved, would be captured under

those criteria....

...OSHA believes that visits to a health care professional for observation, testing, diagnosis, or to

evaluate diagnostic decisions should be excluded

from the definition of medical treatment in the final

rule. Visits to a hospital, clinic, emergency room,

physician’s office or other facility for the purpose of

seeking the advice of a health care professional do

not themselves constitute treatment. OSHA believes

that visits to a hospital for observation or counseling

are not, of and by themselves, medical treatment.

Accordingly, the final rule excludes these activities

from the definition of medical treatment....

OSHA disagrees...that the exclusion for diagnostic

procedures is overly vague. It is the experience of the

Agency that employers generally understand the difference between procedures used to combat an

injury or illness and those used to diagnose or assess

an injury or illness. In the event that the employer

does not have this knowledge, he or she may contact

the health care professional to obtain help with this

decision. If the employer does not have this knowlelastic bandages, wraps, non-rigid back belts, etc.

(devices with rigid stays or other systems designed

to immobilize parts of the body are considered medical treatment for recordkeeping purposes);

(G) Using temporary immobilization devices while

transporting an accident victim (e.g., splints, slings,

neck collars, back boards, etc.)

(H) Drilling of a fingernail or toenail to relieve pressure, or draining fluid from a blister;

(I)Using eye patches;

(J) Removing foreign bodies from the eye using only

irrigation or a cotton swab;

(K) Removing splinters or foreign material from

areas other than the eye by irrigation, tweezers, cotton swabs, or other simple means;

(L) Using finger guards;

(M) Using massages (physical therapy or chiropractic

treatment are considered medical treatment for

recordkeeping purposes);

(N) Drinking fluids for relief of heat stress.

This list of first aid treatments is comprehensive,

i.e., any treatment not included on this list is not considered first aid for OSHA recordkeeping purposes.

OSHA considers the listed treatments to be first aid

regardless of the professional qualifications of the

person providing the treatment; even when these

treatments are provided by a physician, nurse, or

other health care professional, they are considered

first aid for recordkeeping purposes.... 

...The medical treatment definition in the final rule

is taken from Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary,

and is thus consistent with usage in the medical

community.

The three listed exclusions from the definition--visits to a health care professional solely for observation

or counseling; diagnostic procedures, including prescribing or administering of prescription medications

used solely for diagnostic purposes; and procedures

defined in the final rule as first aid--clarify the applicability of the definition and are designed to help

employers in their determinations of recordability....

...Employers will thus be clear that any condition

that is treated, or that should have been treated, with

a treatment not on the first aid list is a recordable

injury or illness for recordkeeping purposes....

In making its decisions about the items to be

included on the list of first aid treatments, OSHA

relied on its experience with the former rule, the

advice of the Agency’s occupational medicine and

occupational nursing staff, and a thorough review of

the record comments. In general, first aid treatment

can be distinguished from medical treatment as follows:

• First aid is usually administered after the injury or
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.7 

5 8

the-counter skin creams, as medical treatment.

However, if the drug is one that is available both in

prescription and nonprescription strengths, such as

ibuprofen, and is used or recommended for use by a

physician or other licensed health care professional

at prescription strength, the medical treatment criterion is met and the case must be recorded. There is no

reason for one case to be recorded and another not

to be recorded simply because one physician issued

a prescription and another told the employee to use

the same medication at prescription strength but to

obtain it over the counter. Both cases received equal

treatment and should be recorded equally....

...The final rule simply lists non-prescription medications, and expects non-prescription medications to

be included regardless of form. Therefore, non-prescription medicines at non-prescription strength,

whether in ointment, cream, pill, liquid, spray, or any

other form are considered first aid. OSHA has also

removed antiseptics from the description of non-prescription medications. Following the same logic used

for ointments, there is no need to list the variety of

possible uses of non-prescription medications. Nonprescription medicines are first aid regardless of the

way in which they are used....

...[T]he Agency has decided to remove the use of

oxygen from the first aid list and to consider any use

of oxygen medical treatment. Oxygen administration

is a treatment that can only be provided by trained

medical personnel, uses relatively complex technology, and is used to treat serious injuries and illnesses.

The use of any artificial respiration technology, such

as Intermittent Positive Pressure Breathing (IPPB),

would also clearly be considered medical treatment

under the final rule....

In the final rule, tetanus immunizations are included as item B on the first aid list. These immunizations

are often administered to a worker routinely to maintain the required level of immunity to the tetanus

bacillus. These immunizations are thus based not on

the severity of the injury but on the length of time

since the worker has last been immunized.

The issue of whether or not immunizations and

inoculations are first aid or medical treatment is irrelevant for recordkeeping purposes unless a workrelated injury or illness has occurred. Immunizations

and inoculations that are provided for public health

or other purposes, where there is no work-related

injury or illness, are not first aid or medical treatment, and do not in themselves make the case

recordable. However, when inoculations such as

gamma globulin, rabies, etc. are given to treat a specific injury or illness, or in response to workplace

edge, and elects not to contact the health care professional, OSHA would expect the employer to refer

to the first aid list and, if the procedure is not on the

list, to presume that the procedure is medical treatment and record the case....

OSHA agrees with those commenters who recommended the exclusion of diagnostic procedures from

the definition of medical treatment. Diagnostic procedures are used to determine whether or not an injury

or illness exists, and do not encompass therapeutic

treatment of the patient. OSHA has included such

procedures on the first aid list in the final rule with

two examples of diagnostic procedures to help

reduce confusion about the types of procedures that

are excluded....

In the final rule, OSHA has not included prescription medications, whether given once or over a

longer period of time, in the list of first aid treatments. The Agency believes that the use of prescription medications is not first aid because prescription

medications are powerful substances that can only

be prescribed by a licensed health care professional,

and for the majority of medications in the majority of

states, by a licensed physician. The availability of

these substances is carefully controlled and limited

because they must be prescribed and administered

by a highly trained and knowledgeable professional,

can have detrimental side effects, and should not be

self-administered. 

Some commenters asked whether a case where a

prescription was written by a physician and given to

the injured or ill employee but was not actually filled

or taken would be recordable. In some instances the

employee, for religious or other reasons, refuses to

fill the prescription and take the medicine. In other

cases, the prescriptions are issued on a “take-asneeded” basis. In these cases, the health care professional gives the patient a prescription, often for pain

medication, and tells the patient to fill and take the

prescription if he or she needs pain relief. OSHA’s

long-standing policy has been that if a prescription of

this type has been issued, medical treatment has

been provided and the case must therefore be

recorded....

OSHA has decided to retain its long-standing policy of requiring the recording of cases in which a

health care professional issues a prescription,

whether that prescription is filled or taken or not. The

patient’s acceptance or refusal of the treatment does

not alter the fact that, in the health care professional’s

judgment, the case warrants medical treatment....

The final rule does not consider the prescribing of

non-prescription medications, such as aspirin or over-
§1904.7 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 5 9

and is rarely used as the only treatment for any significant injury or illness. If the worker has sustained a

significant injury or illness, the case almost always

involves some other form of medical treatment (such

as prescription drugs, physical therapy, or chiropractic treatment); restricted work; or days away from

work. Therefore, there is no need to consider hot and

cold therapy to be medical treatment, in and of itself.

Considering hot and cold therapy to be first aid also

clarifies and simplifies the rule, because it means that

employers will not need to consider whether to

record when an employee uses hot or cold therapy

without the direction or guidance of a physician or

other licensed health care professional....

OSHA has included two items related to orthopedic devices in the final definition of first aid. Item F

includes “[u]sing any non-rigid means of support,

such as elastic bandages, wraps, non-rigid back belts,

etc. (devices with rigid stays or other systems

designed to immobilize parts of the body are considered medical treatment for recordkeeping purposes).”

OSHA has included more examples of the devices

(wraps and non-rigid back belts) to help make the

definition clearer. However, OSHA believes that the

use of orthopedic devices such as splints or casts

should be considered medical treatment and not first

aid. They are typically prescribed by licensed health

care professionals for long term use, are typically

used for serious injuries and illnesses, and are

beyond the everyday definition of first aid....

However, OSHA agrees with those commenters

who stated that the use of these devices during an

emergency to stabilize an accident victim during

transport to a medical facility is not medical treatment. In this specific situation, a splint or other

device is used as temporary first aid treatment, may

be applied by non-licensed personnel using common

materials at hand, and often does not reflect the

severity of the injury. OSHA has included this item as

G on the first aid list: “[u]sing temporary immobilization devices while transporting an accident victim

(e.g., splints, slings, neck collars, etc.).” ...

...[Drilling of a fingernail or toenail to relieve pressure, or draining fluid from a blister.] OSHA has

decided to retain this item on the first aid list and to

add the lancing of blisters as well. These are both

one time treatments provided to relieve minor soreness caused by the pressure beneath the nail or in

the blister. These are relatively minor procedures that

are often performed by licensed personnel but may

also be performed by the injured worker. More serious injuries of this type will continue to be captured

if they meet one or more of the other recording criteria. OSHA has specifically mentioned finger nails and

exposure, medical treatment has been rendered and

the case must be recorded. The following example

illustrates the distinction OSHA is making about inoculations and immunizations: if a health care worker is

given a hepatitis B shot when he or she is first hired,

the action is considered first aid and the case would

not be recordable; on the other hand, if the same

health care worker has been occupationally exposed

to a splash of potentially contaminated blood and a

hepatitis B shot is administered as prophylaxis, the

shot constitutes medical treatment and the case is

recordable....

OSHA believes that cleaning, flushing or soaking

of wounds on the skin surface is the initial emergency treatment for almost all surface wounds and

that these procedures do not rise to the level of medical treatment. This relatively simple type of treatment does not require technology, training, or even a

visit to a health care professional. More serious

wounds will be captured as recordable cases

because they will meet other recording criteria, such

as prescription medications, sutures, restricted work,

or days away from work. Therefore, OSHA has

included cleaning, flushing or soaking of wounds on

the skin surface as an item on the first aid list. As

stated previously, OSHA does not believe that multiple applications of first aid should constitute medical

treatment; it is the nature of the treatment, not how

many times it is applied, that determines whether it

is first aid or medical treatment....

OSHA agrees with the commenters who suggested that [wound coverings] be considered first aid

treatment. They are included in item D of the first aid

list. Steri strips and butterfly bandages are relatively

simple and require little or no training to apply, and

thus are appropriately considered first aid....

...OSHA has also decided not to provide exclusions for first aid items based on their purpose or

intent. If the medical professional decides stitches or

sutures are necessary and proper for the given injury,

they are medical treatment.

Because OSHA has decided not to include a list of

medical treatments in the final rule, there is no need

to articulate that the use of other wound closing

devices, such as surgical staples, tapes, glues or

other means are medical treatment. Because they are

not included on the first aid list, they are by definition

medical treatment....

In the final rule, OSHA has included hot and cold

treatment as first aid treatment, regardless of the

number of times it is applied, where it is applied, or

the injury or illness to which it is applied....

It is OSHA’s judgment that hot and cold treatment

is simple to apply, does not require special training,
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.7 

6 0

considered first aid . . .; excision of tissue requires

training and the use of surgical instruments.

Additions to the First Aid List Suggested by

Commenters

In addition to comments about the first aid items

OSHA proposed to consider first aid, a number of

commenters asked for additional clarifications or recommended additions to the first aid list. The items

suggested included exercise, chiropractic treatment,

massage, debridement, poison ivy, bee stings, heat

disorders, and burns.

Exercise: ...[E]xercises that amount to self-administered physical therapy, and are normally recommended by a health care professional who trains the

worker in the proper frequency, duration and intensity of the exercise. Physical therapy treatments are

normally provided over an extended time as therapy

for a serious injury or illness, and OSHA believes that

such treatments are beyond first aid and that cases

requiring them involve medical treatment.

Chiropractic treatment: ...OSHA does not distinguish, for recordkeeping purposes, between first aid

and medical treatment cases on the basis of number

of treatments administered. OSHA also does not distinguish between various kinds of health care professionals, assuming they are operating within their

scope of practice. If a chiropractor provides observation, counseling, diagnostic procedures, or first aid

procedures for a work-related injury or illness, the

case would not be recordable. On the other hand, if a

chiropractor provides medical treatment or prescribes work restrictions, the case would be recordable.

Massage therapy: ... OSHA believes that massages are appropriately considered first aid and has

included them as item M in the final rule’s first aid

list. However, physical therapy or chiropractic manipulation are treatments used for more serious injuries,

and are provided by licensed personnel with

advanced training and therefore rise to the level of

medical treatment beyond first aid.

Debridement: ...Debridement is the surgical excision, or cutting away, of dead or contaminated tissue

from a wound....

OSHA has decided not to include debridement as

a first aid treatment. This procedure must be performed by a highly trained professional using surgical instruments. Debridement is also usually performed in conjunction with other forms of medical

treatment, such as sutures, prescription drugs, etc.

Intravenous (IV) administration of glucose and

saline: ...In the final rule ...OSHA has decided not to

toenails to provide clarity. These treatments are now

included as item H on the first aid list....

...In the final rule, OSHA has included the use of

eye patches as first aid in item I of the first aid list.

Eye patches can be purchased without a prescription,

and are used for both serious and non-serious

injuries and illnesses....

In the final rule, OSHA has included as item J

“Removing foreign bodies from the eye using only

irrigation or a cotton swab.” OSHA believes that it is

often difficult for the health care professional to

determine if the object is embedded or adhered to

the eye, and has not included this suggested language in the final rule. In all probability, if the object

is embedded or adhered, it will not be removed simply

with irrigation or a cotton swab, and the case will be

recorded because it will require additional treatment.

OSHA believes that it is appropriate to exclude

those cases from the Log that involve a foreign body

in the eye of a worker that can be removed from the

eye merely by rinsing it with water (irrigation) or

touching it with a cotton swab. These cases represent

minor injuries that do not rise to the level requiring

recording. More significant eye injuries will be captured by the records because they involve medical

treatment, result in work restrictions, or cause days

away from work....

Item 13, the last item listed in the proposed definition of first aid, was “Removal of splinters or foreign

material from areas other than the eyes by irrigation,

tweezers, cotton swabs or other simple means.” The

Recordkeeping Guidelines distinguished between foreign body removal cases on the basis of the complexity of the removal technique used. According to

the Guidelines, the “removal of foreign bodies from

a wound if the procedure is complicated because of

depth of embedment, size or location” was medical

treatment, while “removal of foreign bodies from a

wound, if procedure is uncomplicated, and is, for

example, by tweezers or other simple technique” was

first aid.

In the final rule, OSHA has decided to retain item

13 essentially as proposed, and this first aid treatment appears as item K on the first aid list. The inclusion of the phrase “other simple means” will provide

some flexibility and permit simple means other than

those listed to be considered first aid. Cases involving more complicated removal procedures will be

captured on the Log because they will require medical treatment such as prescription drugs or stitches

or will involve restricted work or days away from

work. OSHA believes that cases involving the excision of the outer layer of skin are not appropriately
§1904.7 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 6 1

recorded because they require medical treatment....

Paragraph 1904.7(b)(6) Loss of Consciousness

The rule requires the employer to record any workrelated injury or illness resulting in a loss of consciousness. The recording of occupational injuries

and illnesses resulting in loss of consciousness is

clearly required by Sections 8(c) and 24 of the OSH

Act. The new rule differs from the former rule only in

clearly applying the loss of consciousness criterion to

illnesses as well as injuries. Since the former rule

required the recording of all illnesses, illnesses

involving loss of consciousness were recordable, and

thus OSHA expects that this clarification will not

change recording practices. Thus, any time a worker

becomes unconscious as a result of a workplace

exposure to chemicals, heat, an oxygen deficient

environment, a blow to the head, or some other

workplace hazard that causes loss of consciousness,

the employer must record the case....

In order to be a recordable event, a loss of consciousness must be the result of a workplace event

or exposure. Loss of consciousness is no different, in

this respect, from any other injury or illness. The

exceptions to the presumption of work-relationship

at Section 1904.5(b)(2)(ii) allow the employer to

exclude cases that “involve signs or symptoms that

surface at work but result solely from a non-workrelated event or exposure that occurs outside the

work environment.” This exception allows the

employer to exclude cases where a loss of consciousness is due solely to a personal health condition, such as epilepsy, diabetes, or narcolepsy....

The final rule does not contain an exception for

loss of consciousness associated with phobias or

first aid treatment. OSHA notes, however, that the

exception at paragraph 1904.5(b)(2)(iii) allows the

employer to rebut the presumption of work relationship if “the injury or illness results solely from voluntary participation in a wellness program or in a medical, fitness, or recreational activity such as blood

donation, physical, flu shot, exercise class, racquetball, or baseball.” This exception would eliminate the

recording of fainting episodes involving voluntary

vaccination programs, blood donations and the like.

However, episodes of fainting from mandatory medical procedures such as blood tests mandated by

OSHA standards, mandatory physicals, and so on

would be considered work-related events, and would

be recordable on the Log if they meet one or more of

the recording criteria. Similarly, a fainting episode

involving a phobia stemming from an event or exposure in the work environment would be recordable....

include the IV administration of fluids on the first aid

list because these treatments are used for serious

medical events, such as post-shock, dehydration or

heat stroke. The administration of IVs is an advanced

procedure that can only be administered by a person

with advanced medical training, and is usually performed under the supervision of a physician.

[A commenter] also recommended three additions to the first aid list: UV treatment of blisters,

rashes and dermatitis; acupuncture, when administered by a licensed health care professional; and electronic stimulation. After careful consideration, OSHA

has decided not to include these treatments as first

aid. Each of these treatments must be provided by a

person with specialized training, and is usually

administered only after recommendation by a physician or other licensed health care professional.

Several commenters asked that treatments for

two specific types of disorders be added to the list:

heat disorders and burns. OSHA has not added these

types of conditions to the first aid list because the list

includes treatments rather than conditions. However,

OSHA has added fluids given by mouth for the relief

of heat disorders to the list.

In the final rule, OSHA agrees ... that drinking fluids for the relief of heat disorders is a first aid rather

than medical treatment and item N on the final first

aid list is “drinking fluids for relief of heat stress.”

OSHA believes that more extensive treatment,

including the administration of fluids by intravenous

injections (IV), are medical treatment, and more serious cases of heat disorders involving them must be

entered into the records. In addition, any diagnosis

by a physician or other licensed health care professional of heat syncope (fainting due to heat) is

recordable under paragraph 1904.7(b)(6), Loss of

Consciousness. 

Burns: ...[B]urns will be treated just as other types

of injury are, i.e., minor burn injuries will not be

recordable, while more serious burns will be recorded because they will involve medical treatment. For

example, a small second degree burn to the forearm

that is treated with nothing more than a bandage is

not recordable. A larger or more severe second

degree burn that is treated with prescription creams

or antibiotics, or results in restricted work, job transfer, or days away from work is recordable. The vast

majority of first degree burns and minor second

degree burns will not be recorded because they will

not meet the recording criteria, including medical

treatment. However, more serious first and second

degree burns that receive medical treatment will be

recorded, and third degree burns should always be
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.7 

6 2

...[T]here are some significant injuries, such as a

punctured eardrum or a fractured toe or rib, for

which neither medical treatment nor work restrictions

may be administered or recommended.

There are also a number of significant occupational diseases that progress once the disease process

begins or reaches a certain point, such as byssinosis,

silicosis, and some types of cancer, for which medical

treatment or work restrictions may not be recommended at the time of diagnosis, although medical

treatment and loss of work certainly will occur at

later stages. This provision is designed to capture

this small group of significant work-related cases.

Although the employer is required to record these illnesses even if they manifest themselves after the

employee leaves employment (assuming the illness

meets the standards for work-relatedness that apply

to all recordable incidents), these cases are less likely

to be recorded once the employee has left employment. OSHA believes that work-related cancer, chronic irreversible diseases, fractures of bones or teeth

and punctured eardrums are generally recognized as

constituting significant diagnoses and, if the condition is work-related, are appropriately recorded at the

time of initial diagnosis even if, at that time, medical

treatment or work restrictions are not recommended.

...[T]o address the gap in case capture presented

by significant injury and illness cases that escape the

general recording criteria, OSHA is requiring employers to record cases of chronic, irreversible disease

under the Section 1904.7(b)(7) criterion. This means

that if long-term workplace exposure to aniline

results in a chronic, irreversible liver or kidney disease, the case would be recordable at the time of

diagnosis, even if no medical treatment is administered at that time and no time is lost from work. The

regulatory text of paragraph 1904.7(b)(7) limits the

types of conditions that are recordable, however, to

significant diagnosed injury and illness cases, which

are defined as cancer, chronic irreversible diseases,

fractured or cracked bones, and punctured eardrums.

How Should the Agency Define “Significant” Injury

or Illness?

...OSHA believes that the conditions that are required

to be recorded under Section 1904.7(b)(7) of the final

rule represent significant occupational injuries and illnesses as described in the OSH Act. Some clearly

significant injuries or illnesses are not amenable to

medical treatment, at least at the time of initial diagnosis. For example, a fractured rib, a broken toe, or a

punctured eardrum are often, after being diagnosed,

left to heal on their own without medical treatment

...In this final rule, OSHA has not included a separate definition for the term “loss of consciousness.”

However, the language of paragraph 1904.7(b)(6) has

been carefully crafted to address two issues. First, the

paragraph refers to a worker becoming “unconscious,”

which means a complete loss of consciousness and

not a sense of disorientation, “feeling woozy,” or an

other diminished level of awareness. Second, the final

rule makes it clear that loss of consciousness does not

depend on the amount of time the employee is unconscious. If the employee is rendered unconscious for

any length of time, no matter how brief, the case must

be recorded on the OSHA 300 Log.

Paragraph 1904.7(b)(7) Recording Significant WorkRelated Injuries and Illnesses Diagnosed by a

Physician or Other Licensed Health Care Professional

Paragraph 1904.7(b)(7) of this final rule requires the

recording of any significant work-related injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or other licensed

health care professional. Paragraph 1904.7(b)(7) clarifies which significant, diagnosed work-related injuries

and illnesses OSHA requires the employer to record

in those rare cases where a significant work-related

injury or illness has not triggered recording under

one or more of the general recording criteria, i.e, has

not resulted in death, loss of consciousness, medical

treatment beyond first aid, restricted work or job

transfer, or days away from work. Based on the

Agency’s prior recordkeeping experience, OSHA

believes that the great majority of significant occupational injuries and illnesses will be captured by one

or more of the other general recording criteria in

Section 1904.7. However, OSHA has found that there

is a limited class of significant work-related injuries

and illnesses that may not be captured under the

other Section 1904.7 criteria. Therefore, the final rule

stipulates at paragraph 1904.7(b)(7) that any significant work-related occupational injury or illness that is

not captured by any of the general recording criteria

but is diagnosed by a physician or other licensed

health care professional be recorded in the employer’s records.

Under the final rule, an injury or illness case is

considered significant if it is a work-related case

involving occupational cancer (e.g., mesothelioma),

chronic irreversible disease (e.g., chronic beryllium

disease), a fractured or cracked bone (e.g., broken

arm, cracked rib), or a punctured eardrum. The

employer must record such cases within 7 days of

receiving a diagnosis from a physician or other

licensed health care professional that an injury or illness of this kind has occurred....
§1904.7 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 6 3

Clarifying That Cases Captured by Paragraph

1904.7(b)(7) Must Be Work Related

...OSHA wishes to reiterate that any condition that is

recordable on the OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping forms must be work-related, and Section

1904.7(b)(7) includes the term “work-related” to make

this fact clear. In addition, because the employer will

be dealing with a physician or other licensed health

care professional, he or she may also be able to consult with the health care professional about the workrelatedness of the particular case. If the employer

determines, based either on his or her own findings

or those of the professional, that the symptoms are

merely arising at work, but are caused by some nonwork illness, then the case would not be recorded,

under exception (b)(2)(ii) to the work-relatedness presumption at Section 1904.5(b)(2) of the final rule.

Similarly, if workplace events or exposures contributed only insignificantly to the aggravation of a

worker’s preexisting condition, the case need not be

recorded under Section 1904.5(a) and Section

1904.5(b)(3) of the final rule.

The provisions of Section 1904.7(b)(7) of the final

rule thus meet the objectives of (1) capturing significant injuries and illnesses that do not meet the other

general recording criteria of death, days away from

work, restricted work or job transfer, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness; (2)

excluding minor injuries and illnesses; (3) addressing

a limited range of disorders; and (4) making it clear

that these injuries and illnesses must be work-related

before they must be recorded.

and may not result in days away from work, but they

are clearly significant injuries. Similarly, an untreatable occupational cancer is clearly a significant injury

or illness. The second set of conditions identified in

paragraph 1904.7(b)(7), chronic irreversible diseases,

are cases that would clearly become recordable at

some point in the future (unless the employee leaves

employment before medical treatment is provided),

when the employee’s condition worsens to a point

where medical treatment, time away from work, or

restricted work are needed. By providing for recording at the time of diagnosis, paragraph 1904.7(b)(7) of

the final rule makes the significant, work-related condition recordable on discovery, a method that

ensures the collection to timely data. This approach

will result in better injury and illness data and also is

likely to be more straightforward for employers to

comply with, since there is no further need to track

the case to determine whether, and at what point, it

becomes recordable.

The core of the recording requirement codified at

Section 1904.7(b)(7) is the employer’s determination

that a “significant” injury or illness has been diagnosed....In the final rule, OSHA has adopted an

approach...focusing on two types of injury and illness: those that may be essentially untreatable, at

least in the early stages and perhaps never (fractured

and cracked bones, certain types of occupational cancer, and punctured eardrums) and those expected to

progressively worsen and become serious over time

(chronic irreversible diseases). ...[T]he final rule relies

exclusively on the diagnosis of a limited class of

injuries and illnesses by a physician or other licensed

health care professional.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.7 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.7 General recording criteria

Question 7-1. The old rule required the recording of

all occupational illnesses, regardless of severity. For

example, a work-related skin rash was recorded even

if it didn’t result in medical treatment. Does the rule

still capture these minor illness cases?

No. Under the new rule, injuries and illnesses are

recorded using the same criteria. As a result, some

minor illness cases are no longer recordable. For

example, a case of work-related skin rash is now

recorded only if it results in days away from work,

restricted work, transfer to another job, or medical

treatment beyond first aid.

Question 7-2. Does the size or degree of a burn

determine recordability?

No. The size or degree of a work-related burn does

not determine recordability. If a work-related first,

second, or third degree burn results in one or more

of the outcomes in section 1904.7 (days away, work

restrictions, medical treatment, etc.), the case must

be recorded.

Question 7-3. If an employee dies during surgery

made necessary by a work-related injury or illness, is

the case recordable? What if the surgery occurs

weeks or months after the date of the injury or illness?

If an employee dies as a result of surgery or other

complications following a work-related injury or illness, the case is recordable. If the underlying injury
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.7 

6 4

or illness was recorded prior to the employee’s death,

the employer must update the Log by lining out

information on less severe outcomes, e.g., days away

from work or restricted work, and checking the column indicating death.

Question 7-4. An employee hurts his or her left arm

and is told by the doctor not to use the left arm for

one week. The employee is able to perform all of his

or her routine job functions using only the right arm

(though at a slower pace and the employee is never

required to use both arms to perform his or her job

functions).Would this be considered restricted work?

No. If the employee is able to perform all of his or

her routine job functions (activities the employee regularly performs at least once per week), the case

does not involve restricted work. Loss of productivity

is not considered restricted work.

Question 7-5. Are surgical glues used to treat lacerations considered “first aid?”

No. surgical glue is a wound closing device. All

wound closing devices except for butterfly and steri

strips are by definition “medical treatment,” because

they are not included on the first aid list.

Question 7-6. Item N on the first aid list is “drinking

fluids for relief of heat stress.” Does this include

administering intravenous (IV) fluids?

No. Intravenous administration of fluids to treat

work-related heat stress is medical treatment.

Question 7-7. Is the use of a rigid finger guard considered first aid?

Yes. The use of finger guards is always first aid.

Question 7-8. For medications such as Ibuprofen that

are available in both prescription and non-prescription form, what is considered to be prescription

strength? How is an employer to determine whether

a non-prescription medication has been recommended at prescription strength for purposes of section

1904.7(b)(5)(i)(C)(ii)(A)?

The prescription strength of such medications is

determined by the measured quantity of the therapeutic agent to be taken at one time, i.e., a single

dose. The single dosages that are considered prescription strength for four common over-the-counter

drugs are:

Ibuprofen (such as AdvilTM;) - Greater than 467 mg

Diphenhydramine (such as BenadrylTM;) - Greater

than 50 mg

Naproxen Sodium (such as AleveTM;) - Greater

than 220 mg

Ketoprofen (such as Orudus KTTM;) - Greater than

25mg

To determine the prescription-strength dosages for

other drugs that are available in prescription and nonprescription formulations, the employer should contact OSHA, the United States Food and Drug Administration, their local pharmacist or their physician.

Question 7-9 If an employee who sustains a workrelated injury requiring days away from work is terminated for drug use based on the results of a post-accident drug test, how is the case recorded? May the

employer stop the day count upon termination of the

employee for drug use under section 1904.7(b)(3)(vii)?

Under section 1904.7(b)(3)(vii), the employer may

stop counting days away from work if an employee

who is away from work because of an injury or illness leaves the company for some reason unrelated

to the injury or illness, such as retirement or a plant

closing. However, when the employer conducts a

drug test based on the occurrence of an accident

resulting in an injury at work and subsequently terminates the injured employee, the termination is

related to the injury. Therefore, the employer must

estimate the number of days that the employee

would have been away from work due to the injury

and enter that number on the 300 Log.

Question 7-10. Once an employer has recorded a

case involving days away from work, restricted work

or medical treatment and the employee has returned

to his regular work or has received the course of recommended medical treatment, is it permissible for

the employer to delete the Log entry based on a

physician’s recommendation, made during a year-end

review of the Log, that the days away from work,

work restriction or medical treatment were not necessary?

The employer must make an initial decision about

the need for days away from work, a work restriction,

or medical treatment based on the information available, including any recommendation by a physician

or other licensed health care professional. Where the

employer receives contemporaneous recommendations from two or more physicians or other licensed
§1904.7 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 6 5

health care professionals about the need for days

away, a work restriction, or medical treatment, the

employer may decide which recommendation is the

most authoritative and record the case based on that

recommendation. Once the days away from work or

work restriction have occurred or medical treatment

has been given, however, the employer may not

delete the Log entry because of a physician’s recommendation, based on a year-end review of the Log,

that the days away, restriction or treatment were

unnecessary.

Question 7-10a. If a physician or other licensed

health care professional recommends medical treatment, days away from work or restricted work activity as a result of a work-related injury or illness, can

the employer decline to record the case based on a

contemporaneous second provider’s opinion that the

recommended medical treatment, days away from

work or work restriction are unnecessary, if the

employer believes the second opinion is more

authoritative?

Yes. However, once medical treatment is provided for

a work-related injury or illness, or days away from

work or work restriction have occurred, the case is

recordable. If there are conflicting contemporaneous

recommendations regarding medical treatment, or

the need for days away from work or restricted work

activity, but the medical treatment is not actually provided and no days away from work or days of work

restriction have occurred, the employer may determine which recommendation is the most authoritative and record on that basis. In the case of prescription medications, OSHA considers that medical treatment is provided once a prescription is issued.

Question 7-11. Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii) of the rule

defines first aid, in part, as “removing splinters or

foreign material from areas other than the eye by 

irrigation, tweezers, cotton swabs or other simple

means.” What are “other simple means” of removing splinters that are considered first aid?

“Other simple means” of removing splinters, for purposes of the first-aid definition, means methods that

are reasonably comparable to the listed methods.

Using needles, pins or small tools to extract splinters

would generally be included.

Question 7-12. How long must a modification to a

job last before it can be considered a permanent

modification under section 1904.7(b)(4)(xi)?

Section 1904.7(b)(4)(xi) of the rule allows an employer to stop counting days of restricted work or transfer

to another job if the restriction or transfer is made

permanent. A permanent restriction or transfer is one

that is expected to last for the remainder of the

employee’s career. Where the restriction or transfer is

determined to be permanent at the time it is ordered,

the employer must count at least one day of the

restriction or transfer on the Log. If the employee

whose work is restricted or who is transferred to

another job is expected to return to his or her former

job duties at a later date, the restriction or transfer is

considered temporary rather than permanent.

Question 7-13. If an employee loses his arm in a

work-related accident and can never return to his

job, how is the case recorded? Is the day count

capped at 180 days?

If an employee never returns to work following a

work-related injury, the employer must check the

“days away from work” column, and enter an estimate of the number of days the employee would

have required to recuperate from the injury, up to

180 days.

Question 7-14. If an employee who routinely works

ten hours a day is restricted from working more than

eight hours following a work-related injury, is the

case recordable?

Generally, the employer must record any case in

which an employee’s work is restricted because of a

work-related injury. A work restriction, as defined in

section 1904.7(b)(4)(i)(A), occurs when the employer

keeps the employee from performing one or more

routine functions of the job, or from working the full

workday the employee would otherwise have been

scheduled to work. The case in question is recordable

if the employee would have worked 10 hours had he

or she not been injured.

Question 7-15. If an employee is exposed to chlorine

or some other substance at work and oxygen is

administered as a precautionary measure, is the case

recordable?

If oxygen is administered as a purely precautionary

measure to an employee who does not exhibit any

symptoms of an injury or illness, the case is not

recordable. If the employee exposed to a substance

exhibits symptoms of an injury or illness, the administration of oxygen makes the case recordable. 
Question 7-16. Is the employer subject to a citation

for violating section 1904.7(b)(4)(viii) if an employee

fails to follow a recommended work restriction?

Section 1904.7(b)(4)(viii) deals with the recordability

of cases in which a physician or other health care

professional has recommended a work restriction.

The section also states that the employer “should

ensure that the employee complies with the [recommended] restriction.” This language is purely advisory

and does not impose an enforceable duty upon

employers to ensure that employees comply with the

recommended restriction. [Note: In the absence of

conflicting opinions from two or more health care

professionals, the employer ordinarily must record

the case if a health care professional recommends a

work restriction involving the employee’s routine job

functions.]

Question 7-17. Are work-related cases involving

chipped or broken teeth recordable?

Yes, under section 1904.7(b)(7), these cases are considered a significant injury or illness when diagnosed

by a physician or other health care professional. As

discussed in the preamble of the final rule, workrelated fractures of bones or teeth are recognized as

constituting significant diagnoses and, if the condition is work-related, are appropriately recorded at the

time of initial diagnosis even if the case does not

involve any of the other general recording criteria. 

Question 7-18. How would the employer record the

change on the OSHA 300 Log for an injury or illness

after the injured worker reached the cap of 180 days

for restricted work and then was assigned to “days

away from work”?

The employer must check the box that reflects the

most severe outcome associated with a given injury

or illness. The severity of any case decreases on the

log from column G (Death) to column J (Other

recordable case). Since days away from work is a

more severe outcome than restricted work the

employer is required to remove the check initially

placed in the box for job transfer or restriction and

enter a check in the box for days away from work

(column H). Employers are allowed to cap the number of days away and/or restricted work/job transfer

when a case involves 180 calendar days. For purposes of recordability, the employer would enter 180

days in the “Job transfer or restriction” column and

may also enter 1 day in the “Days away from work”

column to prevent confusion or computer related

problems.

Question 7-19. Does the employer have to record a

work-related injury and illness if an employee experiences minor musculoskeletal discomfort, the health

care professional determines that the employee is

fully able to perform all of his or her routine job functions, but the employer assigns a work restriction to

the injured employee?

As set out in Chapter 2, I., F. of the Recordkeeping

Policies and Procedures Manual (CPL 2-0.135) a case

would not be recorded under section 1904.7(b)(4) if

(1) the employee experiences minor musculoskeletal

discomfort, and (2) a health care professional determines that the employee is fully able to perform all

of his or her routine job functions, and (3) the

employer assigns a work restriction to that employee

for the purpose of preventing a more serious condition from developing. If a case is or becomes recordable under any other general recording criteria contained in section 1904.7, such as medical treatment

beyond first aid, a case involving minor musculoskeletal discomfort would be recordable. 

Question 7-20. Are injuries and illnesses recordable if

they occurred during employment, but were not discovered until after the injured or ill employee was

terminated or retired? 

These cases are recordable throughout the five-year

record retention and updating period contained in

section 1904.33. The cases would be recorded on

either the log of the year in which the injury or illness

occurred or the last date of employment.

Question 7-21. If an employee leaves the company

after experiencing a work-related injury or illness

that results in days away from work and/or days of

restricted work/job transfer how would an employer

record the case?

If the employee leaves the company for some reason(s) unrelated to the injury or illness, section

1904.7(b)(3)(viii) of the rule allows the employer to

stop counting days away from work or days of

restriction/job transfer. In order to stop a count the

employer must first have a count to stop. Thus, the

employer must count at least one day away from

work or day of restriction/job transfer on the OSHA

300 Log. If the employee leaves the company for

some reason(s) related to the injury or illness, section

1904.7(b)(3)(viii) of the rule directs the employer to

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.7 

6 6
make an estimate of the count of days away from

work or days of restriction/job transfer expected for

the particular type of case. 

Question 7-22 If an employee has an adverse reaction to a smallpox vaccination, is it recordable under

OSHA’s recordkeeping rule?

If an employee has an adverse reaction to a smallpox

vaccination, the reaction is recordable if it is workrelated (see 29 CFR 1904.5) and meets the general

recording criteria contained in 29 CFR 1904.7. A reaction caused by a smallpox vaccination is work-related

if the vaccination was necessary to enable the

employee to perform his or her work duties. Such a

reaction is work-related even though the employee

was not required to receive it, if the vaccine was provided by the employer to protect the employee

against exposure to smallpox in the work environment. For example, if a health care employer establishes a program to vaccinate employees who may

be involved in treating people suffering from the

effects of a smallpox outbreak, reactions to the vaccine would be work-related. The same principle

applies to adverse reactions among emergency

response workers whose duties may cause them to

be exposed to smallpox. The vaccinations in this circumstance are analogous to inoculations given to

employees to immunize them from diseases to which

they may be exposed to in the course of work-related

overseas travel.

Question 7-23. An employee has a work-related

shoulder injury resulting in days of restricted work

activity. While working on restricted duty, the

employee sustains a foot injury which results in a

different work restriction. How would the employer

record these cases?

For purposes of OSHA recordkeeping the employer

would stop the count of the days of restricted work

activity due to the first case, the shoulder injury, and

enter the foot injury as a new case and record the

number of restricted work days. If the restriction

related to the second case, the foot injury, is lifted

and the employee is still subject to the restriction

related to their shoulder injury, the employer must

resume the count of days of restricted work activity

for that case.

Question 7-24. An employee is provided antibiotics

for anthrax, although the employee does not test

positive for exposure/infection. Is this a recordable

event on the OSHA log? 

No. A case must involve a death, injury, or illness to

be recordable. A case involving an employee who

does not test positive for exposure/infection would

not be recordable because the employee is not

injured or ill. 

Question 7-25. An employee tests positive for

anthrax exposure/infection and is provided antibiotics. Is this a recordable event on the OSHA log? 

Yes. Under the Recordkeeping requirements, a workrelated anthrax exposure/infection coupled with

administration of antibiotics or other medical treatment must be recorded on the log. 

§1904.7 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 6 7

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT: Section 1904.7 

Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting - 66:66943-66944, December 27, 2001

On November 16, 2001, OSHA entered into a settlement agreement with the National Association of

Manufacturers (NAM) to resolve NAM’s legal challenge to OSHA’s revised recordkeeping regulations in

29 CFR Part 1904, Occupational Injury and Illness

Recording and Reporting Requirements. As part of

the agreement, OSHA agreed to publish a copy of

the OSHA-NAM settlement agreement in the Federal

Register within 30 days. 

C. A case is not recordable under 1904.7(b)(4) as a

restricted work case if the employee experiences

minor musculoskeletal discomfort, a health care professional determines that the employee is fully able

to perform all of his or her routine job functions, and

the employer assigns a work restriction to that employee for the purpose of preventing a more serious

condition from developing.
August 26, 2004 

Mr. Ronald Bjork

Manager, Safety, Health & Security

CNH America LLC

East Moline Plant

1100 Third Street

East Moline, IL 61244 

Dear Mr. Bjork: 

This is in response to your letter of April 21, 2004 requesting clarification whether two types of treatments constitute first aid or medical treatment for purposes of applying OSHA's recordkeeping rule. 

The first treatment is glue used to close a wound. The use of medical glue to close a wound is not

first aid, and therefore must be considered medical treatment. First aid includes the use of the following wound-covering devices: bandages, Band Aids©, gauze pads, butterfly bandages, or SteriStrips©, 29 CFR 1904.7(b)(5)(ii)(D). Other wound-closing devices, such as sutures, staples, tapes,

or glues are considered medical treatment. See 66 FR 5989 (January 19, 2001). 

The second treatment is the use of a prescription antibiotic for a puncture wound. Under the rule,

the use of prescription medication to treat a wound is medical treatment. This follows even if the

medication is an antibiotic or antiseptic administered following an injury to prevent a possible

infection. In the preamble to the rule, OSHA specifically considered and rejected an exception for

prescription antibiotics or antiseptics. See 66 FR 5986. 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters

explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create

additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. In addition,

from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such

developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please contact my Division of Recordkeeping Requirements, at 202-693-1702.

Sincerely, 

Keith Goddard, Director

Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis

Letter of interpretation related to sections 1904.5, 1904.5(a), 1904.5(b)(2), 1904.6, 1904.6(a), 1904.7 and 1904.31 –

Evaluation of seven scenarios for work-relatedness and recordkeeping requirements.

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.7 

6 8

Letter of interpretation related to section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii) –

Use of glue to close a wound is medical treatment; prescription antibiotics/antiseptics for preventive 

treatment of a wound is medical treatment.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.7 

Section 1904.7 General recording criteria

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Letters of interpretation explain

these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional

employer obligations. These letters constitute OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed.

Note that OSHA enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to

time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. 

Letters of Interpretation constitute OSHA’s interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may

not be applicable to any situation not delineated within the original correspondence.
January 15, 2004 

Ms. Leann M. Johnson-Koch

1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-2412 

Dear Ms. Johnson-Koch: 

Thank you for your E-mail to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding

the Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904. Your letter was forwarded to my office by Richard Fairfax, Director, Directorate of Enforcement Programs. The

Division of Recordkeeping Requirements is responsible for the administration of the OSHA injury and

illness recordkeeping system nationwide. Please excuse the delay in responding to your request. 

In your letter, you ask OSHA to clarify the following scenarios to ensure accurate and consistent guidance to your members for purposes of OSHA Recordkeeping requirements. I will address your scenarios

by first restating each one and then answering it. 

Scenario 1:

• An employee reported to work at 7:00 a.m. 

• At 12:15 p.m. the employee reported that his toes on his left foot had started swelling and his foot

had started hurting. 

• The employee wanted to go to a doctor for evaluation. 

• On the First Report of Injury, that the employee completed before he went to the doctor, the employee

indicated that the cause of the illness was “unknown (feet wet at cooling tower).” 

• When answering the doctor’s question: “How did injury occur?” the employee answered that the only

thing he could think of was that his feet were wet all the previous day due to work in the morning at a

cooling tower. The cooling tower water is treated to remove bacteria and then used in process operations in the plant. 

• The doctor described the illness/injury as foot edema/cellulitis. 

• The doctor also prescribed the injury as an occupational disease, prescribed an antibiotic, and the

employee missed one day of work. 

• The company sent the employee to a second doctor who said to continue using the antibiotic. 

• Neither doctor could state conclusively that the foot edema/cellulitis was or was not due to the

employee’s feet being wet due to work at the cooling tower. 

• Neither doctor is a specialist in skin disorders. 

• During an incident review at the site, the employee again said he did not know if his feet being wet all

day the previous day caused the injury/illness. 

• The employee also stated that he had not worn the personal protective equipment, rubber boots, prescribed for this task. 

The company determined that this injury/illness is not work-related (did not occur in the course of or as

a result of employment), since neither physician nor the employee can state with certainty that the

injury/illness was caused by the employee’s feet being wet all day due to work at the cooling tower. Since

the injury/illness was determined to not be work-related, then the company deemed the incident nonrecordable. 

Response: A case is work-related if it is more likely than not that an event or exposure in the work environment was a cause of the injury or illness. The work event or exposure need only be one of the causes; it does

not need to be the sole or predominant cause. In this case, the fact that neither the physician nor the employee could state with certainty that the employee’s edema was caused by working with wet feet is not dispositive. The physician’s description of the edema as an “occupational disease,” and the employee’s statement

that working with wet feet was “the only thing he could think of” as the cause, indicate that it is more likely than not that working with wet feet was a cause. The case should be recorded on the OSHA 300 Log. 

Scenario 2: 

An employee must report to work by 8:00 a.m. 

• The employee drove into the company parking lot at 7:30 a.m. and parked the car. 

• The employee exited the car and proceeded to the office to report to work. 

§1904.7 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 6 9
• The parking lot and sidewalks are privately owned by the facility and both are within the property

line, but not the controlled access points (i.e., fence, guards). 

• The employee stepped onto the sidewalk and slipped on the snow and ice. 

• The employee suffered a back injury and missed multiple days of work. 

The company believes that the employee was still in the process of the commute to work since the

employee had not yet checked in at the office. Since a work task was not being performed, the site personnel deemed the incident not work-related and therefore not recordable. 

Response: Company parking lots and sidewalks are part of the employer’s establishment for recordkeeping purposes. Here, the employee slipped on an icy sidewalk while walking to the office to report for

work. In addition, the event or exposure that occurred does not meet any of the work-related exceptions

contained in 1904.5(b)(2). The employee was on the sidewalk because of work; therefore, the case is

work-related regardless of the fact that he had not actually checked in. 

Scenario 3: 

The employee described in Scenario 2 missed 31 days of work due to the back injury. 

• On day 31, the doctor provided a release for returning to work. 

• The next morning (day 32), when the employee was due to report to work, the employee stated that

his back was hurting, and the employee did not report to work. 

• The employee scheduled a doctor’s appointment, with the same doctor, and visited the doctor on day 33.

• The doctor issued a statement stating that the employee was not able to return to work. 

Since the employee was released to return to work, the company does not believe it has to count the

intervening two days on the OSHA log. 

Response: The employer would have to enter the additional days away from work on the OSHA 300

log based on receiving information from the physician or other licensed health care professional that the

employee was unable to work.

Scenario 4: 

• An employee reports to work. 

• Several hours later, the employee goes outside for a “smoke break.” 

• The employee slips on the ice and injures his back. 

Since the employee was not performing a task related to the employee’s work, the company has deemed

this incident non-work related and therefore not recordable. 

Response: Under Section 1904.5(b)(2)(v), an injury or illness is not work-related if it is solely the result

of an employee doing personal tasks (unrelated to their employment) at the establishment outside of the

employee’s assigned working hours. In order for this exception to apply, the case must meet both of the

stated conditions. The exception does not apply here because the injury or illness occurred within normal working hours. Therefore, your case in question is work-related, and if it meets the general recording criteria under Section 1904.7 the case must be recorded. 

Scenario 5:

• An employee drives into the company parking lot at 7:30 a.m., exits his car, and proceeds to cross the

parking lot to clock-in to work. 

• A second employee, also on the way to work, approaches the first employee, and the two individuals

get into a physical altercation in the parking lot. The first employee breaks an arm during the altercation. 

• The employee goes to the doctor and receives medical treatment for his injury. 

The company deems this non-work related, and therefore non-recordable, since the employees had not

yet reported to work and a work task was not being performed at the time of the altercation. 

Response: The recordkeeping regulation contains no general exception for purposes of determining

work-relationship for cases involving acts of violence in the work environment. Company parking

lots/access roads are part of the employer’s premises and therefore part of the employer’s establishment.

Whether the employee had not clocked in to work does not affect the outcome for determining workrelatedness. The case is recordable on the OSHA log, because the injury meets the general recording criteria contained in Section 1904.7. 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.7 

7 0
Scenario 6: 

• An employee injured a knee performing work-related activities in 2001. 

• The accident was OSHA recordable and subject to worker’s compensation. 

• The employee had arthroscopic knee surgery eleven months later and was released to full duty a

month and a half after the arthroscopic surgery. 

• The employee had a second knee injury three months after the return to work release (after the first

surgery). 

• Post-surgery (second surgery), the doctor prescribed Vioxx® as an anti-inflammatory. 

• Approximately one and one-half months after the second knee surgery, the employee was given another full release to return to work full duty and returned to work. 

• However, the doctor told the employee to continue to take Vioxx® as prescribed (as needed) and to

return to the doctor as needed. 

• The employee scheduled a follow-up appointment with the doctor. 

• The day before the appointment, the employee bumped his knee at work. 

• During his scheduled doctor’s appointment (was to be the last follow-up visit) the employee mentioned the latest incident (bumping the knee) to the doctor and showed him where the pain was occurring due to bumping his knee. 

• The doctor stated that the employee had an inflamed tendon (Grade 1 lateral collateral ligament

sprain) that was not part of the initial surgery (patellar tendonitis). 

• The doctor stated in the diagnosis that the original injury that required knee surgery was resolved. 

• The doctor told the employee to continue taking Vioxx® for the inflamed tendon. 

Since the employee was already taking the medication prescribed (Vioxx®), the site does not believe this

is recordable as a second incident. 

Response: In the recordkeeping regulation, the employer is required to follow any determination a physician or other licensed health care professional has made about the status of a new case. The inflamed

tendon is a new case because the employee had completely recovered from the previous injury and illness and a new event or exposure had occurred in the work environment. Therefore, for purposes of

OSHA recordkeeping, the employer would enter the case on the OSHA 300 log as appropriate. 

Scenario 7: 

• A site hired numerous temporary workers at its plant. 

• Three temporary workers were injured. 

• They each received injuries that were recordable on the OSHA 300 Log. 

• The employees were under the direct supervision of the site. 

Is it correct that these injuries were recordable on the site log or should they have been recordable on the

temp agency log? What are the criteria related to temporary workers that need to be reviewed to determine which OSHA log is appropriate for recording the injury/illness? 

Response: Section 1904.31 states that the employer must record the injuries and illnesses that occur to

employees not on its payroll if it supervises them on a day-to-day basis. Day-to-day supervision generally

exists when the employer “supervises not only the output, product, or result to be accomplished by the

person’s work, but also the details, means, methods, and processes by which the work objective is

accomplished.” 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain

these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional

employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note

that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. In addition, from time to

time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep appraised of such developments,

you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please contact the Division of Recordkeeping Requirements, at 202-693-1702. 

Sincerely, 

Frank Frodyma

Acting Director

§1904.7 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 7 1
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.7 

7 2

Letter of interpretation related to sections 1904.7(b)(3), 1904.7(b)(3)(ii) and 1904.7(b)(3)(iii) – 

Results of an MRI do not negate the recordability of a physician’s recommendation.

March 19, 2003 

Ms. Marcia Seeler

Health and Safety Consultant

Post Office Box 3154

Wellfleet, Massachusetts 02667 

Dear Ms. Seeler: 

Thank you for your January 6, 2003 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) regarding the Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting requirements contained in 29

CFR Part 1904. You state that an employee who sustained a work-related bruise on his knee was

told by a physician not to return to work until undergoing an MRI, and that the employee was off

work for some days before the procedure could be performed. You recorded the case based on the

days away from work, and ask whether the entry may now be lined out because the MRI showed

that no OSHA recordable injury occurred. 

The case was properly recorded based on the physician’s recommendation that the employee not

return to work before undergoing an MRI for his bruised knee. Paragraph 1904.7(b)(3) contains

the requirements for recording work-related injuries and illnesses that result in days away from

work and for counting the total number of days away associated with a given case. In addition,

paragraphs 1904.7(b)(3)(ii) and (iii) direct employers how to record days away cases when a physician or other licensed health care professional (HCP) recommends that the injured or ill worker

stay at home or that he or she return to work but the employee chooses not to do so. As these

paragraphs make clear, OSHA requires employers to follow the physician’s or HCP’s recommendation when recording a case. For purposes of OSHA recordkeeping, the case met the criteria in section 1904.7 at the time of recording because the employee had sustained a work-related injury--a

bruised knee--involving one or more days away from work. The subsequent MRI results do not

change these facts. Accordingly, the MRI results are not a basis to line out the entry. 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information

helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot

create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules.

Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep

appraised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you

have any further questions, please contact the Division of Recordkeeping Requirements at 202-

693-1702. 

Sincerely, 

John L. Henshaw

Assistant Secretary
§1904.7 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 7 3

August 8, 2002 

Mr. Carl O. Sall, CIH

Director of Occupational Safety and Health Compliance

Comprehensive Health Services Incorporated

8229 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700

Vienna, Virginia 22182-2623 

Dear Mr. Sall: 

This is in response to your letter dated August 8, 2002. Thank you for your comments pertaining

to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904. 

Specifically, you ask OSHA to clarify whether an injury and illness case which resulted in treatment with Band-Aid Brand Liquid BandageTM would be considered first aid or medical treatment.

The concept that underlies the medical treatment vs. first aid distinction made between this type of

treatment centers around the basic difference between wound closures and wound coverings. The

recordkeeping rule defines first aid under section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii)(D), Using wound coverings, such

as bandages, Band-AidsTM, gauze pads, etc.; or using butterfly bandages or Steri-stripsTM (other

wound closing devices, such as sutures, staples, etc. are considered medical treatment). Therefore,

the use of wound coverings, like Band-Aid Brand Liquid BandageTM is deemed to be first aid treatment. 

I hope that you find this information useful. Thank you for your interest in occupational safety

and health and OSHA. If you have any further questions, please contact the Division of

Recordkeeping Requirements, at 202-693-1702 

Sincerely, 

John L. Henshaw

Assistant Secretary

Letter of interpretation related to section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii)(D) – 

Use of liquid bandages on wounds is considered first aid.
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.7 

7 4

October 29, 2001 

Mr. Danny Dean Harris

Loss Control Manager

Maverick Tube Corp.

Post Office Box 248

Armorel, Arkansas 72310 

Dear Mr. Harris: 

This is in response to your letter dated October 29, 2001. Thank you for your comments pertaining to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) injury and illness recordkeeping requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904. Due to the October closing of the Brentwood

postal facility in Washington, D.C., and the subsequent sanitizing treatment of the mail that was

handled by that facility, your correspondence was significantly delayed in reaching us. Please

accept my apology for the delay in our response. 

OSHA revised its injury and illness recordkeeping requirements under the following rulemaking

procedures. On February 2, 1996, the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

requesting public comment on the proposed revision to the recordkeeping requirements. OSHA

received over 450 sets of comments and held six days of public hearings in response to the NPRM.

OSHA analyzed all comments received and developed its final rule based upon that analysis. On

January 19, 2001, OSHA published its final rule. Your comments are similar to many comments

submitted to OSHA as part of the rulemaking process. The following is an excerpt from the final

rule which explains OSHA’s position regarding the points you raise. 

The final rule, 29 CFR Part 1904 Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting

Requirements, Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii)(A) defines first aid as: Using a nonprescription medication

at nonprescription strength (for medications available in both prescription and non-prescription

form, a recommendation by a physician or other licensed health care professional to use a non-prescription medication at prescription strength is considered medical treatment for recordkeeping

purposes). OSHA has not included prescription medications, whether given once or over a longer

period of time, in the list of first aid treatments. The Agency believes that the use of prescription

medications is not first aid because prescription medications are powerful substances that can only

be prescribed by a physician or licensed health care professional. The availability of these substances is carefully controlled and limited because they must be prescribed and administered by a

highly trained and knowledgeable professional. OSHA maintains its longstanding policy of requiring the recording of cases in which a health care professional issues a prescription, whether that

prescription is filled or not. Medical treatment includes treatment that is used as well as those that

should have been used. The patient’s acceptance or refusal of the treatment does not alter the fact

that, in the health care professional’s judgement, the case warranted a script for the issuance of

prescription medicine. For these reasons, the new recordkeeping rule continues OSHA’s longstanding policy of considering the use of prescription medication as medical treatment, regardless of the

reason it is prescribed. 

I hope that you find this information useful. Thank you for your interest in occupational safety

and health and OSHA. If you have any further questions, please contact the Division of

Recordkeeping Requirements, at 202-693-1702 

Sincerely, 

John L. Henshaw

Assistant Secretary

Letter of interpretation related to section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii)(A) – 

Recording of cases in which a health care professional issues a prescription, whether that prescription is 

filled or not.
§1904.8 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 7 5

Section 1904.8 

Recording criteria for needlestick and sharps injuries

(66 FR 6123, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.8

Subpart C – Recordkeeping Forms and Recording Criteria (66 FR 6123, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Note to Subpart C: This Subpart describes the work-related injuries and illnesses that an employer must

enter into the OSHA records and explains the OSHA forms that employers must use to record work-related

fatalities, injuries, and illnesses.

Section 1904.8 Recording criteria for needlestick and

sharps injuries (66 FR 6128, Jan. 19, 2001) 

(a) Basic requirement.

You must record all work-related needlestick injuries

and cuts from sharp objects that are contaminated

with another person’s blood or other potentially

infectious material (as defined by 29 CFR 1910.1030).

You must enter the case on the OSHA 300 Log as an

injury. To protect the employee’s privacy, you may

not enter the employee’s name on the OSHA 300 Log

(see the requirements for privacy cases in paragraphs 1904.29(b)(6) through 1904.29(b)(9)).

(b) Implementation.

(1) What does “other potentially infectious material” mean? 

The term “other potentially infectious materials” is

defined in the OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens standard

at Section 1910.1030(b). These materials include:

(i) Human bodily fluids, tissues and organs, and

(ii) Other materials infected with the HIV or hepatitis B (HBV) virus such as laboratory cultures or tissues from experimental animals.

(2) Does this mean that I must record all cuts, lacerations, punctures, and scratches? 

No, you need to record cuts, lacerations, punctures, and scratches only if they are work-related and

involve contamination with another person’s blood or

other potentially infectious material. If the cut, laceration, or scratch involves a clean object, or a contaminant other than blood or other potentially infectious

material, you need to record the case only if it meets

one or more of the recording criteria in Section

1904.7.

(3) If I record an injury and the employee is later

diagnosed with an infectious bloodborne disease, do

I need to update the OSHA 300 Log? 

Yes, you must update the classification of the case

on the OSHA 300 Log if the case results in death,

days away from work, restricted work, or job transfer.

You must also update the description to identify the

infectious disease and change the classification of the

case from an injury to an illness.

(4) What if one of my employees is splashed or

exposed to blood or other potentially infectious

material without being cut or scratched? Do I need

to record this incident? 

You need to record such an incident on the OSHA

300 Log as an illness if:

(i) It results in the diagnosis of a bloodborne illness, such as HIV, hepatitis B, or hepatitis C; or

(ii) It meets one or more of the recording criteria

in Section 1904.7.

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.8 

(66 FR 5998-6003, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.8 Additional recording criteria for

needlestick and sharps injuries 

Section 1904.8 of the final rule deals with the recording of a specific class of occupational injuries involving punctures, cuts and lacerations caused by needles or other sharp objects contaminated or reasonably anticipated to be contaminated with blood or

other potentially infectious materials that may lead to

bloodborne diseases, such as Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), hepatitis B or hepatitis C.

The final rule uses the terms “contaminated,” “other

potentially infectious material,” and “occupational
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.8 

7 6

exposure” as these terms are defined in OSHA’s

Bloodborne Pathogens standard (29 CFR 1910.1030).

These injuries are of special concern to healthcare

workers because they use needles and other sharp

devices in the performance of their work duties and

are therefore at risk of bloodborne infections caused

by exposures involving contaminated needles and

other sharps. Although healthcare workers are at particular risk of bloodborne infection from these

injuries, other workers may also be at risk of contracting potentially fatal bloodborne disease. For

example, a worker in a hospital laundry could be

stuck by a contaminated needle left in a patient’s bedding, or a worker in a hazardous waste treatment

facility could be occupationally exposed to bloodborne pathogens if contaminated waste from a medical facility was not treated before being sent to

waste treatment. 

Section 1904.8(a) requires employers to record on

the OSHA Log all work-related needlestick and

sharps injuries involving objects contaminated (or

reasonably anticipated to be contaminated) with

another person’s blood or other potentially infectious

material (OPIM). The rule prohibits the employer

from entering the name of the affected employee on

the Log to protect the individual’s privacy; employees

are understandably sensitive about others knowing

that they may have contracted a bloodborne disease.

For these cases, and other types of privacy concern

cases, the employer simply enters “privacy concern

case” in the space reserved for the employee’s name.

The employer then keeps a separate, confidential list

of privacy concern cases with the case number from

the Log and the employee’s name; this list is used by

the employer to keep track of the injury or illness so

that the Log can later be updated, if necessary, and to

ensure that the information will be available if a government representative needs information about

injured or ill employees during a workplace inspection (see Section 1904.40). The regulatory text of

Section 1904.8 refers recordkeepers and others to

Section 1904.29(b)(6) through Section 1904.29(b)(10)

of the rule for more information about how to record

privacy concern cases of all types, including those

involving needlesticks and sharps injuries. The implementation section of Section 1904.8(b)(1) defines

“other potentially infectious material” as it is defined

in OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogens Standard (29 CFR

Section 1910.1030, paragraph (b)). Other potentially

infectious materials include (i) human bodily fluids,

human tissues and organs, and (ii) other materials

infected with the HIV or hepatitis B (HBV) virus such

as laboratory cultures or tissues from experimental

animals. (For a complete list of OPIM, see paragraph

(b) of 29 CFR 1910.1030.)

Although the final rule requires the recording of

all workplace cut and puncture injuries resulting from

an event involving contaminated sharps, it does not

require the recording of all cuts and punctures. For

example, a cut made by a knife or other sharp instrument that was not contaminated by blood or OPIM

would not generally be recordable, and a laceration

made by a dirty tin can or greasy tool would also

generally not be recordable, providing that the injury

did not result from a contaminated sharp and did not

meet one of the general recording criteria of medical

treatment, restricted work, etc. Paragraph (b)(2) of

Section 1904.8 contains provisions indicating which

cuts and punctures must be recorded because they

involve contaminated sharps and which must be

recorded only if they meet the general recording criteria.

Paragraph (b)(3) of Section 1904.8 contains

requirements for updating the OSHA 300 Log when a

worker experiences a wound caused by a contaminated needle or sharp and is later diagnosed as having a bloodborne illness, such as AIDS, hepatitis B or

hepatitis C. The final rule requires the employer to

update the classification of such a privacy concern

case on the OSHA 300 Log if the outcome of the case

changes, i.e., if it subsequently results in death, days

away from work, restricted work, or job transfer. The

employer must also update the case description on

the Log to indicate the name of the bloodborne illness and to change the classification of the case from

an injury (i.e., the needlestick) to an illness (i.e., the

illness that resulted from the needlestick). In no case

may the employer enter the employee’s name on the

Log itself, whether when initially recording the

needlestick or sharp injury or when subsequently

updating the record....

The last paragraph (paragraph (c)) of Section

1904.8 deals with the recording of cases involving

workplace contact with blood or other potentially

infectious materials that do not involve needlesticks

or sharps, such as splashes to the eye, mucous membranes, or non-intact skin. The final recordkeeping

rule does not require employers to record these incidents unless they meet the final rule’s general recording criteria (i.e., death, medical treatment, loss of

consciousness, restricted work or motion, days away

from work, diagnosis by an HCP) or the employee

subsequently develops an illness caused by bloodborne pathogens. The final rule thus provides

employers, for the first time, with regulatory language delineating how they are to record injuries
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 7 7

§1904.8 

caused by contaminated needles and other sharps,

and how they are to treat other exposure incidents

(as defined in the Bloodborne Pathogens standard)

involving blood or OPIM. “ Contaminated” is defined

just as it is in the Bloodborne Pathogens standard:

“Contaminated means the presence or the reasonably anticipated presence of blood or other potentially infectious materials on an item or surface.” ...

After a review of the many comments in the

record on this issue, OSHA has decided to require

the recording of all workplace injuries from needlesticks and sharp objects that are contaminated with

another person’s blood or other potentially infectious

material (OPIM) on the OSHA Log. These cases must

be recorded, as described above, as privacy concern

cases, and the employer must keep a separate list of

the injured employees’ names to enable government

personnel to track these cases....

OSHA finds that these injuries are significant

injuries because of the risk of seroconversion, disease, and death they pose (see the preamble to the

OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard at 56 FR

64004)....

OSHA disagrees with those commenters who

argued that the Section 1904.8 recording requirement

would be duplicative or redundant with the requirements in the Bloodborne Pathogens standard (29

CFR 1910.1030). That standard requires the employer

to document the route(s) of exposure and the circumstances under which the exposure incident occurred,

but does not require that it be recorded on the Log

(instead, the standard requires only that such documentation be maintained with an employee’s medical records). The standard also has no provisions

requiring an employer to aggregate such information

so that it can be analyzed and used to correct hazardous conditions before they result in additional

exposures and/or infections. The same is true for

other medical records kept by employers: they do

not substitute for the OSHA Log or meet the purposes of the Log, even though they may contain information about a case that is also recorded on the Log.

OSHA is requiring only that lacerations and puncture wounds that involve contact with another person’s blood or other potentially infectious materials

be recorded on the Log. Exposure incidents involving

exposure of the eyes, mouth, other mucous membranes or non-intact skin to another person’s blood

or OPIM need not be recorded unless they meet one

or more of the general recording criteria, result in a

positive blood test (seroconversion), or result in the

diagnosis of a significant illness by a health care professional. Otherwise, these exposure incidents are

considered only to involve exposure and not to constitute an injury or illness. In contrast, a needlestick

laceration or puncture wound is clearly an injury and,

if it involves exposure to human blood or other

potentially infectious materials, it rises to the level of

seriousness that requires recording. For splashes and

other exposure incidents, the case does not rise to

this level any more than a chemical exposure does. If

an employee who has been exposed via a splash in

the eye from the blood or OPIM of a person with a

bloodborne disease actually contracts an illness, or

seroconverts, the case would be recorded (provided

that it meets one or more of the general recording

criteria).

Privacy Issues

...The final recordkeeping rule addresses this issue

by prohibiting the entry of the employee’s name on

the OSHA 300 Log for injury and illness cases involving blood and other potentially infectious material.

Further, by requiring employers to record all needlestick and sharps incidents, regardless of the seroconversion status of the employee, coworkers and representatives who have access to the Log will be unable

to ascertain the disease status of the injured worker....

OSHA believes that hepatitis C cases should, like

other illness cases, be tested for recordability using

the geographic presumption that provides the principal rationale for determining work-relatedness

throughout this rule....

PART 1910.1030 — OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens

Standard.

Section 1910.1030(h)(5) Sharps injury log.

Section 1910.1030(h)(5)(i) The employer shall establish and maintain a sharps injury log for the recording of percutaneous injuries from contaminated

sharps. The information in the sharps injury log shall

be recorded and maintained in such manner as to

protect the confidentiality of the injured employee.

The sharps injury log shall contain, at a minimum:

(A) The type and brand of device involved in the

incident,

(B) The department or work area where the exposure incident occurred, and 

(C) An explanation of how the incident occurred.

Section 1910.1030(h)(5)(ii) The requirement to establish and maintain a sharps injury log shall apply to

any employer who is required to maintain a log of

occupational injuries and illnesses under 29 CFR

1904.
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.8 

7 8

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.8 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.8 Recording criteria for needlesticks and sharps injuries

Question 8-1. Can you clarify the relationship between the OSHA recordkeeping requirements and

the requirements in the Bloodborne Pathogens standard to maintain a sharps injury log?

The OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard states:

“The requirement to establish and maintain a sharps

injury log shall apply to any employer who is

required to maintain a log of occupational injuries

and illnesses under 29 CFR 1904.” Therefore, if an

employer is exempted from the OSHA recordkeeping

rule, the employer does not have to maintain a

sharps log. For example, dentists’ offices and doctors’ offices are not required to keep a sharps log

after January 1, 2002.

Question 8-2. Can I use the OSHA 300 Log to meet

the Bloodborne Pathogen Standard’s requirement for

a sharps injury log?

Yes. You may use the 300 Log to meet the requirements of the sharps injury log provided you enter the

type and brand of the device causing the sharps

injury on the Log and you maintain your records in a

way that segregates sharps injuries from other types

of work-related injuries and illnesses, or allows

sharps injuries to be easily separated.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.8 

Section 1904.8 Recording criteria for needlesticks and sharps injuries

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.
§1904.9 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 7 9

Section 1904.9 

Recording criteria for cases involving medical removal

under OSHA standards 

(66 FR 6129, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.9

Subpart C – Recordkeeping forms and recording criteria 

(66 FR 6123, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Note to Subpart C: This Subpart describes the work-related injuries and illnesses that an employer must

enter into the OSHA records and explains the OSHA forms that employers must use to record work-related

fatalities, injuries, and illnesses.

Section 1904.9 Recording criteria for cases involving medical removal under OSHA standards 

(a) Basic requirement.

If an employee is medically removed under the

medical surveillance requirements of an OSHA standard, you must record the case on the OSHA 300 Log.

(b) Implementation.

(1) How do I classify medical removal cases on

the OSHA 300 Log? 

You must enter each medical removal case on the

OSHA 300 Log as either a case involving days away

from work or a case involving restricted work activity,

depending on how you decide to comply with the

medical removal requirement. If the medical

removal is the result of a chemical exposure, you

must enter the case on the OSHA 300 Log by checking the “poisoning” column.

(2) Do all of OSHA’s standards have medical

removal provisions? 

No, some OSHA standards, such as the standards

covering bloodborne pathogens and noise, do not

have medical removal provisions. Many OSHA standards that cover specific chemical substances have

medical removal provisions. These standards include, but are not limited to, lead, cadmium, methylene chloride, formaldehyde, and benzene.

(3) Do I have to record a case where I voluntarily

removed the employee from exposure before the

medical removal criteria in an OSHA standard are

met? 

No, if the case involves voluntary medical removal

before the medical removal levels required by an

OSHA standard are reached, you do not need to

record the case on the OSHA 300 Log.

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.9 

(66 FR 6003, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.9 Additional recording criteria for cases

involving medical removal under OSHA standards.

The final rule, in paragraph 1904.9(a), requires an

employer to record an injury or illness case on the

OSHA 300 Log when the employee is medically

removed under the medical surveillance requirements of any OSHA standard. Paragraph 1904.9(b)(1)

requires each such case to be recorded as a case

involving days away from work (if the employee

does not work during the medical removal) or as a

case involving restricted work activity (if the employee continues to work but in an area where exposures

are not present.) This paragraph also requires any

medical removal related to chemical exposure to be

recorded as a poisoning illness.

Paragraph 1904.9(b)(2) informs employers that

some OSHA standards have medical removal provisions and others do not. For example, the Bloodborne

Pathogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1030) and the

Occupational Noise Standard (29 CFR 1910.95) do not

require medical removal. Many of the OSHA standards that contain medical removal provisions are

related to specific chemical substances, such as lead

(29 CFR 1901.1025), cadmium (29 CFR 1910.1027),

methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052), formaldehyde

(29 CFR 1910.1048), and benzene (29 CFR 1910.1028).
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.9 

8 0

Paragraph 1904.9(b)(3) addresses the issue of

medical removals that are not required by an OSHA

standard. In some cases employers voluntarily rotate

employees from one job to another to reduce exposure to hazardous substances; job rotation is an

administrative method of reducing exposure that is

permitted in some OSHA standards. Removal (job

transfer) of an asymptomatic employee for administrative exposure control reasons does not require the

case to be recorded on the OSHA 300 Log because

no injury or illness -- the first step in the recordkeeping process -- exists. Paragraph 1904.9(b)(3) only

applies to those substances with OSHA mandated

medical removal criteria. For injuries or illnesses

caused by exposure to other substances or hazards,

the employer must look to the general requirements

of paragraphs 1910.7(b)(3) and (4) to determine how

to record the days away or days of restricted work.

The provisions of Section 1904.9 are not the only

recording criteria for recording injuries and illnesses

from these occupational exposures. These provisions

merely clarify the need to record specific cases, which

are often established with medical test results, that

result in days away from work, restricted work, or job

transfer. The Section 1904.9 provisions are included to

produce more consistent data and provide needed

interpretation of the requirements for employers.

However, if an injury or illness results in the other criteria of Section 1904.7 (death, medical treatment, loss

of consciousness, days away from work, restricted

work, transfer to another job, or diagnosis as a significant illness or injury by a physician or other licensed

health care professional) the case must be recorded

whether or not the medical removal provisions of an

OSHA standard have been met....

...The medical removal provisions of each standard were set using scientific evidence established in

the record devoted to that rulemaking. OSHA takes

care when setting the medical removal provisions of

standards to ensure that these provision reflect a

material harm, i.e., the existence of an abnormal condition that is non-minor and thus worthy of entry in

the OSHA injury and illness records....

OSHA finds that cases involving a mandatory

medical removal are cases that involve serious, significant, disabling illnesses resulting in restriction of

work and transfer to another job, or both. These

medical restrictions result either in days away from

work or days when the worker can work but is

restricted from performing his or her customary

duties....

As stated previously, a “diagnosis of substantial

impairment of a bodily function” is not required for a

case to meet OSHA recordkeeping criteria, nor is it a

limitation to recordability under the OSH Act. Many

injuries and illnesses meet the recording criteria of

the Act but lack diagnosis of a substantial impairment

of a bodily function. Although the medical removal

provisions are included in OSHA’s standards to

encourage participation in the medical program by

employees and to prevent progression to serious and

perhaps irreversible illness, they also reflect illnesses

caused by exposures in the workplace and are thus

themselves recordable. The workers are being

removed not only to prevent illness, but to prevent

further damage beyond what has already been done.

Thus OSHA does not agree that medical removal

measures are purely preventive in nature; instead,

they are also remedial measures taken when specific

biological test results indicate that a worker has been

made ill by workplace exposures.

OSHA has therefore included section 1904.9 in the

final rule to provide a uniform, simple method for

recording a variety of serious disorders that have

been addressed by OSHA standards. The Section

1904.9 provisions of the final rule cover all of the

OSHA standards with medical removal provisions,

regardless of whether or not those provisions are

based on medical tests, physicians’ opinions, or a

combination of the two. Finally, by relying on the

medical removal provisions in any OSHA standard,

section 1904.9 of the final rule establishes recording

criteria for future standards, and avoids the need to

amend the recordkeeping rule whenever OSHA

issues a standard containing a medical removal level.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.9 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.9 Recording criteria for cases involving medical removal under OSHA standards

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.9 

Section 1904.9 Recording criteria for cases involving medical removal under OSHA standards

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 8 1

Section 1904.10 

Recording criteria for cases involving 

occupational hearing loss

(66 FR 6129, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.10

Subpart C – Recordkeeping forms and recording criteria

(66 FR 6123, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Note to Subpart C: This Subpart describes the work-related injuries and illnesses that an employer must

enter into the OSHA records and explains the OSHA forms that employers must use to record work-related

fatalities, injuries, and illnesses.

Part 1904 – [AMENDED]

Section 1904.10 Recording criteria for cases involving

occupational hearing loss (67 FR 44047, July 1, 2002)

(a) Basic requirement.

If an employee’s hearing test (audiogram) reveals

that the employee has experienced a work-related

Standard Threshold Shift (STS) in hearing in one or

both ears, and the employee’s total hearing level is 25

decibels (dB) or more above audiometric zero (averaged

at 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz) in the same ear(s) as the

STS, you must record the case on the OSHA 300 Log.

(b) Implementation.

(1) What is a Standard Threshold Shift? 

A Standard Threshold Shift, or STS, is defined in

the occupational noise exposure standard at 29 CFR

1910.95(g)(10)(i) as a change in hearing threshold, relative to the baseline audiogram for that employee, of

an average of 10 decibels (dB) or more at 2000, 3000,

and 4000 hertz (Hz) in one or both ears. 

(2) How do I evaluate the current audiogram to

determine whether an employee has an STS and a

25-dB hearing level? 

(i) STS. If the employee has never previously

experienced a recordable hearing loss, you must

compare the employee’s current audiogram with

that employee’s baseline audiogram. If the

employee has previously experienced a recordable hearing loss, you must compare the employee’s current audiogram with the employee’s

revised baseline audiogram (the audiogram

reflecting the employee’s previous recordable

hearing loss case).

(ii) 25-dB loss. Audiometric test results reflect the employee’s overall hearing ability in comparison to audiometric zero. Therefore, using the employee’s current

audiogram, you must use the average hearing level at

2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz to determine whether or not

the employee’s total hearing level is 25 dB or more.

(3) May I adjust the current audiogram to reflect

the effects of aging on hearing? 

Yes. When you are determining whether an STS

has occurred, you may age adjust the employee’s

current audiogram results by using Tables F-1 or F-2,

as appropriate, in Appendix F of 29 CFR 1910.95. You

may not use an age adjustment when determining

whether the employee’s total hearing level is 25 dB

or more above audiometric zero.

(4) Do I have to record the hearing loss if I am

going to retest the employee’s hearing? 

No, if you retest the employee’s hearing within 30

days of the first test, and the retest does not confirm

the recordable STS, you are not required to record the

hearing loss case on the OSHA 300 Log. If the retest

confirms the recordable STS, you must record the

hearing loss illness within seven (7) calendar days of

the retest. If subsequent audiometric testing performed

under the testing requirements of the § 1910.95 noise

standard indicates that an STS is not persistent, you

may erase or line-out the recorded entry. 

(5) Are there any special rules for determining

whether a hearing loss case is work-related? 

No. You must use the rules in § 1904.5 to determine if the hearing loss is work-related. If an event or

exposure in the work environment either caused or

contributed to the hearing loss, or significantly

aggravated a pre-existing hearing loss, you must

consider the case to be work related. 

(6) If a physician or other licensed health care

professional determines the hearing loss is not workrelated, do I still need to record the case?

If a physician or other licensed health care professional determines that the hearing loss is not workrelated or has not been significantly aggravated by

occupational noise exposure, you are not required to

consider the case work-related or to record the case

on the OSHA 300 Log.

§1904.10 
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.10 

8 2

Section 1904.10 Recording criteria for cases involving occupational hearing loss

The recording criteria employers should use to

record occupational hearing loss on the OSHA

recordkeeping forms have been an issue since OSHA

first proposed to require hearing conservation programs for general industry employers (39 FR 37775,

October 24, 1974). Job-related hearing loss is a significant occupational safety and health issue because

millions of workers are employed in noisy workplaces and thousands of workers experience noiseinduced hearing loss each year. Noise-induced hearing loss is a serious and irreversible condition that

may affect the safety and well-being of workers for

the rest of their lives....

The changes made to the OSHA 300 form

improve the quality of the data collected nationally

on this important occupational condition by providing consistent hearing loss recording criteria, thus

improving the consistency of the hearing loss statistics generated by the BLS occupational injury and illness collection program. National hearing loss statistics are also improved because OSHA has added a

column to the OSHA 300 Log that requires employers, for the first time, to separately collect and summarize data specific to occupational hearing loss.

These changes mean that the BLS will collect hearing

loss data in future years, both for cases with and

without days away from work, which will allow for

more reliable published statistics concerning this

widespread occupational disorder.... If the employee

is not covered by the 29 CFR 1910.95 noise standard,

OSHA rules do not require the employer to administer baseline or periodic audiograms, and the 1904

rule does not impose any new requirements for

employers to obtain baseline information where it is

not already required. However, some employers conduct such tests and acquire such information for

other reasons. If the employer’s workplace is a high

noise environment (i.e., has noise levels that exceed

85 dBA) and the employer has the relevant audiogram information for an employee, the employer

must record any identified work-related hearing loss

equal to or greater than an OSHA defined STS on the

log. This means that an employer in the construction

industry, for example, who is aware that his or her

work activities regularly generate high noise levels

and who has audiometric data on the hearing level of

the employees exposed to those noise levels must

record on the Log any [recordable hearing loss]

detected in those workers. OSHA believes that this

approach to the recording of work-related hearing

loss cases among these workers not covered by the

noise standard is appropriate because it is reasonable, protective, and administratively straightforward....

Paragraphs 1904.10(b)(3) and (4) of the final rule

allow the employer to take into account the hearing

loss that occurs as a result of the aging process and

to retest an employee who has an STS on an audiogram to ensure that the STS is permanent before

recording it. The employer may correct the employee’s audiogram results for aging, using the same

methods allowed by the OSHA Noise standard (29

CFR 1910.95). Appendix F of Section 1910.95 provides

age correction for presbycusis (age-induced hearing

loss) in Tables F-1 (for males) and F-2 (for females).

Further, as permitted by the Noise standard, the

employer may obtain a second audiogram for

employees whose first audiogram registers an STS if

the second audiogram is taken within 30 days of the

first audiogram. The employer may delay recording

of the hearing loss case until the STS is confirmed by

the second audiogram and is, or course, not required

to record the case if the second audiogram reveals

that the STS was not permanent.... Paragraph

1904.10(b)(5) of the final rule establishes how

employers are to determine the work-relatedness of

hearing loss cases. This paragraph specifies that, in

accordance with the recordkeeping rule's definition

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.10 

(66 FR 6004-6012, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

PART 1904—[AMENDED] (67 FR 77170, Dec. 17,

2002)

(7) How do I complete the 300 Log for a hearing

loss case?

When you enter a recordable hearing loss case on

the OSHA 300 Log, you must check the 300 Log column for hearing loss. 
§1904.10 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 8 3

of work-relationship, hearing loss is presumed to be

work-related for recordkeeping purposes if the

employee is exposed to noise in the workplace at an

8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dB(A) or greater,

or to a total noise dose of 50 percent, as defined in

29 CFR 1910.95. (Noise dose is defined as the amount

of actual employee exposure to noise relative to the

permissible exposure limit for noise; a dose greater

than 100% represents exposure above the limit.) For

hearing loss cases where the employee is not

exposed to this level of workplace noise, or where

the employee is not covered by the Occupational

Noise standard, the employer must use the rules set

out in § 1904.5 to determine if the hearing loss is to

be considered work related for recordkeeping purposes.

Paragraph 1904.10(b)(6) allows the employer not

to record a hearing loss case if a physician or other

licensed health care professional determines that the

hearing loss is not work-related or has not been

aggravated by occupational noise exposure. This

provision is consistent with the Occupational Noise

standard, and it allows the employer not to record a

hearing loss case that is not related to workplace

events or exposures; examples of such cases are

hearing loss cases occurring before the employee is

hired or those unrelated to workplace noise.

The recordkeeping provisions in section 1904.10

of the final recordkeeping rule thus match the provisions of the Occupational Noise standard by (1) covering the same employers and employees (with the

exception of cases occurring among employees not

covered by that standard whose employers have

audiometric test results and high-noise workplaces);

(2) using the same measurements of workplace

noise; (3) using a common definition of hearing loss,

i.e., the STS; (4) using the same hearing loss measurement methods; (5) using the same definitions of

baseline audiogram and revised baseline audiogram;

(6) using the same method to account for age correction in audiogram results; and (7) allowing certain

temporary threshold shifts to be set aside if a subsequent audiogram demonstrates that they are not permanent or a physician or other licensed health care

professional finds they are not related to workplace

noise exposure....

As is the case for many OSHA rules, the 1981

Noise standard was challenged in the courts, which

stayed several provisions. In 1983, OSHA revised the

hearing conservation amendment to revoke many of

the provisions stayed by the court, lift an administrative stay implemented by OSHA, and make technical

corrections (48 FR 9738). One of those provisions

involved the definition of STS, which was renamed a

“standard” rather than “significant” threshold shift to

help differentiate the two separate methods used to

calculate the STS in the 1981 and 1983 rules. Although OSHA changed the calculation method used

to establish an STS in 1983, the role and importance

of the STS concept in the context of a hearing conservation program was unchanged. The main reason

for changing the definition of STS in the 1983 standard was to simplify the original calculation and

address the concerns of employers and audiology

professionals who wished to avoid using a computer

to calculate an STS. The standard requires employers

to take follow-up actions when an STS is identified,

notify the affected employee, evaluate and refit hearing protectors, retrain the employee, and, if necessary, refer the employee for medical evaluation....

...In the 1981 preamble to the Hearing Conservation Amendment, OSHA found that a 10 dB shift in

hearing threshold is significant because it is outside

the range of audiometric error and “it is serious

enough to warrant prompt attention” (46 FR 4144).

The 1983 preamble reinforces these findings. It states

that:

Correctly identifying standard threshold shifts will

enable employers and employees to take corrective

action so that the progression of hearing loss may be

stopped before it becomes handicapping. Moreover, a

standardized definition of STS will ensure that the protection afforded to exposed employees is uniform in

regard to follow-up procedures. * * *

OSHA reaffirms its position on the ideal criterion for

STS which was articulated in the January 16, 1981

promulgation (see 46 FR 4144). The criterion must be

sensitive enough to identify meaningful changes in

hearing level so that follow-up procedures can be implemented to prevent further deterioration of hearing but

must not be so sensitive as to pick up spurious shifts

(sometimes referred to as “false positives”). In other

words, the criterion selected must be outside the range

of audiometric error (48 FR 9760).

OSHA believes that many of the reasons stated in

the 1983 preamble make the STS an appropriate

recording criterion for recordkeeping purposes. For

example, employers are familiar with the STS definition, which is also sensitive enough to identify a nonminor change in hearing. Use of the STS also

reduces the confusion that would arise were OSHA

to require employers to maintain two baselines: one

required by the Occupational Noise standard and one

required for recordkeeping purposes....

OSHA recognizes that using the correction for

presbycusis when interpreting audiogram results is
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.10 

8 4

controversial among experts in the field of audiology

and that NIOSH has developed a new criteria document on occupational noise exposure (“Criteria for a

Recommended Standard; Occupational Noise

Exposure, Revised Criteria, 1998; U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health; June 1998) which at

present does not recommend applying presbycusis

correction values to actual employee audiometric

data. However, since the Occupational Noise standard itself permits employers to adjust the interpretation of audiograms for the effects of aging, it would

be inconsistent and administratively complex to prohibit this practice in the recordkeeping rule. Accordingly, Section 1904.10(b)(3) allows the employer to

adjust for aging when determining the recordability

of hearing loss. The adjustment is made using Tables

F-1 or F-2, as appropriate (table F-1 applies to men

and F-2 applies to women), in Appendix F of 29 CFR

1910.95. However, use of the correction for aging is

not mandatory, just as it is not mandatory in the

Noise standard itself....

...[I]n the final rule, at paragraph 1904.10(b)(4),

employers are permitted, if they choose, to retest the

employee to confirm or disprove that an STS reflected on the first audiogram was attributable to a cold

or some other extraneous factor and was not persistent. If the employer elects to retest, the employer

need not record the case until the retest is completed. If the retest confirms the hearing loss results, the

case must be recorded within 7 calendar days. If the

retest refutes the original test, the case is not recordable, and the employer does not have to take further

action for OSHA recordkeeping purposes. The 30 day

limit in the final recordkeeping rule is consistent with

the 30 day retest provision of Section 1910.95(g)(5)(ii),

which allows the employer to obtain a retest within

30 days and consider the results of the retest as the

annual audiogram if the STS recorded on the first

test is determined not to persist.

OSHA believes that the 30 day retest option

allows the employer to exclude false positive results

and temporary threshold shifts from the data while

ensuring the timely and appropriate recording of true

positive results. Adding language to the final recordkeeping rule to specify different procedures, depending on whether the employer chooses to conduct a

re-test within 30 days, adds some complexity to the

final rule, but OSHA finds that this added complexity

is appropriate because it will reduce burden for some

employers and improve the accuracy of the hearing

loss data....

...For workers who are exposed to the noise levels

that require medical surveillance under Section

1910.95 (an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85

dB(A) or greater, or a total noise dose of 50 percent),

it is highly likely that workplace noise is the cause of

or, at a minimum, has contributed to the observed

STS. It is not necessary for the workplace to be the

sole cause, or even the predominant cause, of the

hearing loss in order for it to be work-related. Because the final recordkeeping rule relies upon the

coverage of the Occupational Noise standard, it is

also not necessary for OSHA to include a minimum

time of exposure provision. The Occupational Noise

standard does not require a baseline audiogram to

be taken for up to six months after the employee is

first exposed to noise in the workplace, and the next

annual audiogram would not be taken until a year

after that.

For any worker to have an applicable change in

audiogram results under the Occupational Noise

standard, the worker would have been exposed to

levels of noise exceeding 85 dB(A) for at least a year,

and possibly even for 18 months.

In addition, the provisions allowing for review by a

physician or other licensed health care professional

allow for the exclusion of hearing loss cases that are

not caused by noise exposure, such as off the job traumatic injury to the ear, infections, and the like. OSHA

notes that this presumption is consistent with a similar

presumption in OSHA’s Occupational Noise standard

(in both cases, an employer is permitted to rebut this

presumption if he or she suspects that the hearing

loss shown on an employer’s audiogram in fact has a

medical etiology and this is confirmed by a physician

or other licensed health care professional)....

Shifts in hearing must be calculated separately for

each ear, in accordance with the requirements of

Section 1910.95. However, if a single audiogram

reflects a loss of hearing in both ears, only one hearing loss case must be entered into the records. The

issue of revising baseline audiograms to evaluate the

extent of future hearing loss pertains to a hearing

loss case that has been entered on the Log. If a single-ear STS loss has been recorded on the Log, then

the baseline audiogram should be adjusted for that

ear, and that ear only. If an STS affecting both ears

has been recorded on the Log, then the baseline

audiogram may be revised and applied to both ears.

This means that there should be no cases where the

baseline audiogram has been adjusted and the case

has not been recorded on the Log.
§1904.10 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 8 5

[67 FR 44038, July 1, 2002]

II. Recording Occupational Hearing Loss Cases 

Section 1904.10 of the January 19, 2001 final recordkeeping rule required employers to record, by checking the “hearing loss” column on the OSHA 300 Log,

all cases in which an employee’s hearing test (audiogram) revealed that a Standard Threshold Shift (STS)

in hearing acuity had occurred. An STS was defined

as “a change in hearing threshold, relative to the

most recent audiogram for that employee, of an

average of 10 decibels or more at 2000, 3000 and

4000 Hertz (Hz) in one or both ears.” The recordkeeping rule itself does not require the employer to test

employee’s hearing. However, OSHA’s occupational

noise standard (29 CFR 1910.95) requires employers

in general industry to conduct periodic audiometric

testing of employees when employees’ noise exposures are equal to, or exceed, an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85dBA. Under the provisions of

Section 1910.95, if such testing reveals that an

employee has sustained a hearing loss equal to an

STS, the employer must take protective measures,

including requiring the use of hearing protectors, to

prevent further hearing loss. Employers in the construction, agriculture, oil and gas drilling and servicing are not covered by Section 1910.95, and therefore

are not required by OSHA to provide hearing tests. If

employers in these industries voluntarily conduct

hearing tests they are required to record hearing loss

cases meeting the recording criteria set forth in the

final Section 1904.10 rule. 

[67 FR 77169, Dec.17, 2002]

D. Other Hearing Loss Issues

The preamble to the final rule stated that employers

in the shipbuilding industries are not covered by

OSHA’s noise standard Section 1910.95 and are therefore not required to perform audiometric tests. (67 FR

44038, 44040). This statement was an error. OSHA

Directive STD 0.2 Identification of General Industry

Safety and Health Standards (29 CFR 1910)

Applicable to Shipyard Work specifically states that

employers in the shipbuilding industry that are covered by the 29 CFR part 1915 Standards are required

to comply with a number of 29 CFR Part 1910 standards, including the Section 1910.95 requirements for

occupational noise.

[67 FR 44038-44044, July 1, 2002]

II. Recording Occupational Hearing Loss Cases 

(continued)

One of the major issues in the recordkeeping rulemaking was to determine the level of occupational

hearing loss that constitutes a health condition seri -

ous enough to warrant recording. This was necessary

because the final rule no longer requires recording of

minor or insignificant health conditions that do not

result in one or more of the general recording criteria

such as medical treatment, restricted work, or days

away from work (See, e.g., 66 FR 5931). In its 1996

Federal Register notice OSHA proposed a requirement to record hearing loss averaging 15 dB at 2000,

3000 and 4000 Hz in one or both ears (61 FR 4040).

OSHA adopted the lower 10-dB threshold in the final

rule based in part upon comments that “(a)n age-corrected STS is a large hearing change that can affect

communicative competence” (66 FR 6008). 

OSHA’s Decision 

Following consideration of the comments received in

response to the July 3, 2001 proposal to modify the

hearing loss recording criteria, OSHA has decided to

require employers to record audiometric results indicating a Standard Threshold Shift (STS) only when

such STS cases also reflect a total hearing level of at

least 25 dB from audiometric zero. The STS calculation uses audiometric results averaged over the frequencies 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hz, using the original

baseline and annual audiograms required by the

OSHA noise standard Section 1910.95. The rule also

allows the employer to adjust the employee’s audiogram results used to determine an STS to subtract

hearing loss caused by aging, allows the employer to

retest the workers’ hearing to make sure the hearing

loss is persistent, and allows the employer to seek

and follow the advice of a physician or licensed

health care professional in determining whether or

not the hearing loss was work-related. 

The approach adopted in the final rule has several

advantages. By using the STS definition from the

OSHA noise standard Section 1910.95, the Section

1904.10 regulation uses a sensitive measure of hearing loss that has occurred while the employee is

employed by his or her current employer. By requiring all recorded cases of hearing loss to exceed 25

dB from audiometric zero, the regulation assures that

all recorded hearing losses are significant illnesses. 

The hearing loss recording level is also compatible with the final rule’s definition of injury or illness,

“an abnormal condition or disorder” (Section

1904.46). Various scales used to rate hearing loss

consider hearing levels less than 25 dB to be within

the “normal range” (American Medical Association

Guidelines to the Evaluation of Material Impairment,

American Academy of Family Physicians, Audiology

Awareness Campaign). The recording level is also
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.10 

8 6

compatible with the definition of material impairment

used by OSHA and MSHA in the development of

standards for occupational noise exposure (64 FR

49548, 48 FR 9738). 

The hearing loss recording requirements in

Section 1904.10 differ from the requirements of the

OSHA noise standard (Section 1910.95) because

under the noise standard the employer is required to

take certain actions (employee notification, providing

hearing protectors or refitting of hearing protectors,

etc.) for all 10-db standard threshold shifts while the

part 1904 rule only requires the recording of STSs

that also exceed the total 25-db level. OSHA believes

that this is an appropriate policy, because 10-db shifts

in hearing at higher levels (above 25 dB) are more

significant....

When audiometric testing is done, test tones are

presented at various sound levels, usually increasing

or decreasing in 5-dB steps. The employee is asked

to respond whenever a tone is heard, with the goal

being finding the lowest level at which the employee

can consistently hear. The standard measurement for

measuring hearing level is decibels, a logarithmic

scale. For the first increase in hearing level from 0 to

10 dB, the sound intensity increases 10 fold. The next

10 dB is a 100-fold increase. By the time a person’s

hearing level changes from 0 to 30 dB hearing level,

he or she needs 1,000 times more sound intensity to

just barely hear. 

Although the part 1904 recordkeeping regulation

and the Section 1910.95 noise standard treat the STS

cases differently, this has no effect on the noise standard’s requirements and does not have any effect on

the requirement for employers to comply with

Section 1910.95. When employers detect work-related STS cases, they are required to take all of the follow-up actions required by the noise standard.

Additionally, the STS measure uses existing

measurements and calculations employers are

already using to comply with the OSHA noise standard, resulting in less paperwork burden for employers covered by both rules. Employers are required to

take one additional step to determine if the STS has

also resulted in a total hearing level of 25 dB or

more, and if so, to record it. The position taken in

Section 1904.10 provides a reasonable compromise

between the commenters’ highly polarized views on

the proper recording level. The final rule’s hearing

loss recording provisions provide a reasonable “middle ground” solution to reconcile the differences

between a highly sensitive measure of hearing loss

(all 10-db shifts) and increasingly insensitive measures (15, 20, or 25-db shifts). 

The approach used in this final rule is a newly

developed alternative that was not considered in the

January 2001 rulemaking because none of the commenters to the 1996 proposed rule suggested it.... 

OSHA believes that the Section 1904.10 requirements will improve the nation’s statistics on occupational hearing loss and that more hearing loss cases

will be entered on employers’ OSHA 300 Logs.

However, OSHA recognizes that the new requirements may not result in comprehensive statistics for

occupational hearing loss. Employees may experience significant hearing loss in industries where

audiometric testing is not required (construction,

agriculture, oil and gas drilling and servicing), and is

not provided voluntarily by the employer, and thus

is never entered into the records. Likewise, an

employee may experience gradual hearing loss while

employed by several employers, but never work for

the same employer long enough to allow a recordable STS to be captured. As to the effect on trend

analysis, caution must be used when comparing

Section 1904.10 hearing loss data that span the effective date of this rule. The new hearing loss recording

rule will result in the recording of additional cases of

hearing loss, not as a result of a change in the number of workers who experience hearing loss, but simply because of the recordkeeping change. 

OSHA finds that recording only 25-dB shifts from

the employee’s baseline audiogram is not an appropriate policy. If an employee had significant hearing

loss before being hired by the employer, additional

hearing loss would not be recorded until well beyond

the point of disability. This would not conform to the

requirements of section 24 of the Act directing the

Secretary to “[c]ompile accurate statistics on work

injuries and illnesses which shall include all disabling, serious, or significant injuries and illnesses * * *”

(emphasis added) (29 U.S.C. 673). The recording of

25-dB shifts in hearing acuity, measured from the

employee’s original baseline audiogram would clearly understate the true incidence of work-related hearing loss. Likewise, if the part 1904 regulation were to

require only the recording of 15 or 20-dB shifts, or

categorically exclude the first STS case the rule

would exclude many legitimate and serious hearing

loss cases that should rightfully be entered into the

records and the Nation’s injury and illness statistics.

This approach would be especially deficient at capturing hearing loss in those employees who change

employers several times during their working lives.... 

OSHA does not agree with the commenters who

argued that because the function of the OSHA standards and regulations, including the part 1904 regula-
§1904.10 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 8 7

tion, is to protect workers, worker protection would

be compromised by any policy other than the recording of all STS cases. OSHA encourages employers

and employees to use the OSHA injury and illness

records to improve workplace safety and health conditions, and this is one of the functions of the Part

1904 records. However, this is not the only function

of the records. They are also used to generate injury

and illness statistics for the Nation and for individual

workplaces. They are used by OSHA representatives

to identify hazards during workplace inspections, and

are collected by OSHA to target its intervention

efforts to more hazardous worksites (See 66 FR 5916-

5917). As stated in the 2001 rulemaking, “[n]o new

protections are being provided by the recordkeeping

rule”. Further, the OSH Act does not require the

recording of all injuries and illnesses and specifically

excludes certain minor injury and illness cases. This

exclusion, which is discussed in the preamble to the

January 19, 2001 final rule, applies to both injuries

and illnesses, including hearing loss (See 66 FR 5931-

5932). It is thus entirely appropriate for the recordkeeping rule to exclude certain minor illness cases

while capturing more serious cases. 

The hearing loss recording requirements of

Section 1904.10 will not deprive employers and

employees of information about noise hazards or

diminish workers’ protection against the hazards of

noise in the workplace. The occupational noise exposure standard requires that employees in general

industry be tested for hearing loss when noise exposure exceeds an 8-hour time-weighted average of

85dB, and that employees be informed, in writing, if

a 10-dB shift has occurred. The audiometric test

records must be retained for the duration of the

affected employee’s employment. (See 29 CFR

1910.95(g), (m)). The noise standard also specifies the

protective measures to be taken to prevent further

hearing loss for employees who have experienced a

10-dB shift, including the use of hearing protectors

and referral for audiological evaluation where appropriate. (See 29 CFR 1910.95(g)(8)). These requirements, which apply without regard to the recording

criteria in the recordkeeping rule, will protect workers

against the hazards of noise. The modified requirements of Section 1904.10 will therefore not deprive

employers and workers of the means to detect and

prevent hearing loss. 

Finally, section 4(b)(4) of the OSH Act provides

that “[n]othing in this Act shall be construed to

supersede or in any manner affect any workmen’s

compensation law or to enlarge or diminish or affect

in any other manner the common law or statutory

rights, duties, or liabilities of employers and employees under any law with respect to injuries, diseases,

or death of employees arising out of, or in the course

of, employment.” 29 U.S.C. 653(b)(4). Accordingly, the

OSHA recordkeeping rule will have no legal effect on

state workers’ compensation systems. There is no

evidence that the states have modified their systems

to conform to OSHA’s previous hearing loss recording policies; in fact, the states are far from uniform in

their treatment of occupational hearing loss. Therefore, OSHA does not expect the 1904 regulation to

have any effect on state workers’ compensation systems in the future. 

Audiometric Error

...OSHA agrees ... that the recordkeeping rule should

not take any actions to address the issues of audiometric variability, and finds that there is no need to

increase the recording loss threshold to 15 or 20 dB

to account for variability. The OSHA noise standard

includes provisions that standardize audiometric testing protocols. The requirements in Section 1910.95

(g) Audiometric Testing Program, Section 1910.95(h)

Audiometric Test Requirements, Mandatory Appendix

C to Section 1910.95 Audiometric Measuring

Instruments, Mandatory Appendix D to Section

1910.95 Audiometric Test Rooms, and Mandatory

Appendix E to Section 1910.95 Acoustic Calibration 

of Audiometers, and the incorporated provisions of

American Standard Specification for Audiometers

S3.6-1969 provide standardized methodologies for

conducting hearing tests designed to assure, as far

as possible, that audiograms are accurate....

It should be noted that it is impossible to eliminate audiometric errors in their entirety. Any recording level, no matter how it is set, will be subject to

some level of false positive and false negative errors.

However, OSHA believes that the audiometric testing

requirements of Section 1910.95, if followed, will provide reasonably accurate audiometric data for the

administration of the OSHA noise standard, and for

the recording of occupational hearing loss. As [a

commentor] commented: “(f)ollowing a standardized

testing protocol (using 29 CFR 1910.95), and including

adjustments for age and the use of a retest in 30

days, has provided accurate, consistent results.”

OSHA believes that the provisions allowing the

employer to age adjust audiograms, seek advice

from a physician or other licensed health care professional for determining work-relationship, retest within 30 days, and remove cases later found not to be

persistent provide reasonable checks against false

positive results being recorded on the 300 Log. 
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.10 

8 8

Age Correction 

The final rule carries forward the January 19, 2001

rule’s conceptual framework allowing, but not requiring, the employer to age adjust an employee’s annual

audiogram when determining whether or not a 10-dB

shift in hearing acuity has occurred....

While the final rule allows the employer to agecorrect the STS portion of the recording criteria, there

is no allowance for age correction for determining a

25-dB hearing level. The AMA Guides specifically

state that total hearing loss should not be age adjusted, and there is no recognized consensus method for

age adjusting a single audiogram. The method used

in Appendix F of Section 1910.95 is designed to age

correct STS, not absolute hearing ability. The 25-dB

criteria is used to assure the existence of a serious illness, and reflects the employee’s overall health condition, regardless of causation. Age correcting the

STS will provide adequate safeguards against recording age corrected hearing loss. Therefore, it would be

inappropriate and unnecessary to age correct the 25-

dB hearing level. 

Persistence 

... The OSHA noise standard addresses the issue of

temporary hearing losses by allowing the employer

to retest the employee’s hearing within 30 days

(1910.95(g)(7)(ii)). The 2001 rule adopted the same 30

day retest option at Section 1904.10(b)(4) by allowing

the employer to delay recording if a retest was going

to be performed in the next 30 days. 

... OSHA has decided not to allow a longer retesting period. A longer retesting period would increase

the likelihood that the employer would lose track of

the case and therefore inadvertently fail to record the

case. These errors would have a detrimental effect on

the accuracy of the records and run counter to

OSHA’s goal of improving the quality of the injury

and illness data. The Agency also believes that using

different time periods for retesting in the part 1904

and Section 1910.95 rules would result in increased

confusion for employers. 

The Agency has also rejected the suggestion that

all hearing loss cases must be confirmed prior to

recording them. Waiting for one year or longer to

record an occupational hearing loss would move the

recording to a year in which the original hearing loss

was not initially discovered, would be administratively more complex for employers, and would have a

detrimental effect on the hearing loss data. Many

legitimate hearing loss cases could go unrecorded

simply because the employee did not receive a subsequent audiogram due to job changes or some

other circumstance that might occur before the next

annual audiogram required by the noise standard.... 

... The OSHA noise standard at Section 1910.95(g)(3),

requires that:

Audiometric tests shall be performed by a licensed or

certified audiologist, otolaryngologist, or other physician,

or by a technician who is certified by the Council of

Accreditation in Occupational Hearing Conservation, or

who has satisfactorily demonstrated competence in

administering audiometric examinations, obtaining valid

audiograms, and properly using, maintaining and checking calibration and proper functioning of the audiometers being used. A technician who operates microprocessor audiometers does not need to be certified. A technician who performs audiometric tests must be responsible to an audiologist, otolaryngologist or physician. 

Because the noise standard already requires

audiograms to be conducted by, or under the supervision of, a qualified professional, subsequent audiograms that may refute the persistence of a recorded

hearing loss will be reviewed by the appropriate professional. The Section 1904.10 rule simply cross-references the need for the audiograms to be obtained

pursuant to the requirements of Section 1910.95, so

there is no need for the Section 1904.10 rule to repeat

the review requirement. . . . [T]he rule does not

require the employer to maintain documentation

concerning the removal of cases. Section

1910.95(m)(2) of the noise standard requires the

employer to keep records of all audiometric tests that

are performed, and those records will be available,

should they be needed for future reference. As a

result, there is no need to add a duplicative paperwork burden in the Section 1904.10 rule. Therefore,

Section 1904.10(b)(4) states that “If subsequent

audiometric testing indicates that an STS is not persistent, you may erase or line-out the recorded

entry”. OSHA has added this additional regulatory

language to minimize the recording of temporary

hearing loss cases while capturing complete data on

the incidence of hearing loss disorders. 

Frequencies 

...OSHA has decided to continue to use the frequencies used in the Section 1910.95 OSHA noise standard (2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz). While “most” communication occurs at lower frequencies, these are

clearly audible frequencies where some speech

occurs, and where hearing loss can have a significant

impact on workers’ lives outside of verbal communication. Using these frequencies reduces the burden
§1904.10 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 8 9

on employers that would be created by requiring

separate calculations of audiometric results, and, as 

...stated “(w)ith regard to the early effects of noise

exposure, it seems reasonable to extend the definition across the standard shift frequencies 2000, 3000,

and 4000 Hz” (Ex. 3-62). 

Baseline Reference and Revision of Baseline 

...The two-part test for recording that is being adopted in the final rule uses the baseline audiogram as

the reference point for determining whether or not

the employee has had a change in hearing while

employed by his or her current employer, and then

uses audiometric zero as the reference point for

determining the overall hearing ability of the affected

employee. OSHA agrees that the employee’s baseline

audiogram is a superior reference point for measuring a change of hearing, a Standard Threshold Shift.

Using the baseline audiogram taken upon employment reduces the effect of any prior hearing loss the

employee may have experienced, whether it is nonoccupational hearing loss or occupational hearing

loss caused by previous employment. Therefore, the

final rule uses the employee’s original baseline

audiogram as the reference for the STS component

of an initial hearing loss case, and uses the revised

baseline audiogram from that initial case as the reference for future cases. 

The 25-dB total hearing level component of an

OSHA recordable hearing loss uses a reference of

audiometric zero. This portion of the recording criteria is used to assure that the employee’s total hearing

level is beyond the normal range of hearing, so it

does not exclude hearing loss due to non-work causes, prior employment, or any other cause. The measurement simply reflects the employee’s current hearing ability as reflected in the most recent audiogram.

This comparison to audiometric zero is a simple matter, because audiometers are designed to provide

results that are referenced to audiometric zero. The

hearing level at each frequency is oftentimes printed

by the equipment, so there is rarely a need to perform manual calculations.... 

[67 FR 77169, Dec.17, 2002]

D. Other Hearing Loss Issues

...The second issue involves the computation of a

Standard Threshold Shift (STS), which is one part of

the two-part recording criteria recently published (67

FR 44037-44048). (The case must also reflect a 25 dB

hearing level compared to audiometric zero.) The

STS computation is to be made in accordance with

the Occupational Noise Exposure Standard 1910.95.

As OSHA stated in the preamble to the July 1, 2002

rulemaking, the Section 1904.10 regulation “[u]ses

existing measurements employers are already using

to comply with the OSHA noise standard, resulting in

less paperwork burden for employers covered by

both rules” (67 FR 44040). Under 1910.95, the

employee’s current audiogram is compared to the

employee’s baseline audiogram, which may be the

original audiogram taken when the employee was

first placed in a hearing conservation program, or the

revised baseline audiogram allowed by the

Occupational Noise Exposure standard. Paragraph

1910.95(g)(9) of the noise rule states:

(9) Revised baseline. An annual audiogram may

be substituted for the baseline audiogram when, in

the judgment of the audiologist, otolaryngologist, or

physician who is evaluating the audiogram:

(i) The standard threshold shift revealed by the

audiogram is persistent, or

(ii) The hearing threshold shown in the annual

audiogram indicates significant improvement over

the baseline audiogram.

OSHA’s former recording criteria required the

employer to track separate baselines for recording

and hearing conservation purposes. However, the

new Part 1904 hearing loss recording system relies

on the existing 1910.95 calculations, and separate

baselines will no longer be required. In short, under

the new Part 1904, a recordable hearing loss case

occurs when an employee experiences an STS (as

defined in 29 CFR 1910.95), the STS is work-related,

and the employee’s aggregate hearing loss exceeds

25dB from audiometric zero.

[67 FR 44044-44047, July 1, 2002]

Work Relationship 

... [T]he final rule states that there are no special rules

for determining work-relationship for hearing loss

cases and restates the rule’s overall approach to

determining work-relatedness -- that a case is workrelated if one or more events or exposures in the

work environment either caused or contributed to the

hearing loss, or significantly aggravated a pre-existing hearing loss. 

The final rule’s approach to determining workrelatedness differs from the January 2001 rule for

three reasons. First, although it is likely that occupational exposure to noise in excess of 85 dBA will be a

causal factor in hearing loss in some cases, a presumption of work-relatedness is not justified in all

cases. Further evaluation is needed to make this

determination. Second, the policy in the final rule is

consistent with the general principle in § 1904.5 that
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.10 

9 0

work-relatedness is to be determined on a case-bycase basis. Third, the approach used in the January

2001 rule is not supported by comments to the docket. None of the commenters supported the presumption, while many opposed it. 

The final rule also continues the 2001 rule’s policy

allowing the employer to seek the guidance of a

physician or other licensed health care professional

when determining the work-relatedness of hearing

loss cases. Paragraph (b)(6) of the rule states that if a

physician or other licensed health care professional

determines that the hearing loss is not work-related

or has not been significantly aggravated by occupational noise exposure, the employer is not required

to consider the case work-related, and therefore is

not required to record it. 

When evaluating the work relatedness of a given

hearing loss case, the employer should take several

factors into account. ...One important factor to consider is the effectiveness of the hearing protection program. When employees are exposed to high levels of

noise in the workplace, and do not wear appropriate

hearing protection devices, a case of hearing loss is

more likely to be work-related. If an employee’s hearing protection devices are not appropriate for the

noise conditions, if they do not fit properly, or if they

are not used properly and consistently, they may not

provide enough protection to prevent workplace

noise from contributing to a hearing loss case.... 

Miscellaneous Hearing Loss Issues 

Several of OSHA’s rules provide access rights to

audiometric data. Section 1910.95(g)(8) of the noise

standard requires employers to inform employees, in

writing, that they have experienced a standard

threshold shift. OSHA’s rule for access to employee

exposure and medical records (Section 1910.1020)

requires employers to provide access to medical

records, exposure records, and analyses of records

to employees and their designated representatives.

Finally, the part 1904 regulation requires employers

to provide employee access to the OSHA injury and

illness data. 

State Plans

... During 2002, the State Plan States were allowed to

maintain their policies for the recording of hearing

loss, while OSHA reconsidered what the appropriate

recording criteria should be. In the Federal Register

document announcing the one year delay and the

interim policy for year 2002, OSHA stated that when

it issues a final determination for the recording of

occupational hearing loss for calendar years 2003

and beyond, the states would be required to have

identical criteria (66 FR 52033). Now that OSHA has

issued its final determination, the States are required

to promulgate identical criteria. 

[67 FR 77168-77169, Dec.17, 2002]

B. OSHA’s Reasons for Retaining the Hearing Loss

Column

OSHA has decided to retain the hearing loss column.

Doing so will improve the Nation’s statistical information on occupational hearing loss, facilitate analysis

of hearing loss data at individual workplaces, and

improve the Agency’s ability to assess this common

occupational disorder. One of the major functions of

the Part 1904 regulation is to produce national statistics for occupational injury and illness (29 U.S.C.

657.(c)(1)). The data will clearly improve the Nation’s

statistics on occupational hearing loss....

Because the BLS statistics on case characteristics

only reflect injuries and illnesses that result in days

away from work, and workers commonly suffer hearing loss and never require a day away from work, the

BLS estimates represent only a minor fraction of the

total hearing loss experienced by U.S. workers and

do not reflect the incidence of occupational hearing

loss. A discussion of the BLS data systems and how

they function may be found at http://www.bls.gov/

bls/safety.htm. By providing a separate 300 Log column for this disorder, the data for hearing loss will

be summarized by the employer at the end of the

year, and will be captured by the BLS when sampled

employers submit their summary injury and illness

information. Thus, national statistics will be available,

for the first time, that include cases that result in

days away from work and those that do not....

The resulting statistics will be of value to several

groups. The data will have value on their own as a

public information resource that can be accessed by

students, hearing loss professionals, researchers, and

others. The data can be used by policy makers to prioritize hearing loss prevention efforts and measure

the performance of those efforts, whether they are

enforcement, guidance, outreach or consultation.

OSHA believes that the greatest value of the data will

be realized by employers and employees at individual workplaces. These individuals have always had

the ability to determine the incidence of hearing loss

cases in their workplace via analysis of the individual

case descriptions on the OSHA 300 Logs; the hearing

loss column will only make this task easier. The

greater value of the column lies in the new ability to

benchmark the hearing loss statistics of an individual

workplace to the hearing loss statistics for industry
§1904.10 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 9 1

as a whole, or to hearing loss statistics for a comparable industry classification. This will allow employers and employees to compare their hearing loss

prevention performance to the performance of their

peers and know whether or not their efforts are succeeding. This is a function that is not required under

the Section 1910.95 noise standard, and is a useful

purpose of the Part 1904 records.

OSHA disagrees with the arguments against a

hearing loss column. In response to the criticism that

the data will not shed light on causes or provide value

in determining preventive strategies, ...a mere entry

on the Log does not, by itself, show an employer or

employee how to prevent hearing loss. That is the

function of further analysis of the hearing loss cases,

the workplace, and the employer’s hearing conservation program. In this matter, hearing loss is no different than any other type of injury or illness. The Log

provides descriptive data about occupational injuries

and illnesses and some of the circumstances surrounding them. It does not replace the need for

causal analysis of occupational injuries and illnesses.

...OSHA notes that the data only reflect work-related

hearing loss cases. Part 1904 requires the employer to

consider the case to be work-related only when exposure at work either causes or contributes to a hearing

loss, or significantly aggravates a pre-existing hearing

loss (Section 1904.5). Section 1904.10(b)(6) allows the

employer to consider the case non work-related if a

physician or other licensed health care professional

determines the hearing loss is not work related.

Finally, the column is not burdensome. Although

the rule does not require employers to use computer

software to track injuries and illnesses, many employers do so voluntarily, and these employers will have

some minimal initial costs to revise their software.

Employers will also experience a small training cost

to familiarize the employees who maintain the

records with the new column. However, once these

tasks are completed, it is no more burdensome to

check a hearing loss column than one of the other

columns on the form....

D. Other Hearing Loss Issues

...Third, OSHA has noted concern among employers

because the application of the new two-part test in

the new Section 1904.10 recording criteria will result

in an increase in recorded hearing loss cases. As

noted in the July 1, 2002 rulemaking, the new criteria

will capture more hearing loss cases. Employers will

experience an increase in recorded hearing loss

cases in 2004 and future years. Caution must be used

when comparing past and future data to prior years

data. OSHA recognizes this increase, and will take

the changes in the recordkeeping rule into account

when evaluating an employer’s injury and illness

experience.

Note: In all cases, use the most current baseline to determine recordability as you would to calculate an

STS under the hearing conservation

provisions of the noise standard 

(§1910.95). If an STS occurs in only

one ear, you may only revise the

baseline audiogram for that ear.

* The audiogram may be adjusted

for presbycusis (aging) as set out in

1910.95.

Use this ‘decision tree’ to determine whether the results 

of a audiometric exam reveal a recordable STS.

Has the employee suffered an STS (an average 10dB

or more loss relative to the most current baseline

audiogram averaged at 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hz) in

one or both ears according to the provisions of the

OSHA noise standard (§1910.95)?*

Is the hearing loss work-related?

Record on the OSHA 300 Log and check the 

hearing loss column (m5). Do not record 

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

Is the employee’s overall hearing level at 25dB or

more above audiometric zero averaged at 2000,

3000 and 4000 Hz in the affected ear(s)?
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.10 

9 2

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.10 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5) 

Section 1904.10 Recording criteria for cases involving occupational hearing loss

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.10 

Section 1904.10 Recording criteria for cases involving occupational hearing loss

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Letters of interpretation explain

these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional

employer obligations. These letters constitute OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed.

Note that OSHA enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to

time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. 

Letters of Interpretation constitute OSHA’s interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may

not be applicable to any situation not delineated within the original correspondence.

Question 10-1. If an employee suffers a Standard

Threshold Shift (STS) in only one ear, may the

employer revise the baselines for both ears?

No. A Standard Threshold Shift, or STS, is defined in

the occupational noise exposure standard at 29 CFR

1910.95(g)(10)(i) as a change in hearing threshold, relative to the baseline audiogram for that employee, of

an average of 10 decibels (dB) or more at 2000, 3000,

and 4000 hertz (Hz) in one or both ears. The employer is permitted only to revise the baseline in the ear

where the employee suffered an STS change in hearing threshold. 

Question 10-2. Which baseline is used to determine

if a recordable Standard Threshold Shift (STS) has

occurred this year?

Employers should use the same baseline that they

would use to comply with OSHA’s Noise Standard,

Part 1910.95. If the employer chose to revise an

Letter of interpretation related to section 1904.10(b)(4) –

Recording criteria for recordkeeping cases involving occupational hearing loss.

employee’s baseline due to a previous STS, then the

employer would use the same revised baseline when

determining recordability under section 1904.10 of

the recordkeeping regulation. 

Question 10-3. If an employee experienced a recordable hearing loss case, where would the employer

record the case on the OSHA 300 Log?

Prior to 2004, employers should record work-related

hearing loss cases according to the instructions

included with the Recordkeeping Forms. If the loss is

associated with an event, such as acoustic trauma

(e.g., an explosion), it would be recorded as an injury

with a check mark in column (M)(1). If the loss is not

an injury, it would be recorded as an illness, with a

check mark in the all other illness column. Beginning

in January 2004, employers must record all hearing

loss cases in the separate hearing loss column

(M)(5). 
§1904.10 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 9 3

March 4, 2004 

Mr. Carl O. Sall, CIH

Director of Occupational Safety

and Health Compliance

Comprehensive Health Services, Inc.

8229 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700

Vienna, VA 22182-2623 

Dear Mr. Sall: 

This is in response to your letter dated February 13, 2003. Thank you for your comments pertaining to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Injury and Illness Recording

and Reporting Requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904. In your letter you requested clarifications on some issues related to the recording criteria for cases involving occupational hearing loss.

Your questions are summarized below, followed by our responses. 

Question: Does the thirty-day retest start on the day the initial hearing exam was completed, or on

the date that the results are given to the employer? 

Response: For OSHA purposes, the thirty-day retest begins from the date of the first test under

Section 1904.10(b)(4) in the regulation. Also, see the September 4, 1991 letter of interpretation to

Mr. Paul V. Williams from Patricia Clark. A retest audiogram may not be substituted for an initial

audiogram unless it is obtained within thirty calendar days of the date of initial audiogram regardless of the fact that an outside evaluating concern is used. 

Question: Can I correct my OSHA 300 Log if on a subsequent exam an employee's hearing

improves to a point that is no longer recordable? 

Response: For purposes of OSHA recordkeeping, 1904.10(b)(4) states that "If subsequent audiometric testing indicates that a Standard Threshold Shift (STS) is not persistent, you may erase or

line-out the recorded entry." While the recordkeeping rule does not require the employer to maintain documentation concerning the removal of cases, Section 1910.95(m)(2) of the noise standard

requires the employer to keep records of all audiometric tests that are performed. Therefore, those

records will be available, should they be needed for future reference. 

Question: Does the hearing loss recordkeeping requirement apply to the Construction Industry? 

Response: Yes. Employers in the construction industry are required to follow the recordkeeping

requirements of 1904. Hearing losses of employees that meet the recording criteria set forth in 29

CFR 1904.10 must be recorded. 

Finally, you have asked OSHA to review your draft examples of how to properly record an occupational hearing loss case. Work-related hearing loss cases must be recorded if they meet the

requirements of 1904.10. Two basic questions must be answered: 

1. Did the employee suffer a Standard Threshold Shift (STS) of 10 dB or more in one or both ears? 

2. Is the employee's overall hearing level 25 dB or more above audiometric zero in the same or

both ears? 

If both questions can be answered yes, then it must be recorded on the OSHA 300 log. A decision

tree has been enclosed to aid you with your recordkeeping requirements. 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information

helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot

create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. 
May 8, 2003 

Ms. Linda Ballas

Linda Ballas & Associates

4413 Copper Creek Lane

Toledo, OH 43615 

Dear Ms. Ballas: 

Thank you for your January 21 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) regarding the Occupational Noise standard. In your letter, you requested a clarification

about how baseline audiograms should be revised. You also pointed out that two of our letters of

interpretation provide contradictory guidance and are causing confusion among hearing associates.

A corrected response appears below. 

The Occupational Noise Standard, 29 CFR 1910.95, requires employers to establish and maintain

an audiometric testing program for all employees whose exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour

time-weighted average (TWA) of 85 decibels on the “A” scale (dBA). Annual audiograms are compared to the baseline audiogram to determine if hearing loss is occurring. 

If a standard threshold shift (STS), defined as an average of 10 dBA or more at 2000, 3000, and

4000 Hz, occurs in either ear, the employer must follow certain procedures outlined in the standard, including notifying the affected employee in writing. Hearing loss cases that meet specific criteria must be recorded on the OSHA 300 log according to the recordkeeping requirements of

1904.10. 

With regard to your request for a clarification as to how to revise the baseline, OSHA allows

employers to revise the baseline by substituting the annual audiogram for the baseline audiogram

when the reviewing professional determines that an STS is persistent. Such a revision would serve

to prevent the same STS from being identified repeatedly for an employee whose hearing has stabilized. As a corollary, an annual audiogram may be substituted for the baseline audiogram when

thresholds have significantly improved. 

Letter of interpretation related to sections 1904.10, 1910.95, 1910.95(g)(1), 1910.95(g)(5), 1910.95(g)(7),

1910.95(g)(9) and 1910.95(g)(10) – 

Baseline audiogram revision due to persistent STS or improved thresholds; revision must be made for each

ear separately.

Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep

appraised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov. If you

have any further questions, please contact the Division of Recordkeeping Requirements, at 202-

693-1702. 

Sincerely, 

Frank Frodyma, Acting Director

Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis 

Enclosure

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.10 

9 4
When the professional evaluating the audiogram determines that a baseline revision is appropriate,

whether due to a persistent STS or improved thresholds, the baseline must be revised for each ear

separately. For example, although an employee’s annual audiogram shows hearing thresholds deteriorating in both ears simultaneously, occasionally an audiogram will show that an employee is suffering an STS in only one ear. This can sometimes be attributed to working near a loud noise

source that is close to the affected ear. If such a shift is shown to be persistent in the judgment of

the professional evaluating the audiogram, then the baseline audiogram may be revised due to the

persistent STS. A baseline audiogram that shows a persistent shift for only one ear may be revised

for only that ear. The baseline may not be revised for the other unaffected ear. This procedure is

required because it provides a clear indication of how each ear is affected by noise. 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health and bringing these letters to our

attention. The erroneous 1996 letter to Mr. Dean Harris will be removed from our website shortly.

We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and

regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular

circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes

OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be

affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to

new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at

http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Office of

Health Enforcement at (202) 693-2190. 

Sincerely, 

Richard E. Fairfax, Director

Directorate of Enforcement Programs

§1904.10 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 9 5
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.11 

9 6

Section 1904.11 

Recording criteria for work-related tuberculosis cases 

(66 FR 6129, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.11

Subpart C – Recordkeeping forms and recording criteria

(66 FR 6123, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Note to Subpart C: This Subpart describes the work-related injuries and illnesses that an employer must enter

into the OSHA records and explains the OSHA forms that employers must use to record work-related fatalities, injuries, and illnesses.

Section 1904.11 Recording criteria for work-related tuberculosis cases

(a) Basic requirement.

If any of your employees has been occupationally

exposed to anyone with a known case of active

tuberculosis (TB), and that employee subsequently

develops a tuberculosis infection, as evidenced by a

positive skin test or diagnosis by a physician or other

licensed health care professional, you must record

the case on the OSHA 300 Log by checking the “respiratory condition” column.

(b) Implementation.

(1) Do I have to record, on the Log, a positive TB

skin test result obtained at a pre-employment physical? 

No, you do not have to record it because the

employee was not occupationally exposed to a

known case of active tuberculosis in your workplace.

(2) May I line-out or erase a recorded TB case if I

obtain evidence that the case was not caused by

occupational exposure? 

Yes, you may line-out or erase the case from the

Log under the following circumstances:

(i) The worker is living in a household with a person who has been diagnosed with active TB;

(ii) The Public Health Department has identified

the worker as a contact of an individual with a

case of active TB unrelated to the workplace; or 

(iii) A medical investigation shows that the

employee’s infection was caused by exposure to

TB away from work, or proves that the case was

not related to the workplace TB exposure.

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.11 

(66 FR 6013-6017, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.11 Recording criteria for work-related

tuberculosis cases

Section 1904.11 of the final rule being published

today addresses the recording of tuberculosis (TB)

infections that may occur to workers occupationally

exposed to TB.... There are two general stages of TB,

tuberculosis infection and active tuberculosis disease. 

Individuals with tuberculosis infection and no

active disease are not infectious; tuberculosis infections are asymptomatic and are only detected by a

positive response to a tuberculin skin test....

The text of Section 1904.11 of the final rule states:

(a) Basic requirement.

If any of your employees has been occupationally

exposed to anyone with a known case of active

tuberculosis (TB), and that employee subsequently

develops a tuberculosis infection, as evidenced by a

positive skin test or diagnosis by a physician or other

licensed health care professional, you must record

the case on the OSHA 300 Log by checking the “respiratory condition” column.

(b) Implementation.

(1) Do I have to record, on the Log, a positive TB

skin test result obtained at a pre-employment physical?

No, because the employee was not occupationally

exposed to a known case of active tuberculosis in

your workplace.
§1904.11 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 9 7

(2) May I line-out or erase a recorded TB case if I

obtain evidence that the case was not caused by

occupational exposure?

Yes. You may line-out or erase the case from the

Log under the following circumstances:

(i) The worker is living in a household with a person who has been diagnosed with active TB;

(ii) The Public Health Department has identified

the worker as a contact of an individual with a

case of active TB unrelated to the workplace; or

(iii) A medical investigation shows that the

employee’s infection was caused by exposure to

TB away from work, or proves that the case was

not related to the workplace TB exposure.

Positive Skin Tests

...A positive tuberculin skin test indicates that the

employee has been exposed to Mycobacterium

tuberculosis and has been infected with the bacterium. Although the worker may or may not have active

tuberculosis disease, the worker has become infected. Otherwise, his or her body would not have

formed antibodies against these pathogens. (OSHA is

aware that, in rare situations, a positive skin test

result may indicate a prior inoculation against TB

rather than an infection.)

OSHA believes that TB infection is a significant

change in the health status of an individual, and, if

occupational in origin, is precisely the type of illness Congress envisioned including in the OSHA

injury and illness statistics. Contracting a TB infection from a patient, client, detainee, or other person

in the workplace would cause serious concern, in

OSHA’s view, in any reasonable person. Once a

worker has contracted the TB infection, he or she

will harbor the infection for life. At some time in

the future, the infection can progress to become

active disease, with pulmonary infiltration, cavitation, and fibrosis, and may lead to permanent lung

damage and death. An employee harboring TB

infection is particularly likely to develop the fullblown disease if he or she must undergo chemotherapy, contracts another disease, or experiences

poor health....

When an employee is exposed to an infectious

agent in the workplace, such as TB, chicken pox, etc.,

either by a co-worker, client, patient, or any other

person, and the employee becomes ill, workplace

conditions have either caused or contributed to the

illness and it is therefore work-related. Since, as discussed above, TB infection is clearly a serious condition, it is non-minor and must be recorded.

Employee-to-Employee Transmission

...OSHA believes that non-minor illnesses resulting

from an exposure in the work environment are workrelated and therefore recordable unless a specific

exemption to the presumption applies. Infection

from exposure to another employee at work is no different, in terms of the geographic presumption, from

infection resulting from exposure to a client, patient,

or any other person who is present in the workplace.

The transmission of TB infection from one employee

to another person at work, including a co-worker,

clearly is non-minor and is squarely within the presumption.

...OSHA agrees that a case of TB should be

recorded only when an employee has been exposed

to TB in the workplace (i.e., that the positional theory

of causation applies to these cases just as it does to

all others). OSHA has added an additional recording

criterion in this case: for a TB case occurring in an

employee to be recordable, that employee must have

been exposed at work to someone with a known

case of active tuberculosis.

...Under the final rule, if a worker reports a case of

TB but the worker has not been exposed to an active

case of the disease at work, the case is not recordable. However, OSHA sees no need for the employer

to document such workplace exposure, or for the

Agency to require a higher level of proof that workplace exposure has occurred in these compared with

other cases. Further, OSHA knows of no justification

for excluding cases simply because they are the first

or only case discovered in the workplace. If a worker

contracted the disease from contact with a co-worker,

patient, client, customer or other work contact, the

case would be work-related, even though it was the

first case detected. Many work- related injury and illness cases would be excluded from the recordkeeping system if cases were only considered to be workrelated when they occurred in clusters or epidemics.

This was clearly not Congress’s intent.

The final rule’s criteria for recording TB cases

include three provisions designed to help employers

rule out cases where occupational exposure is not

the cause of the infection in the employee (i.e., where

the infection was caused by exposure outside the

work environment). An employer is not required to

record a case involving an employee who has a positive skin test and who is exposed at work if (1) the

worker is living in a household with a person who

has been diagnosed with active TB, (2) the Public

Health Department has identified the worker as a

contact of a case of active TB unrelated to the workplace, or (3) a medical investigation shows that the
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.11 

9 8

employee’s infection was caused by exposure to TB

away from work or proves that the case was not

related to the workplace TB exposure.

...OSHA has added an implementation question to

the final rule to make sure that employers understand that pre-employment skin test results for TB

are not work-related and do not have to be recorded.

These results are not considered work-related for the

purposes of the current employer’s Log because the

test result cannot be the result of an event or exposure in the current employer’s work environment.

...[T]he final rule allows employers to rebut the

presumption of work-relatedness if a medical evaluation concludes that the TB infection did not arise as a

result of occupational exposure, a physician or other

licensed health care professional could use the CDC

Guidelines or another method to investigate the origin of the case. If such an investigation resulted in

information that demonstrates that the case is not

related to a workplace exposure, for example, the

employer need not record the case. For example,

such an investigation might reveal that the employee

had been vaccinated in childhood with the BCG vaccine. The employer may wish, in such cases, to keep

records of the investigation and determination.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.11 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5) 

Section 1904.11 Recording criteria for work-related tuberculosis cases

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.11 

Section 1904.11 Recording criteria for work-related tuberculosis cases

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.
§1904.12 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 9 9

Section 1904.12 

Recording criteria for cases involving work-related 

musculoskeletal disorders

(66 FR 6123, Jan. 19, 2001)

Deletion of 29 CFR 1904.12

(68 FR 38601-38607, June 30, 2003)

Recording criteria for cases involving work-related

musculoskeletal disorders.

After lengthy consideration, OSHA decided not

to include a separate column for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) on the OSHA 300 Log. Consequently,

there are no special recording criteria for musculoskeletal disorders. An MSD case is recorded using

the same process used for any other injury or illness. If a musculoskeletal disorder is work-related,

is a new case, and meets one or more of the general

recording criteria, the employer must record the

MSD on the OSHA 300 Log.
100 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

Sections 1904.13 – 1904.28 Reserved

Section 1904.29 

Forms 

(66 FR 6130, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.29

Subpart C – Recordkeeping forms and recording criteria

(66 FR 6123, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Note to Subpart C: This Subpart describes the work-related injuries and illnesses that an employer must enter

into the OSHA records and explains the OSHA forms that employers must use to record work-related fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. Forms are available at www.osha.gov/pls/publications/pubindex.list

Section 1904.29 Forms

(a) Basic requirement.

You must use OSHA 300, 300-A, and 301 forms, or

equivalent forms, for recordable injuries and illnesses. The OSHA 300 form is called the Log of WorkRelated Injuries and Illnesses, the 300-A is the

Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, and

the OSHA 301 form is called the Injury and Illness

Incident Report.

(b) Implementation.

(1) What do I need to do to complete the OSHA

300 Log? 

You must enter information about your business

at the top of the OSHA 300 Log, enter a one or two

line description for each recordable injury or illness,

and summarize this information on the OSHA 300-A

at the end of the year.

(2) What do I need to do to complete the OSHA

301 Incident Report? 

You must complete an OSHA 301 Incident Report

form, or an equivalent form, for each recordable

injury or illness entered on the OSHA 300 Log.

(3) How quickly must each injury or illness be

recorded? 

You must enter each recordable injury or illness

on the OSHA 300 Log and 301 Incident Report within

seven (7) calendar days of receiving information that

a recordable injury or illness has occurred.

(4) What is an equivalent form? 

An equivalent form is one that has the same information, is as readable and understandable, and is

completed using the same instructions as the OSHA

form it replaces. Many employers use an insurance

form instead of the OSHA 301 Incident Report, or

supplement an insurance form by adding any additional information required by OSHA.

(5) May I keep my records on a computer? 

Yes, if the computer can produce equivalent forms

when they are needed, as described under Sections

1904.35 and 1904.40, you may keep your records

using the computer system.

(6) Are there situations where I do not put the

employee’s name on the forms for privacy reasons? 

Yes, if you have a “privacy concern case,” you

may not enter the employee’s name on the OSHA

300 Log. Instead, enter “privacy case” in the space

normally used for the employee’s name. This will

protect the privacy of the injured or ill employee

when another employee, a former employee, or an

authorized employee representative is provided

access to the OSHA 300 Log under Section

1904.35(b)(2). You must keep a separate, confidential

list of the case numbers and employee names for

your privacy concern cases so you can update the

cases and provide the information to the government

if asked to do so.

(7) How do I determine if an injury or illness is a

privacy concern case?

You must consider the following injuries or illnesses to be privacy concern cases:

(i) An injury or illness to an intimate body part or

the reproductive system;

(ii) An injury or illness resulting from a sexual

assault;

(iii) Mental illnesses;

(iv) HIV infection, hepatitis, or tuberculosis;

(v) Needlestick injuries and cuts from sharp

objects that are contaminated with another per-

§1904.29 
§1904.29 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 101

(10) What must I do to protect employee privacy

if I wish to provide access to the OSHA Forms 300

and 301 to persons other than government representatives, employees, former employees or authorized

representatives?

If you decide to voluntarily disclose the Forms to

persons other than government representatives,

employees, former employees or authorized representatives (as required by Sections 1904.35 and

1904.40), you must remove or hide the employees’

names and other personally identifying information,

except for the following cases. You may disclose the

Forms with personally identifying information only:

(i) to an auditor or consultant hired by the

employer to evaluate the safety and health program;

(ii) to the extent necessary for processing a claim

for workers’ compensation or other insurance

benefits; or

(iii) to a public health authority or law enforcement agency for uses and disclosures for which

consent, an authorization, or opportunity to agree

or object is not required under Department of

Health and Human Services Standards for Privacy

of Individually Identifiable Health Information, 45

CFR 164.512.

son’s blood or other potentially infectious material

(see Section 1904.8 for definitions); and

(vi) Other illnesses, if the employee independently and voluntarily requests that his or her name

not be entered on the log. 

(8) May I classify any other types of injuries and

illnesses as privacy concern cases? 

No, this is a complete list of all injuries and illnesses considered privacy concern cases for Part

1904 purposes.

(9) If I have removed the employee’s name, but still

believe that the employee may be identified from the

information on the forms, is there anything else that I

can do to further protect the employee’s privacy? 

Yes, if you have a reasonable basis to believe that

information describing the privacy concern case may

be personally identifiable even though the employee’s name has been omitted, you may use discretion

in describing the injury or illness on both the OSHA

300 and 301 forms. You must enter enough information to identify the cause of the incident and the general severity of the injury or illness, but you do not

need to include details of an intimate or private

nature. For example, a sexual assault case could be

described as “injury from assault,” or an injury to a

reproductive organ could be described as “lower

abdominal injury.”

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.29 

(66 FR 6022-6032, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.29 Forms.

Section 1904.29, titled “Forms,” establishes the

requirements for the forms (OSHA 300 Log, OSHA

300A Annual Summary, and OSHA 301 Incident

Report) an employer must use to keep OSHA Part

1904 injury and illness records, the time limit for

recording an injury or illness case, the use of substitute forms, the use of computer equipment to keep

the records, and privacy protections for certain information recorded on the OSHA 300 Log.

Paragraph 1904.29(a) sets out the basic requirements of this section. It directs the employer to use

the OSHA 300 (Log), 300A (Summary), and 301

(Incident Report) forms, or equivalent forms, to

record all recordable occupational injuries and illnesses. Paragraph 1904.29(b) contains requirements

in the form of questions and answers to explain how

employers are to implement this basic requirement.

Paragraph 1904.29(b)(1) states the requirements for:

(1) Completing the establishment information at the

top of the OSHA 300 Log, (2) making a one- or twoline entry for each recordable injury and illness case,

and (3) summarizing the data at the end of the year.

Paragraph 1904.29(b)(2) sets out the requirements for

employers to complete the OSHA 301 Incident Report

form (or equivalent) for each recordable case entered

on the OSHA 300 Log. The requirements for completing the annual summary on the Form 300A are found

at Section 1904.32 of the final rule.

Required Forms

...In addition to establishing the basic requirements

for employers to keep records on the OSHA 300 Log

and OSHA 301 Incident Report and providing basic

instructions on how to complete these forms, this

section of the rule states that employers may use
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.29 

102

...[P]aragraph Section 1904.29(b)(5) of the final

rule allows the employer to keep records on computer equipment only if the computer system can produce paper copies of equivalent forms when access

to them is needed by a government representative,

an employee or former employee, or an employee

representative, as required by Section 1904.35 or

1904.40, respectively. Of course, if the employee

requesting access to the information agrees to

receive it by e-mail, this is acceptable under the 1904

rule....

The final rule does not include a requirement that

certain questions on an equivalent form be asked in

the same order and be phrased in language identical

to that used on the OSHA 301 form. Instead, OSHA

has decided that employers may use any substitute

form that contains the same information and follows

the same recording directions as the OSHA 301 form,

and the final rule clearly allows this. Although the

consistency of the data on the OSHA 301 form might

be improved somewhat if the questions asking for

further details were phrased and positioned in an

identical way on all employers’ forms, OSHA has

concluded that the additional burden such a requirement would impose on employers and workers’

compensation agencies outweighs this consideration.

OSHA has revised the wording of these three

questions on the final OSHA 301 form to match the

phraseology used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics

(BLS) in its Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries

and Illnesses. By ensuring consistency across both

the BLS and OSHA forms, this change will help those

employers who respond both to the BLS Annual

Survey and keep OSHA records.

Handling of Privacy Concern Cases

Paragraph 1904.29(b)(6) requires the employer to

withhold the injured or ill employee’s name from the

OSHA 300 Log for injuries and illnesses defined by

the rule as “privacy concern cases” and instead to

enter “privacy concern case” in the space where the

employee’s name would normally be entered if an

injury or illness meeting the definition of a privacy

concern case occurs. This approach will allow the

employer to provide OSHA 300 Log data to employees, former employees and employee representatives, as required by Section 1904.35, while at the

same time protecting the privacy of workers who

have experienced occupational injuries and illnesses

that raise privacy concerns. The employer must also

keep a separate, confidential list of these privacy concern cases, and the list must include the employee’s

two lines of the OSHA 300 Log to describe an injury

or illness, if necessary....

Deadline for Entering a Case

Paragraph 1904.29(b)(3) establishes the requirement

for how quickly each recordable injury or illness must

be recorded into the records. It states that the

employer must enter each case on the OSHA 300 Log

and OSHA 301 Form within 7 calendar days of receiving information that a recordable injury or illness has

occurred.

...[T]he Agency believes that the 7 calendar-day

rule will provide employers sufficient time to receive

information and record the case. In addition, a simple

“within a week” rule will be easy for employers to

remember and apply, and is consistent with OSHA’s

decision, in this rule, to move from workdays to calendar days whenever possible. The Agency believes

that 7 calendar days is ample time for recording, particularly since the final rule, like the former rule,

allows employers to revise an entry simply by lining

it out or amending it if further information justifying

the revision becomes available. The final rule does

contain one exception for the 7 day recording period:

if an employee experiences a recordable hearing

loss, and the employer elects to retest the employee’s

hearing within 30 days, the employer can wait for the

results of the retest before recording.

Equivalent Forms and Computerized Records

...[P]aragraphs 1904.29(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the final

rule make clear that employers are permitted to

record the required information on electronic media

or on paper forms that are different from the OSHA

300 Log, provided that the electronic record or paper

forms are equivalent to the OSHA 300 Log. A form is

deemed to be “equivalent” to the OSHA 300 Log if it

can be read and understood as easily as the OSHA

form and contains at least as much information as

the OSHA 300 Log. In addition, the equivalent form

must be completed in accordance with the instructions used to complete the OSHA 300 Log. These

provisions are intended to balance OSHA’s obligation, as set forth in Section 8(d) of the OSH Act, to

reduce information collection burdens on employers

as much as possible, on the one hand, with the need,

on the other hand, to maintain uniformity of the data

recorded and provide employers flexibility in meeting OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements. These provisions also help to achieve one of OSHA’s goals for

this rulemaking: to allow employers to take full

advantage of modern technology and computers to

meet their OSHA recordkeeping obligations....
§1904.29 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 103

name and the case number from the OSHA 300 Log.

This separate listing is needed to allow a government

representative to obtain the employee’s name during

a workplace inspection in case further investigation is

warranted and to assist employers to keep track of

such cases in the event that future revisions to the

entry become necessary.

Paragraph 1904.29(b)(7) defines “privacy concern

cases” as those involving: (i) An injury or illness to an

intimate body part or the reproductive system; (ii) an

injury or illness resulting from a sexual assault; (iii) a

mental illness; (iv) a work-related HIV infection, hepatitis case, or tuberculosis case; (v) needlestick

injuries and cuts from sharp objects that are contaminated with another person’s blood or other potentially infectious material, or (vi) any other illness, if the

employee independently and voluntarily requests

that his or her name not be entered on the log.

Paragraph 1904.29(b)(8) establishes that these are the

only types of occupational injuries and illnesses that

the employer may consider privacy concern cases for

recordkeeping purposes.

Paragraph 1904.29(b)(9) permits employers discretion in recording case information if the employer

believes that doing so could compromise the privacy

of the employee’s identity, even though the employee’s name has not been entered. This clause has

been added because OSHA recognizes that, for specific situations, coworkers who are allowed to access

the log may be able to deduce the identity of the

injured or ill worker and obtain inappropriate knowledge of a privacy-sensitive injury or illness. OSHA

believes that these situations are relatively infrequent, but still exist. For example, if knowing the

department in which the employee works would

inadvertently divulge the person’s identity, or recording the gender of the injured employee would identifying that person because, for example, only one

woman works at the plant, the employer has discretion to mask or withhold this information both on the

Log and Incident Report.

The rule requires the employer to enter enough

information to identify the cause of the incident and

the general severity of the injury or illness, but allows

the employer to exclude details of an intimate or private nature. The rule includes two examples; a sexual assault case could be described simply as “injury

from assault,” or an injury to a reproductive organ

could be described as “lower abdominal injury.”

Likewise, a work-related diagnosis of post traumatic

stress disorder could be described as “emotional difficulty.” Reproductive disorders, certain cancers, contagious diseases and other disorders that are intimate and private in nature may also be described in

a general way to avoid privacy concerns. This allows

the employer to avoid overly graphic descriptions

that may be offensive, without sacrificing the descriptive value of the recorded information.

Paragraph 1904.29(b)(10) protects employee privacy if the employer decides voluntarily to disclose the

OSHA 300 and 301 forms to persons other than those

who have a mandatory right of access under the final

rule. The paragraph requires the employer to remove

or hide employees’ names or other personally identifying information before disclosing the forms to

persons other than government representatives,

employees, former employees or authorized representatives, as required by paragraphs 1904.40 and

1904.35, except in three cases. The employer may

disclose the forms, complete with personally identifying information, [ ] only: (i) to an auditor or consultant hired by the employer to evaluate the safety and

health program; (ii) to the extent necessary for processing a claim for workers’ compensation or other

insurance benefits; or (iii) to a public health authority

or law enforcement agency for uses and disclosures

for which consent, an authorization, or opportunity to

agree or object is not required under section 164.512

of the final rule on Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information, 45 CFR 164.512.

These requirements have been included in

Section 1904.29 rather than in Section 1904.35, which

establishes requirements for records access, because

waiting until access is requested to remove identifying information from the OSHA 300 Log could unwittingly compromise the injured or ill worker’s privacy

and result in unnecessary delays. The final rule’s

overall approach to handling privacy issues is discussed more fully in the preamble discussion of the

employee access provisions in Section 1904.35.

The Treatment of Occupational Illness and Injury Data

on the Forms

The treatment of occupational injury and illness data

on the OSHA forms is a key issue in this rulemaking.

Although the forms themselves are not printed in the

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), they are the

method OSHA’s recordkeeping regulation uses to

meet the Agency’s goal of tracking and reporting

occupational injury and illness data. As such, the

forms are a central component of the recordkeeping

system and mirror the requirements of the Part 1904

regulation. The final Part 1904 rule requires employers to use three forms to track occupational injuries

and illnesses: the OSHA 300, 300A, and 301 forms,

which replace the OSHA 200 and 101 forms called for
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.29 

104

under the former recordkeeping rule, as follows:

1. The OSHA Form 300, Log of Work-Related Injuries

and Illnesses, replaces the Log portion of the former

OSHA Form 200 Log and Summary of Occupational

Injuries and Illnesses. The OSHA 300 Log contains

space for a description of the establishment name,

city and state, followed by a one-line space for the

entry for each recordable injury and illness.

2. The OSHA Form 300A, Summary of Work-Related

Injuries and Illnesses, replaces the Summary portion

of the former OSHA Form 200 Log and Summary of

Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. The Form 300A is

used to summarize the entries from the Form 300

Log at the end of the year and is then posted from

February 1 through April 30 of the following year so

that employees can be aware of the occupational

injury and illness experience of the establishment in

which they work. The form contains space for entries

for each of the columns from the Form 300, along

with information about the establishment, and the

average number of employees who worked there the

previous year, and the recordkeeper’s and corporate

officer’s certification of the accuracy of the data

recorded on the summary. (These requirements are

addressed further in Section 1904.32 of the final rule

and its associated preamble.)

3. The OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Report,

replaces the former OSHA 101 Form. Covered

employers are required to fill out a one-page form

for each injury and illness recorded on the Form 300.

The form contains space for more detailed information about the injured or ill employee, the physician

or other health care professional who cared for the

employee (if medical treatment was necessary), the

treatment (if any) of the employee at an emergency

room or hospital, and descriptive information telling

what the employee was doing when injured or ill,

how the incident occurred, the specific details of the

injury or illness, and the object or substance that

harmed the employee. (Most employers use a workers’ compensation form as a replacement for the

OSHA 301 Incident Report.)

The use of a three-form system for recordkeeping

is not a new concept. The OSHA recordkeeping system used a separate summary form from 1972 to

1977, when the Log and Summary forms were combined into the former OSHA Form 200 (42 FR 65165).

OSHA has decided that the three-form system (the

300 Log, the 300A summary, and the 301 Incident

Report) has several advantages. First, it provides

space for more cases to be entered on the Log but

keeps the Log to a manageable size. Second, it helps

to ensure that an injured or ill employee’s name is

not posted in a public place. When the forms were

combined in 1977 into a single form, employers

occasionally neglected to shield an employee’s name

on the final sheet of the 200 Log, even though the

annual summary form was designed to mask personal identifiers. The use of a separate 300A summary

form precludes this possibility. Third, the use of a

separate summary form (the final rule’s Form 300A)

allows the data to be posted in a user-friendly format

that will be easy for employees and employers to

use. Fourth, a separate 300A Form provides extra

space for information about an employee’s right to

access the Log, information about the establishment

and its employees, and the dual certifications

required by Section 1904.32 of the rule. Finally, a separate 300A Form makes it easier to attach to the

reverse side of the form worksheets that are

designed to help the employer calculate the average

number of employees and hours worked by all

employees during the year.

The forms have been incorporated into an information package that provides individual employers

with several copies of the OSHA 300, 300A, and 301

forms; general instructions for filling out the forms

and definitions of key terms; an example showing

how to fill out the 300 Log; a worksheet to assist

employers in computing the average number of

employees and the total number of hours worked by

employees at the establishment in the previous year;

a non-mandatory worksheet to help the employer

compute an occupational injury and illness rate; and

instructions telling an employer how to get additional

help by (1) accessing the OSHA Internet home page,

or (2) by calling the appropriate Federal OSHA

regional office or the OSHA approved State-Plan with

jurisdiction.

The Size of the OSHA Recordkeeping Forms

The OSHA recordkeeping forms required by the final

Part 1904 recordkeeping rule are printed on legal size

paper (81/2” x 14”)....

Accordingly, OSHA has redesigned the OSHA 300

Log to fit on a legal size (81/2 x 14 inches) piece of

paper and to clarify that employers may use two

lines to enter a case if the information does not fit

easily on one line. The OSHA forms 300A and 301,

and the remainder of the recordkeeping package,

have also been designed to fit on the same-size

paper as the OSHA 300 Log. For those employers
§1904.29 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 105

who use computerized systems (where handwriting

space is not as important) equivalent computer-generated forms can be printed out on 81/2 x 11 sheets of

paper if the printed copies are legible and are as

readable as the OSHA forms....

Defining Lost Workdays

OSHA proposed to eliminate the term “lost workdays,” by replacing it with “days away from work”

(61 FR 4033). The OSHA recordkeeping system has

historically defined lost workdays as including both

days away from work and days of restricted work

activity, and the Recordkeeping Guidelines discussed

how to properly record lost workday cases with days

away from work and lost workday cases with days of

restricted work activity (Ex. 2, p. 47, 48). However,

many use the term “lost workday” in a manner that

is synonymous with “day away from work,” and the

term has been used inconsistently for many years....

In the final rule, OSHA has eliminated the term

“lost workdays” on the forms and in the regulatory

text. The use of the term has been confusing for

many years because many people equated the terms

“lost workday” with “days away from work” and

failed to recognize that the former OSHA term included restricted days. OSHA finds that deleting this term

from the final rule and the forms will improve clarity

and the consistency of the data.

The 300 Log has four check boxes to be used to

classify the case: death, day(s) away from work,

day(s) of restricted work or job transfer; and case

meeting other recording criteria. The employer must

check the single box that reflects the most severe

outcome associated with a given injury or illness.

Thus, for an injury or illness where the injured worker first stayed home to recuperate and then was

assigned to restricted work for several days, the

employer is required only to check the box for days

away from work (column I). For a case with only job

transfer or restriction, the employer must check the

box for days of restricted work or job transfer

(Column H). However, the final Log still allows

employers to calculate the incidence rate formerly

referred to as a “lost workday injury and illness rate”

despite the fact that it separates the data formerly

captured under this heading into two separate categories. Because the OSHA Form 300 has separate

check boxes for days away from work cases and

cases where the employee remained at work but was

temporarily transferred to another job or assigned to

restricted duty, it is easy to add the totals from these

two columns together to obtain a single total to use

in calculating an injury and illness incidence rate for

total days away from work and restricted work cases.

Counting Days of Restricted Work or Job Transfer

Although the final rule does not use the term “lost

workday” (which formerly applied both to days away

from work and days of restricted or transferred

work), the rule continues OSHA’s longstanding practice of requiring employers to keep track of the number of days on which an employee is placed on

restricted work or is on job transfer because of an

injury or illness....

In the final rule, OSHA has decided to require

employers to record the number of days of restriction or transfer on the OSHA 300 Log. From the comments received, and based on OSHA’s own experience, the Agency finds that counts of restricted days

are a useful and needed measure of injury and illness severity. OSHA’s decision to require the recording of restricted and transferred work cases on the

Log was also influenced by the trend toward restricted work and away from days away from work....

The final rule thus carries forward OSHA’s longstanding requirement for employers to count and

record the number of restricted days on the OSHA

Log. On the Log, restricted work counts are separated from days away from work counts, and the term

“lost workday” is no longer used. OSHA believes

that the burden on employers of counting these days

will be reduced somewhat by the simplified definition of restricted work, the counting of calendar days

rather than work days, capping of the counts at 180

days, and allowing the employer to stop counting

restricted days when the employee’s job has been

permanently modified to eliminate the routine job

functions being restricted (see the Preamble

Discussion for 1904.7 General Recording Criteria). 

Separate 300 Log Data on Occupational Injury and

Occupational Illness

The Agency finds that there is a continuing need for

separately identifiable information on occupational

illnesses and injuries, as well as on certain specific

categories of occupational illnesses. The published

BLS statistics have included separate estimates of the

rate and number of occupational injuries and illnesses for many years, as well as the rate and number of

different types of occupational illnesses, and employers, employees, the government, and the public have

found this information useful and worthwhile.

Separate illness and injury data are particularly useful at the establishment level, where employers and

employees can use them to evaluate the establishment’s health experience and compare it to the
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.29 

106

national experience or to the experience of other

employers in their industry or their own prior experience. The data are also useful to OSHA personnel

performing worksite inspections, who can use this

information to identify potential health hazards at the

establishment.

Under the final rule, the OSHA 300 form has

therefore been modified specifically to collect information on [four] types of occupational health conditions:...skin diseases or disorders, respiratory conditions, poisoning, and hearing loss. There is also an

“all other illness” column on the Log. To record

cases falling into one of these categories, the

employer simply enters a check mark in the appropriate column, which will allow these cases to be separately counted to generate establishment-level summary information at the end of the year....

In the final rule, two of the illness case columns on

the OSHA 300 Log are identical to those on the former OSHA Log: a column to capture cases of skin diseases or disorders and one to capture cases of systemic poisoning. The single column for respiratory

conditions on the new OSHA Form 300 will capture

data on respiratory conditions that were formerly captured in two separate columns, i.e., the columns for

respiratory conditions due to toxic agents (formerly

column 7c) and for dust diseases of the lungs (formerly column 7b). Column 7g of the former OSHA

Log provided space for data on all other occupational

illnesses, and that column has also been continued

on the new OSHA 300 Log. On the other hand, column 7e from the former OSHA Log, which captured

cases of disorders due to physical agents, is not

included on the new OSHA Log form. The cases

recorded in former column 7e primarily addressed

heat and cold disorders, such as heat stroke and

hypothermia; hyperbaric effects, such as caisson disease; and the effects of radiation, including occupational illnesses caused by x-ray exposure, sun exposure and welder’s flash. Because space on the form is

at a premium, and because column 7e was not used

extensively in the past (recorded column 7e cases

accounted only for approximately five percent of all

occupational illness cases), OSHA has not continued

this column on the new OSHA 300 Log.

OSHA has, however, added a new column specifically to capture hearing loss cases on the OSHA 300

Log. The former Log included a column devoted to

repeated trauma cases, which were defined as

including noise-induced hearing loss cases as well as

cases involving a variety of other conditions, including certain musculoskeletal disorders. Dedicating a

column to occupational hearing loss cases will provide a valuable new source of information on this

prevalent and often disabling condition. Although

precise estimates of the number of noise-exposed

workers vary widely by industry and the definition of

noise dose used, the EPA estimated in 1981 that

about 9 million workers in the manufacturing sector

alone were occupationally exposed to noise levels

above 85 dBA. Recent risk estimates suggest that

exposure to this level of noise over a working lifetime would cause material hearing impairment in

about 9 percent, or approximately 720,000, U.S.

workers (NIOSH, 1998). A separate column for occupational hearing loss is also appropriate because the

BLS occupational injury and illness statistics only

report detailed injury characteristics information for

those illness cases that result in days away from

work. Because most hearing loss cases do not result

in time off the job, the extent of occupational hearing

loss has not previously been accurately reflected in

the national statistics. By creating a separate column

for occupational hearing loss cases, and clearly articulating in section 1904.10 of the final rule the level of

hearing loss that must be recorded, OSHA believes

that the recordkeeping system will, in the future, provide accurate estimates of the incidence of workrelated loss of hearing among America’s workers....

Miscellaneous 300 Form Issues

...OSHA has not added the fields or columns suggested by commenters to the final 300 or 301 forms

because the available space on the form has been

allocated to other data that OSHA considers more

valuable. In addition, there is no requirement in the

final rule for employers to enter any part of an

employee’s social security number because of the

special privacy concerns that would be associated

with that entry and employee access to the forms.

However, employers are, of course, free to collect

additional data on occupational injury and illness

beyond the data required by the Agency’s Part 1904

regulation.

The OSHA 301 Form

Although the final OSHA 300 Log presents information on injuries and illnesses in a condensed format,

the final OSHA 301 Incident Record allows space for

employers to provide more detailed information

about the affected worker, the injury or illness, the

workplace factors associated with the accident, and a

brief description of how the injury or illness occurred.

Many employers use an equivalent workers’ compensation form or internal reporting form for the purpose of recording more detailed information on each
§1904.29 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 107

case, and this practice is allowed under paragraph

1904.29(b)(4) of the final rule.

The OSHA Form 301 differs in several ways from

the former OSHA 101 form it replaces, although

much of the information is the same as the information on the former 101 Form, although it has been

reworded and reformatted for clarity and simplicity.

The final Form 301 does not require the following

data items that were included on the former OSHA

101 to be recorded:

• The employer name and address;

• Employee social security number;

• Employee occupation;

• Department where employee normally works;

• Place of accident;

• Whether the accident occurred on the employer’s

premises; and

• Name and address of hospital.

OSHA’s reasons for deleting these data items from

the final 301 form is that most are included on the

OSHA Form 300 and are therefore not necessary on

the 301 form. Eliminating duplicate information

between the two forms decreases the redundancy of

the data collected and the burden on employers of

recording the data twice. The employee social security number has been removed for privacy reasons.

OSHA believes that the information found in several

other data fields on the 301 Form (e.g., the employee’s name, address, and date of birth) provides sufficient information to identify injured or ill individuals

while protecting the confidentiality of social security

numbers.

OSHA has also added several items to the OSHA

Form 301 that were not on the former OSHA No. 101:

• The date the employee was hired;

• The time the employee began work;

• The time the event occurred;

• Whether the employee was treated at an emergency room; and

• Whether the employee was hospitalized overnight

as an in-patient (the form now requires a check box

entry rather than the name and address of the hospital)....

Rewording of the Proposed Case Detail Questions

(questions 9, 10, 16, 17 and 18)

...As discussed above, final Form 301 no longer

requires the employer to include these questions on

any equivalent form in the same format or language

as that used by the OSHA 301 form....

The final form solicits information only on the

object or substance that directly harmed the employee. The final 301 form contains four questions eliciting case detail information (i.e., what was the

employee doing just before the incident occurred?,

what happened?, what was the injury or illness?, 

and what object or substance directly harmed the

employee?). The language of these questions on 

the final 301 form has been modified slightly from

that used in the proposed questions to be consistent

with the language used on the BLS Survey of

Occupational Injuries and Illnesses collection form.

The BLS performed extensive testing of the language

used in these questions while developing its survey

form and has subsequently used these questions to

collect data for many years. The BLS has found that

the order in which these questions are presented and

the wording of the questions on the survey form elicit the most complete answers to the relevant questions. OSHA believes that using the time-tested language and ordering of these four questions will have

the same benefits for employers using the OSHA

Form 301 as they have had for employers responding

to the BLS Annual Survey. Matching the BLS wording

and order will also result in benefits for those

employers selected to participate in the BLS Annual

Survey. To complete the BLS survey forms, employers will only need to copy information from the

OSHA Injury and Illness Incident Report to the BLS

survey form. This should be easier and less confusing than researching and rewording responses to the

questions on two separate forms.

The Data Fields OSHA Proposed to Change on the

Proposed 301 Form

...OSHA continues to believe that the data gathered

by means of the “date hired” field will have value for

analyzing occupational injury and illness data and

has therefore included this data field on the final

OSHA 301 form. These data are useful for analyzing

the incidence of occupational injury and illness

among newly hired workers and those with longer

tenure. OSHA is aware that the data collected are not

a perfect measure of job experience because, for

example, an employee may have years of experience

doing the same type of work for a previous employer, and that prior experience will not be captured by

this data field. Another case where this data field

may fail to capture perfect data could occur in the

case of an employee who has worked for the same

employer for many years but was only recently reassigned to new duties. Despite cases such as these,

inclusion of this data field on the Form 301 will allow

the Agency to collect valid data on length of time on

the job for most employment situations.

For the relatively infrequent situation where
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.29 

108

employees are hired, terminated, and then rehired,

the employer can, at his or her discretion, enter the

date the employee was originally hired, or the date of

rehire....

OSHA has decided to continue to collect information on final Form 301 concerning the treatment provided to the employee (proposed data field 7).

OSHA’s experience indicates that employers have not

generally had difficulty in providing this information,

either in the longshoring or any other industry. The

data in this field is particularly useful to an OSHA

inspector needing additional information about the

medical condition of injured or ill employees. (OSHA

does not request this medical information without

first obtaining a medical access order under the provisions of 29 CFR part 1913, Rules Concerning OSHA

Access to Employee Medical Records.) The final

OSHA 301 Form therefore includes a data field for

information on the off-site treating facility.

The final 301 Form also includes a data field

requesting the name of the health care professional

seen by the injured or ill employee. The employer

may enter the name either of the physician or other

health care professional who provided the initial

treatment or the off-site treatment. If OSHA needs

additional data on this point, the records of the

healthcare professional listed will include both the

name of the referring physician or other health care

professional as well as the name of the health care

professional to whom the employee was referred for

specialized treatment....

OSHA has included on the final 301 form the two

questions asking for data on the time of the event

and the time the employee began work so that

employers, employees and the government can

obtain information on the role fatigue plays in occupational injuries and illness. Both questions (i.e., on

time of event and time employee began work) must

be included to conduct this analysis. Thus, OSHA has

included both fields on the final Form 301. In addition, the form has been designed so that the employer can simply circle the a.m. or p.m. designation....

The final OSHA Form 301 permits the employer to

include the name and title in either field, as long as

the information is available. As to the phone number,

the employer may use whatever number is appropriate that would allow a government representative

accessing the data to contact the individual who prepared the form....

OSHA continues to believe that easy linkage of

the Forms 300 and 301 will be beneficial to all users

of these data. Thus, the final Form 301 contains a

space for the case file number. The file/case number

is required on both forms to allow persons reviewing

the forms to match an individual OSHA Form 301

with a specific entry on the OSHA Form 300. Access

by authorized employee representatives to the information contained on the OSHA Form 301 is limited 

to the information on the right side of the form (see

Section 1904.35(b)(2)(v)(B) of the final rule). The

case/file number is the data element that makes a

link to the OSHA Form 300 possible. OSHA believes

that this requirement will add very little burden to the

recordkeeping process, because the OSHA Log has

always required a unique file or case number. The

final Form 301 requirement simply requires the

employer to place the same number on the OSHA

301 form....

Summary

The final forms employers will use to keep the

records of those occupational injuries and illnesses

required by the final rule to be recorded have been

revised to reflect the changes made to the final rule,

the record evidence gathered in the course of this

rulemaking, and a number of changes designed to

simplify recordkeeping for employers. In addition,

the forms have been revised to facilitate the use of

equivalent forms and employers’ ability to computerize their records.
§1904.29 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 109

Section 1904.29 Forms

Question 29-1. How do I determine whether or not a

case is an occupational injury or one of the occupational illness categories in Section M of the OSHA

300 Log?

The instructions that accompany the OSHA 300 Log

contain examples of occupational injuries and the

various types of occupational illnesses listed on the

Log. If the case you are dealing with is on one of

those lists, then check that injury or illness category.

If the case you are dealing with is not listed, then you

may check the injury or illness category that you

believe best fits the circumstances of the case.

Question 29-2. Does the employer decide if an injury

or illness is a privacy concern case?

Yes. The employer must decide if a case is a privacy

concern case, using 1904.29(b)(7), which lists the six

types of injuries and illnesses the employer must

consider privacy concern cases. If the case meets

any of these criteria, the employer must consider it a

privacy concern case. This is a complete list of all

injuries and illnesses considered privacy concern

cases.

Question 29-3. Under paragraph 1904.29(b)(9), the

employer may use some discretion in describing a

privacy concern case on the log so the employee

cannot be identified. Can the employer also leave off

the job title, date, or where the event occurred?

Yes. OSHA believes that this would be an unusual

circumstance and that leaving this information off

the log will rarely be needed. However, if the

employer has reason to believe that the employee’s

name can be identified through this information,

these fields can be left blank.

Question 29-4. May employers attach missing information to their accident investigation or workers’

compensation forms to make them an acceptable

substitute form for the OSHA 301 for recordkeeping

purposes?

Yes, the employer may use a workers’ compensation

form or other form that does not contain all the

required information, provided the form is supplemented to contain the missing information and the

supplemented form is as readable and understandable as the OSHA 301 form and is completed using

the same instructions as the OSHA 301 form.

Question 29-5. If an employee reports an injury or 

illness and receives medical treatment this year, but

states that the symptoms first arose at some unspecified date last year, on which year’s log do I

record the case?

Ordinarily, the case should be recorded on the Log

for the year in which the injury or illness occurred.

Where the date of injury or illness cannot be determined, the date the employee reported the symptoms or received treatment must be used. In the case

in question, the injury or illness would be recorded

on this year’s Log because the employee cannot

specify the date when the symptoms occurred.

Question 29-6. Since the new system proposes to

do away with the distinction between injuries and

illnesses, is there guidance on how to classify cases

to complete column M on the OSHA 300 Log?

An injury or illness is an abnormal condition or disorder. Employers should look at the examples of

injuries and illnesses in the "Classifying Injuries and

Classifying Illnesses" section of the Recordkeeping

Forms Package for guidance. If still unsure about the

classification, employers could use the longstanding

distinction between injuries that result from instantaneous events or those from exposures in the work

environment. Cases resulting from anything other

than an instantaneous event or exposure are considered illnesses.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.29 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5) 
110 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.29 

Section 1904.29 Forms

§1904.29 

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Letters of interpretation explain

these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional

employer obligations. These letters constitute OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed.

Note that OSHA enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to

time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. 

Letters of Interpretation constitute OSHA’s interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may

not be applicable to any situation not delineated within the original correspondence.

Letter of interpretation related to sections 1904.26(b)(6), 1904.29(b)(10), 1904.32(a)(4) and 1904.32(b)(6) – 

Posting requirements for the OSHA 300 Log and OSHA 300-A Summary Form.

December 18, 2003 

Ms. Alana Greer

American Civil Liberties Union of Florida

4500 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 340

Miami, FL 33137-3227

Dear Ms. Greer: 

This is in response to your letter dated July 9, 2003. Please excuse the delay in our response. Thank

you for your comments pertaining to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA)

Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904. You state that

your office has received several complaints regarding the medical privacy of employees regarding the

recordkeeping requirements. Specifically, you ask OSHA to clarify the appropriateness of posting the

entire OSHA 300 form (the Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) at the employer’s establishment. 

You are correct in your understanding that, while employers are required to complete both OSHA

Form 300 Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses and OSHA Form 300-A Summary of WorkRelated Injuries and Illnesses, only the latter, Form 300-A, is required to be posted in the workplace. 

Despite the fact that only the Summary Form 300-A is required to be posted, some employers apparently have posted both the Form 300 and Form 300-A in the workplace. You suggest that further clarification is needed with the recordkeeping forms or elsewhere, making clear to employers that the Form

300 should not be posted along with the Summary Form 300-A. 

The instructions that accompany the OSHA recordkeeping forms do include the following Question and

Answer: “When must you post the Summary? You must post the Summary only--not the Log--by February 1 of the year following the year covered by the form and keep it posted until April 30 of that year.” 

We will take additional steps to emphasize the distinction between the Form 300 and the Form 300-A

and the fact that only the latter is required to be posted in the workplace, through News Releases that

we issue that remind employers of the posting requirement, and including this issue under the

Frequently Asked Questions on the Recordkeeping Section of our website. Your assistance in also making employers aware of this distinction is appreciated. 

I do want to make one further point of clarification. While our rules do not require the Form 300 to be

posted (and we will attempt to communicate that more clearly, as described above), the regulation also

does not prohibit an employer from posting the Form 300 along with the Form 300-A. However, if the

employer does choose to post the full Form 300 Log, they should post the Log in an area only accessible by those granted access under the rule (i.e., employees, former employees, employee representatives,

and an authorized employee representative). If the posting area is accessible by others (e.g., members of

the public) the employer must remove or hide all names of the injured or ill employees as set out in 
§1904.29 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 111

Section 1904.29(b)(10). In addition, 1910.29 prohibits the employer from including the employee’s

name for “privacy concern” cases whenever the Form 300 Log is made available to coworkers, former

employees, or employee representatives. 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information

helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters

explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create

additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from

time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep appraised of such

developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please contact the Division of Recordkeeping Requirements, at 202-693-1702. 

Sincerely, 

John L. Henshaw

Assistant Secretary

June 23, 2003

Mr. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.

Jackson Lewis LLP

2100 Landmark Building

301 North Main Street

Greenville, SC 29601-2122

Dear Mr. Foulke:

Thank you for your April 3, 2003 facsimile and April 10, 2003 letter to the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting

Requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904. Specifically, you ask OSHA to clarify the recording

criteria for cases involving workers from a temporary help service, employee leasing service, or

personnel supply service. Your questions have been outlined below followed by OSHA’s response.

Question 1: Under 29 CFR Section 1904.31, employers who supervise temporary or leased

employees at their facility are required to maintain the OSHA 300 Logs for those employees. With

respect to those injuries, can the employer keep a separate 300 Log for the company employees

and one log for the temporary or leased employees?

Response: The log is to be kept for an establishment. Under Section 1904.46 Definitions, an establishment is a single physical location where business is conducted or where services or industrial

operations are performed. The controlling employer (using firm) may sub-divide the OSHA 300

Log to provide separate listings of temporary workers, but must consider the separate listings to be

one record for all recordkeeping purposes, including access by government representatives, employees, former employees and employee representatives as required by Section 1904.35 and 1904.40

in the Recordkeeping regulation. 

OSHA’s view is that a given establishment should have one OSHA Log. Injuries and illnesses for all

the covered employees at the establishment are then entered into that record to create a single

OSHA 300-A Summary form at the end of the year.

Letter of interpretation related to sections 1904.29, 1904.29(a), 1904.29(b), 1904.29(b)(2), 1904.31, 1904.33,

1904.35, 1904.40 and 1904.46 – 

Recording criteria for cases involving workers from a temporary help service, employee leasing service, or personnel supply service.
112 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.29 

Question 2: Under 29 CFR Section 1904.31, while the standard clearly indicates the 300 Logs

must be maintained for supervised temporary or leased employees, it does not indicate who maintains the 301 documents or the first report of injuries, as well as the medical records on those

employees. Also, if a temporary or leased employee has days away from work, it is normally the

temporary or leased employee provider’s contractual responsibility to handle the medical treatment

of the employee. The temporary or leased employee provider is the only person/entity to have the

information on days away from work. Who is responsible for maintaining the 301 logs or the first

report of injury forms as well as the medical records for these employees, assuming that the

employee provider can produce the required documents to the employer for production in the time

periods set forth in the standard?

Response: Section 1904.29(a) says: “You must use OSHA 300, 300-A and 301 forms, or equivalent forms, for recordable injuries and illnesses.” In addition, 1904.29(b)(2) says: “You must complete an OSHA 301 Incident Report form, or an equivalent form, for each recordable injury or illness entered on the OSHA 300 Log.” Therefore, when the workers from a temporary help service

or leasing firm are under the day-to-day supervision of the controlling party (using firm) the entire

OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping responsibility belongs to the using firm.

Question 3: Using the facts in Question 2, it is also important to note that an injured temporary or

leased employee, who requires days away from work, may be replaced by another leased or temporary employee at the work site. From time of the injury, the employer has no information about

the return to work status of the injured employee. In fact, the injured employee may be assigned to

another employer once he or she is able to return to work. How can the original employer keep

accurate 300 Logs when the employee provider has sole access to information on days away from

work and return to work status?

Response: The controlling employer has the ultimate responsibility for making good-faith recordkeeping determinations regarding an injury and illness to any of those temporary employees they

supervise on a day-to-day basis. Although controlling employers ultimately decide if and how a

particular case should be recorded, their decision must not be an arbitrary one, but should be

made in accordance with the requirements of the Act, regulation, and the instructions on the

forms. Therefore, the controlling employer must make reasonable efforts to acquire the necessary

information in order to satisfy its Part 1904 recordkeeping requirements. However, if the controlling employer is not able to obtain information from the employer of the leased or temporary

employee, the controlling employer should record the injury based on whatever information is

available to the controlling employer. The preamble contains a brief reference about OSHA’s

expectation that the employers share information to produce accurate records, stating that “the

two employers have shared responsibilities and may share information when there is a need to do

so.” (Federal Register p. 6041)

Finally, the last question you raised is whether your client or contractor has any requirements

under the recordkeeping standard to provide the new contractor the current OSHA 300 Logs for

that facility covering those employees who now work for that contractor. Since there was no

change of your client’s business ownership, he or she needs only to retain the records as per

1904.33 and provide access under 1904.35 and 1904.40.

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information

helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot

create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules.

Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep

appraised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you

have any further questions, please contact the Division of Recordkeeping Requirements, at 202-

693-1702.

Sincerely, 

John L. Henshaw

Assistant Secretary
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 113

§1904.30 

Section 1904.30 

Multiple business establishments

(66 FR 6130, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.30

Subpart D – Other OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping requirements

(66 FR 6123, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Section 1904.30 Multiple business establishments

(a) Basic requirement.

You must keep a separate OSHA 300 Log for each

establishment that is expected to be in operation for

one year or longer.

(b) Implementation.

(1) Do I need to keep OSHA injury and illness

records for short-term establishments (i.e., establishments that will exist for less than a year)?

Yes, however, you do not have to keep a separate

OSHA 300 Log for each such establishment. You may

keep one OSHA 300 Log that covers all of your shortterm establishments. You may also include the shortterm establishments’ recordable injuries and illnesses on an OSHA 300 Log that covers short-term establishments for individual company divisions or geographic regions.

(2) May I keep the records for all of my establishments at my headquarters location or at some other

central location? 

Yes, you may keep the records for an establishment at your headquarters or other central location if

you can:

(i) Transmit information about the injuries and illnesses from the establishment to the central location within seven (7) calendar days of receiving

information that a recordable injury or illness has

occurred; and

(ii) Produce and send the records from the central

location to the establishment within the time

frames required by Section 1904.35 and Section

1904.40 when you are required to provide records

to a government representative, employees, former employees or employee representatives.

(3) Some of my employees work at several different locations or do not work at any of my establishments at all. How do I record cases for these employees? 

You must link each of your employees with one of

your establishments, for recordkeeping purposes.

You must record the injury and illness on the OSHA

300 Log of the injured or ill employee’s establishment, or on an OSHA 300 Log that covers that

employee’s short-term establishment.

(4) How do I record an injury or illness when an

employee of one of my establishments is injured or

becomes ill while visiting or working at another of

my establishments, or while working away from any

of my establishments? 

If the injury or illness occurs at one of your establishments, you must record the injury or illness on

the OSHA 300 Log of the establishment at which the

injury or illness occurred. If the employee is injured

or becomes ill and is not at one of your establishments, you must record the case on the OSHA 300

Log at the establishment at which the employee normally works.

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.30 

(66 FR 6035-6037, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.30 Multiple establishments.

Section 1904.30 covers the procedures for recording

injuries and illnesses occurring in separate establishments operated by the same business. ...[T]his section applies to businesses where separate work sites

create confusion as to where injury and illness

records should be kept and when separate records

must be kept for separate work locations, or establishments. OSHA recognizes that the recordkeeping

system must accommodate operations of this type,
114 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.30 

and has adopted language in the final rule to provide

some flexibility for employers in the construction,

transportation, communications, electric and gas utility, and sanitary services industries, as well as other

employers with geographically dispersed operations.

The final rule provides, in part, that operations are

not considered separate establishments unless they

continue to be in operation for a year or more.... 

In the final rule, the definition of establishment is

included in Subpart G, Definitions.

The basic requirement of Section 1904.30(a) is that

employers are required to keep separate OSHA 300

Logs for each establishment that is expected to be

in business for one year or longer. Paragraph

1904.30(b)(1) states that for short-term establishments, i.e., those that will exist for less than a year,

employers are required to keep injury and illness

records, but are not required to keep separate OSHA

300 Logs. They may keep one OSHA 300 Log covering all short-term establishments, or may include the

short-term establishment records in logs that cover

individual company divisions or geographic regions.

For example, a construction company with multistate operations might have separate OSHA 300 Logs

for each state to show the injuries and illnesses of its

employees engaged in short-term projects, as well as

a separate OSHA 300 Log for each construction project expected to last for more than one year. If the

same company had only one office location and

none of its projects lasted for more than one year,

the company would only be required to have one

OSHA 300 Log.

Paragraph 1904.30(b)(2) allows the employer to

keep records for separate establishments at the business’ headquarters or another central location, provided that information can be transmitted from the

establishment to headquarters or the central location

within 7 days of the occurrence of the injury or illness, and provided that the employer is able to produce and send the OSHA records to each establishment when Section 1904.35 or Section 1904.40

requires such transmission....

Paragraph 1904.30(b)(3) states that each employee

must be linked, for recordkeeping purposes, with one

of the employer’s establishments. Any injuries or illnesses sustained by the employee must be recorded

on his or her home establishment’s OSHA 300 Log,

or on a general OSHA 300 Log for short-term establishments. This provision ensures that all employees

are included in a company’s records. If the establishment is in an industry classification partially exempted under Section 1904.2 of the final rule, records are

not required. Under paragraph 1904.30(b)(4), if an

employee is injured or made ill while visiting or

working at another of the employer’s establishments,

then the injury or illness must be recorded on the

300 Log of the establishment at which the injury or

illness occurred.

How Long Must an Establishment Exist to Have a

Separate OSHA Log

...[T]he final rule provides that an establishment must

be one that is expected to exist for a year or longer

before a separate OSHA log is required. Employers

are permitted to keep separate OSHA logs for shorter

term establishments if they wish to do so, but the

rule does not require them to do so....

...Sections 1904.30(b)(1) and (b)(3) have been

added to make it clear that records (but not a separate log) must be kept for short-term establishments

lasting less than one year, and that each employee

must be linked to an establishment....

Centralized Recordkeeping

...OSHA does not believe that centralization of the

records will compromise timely employee or government representative access to the records. To ensure

that this is the case, centralization under Section

1904.30(b)(2) is allowed only if the employer can produce copies of the forms when access to them is

needed by a government representative, an employee or former employee, or an employee representative, as required by Sections 1904.35 and 40.

Recording Injuries and Illnesses Where They Occur

...For the vast majority of cases, the place where the

injury or illness occurred is the most useful recording

location. The events or exposures that caused the

case are most likely to be present at that location, so

the data are most useful for analysis of that location’s

records. If the case is recorded at the employee’s

home base, the injury or illness data have been disconnected from the place where the case occurred,

and where analysis of the data may help reveal a

workplace hazard. Therefore, OSHA finds that it is

most useful to record the injury or illness at the location where the case occurred. Of course, if the injury

or illness occurs at another employer’s workplace, or

while the employee is in transit, the case would be

recorded on the OSHA 300 Log of the employee’s

home establishment.

For cases of illness, two types of cases must be

considered. The first is the case of an illness condition caused by an acute, or short term workplace

exposure, such as skin rashes, respiratory ailments,

and heat disorders. These illnesses generally mani-
§1904.30 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 115

fest themselves quickly and can be linked to the

workplace where they occur, which is no different

than most injury cases. For illnesses that are caused

by long-term exposures or which have long latency

periods, the illness will most likely be detected during a visit to a physician or other health care professional, and the employee is most likely to report it to

his or her supervisor at the home work location.

Recording these injuries and illnesses could

potentially present a problem with incidence rate calculations. In many situations, visiting employees are

a minority of the workforce, their hours worked are

relatively inconsequential, and rates are thus unaffected to any meaningful extent. However, if an

employer relies on visiting labor to perform a larger

amount of the work, rates could be affected. In these

situations, the hours of these personnel should be

added to the establishment’s hours of work for rate

calculation purposes.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.30 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.30 Multiple business establishments

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.30 

Section 1904.30 Multiple business establishments

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.
116 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

Section 1904.31 

Covered employees

(66 FR 6131, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.31

Subpart D – Other OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping requirements

(66 FR 6130, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Section 1904.31 Covered employees

(a) Basic requirement.

You must record on the OSHA 300 Log the recordable injuries and illnesses of all employees on your

payroll, whether they are labor, executive, hourly,

salary, part-time, seasonal, or migrant workers. You

also must record the recordable injuries and illnesses that occur to employees who are not on

your payroll if you supervise these employees on a

day-to-day basis. If your business is organized as a

sole proprietorship or partnership, the owner or

partners are not considered employees for recordkeeping purposes.

(b) Implementation.

(1) If a self-employed person is injured or becomes ill while doing work at my business, do I need

to record the injury or illness? 

No, self-employed individuals are not covered by

the OSH Act or this regulation.

(2) If I obtain employees from a temporary help

service, employee leasing service, or personnel supply service, do I have to record an injury or illness

occurring to one of those employees? 

You must record these injuries and illnesses if you

supervise these employees on a day-to-day basis.

(3) If an employee in my establishment is a contractor’s employee, must I record an injury or illness

occurring to that employee? 

If the contractor’s employee is under the day-today supervision of the contractor, the contractor is

responsible for recording the injury or illness. If you

supervise the contractor employee’s work on a dayto-day basis, you must record the injury or illness.

(4) Must the personnel supply service, temporary

help service, employee leasing service, or contractor

also record the injuries or illnesses occurring to temporary, leased or contract employees that I supervise

on a day-to-day basis? 

No, you and the temporary help service, employee leasing service, personnel supply service, or contractor should coordinate your efforts to make sure

that each injury and illness is recorded only once:

either on your OSHA 300 Log (if you provide day-today supervision) or on the other employer’s OSHA

300 Log (if that company provides day-to-day supervision).

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.31 

(66 FR 6037-6042, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.31 Covered employees.

Final Rule Requirements and Legal Background

Section 1904.31 requires employers to record the

injuries and illnesses of all their employees, whether

classified as labor, executive, hourly, salaried, parttime, seasonal, or migrant workers. The section also

requires the employer to record the injuries and illnesses of employees they supervise on a day-to-day

basis, even if these workers are not carried on the

employer’s payroll.

Implementing these requirements requires an

understanding of the Act’s definitions of “employer”

and “employee.” The statute defines “employer,” in

relevant part, to mean “a person engaged in a business affecting interstate commerce who has employees.” 29 U.S.C. 652(5). The term “person” includes

“one or more individuals, partnerships, associations,

corporations, business trusts, legal representatives,

or any organized group of persons.” 29 U.S.C. 652(4).

§1904.31 
§1904.31 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 117

The term “employee” means “an employee of an

employer who is employed in a business of his

employer which affects interstate commerce.” 29

U.S.C. 652(6). Thus, any individual or entity having

an employment relationship with even one worker is

an employer for purposes of this final rule, and must

fulfill the recording requirements for each employee.

The application of the coverage principles in this

section presents few issues for employees who are

carried on the employer’s payroll, because the

employment relationship is usually well established

in these cases. However, issues sometimes arise

when an individual or entity enters into a temporary

relationship with a worker. The first question is

whether the worker is an employee of the hiring

party. If an employment relationship exists, even if

temporary in duration, the employee’s injuries and illnesses must be recorded on the OSHA 300 Log and

301 form. The second question, arising in connection

with employees provided by a temporary help service or leasing agency, is which employer--the host

firm or the temporary help service--is responsible for

recordkeeping.

Whether an employment relationship exists under

the Act is determined in accordance with established

common law principles of agency. At common law, a

self-employed “independent contractor” is not an

employee; therefore, injuries and illnesses sustained

by independent contractors are not recordable under

the final Recordkeeping rule. To determine whether a

hired party is an employee or an independent contractor under the common law test, the hiring party

must consider a number of factors, including the

degree of control the hiring party asserts over the

manner in which the work is done, and the degree of

skill and independent judgment the hired party is

expected to apply. Loomis Cabinet Co. V.OSHRC, 20

F.3d 938, 942 (9th Cir. 1994).

Other individuals, besides independent contractors, who are not considered to be employees under

the OSH Act are unpaid volunteers, sole proprietors,

partners, family members of farm employers, and

domestic workers in a residential setting. See 29 CFR

Section 1975.4(b)(2) and Section 1975.6 for a discussion of the latter two categories of workers. As is the

case with independent contractors, no employment

relationship exists between these individuals and the

hiring party, and consequently, no recording obligation arises.

A related coverage question sometimes arises

when an employer obtains labor from a temporary

help service, employee leasing firm or other personnel supply service. Frequently the temporary workers

are on the payroll of the temporary help service or

leasing firm, but are under the day-to-day supervision of the host party. In these cases, Section 1904.31

places the recordkeeping obligation upon the host, or

utilizing, employer. The final rule’s allocation of

recordkeeping responsibility to the host employer in

these circumstances is consistent with the Act for

several reasons.

First, the host employer’s exercise of day-to-day

supervision of the temporary workers and its control

over the work environment demonstrates a high

degree of control over the temporary workers consistent with the presence of an employment relationship at common law. See Loomis Cabinet Co., 20 F.3d

at 942. Thus, the temporary workers will ordinarily be

the employees of the party exercising day-to-day

control over them, and the supervising party will be

their employer.

Even if daily supervision is not sufficient alone to

establish that the host party is the employer of the

temporary workers, there are other reasons for the

final rule’s allocation of recordkeeping responsibility.

Under the OSH Act, an employer’s duties and

responsibilities are not limited only to his own

employees. Cf. Universal Constr. Co. v. OSHRC, 182

F.3d 726, 728-731 (10th Cir. 1999). Assuming that the

host is an employer under the Act (because it has an

employment relationship with someone) it reasonably should record the injuries of all employees,

whether or not its own, that it supervises on a daily

basis. This follows because the supervising employer

is in the best position to obtain the necessary injury

and illness information due to its control over the

worksite and its familiarity with the work tasks and

the work environment....

...[T]he proposal did not alter the long-standing

meanings of the terms employee, employer or

employment relationship. The day-to-day supervision

test for identifying the employer who is responsible

for compliance with Part 1904 is a continuation of

OSHA’s former policy, and is consistent with the common law test. The comments indicate that many

employers are not aware that they need to keep

records for leased workers, temporary workers, and

workers who are inaccurately labeled “independent

contractors” but are in fact employees. However,

these workers are employees under both the former

rule and the final rule. Incorporating these requirements into the regulatory text can only help to

improve the consistency of the data by clarifying the

employer’s responsibilities.

The 1904 rule does not require an employer to

record injuries and illnesses that occur to workers
118 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.31 

supervised by independent contractors. However, the

label assigned to a worker is immaterial if it does not

reflect the economic realities of the relationship. For

example, an employment contract that labels a hired

worker as an independent contractor will have no

legal significance for Part 1904 purposes if in fact the

hiring employer exercises day-to-day supervision

over that worker, including directing the worker as to

the manner in which the details of the work are to be

performed. If the contractor actually provides day-today supervision for the employee, then the contractor is responsible for compliance with Part 1904 as to

that employee....

OSHA has rejected the suggestions that either the

payroll or workers’ compensation employer keep the

OSHA 1904 records. The Agency believes that in the

majority of circumstances the payroll employer will

also be the workers’ compensation employer and

there is no difference in the two suggestions.

Temporary help services typically provide the workers’ compensation insurance coverage for the

employees they provide to other employers.

Therefore, our reasons for rejecting these suggestions are the same. OSHA agrees that there are good

arguments for both scenarios: 1. Including injuries

and illnesses in the records of the leasing employer

(the payroll or workers’ compensation employer and

2. For including these cases in the records of the controlling employer. Requiring the payroll or workers’

compensation employer to keep the OSHA records

would certainly be a simple and objective method.

There would be no doubt about who keeps the

records. However, including the cases in the records

of the temporary help agency erodes the value of the

injury and illness records for statistical purposes, for

administering safety and health programs at individual worksites, and for government inspectors conducting safety and health inspections or consultations. The benefits of simplification and clarity do not

outweigh the potential damage to the informational

value of the records, for the reasons discussed

below.

First, the employer who controls the workers and

the work environment is in the best position to learn

about all the injuries and illnesses that occur to those

workers. Second, when the data are collected for

enforcement and research use and for priority setting, the injury and illness data are clearly linked to

the industrial setting that gave rise to them. Most

important, transferring the recording/reporting function from the supervising employer to the leasing

firm would undermine rather than facilitate one of

the most important goals of Part 1904--to assure that

work-related injury and illness information gets to

the employer who can use it to abate work-related

hazards. If OSHA were to shift the recordkeeping

responsibility from the controlling employer to the

leasing firm, the records would not be readily available to the employer who can make best use of

them. OSHA would need to require the leasing firm

to provide the controlling employer with copies of

the injury and illness logs and other reports to meet

this purpose. This would be both burdensome and

duplicative.

Requiring the controlling (host) employer to

record injuries and illnesses for employees that they

control has several advantages. First, it assigns the

injuries and illnesses to the individual workplace with

the greatest amount of control over the working conditions that led to the worker’s injury or illness.

Although both the host employer and the payroll

employer have safety and health responsibilities, the

host employer generally has more control over the

safety and health conditions where the employee is

working. To the extent that the records connect the

occupational injuries and illnesses to the working

conditions in a given workplace, the host employer

must include these cases to provide a full and accurate safety and health record for that workplace.

If this policy were not in place, industry-wide statistics would be skewed. Two workplaces with identical numbers of injuries and illnesses would report

different statistics if one relied on temporary help

services to provide workers, while the other did not.

Under OSHA’s policy, when records are collected to

generate national injury and illness statistics, the

cases are properly assigned to the industry where

they occurred. Assigning these injuries and illnesses

to temporary help services would not accurately

reflect the type of workplace that produced the

injuries and illnesses. It would also be more difficult

to compare industries. To illustrate this point, consider a hypothetical industry that relies on temporary

help services to provide 10% of its labor force.

Assuming that the temporary workers experience

workplace injury and illness at the same rate as traditional employees, the Nation’s statistics would underrepresent that industry’s injury and illness numbers

by 10%. If another industry only used temporary help

services for 1% of the labor force, its statistics would

be closer to the real number, but comparisons to the

10% industry would be highly suspect.

The policy also makes it easier to use an industry’s data to measure differences that occur in that

industry over time. Over the last 20 years, the business community has relied increasingly on workers
§1904.31 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 119

from temporary help services, employee leasing

companies, and other temporary employees. If an

industry sector as a whole changed its practices to 

include either more or fewer temporary workers over

time, comparisons of the statistics over several years

might show trends in injury and illness experience

that simply reflected changing business practices

rather than real changes in safety and health conditions....

OSHA agrees with these commenters that there is

a potential for double counting of injuries and illnesses for workers provided by a personnel supply service. We do not intend to require both employers to

record each injury or illness. To solve this problem,

the rule, at Section 1904.31(b)(4), specifically states

that both employers are not required to record the

case, and that the employers may coordinate their

efforts so that each case is recorded only once--by

the employer who provides day-to-day supervision.

When the employers involved choose to work with

each other, or when both employers understand the

Part 1904 regulations as to who is required to record

the cases and who is not, there will not be duplicative recording and reporting....

OSHA believes that many employers already

share information about these injuries and illnesses

to help each other with their own respective safety

and health responsibilities. For example, personnel

service employers need information to process workers’ compensation claims and to determine how well

their safety and health efforts are working, especially

those involving training and the use of personal protective equipment. The host employer needs information on conditions in the workplace that may have

caused the injuries or illnesses....

...The personnel leasing firm will not necessarily

have better information than the host employer

about the worker’s exposures or accidents in previous assignments, previously recorded injuries or illnesses, or the aftermath of an injury or illness. And

the personnel leasing firm will certainly have less

knowledge of and control over the work environment

that may have caused, contributed to, or significantly

aggravated an injury or illness. As described above,

the two employers have shared responsibilities and

may share information when there is a need to do

so.

If Part 1904 records are inaccurate due to lack of

reasonably reliable data about leased employees,

there are ways for OSHA to address the problem.

First, the OSH Act does not impose absolutely strict

liability on employers. The controlling employer

must make reasonable efforts to acquire necessary

information in order to satisfy Part 1904, but may be

able to show that it is not feasible to comply with an

OSHA recordkeeping requirement. If entries for temporary workers are deficient in some way, the employer can always defend against citation by showing

that it made the efforts that a reasonable employer

would have made under the particular circumstances

to obtain more complete or accurate data....

OSHA has decided not to base recording obligations on the temporary employee’s length of employment. Recording the injuries and illnesses of some

temporary employees and not others would not

improve the value or accuracy of the statistics, and

would make the system even more inconsistent and

complex. In OSHA’s view, the duration of the relationship is much less important than the element of control. In the example of the temporary nurse’s aide, for

OSHA recordkeeping purposes the worker would be

considered an employee of the facility for the days

he or she works under the day-to-day supervision of

the host facility....

Because OSHA is using the common law concepts

to determine which workers are to be included in the

records, a worker who is covered in terms of recording an injury or illness is also covered for counting

purposes and for the annual summary. If a given

worker is an employee under the common law test,

he or she is an employee for all OSHA recordkeeping

purposes. Therefore, an employer must consider all

of its employees when determining its eligibility for

the small employer exemption, and must provide

reasonable estimates for hours worked and average

employment on the annual summary. OSHA has

included instructions on the back of the annual summary to help with these calculations.

... OSHA’s view is that a given establishment

should have one OSHA Log and only one Log.

Injuries and illnesses for all the employees at the

establishment are entered into that record to create a

single summary at the end of the year. OSHA does

not require temporary workers or any other types of

workers to be identified with special titles in the job

title column, but also does not prohibit the practice.

This column is used to list the occupation of the

injured or ill worker, such as laborer, machine operator, or nursing aide. However, OSHA does encourage

employers to analyze their injury and illness data to

improve safety and health at the establishment. In

some cases, identifying temporary or contract workers may help an employer to manage safety and

health more effectively. Thus an employer may supplement the OSHA Log to identify temporary or con-
120 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.31 

tract workers, although the rule does not require it....

These workers should be evaluated just as any

other worker. If a student or intern is working as an

unpaid volunteer, he or she would not be an employee under the OSH Act and an injury or illness of that

employee would not be entered into the Part 1904

records. If the worker is receiving compensation for

services, and meets the common law test discussed

earlier, then there is an employer-employee relationship for the purposes of OSHA recordkeeping. The

employer in that relationship must evaluate any

injury or illness at the establishment and enter it into

the records if it meets the recording criteria.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.31 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.31 Covered employees

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.31 

Section 1904.31 Covered employees

Question 31-1. How is the term “supervised” in section 1904.31 defined for the purpose of determining

whether the host employer must record the workrelated injuries and illnesses of employees obtained

from a temporary help service?

The host employer must record the recordable

injuries and illnesses of employees not on its payroll

if it supervises them on a day-to-day basis. Day-today supervision occurs when “in addition to specifying the output, product or result to be accomplished

by the person’s work, the employer supervises the

details, means, methods and processes by which the

work is to be accomplished.” 

Question 31-2. If a temporary personnel agency

sends its employees to work in an establishment

that is not required to keep OSHA records, does the

agency have to record the recordable injuries and illnesses of these employees?

A temporary personnel agency need not record

injuries and illnesses of those employees that are

supervised on a day-to-day basis by another employer. The temporary personnel agency must record the

recordable injuries and illnesses of those employees

it supervises on a day to day basis, even if these

employees perform work for an employer who is not

covered by the recordkeeping rule.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Letters of interpretation explain

these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional

employer obligations. These letters constitute OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed.

Note that OSHA enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to

time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. 

Letters of Interpretation constitute OSHA’s interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may

not be applicable to any situation not delineated within the original correspondence.
§1904.31 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 121

January 15, 2004 

Ms. Leann M. Johnson-Koch

1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-2412 

Dear Ms. Johnson-Koch: 

Thank you for your E-mail to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904.

Your letter was forwarded to my office by Richard Fairfax, Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Programs. The Division of Recordkeeping Requirements is responsible for the administration of the

OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping system nationwide. Please excuse the delay in responding to

your request. 

In your letter, you ask OSHA to clarify the following scenarios to ensure accurate and consistent

guidance to your members for purposes of OSHA Recordkeeping requirements. I will address your

scenarios by first restating each one and then answering it. 

Scenario 1:

• An employee reported to work at 7:00 a.m. 

• At 12:15 p.m. the employee reported that his toes on his left foot had started swelling and his

foot had started hurting. 

• The employee wanted to go to a doctor for evaluation. 

• On the First Report of Injury, that the employee completed before he went to the doctor, the

employee indicated that the cause of the illness was “unknown (feet wet at cooling tower).” 

• When answering the doctor’s question: “How did injury occur?” the employee answered that the

only thing he could think of was that his feet were wet all the previous day due to work in the

morning at a cooling tower. The cooling tower water is treated to remove bacteria and then used in

process operations in the plant. 

• The doctor described the illness/injury as foot edema/cellulitis. 

• The doctor also described the injury as an occupational disease, prescribed an antibiotic, and the

employee missed one day of work. 

• The company sent the employee to a second doctor who said to continue using the antibiotic. 

• Neither doctor could state conclusively that the foot edema/cellulitis was or was not due to the

employee’s feet being wet due to work at the cooling tower. 

• Neither doctor is a specialist in skin disorders. 

• During an incident review at the site, the employee again said he did not know if his feet being

wet all day the previous day caused the injury/illness. 

• The employee also stated that he had not worn the personal protective equipment, rubber boots,

prescribed for this task. 

The company determined that this injury/illness is not work-related (did not occur in the course of

or as a result of employment), since neither physician nor the employee can state with certainty that

the injury/illness was caused by the employee’s feet being wet all day due to work at the cooling

tower. Since the injury/illness was determined to not be work-related, then the company deemed the

incident non-recordable. 

Letter of interpretation related to sections 1904.5, 1904.5(a), 1904.5(b)(2), 1904.6, 1904.6(a), 1904.7 and

1904.31 –

Evaluation of seven scenarios for work-relatedness and recordkeeping requirements.
Response: A case is work-related if it is more likely than not that an event or exposure in the work

environment was a cause of the injury or illness. The work event or exposure need only be one of

the causes; it does not need to be the sole or predominant cause. In this case, the fact that neither

the physician nor the employee could state with certainty that the employee’s edema was caused by

working with wet feet is not dispositive. The physician’s description of the edema as an “occupational disease,” and the employee’s statement that working with wet feet was “the only thing he

could think of” as the cause, indicate that it is more likely than not that working with wet feet was

a cause. The case should be recorded on the OSHA 300 Log. 

Scenario 2:

An employee must report to work by 8:00 a.m. 

• The employee drove into the company parking lot at 7:30 a.m. and parked the car. 

• The employee exited the car and proceeded to the office to report to work. 

• The parking lot and sidewalks are privately owned by the facility and both are within the property line, but not the controlled access points (i.e., fence, guards). 

• The employee stepped onto the sidewalk and slipped on the snow and ice. 

• The employee suffered a back injury and missed multiple days of work. 

The company believes that the employee was still in the process of the commute to work since the

employee had not yet checked in at the office. Since a work task was not being performed, the site

personnel deemed the incident not work-related and therefore not recordable. 

Response: Company parking lots and sidewalks are part of the employer’s establishment for recordkeeping purposes. Here, the employee slipped on an icy sidewalk while walking to the office to

report for work. In addition, the event or exposure that occurred does not meet any of the workrelated exceptions contained in 1904.5(b)(2). The employee was on the sidewalk because of work;

therefore, the case is work-related regardless of the fact that he had not actually checked in. 

Scenario 3: 

The employee described in Scenario 2 missed 31 days of work due to the back injury. 

• On day 31, the doctor provided a release for returning to work. 

• The next morning (day 32), when the employee was due to report to work, the employee stated

that his back was hurting, and the employee did not report to work. 

• The employee scheduled a doctor’s appointment, with the same doctor, and visited the doctor on

day 33. 

• The doctor issued a statement stating that the employee was not able to return to work. 

Since the employee was released to return to work, the company does not believe it has to count the

intervening two days on the OSHA log. 

Response: The employer would have to enter the additional days away from work on the OSHA

300 log based on receiving information from the physician or other licensed health care professional

that the employee was unable to work.

Scenario 4: 

• An employee reports to work. 

• Several hours later, the employee goes outside for a “smoke break.” 

• The employee slips on the ice and injures his back. 

Since the employee was not performing a task related to the employee’s work, the company has

deemed this incident non-work related and therefore not recordable. 

Response: Under Section 1904.5(b)(2)(v), an injury or illness is not work-related if it is solely the

result of an employee doing personal tasks (unrelated to their employment) at the establishment outside of the employee’s assigned working hours. In order for this exception to apply, the case must

meet both of the stated conditions. The exception does not apply here because the injury or illness

occurred within normal working hours. Therefore, your case in question is work-related, and if it

meets the general recording criteria under Section 1904.7 the case must be recorded. 

122 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.31 
§1904.31 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 123

Scenario 5: 

• An employee drives into the company parking lot at 7:30 a.m., exits his car, and proceeds to

cross the parking lot to clock-in to work. 

• A second employee, also on the way to work, approaches the first employee, and the two individuals get into a physical altercation in the parking lot. The first employee breaks an arm during the

altercation. 

• The employee goes to the doctor and receives medical treatment for his injury. 

The company deems this non-work related, and therefore non-recordable, since the employees had

not yet reported to work and a work task was not being performed at the time of the altercation. 

Response: The recordkeeping regulation contains no general exception for purposes of determining

work-relationship for cases involving acts of violence in the work environment. Company parking

lots/access roads are part of the employer’s premises and therefore part of the employer’s establishment. Whether the employee had not clocked in to work does not affect the outcome for determining work-relatedness. The case is recordable on the OSHA log, because the injury meets the general

recording criteria contained in Section 1904.7. 

Scenario 6: 

• An employee injured a knee performing work-related activities in 2001. 

• The accident was OSHA recordable and subject to worker’s compensation. 

• The employee had arthroscopic knee surgery eleven months later and was released to full duty a

month and a half after the arthroscopic surgery. 

• The employee had a second knee injury three months after the return to work release (after the

first surgery). 

• Post-surgery (second surgery), the doctor prescribed Vioxx® as an anti-inflammatory. 

• Approximately one and one-half months after the second knee surgery, the employee was given

another full release to return to work full duty and returned to work. 

• However, the doctor told the employee to continue to take Vioxx® as prescribed (as needed) and

to return to the doctor as needed. 

• The employee scheduled a follow-up appointment with the doctor. 

• The day before the appointment, the employee bumped his knee at work. 

• During his scheduled doctor’s appointment (was to be the last follow-up visit) the employee mentioned the latest incident (bumping the knee) to the doctor and showed him where the pain was

occurring due to bumping his knee. 

• The doctor stated that the employee had an inflamed tendon (Grade 1 lateral collateral ligament

sprain) that was not part of the initial surgery (patellar tendonitis). 

• The doctor stated in the diagnosis that the original injury that required knee surgery was resolved.

• The doctor told the employee to continue taking Vioxx® for the inflamed tendon. 

Since the employee was already taking the medication prescribed (Vioxx®), the site does not believe

this is recordable as a second incident. 

Response: In the recordkeeping regulation, the employer is required to follow any determination a

physician or other licensed health care professional has made about the status of a new case. The

inflamed tendon is a new case because the employee had completely recovered from the previous

injury and illness and a new event or exposure had occurred in the work environment. Therefore,

for purposes of OSHA recordkeeping, the employer would enter the case on the OSHA 300 log as

appropriate. 

Scenario 7:

• A site hired numerous temporary workers at its plant. 

• Three temporary workers were injured.

• They each received injuries that were recordable on the OSHA 300 Log. 

• The employees were under the direct supervision of the site. 

Is it correct that these injuries were recordable on the site log or should they have been recordable

on the temp agency log? What are the criteria related to temporary workers that need to be

reviewed to determine which OSHA log is appropriate for recording the injury/illness? 
Response: Section 1904.31 states that the employer must record the injuries and illnesses that occur

to employees not on its payroll if it supervises them on a day-to-day basis. Day-to-day supervision

generally exists when the employer “supervises not only the output, product, or result to be accomplished by the person’s work, but also the details, means, methods, and processes by which the

work objective is accomplished.” 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information

helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters

explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create

additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements

discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. In addition, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep appraised

of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please contact the Division of Recordkeeping Requirements, at 202-693-1702. 

Sincerely, 

Frank Frodyma

Acting Director 

Letter of interpretation related to sections 1904.29, 1904.29(a), 1904.29(b), 1904.29(b)(2), 1904.31, 1904.33,

1904.35, 1904.40 and 1904.46 – 

Recording criteria for cases involving workers from a temporary help service, employee leasing service, or 

personnel supply service.

June 23, 2003

Mr. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.

Jackson Lewis LLP

2100 Landmark Building

301 North Main Street

Greenville, SC 29601-2122

Dear Mr. Foulke:

Thank you for your April 3, 2003 facsimile and April 10, 2003 letter to the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting

Requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904. Specifically, you ask OSHA to clarify the recording

criteria for cases involving workers from a temporary help service, employee leasing service, or personnel supply service. Your questions have been outlined below followed by OSHA’s response.

Question 1: Under 29 CFR Section 1904.31, employers who supervise temporary or leased employees at their facility are required to maintain the OSHA 300 Logs for those employees. With respect

to those injuries, can the employer keep a separate 300 Log for the company employees and one

log for the temporary or leased employees?

124 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.31 
§1904.31 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 125

Response: The log is to be kept for an establishment. Under Section 1904.46 Definitions, an establishment is a single physical location where business is conducted or where services or industrial

operations are performed. The controlling employer (using firm) may sub-divide the OSHA 300

Log to provide separate listings of temporary workers, but must consider the separate listings to be

one record for all recordkeeping purposes, including access by government representatives, employees, former employees and employee representatives as required by Section 1904.35 and 1904.40 in

the Recordkeeping regulation. OSHA’s view is that a given establishment should have one OSHA

Log. Injuries and illnesses for all the covered employees at the establishment are then entered into

that record to create a single OSHA 300-A Summary form at the end of the year.

Question 2: Under 29 CFR Section 1904.31, while the standard clearly indicates the 300 Logs must

be maintained for supervised temporary or leased employees, it does not indicate who maintains the

301 documents or the first report of injuries, as well as the medical records on those employees.

Also, if a temporary or leased employee has days away from work, it is normally the temporary or

leased employee provider’s contractual responsibility to handle the medical treatment of the

employee. The temporary or leased employee provider is the only person/entity to have the information on days away from work. Who is responsible for maintaining the 301 logs or the first

report of injury forms as well as the medical records for these employees, assuming that the

employee provider can produce the required documents to the employer for production in the time

periods set forth in the standard?

Response: Section 1904.29(a) says: “You must use OSHA 300, 300-A and 301 forms, or equivalent

forms, for recordable injuries and illnesses.” In addition, 1904.29(b)(2) says: “You must complete

an OSHA 301 Incident Report form, or an equivalent form, for each recordable injury or illness

entered on the OSHA 300 Log.” Therefore, when the workers from a temporary help service or

leasing firm are under the day-to-day supervision of the controlling party (using firm) the entire

OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping responsibility belongs to the using firm.

Question 3: Using the facts in Question 2, it is also important to note that an injured temporary or

leased employee, who requires days from work, may be replaced by another leased or temporary

employee at the work site. From time of the injury, the employer has no information about the

return to work status of the injured employee. In fact, the injured employee may be assigned to

another employer once he or she is able to return to work. How can the original employer keep

accurate 300 Logs when the employee provider has sole access to information on days away from

work and return to work status?

Response: The controlling employer has the ultimate responsibility for making good-faith recordkeeping determinations regarding an injury and illness to any of those temporary employees they

supervise on a day-to-day basis. Although controlling employers ultimately decide if and how a particular case should be recorded, their decision must not be an arbitrary one, but should be made in

accordance with the requirements of the Act, regulation, and the instructions on the forms.

Therefore, the controlling employer must make reasonable efforts to acquire the necessary information in order to satisfy its Part 1904 recordkeeping requirements. However, if the controlling

employer is not able to obtain information from the employer of the leased or temporary employee,

the controlling employer should record the injury based on whatever information is available to the

controlling employer. The preamble contains a brief reference about OSHA’s expectation that the

employers share information to produce accurate records, stating that “the two employers have

shared responsibilities and may share information when there is a need to do so.” (Federal Register

p. 6041)

Finally, the last question you raised is whether your client or contractor has any requirements under

the recordkeeping standard to provide the new contractor the current OSHA 300 Logs for that

facility covering those employees who now work for that contractor? Since there was no change of

your client’s business ownership, he or she needs only to retain the records as per 1904.33 and provide access under 1904.35 and 1904.40.
126 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.31 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information

helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot

create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules.

Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep appraised

of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any

further questions, please contact the Division of Recordkeeping Requirements, at 202-693-1702.

Sincerely, 

John L. Henshaw

Assistant Secretary
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 127

(a) Basic requirement.

At the end of each calendar year, you must:

(1) Review the OSHA 300 Log to verify that the

entries are complete and accurate, and correct any

deficiencies identified;

(2) Create an annual summary of injuries and illnesses recorded on the OSHA 300 Log;

(3) Certify the summary; and

(4) Post the annual summary.

(b) Implementation.

(1) How extensively do I have to review the

OSHA 300 Log entries at the end of the year? 

You must review the entries as extensively as necessary to make sure that they are complete and correct.

(2) How do I complete the annual summary? 

You must:

(i) Total the columns on the OSHA 300 Log (if you

had no recordable cases, enter zeros for each column total); and

(ii) Enter the calendar year covered, the company’s

name, establishment name, establishment

address, annual average number of employees

covered by the OSHA 300 Log, and the total hours

worked by all employees covered by the OSHA

300 Log.

(iii) If you are using an equivalent form other than

the OSHA 300-A summary form, as permitted

under Section 1904.6(b)(4), the summary you use

must also include the employee access and

employer penalty statements found on the OSHA

300-A Summary form.

(3) How do I certify the annual summary? 

A company executive must certify that he or she

has examined the OSHA 300 Log and that he or she

reasonably believes, based on his or her knowledge

of the process by which the information was recorded, that the annual summary is correct and complete.

(4) Who is considered a company executive? 

The company executive who certifies the log must

be one of the following persons:

(i) An owner of the company (only if the company

is a sole proprietorship or partnership);

(ii) An officer of the corporation;

(iii) The highest ranking company official working

at the establishment; or

(iv) The immediate supervisor of the highest ranking company official working at the establishment.

(5) How do I post the annual summary? 

You must post a copy of the annual summary in

each establishment in a conspicuous place or places

where notices to employees are customarily posted.

You must ensure that the posted annual summary is

not altered, defaced or covered by other material.

(6) When do I have to post the annual summary? 

You must post the summary no later than February 1 of the year following the year covered by the

records and keep the posting in place until April 30.

Section 1904.32 

Annual summary

(66 FR 6131, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.32

Subpart D – Other OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping requirements

(66 FR 6130, Jan. 19, 2001) 

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.32 

(66 FR 6042-6048, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.32 Annual summary.

At the end of each calendar year, section 1904.32 of

the final rule requires each covered employer to

review his or her OSHA 300 Log for completeness

and accuracy and to prepare an Annual Summary of

the OSHA 300 Log using the form OSHA 300-A,

Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, or

an equivalent form. The summary must be certified

for accuracy and completeness and be posted in the

workplace by February 1 of the year following the

§1904.32 
112 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.32 

year covered by the summary. The summary must

remain posted until April 30 of the year in which it

was posted.

Preparing the Annual Summary requires four

steps: reviewing the OSHA 300 log, computing and

entering the summary information on the Form 300-

A, certification, and posting. First, the employer must

review the Log as extensively as necessary to make

sure it is accurate and complete. Second, the

employer must total the columns on the Log; transfer

them to the summary form; and enter the calendar

year covered, the name of the employer, the name

and address of the establishment, the average number of employees on the establishment’s payroll for

the calendar year, and the total hours worked by the

covered employees. If there were no recordable

cases at the establishment for the year covered, the

summary must nevertheless be completed by entering zeros in the total for each column of the OSHA

300 Log. If a form other than the OSHA 300-A is

used, as permitted by paragraph 1904.29(b)(4), the

alternate form must contain the same information as

the OSHA 300-A form and include identical statements concerning employee access to the Log and

Summary and employer penalties for falsifying the

document as are found on the OSHA 300-A form.

Third, the employer must certify to the accuracy

and completeness of the Log and Summary, using a

two-step process. The person or persons who supervise the preparation and maintenance of the Log and

Summary (usually the person who keeps the OSHA

records) must sign the certification statement on the

form, based on their direct knowledge of the data on

which it was based. Then, to ensure greater awareness and accountability of the recordkeeping

process, a company executive, who may be an

owner, a corporate officer, the highest ranking official

working at the establishment, or that person’s immediate supervisor, must also sign the form to certify to

its accuracy and completeness. Certification of the

summary attests that the individual making the certification has a reasonable belief, derived from his or

her knowledge of the process by which the information in the Log was reported and recorded, that the

Log and summary are “true” and “complete.”

Fourth, the Summary must be posted no later

than February 1 of the year following the year covered in the Summary and remain posted until April

30 of that year in a conspicuous place where notices

are customarily posted. The employer must ensure

that the Summary is not defaced or altered during

the 3 month posting period.

1. Company Executive Certification of the Annual

Summary.

The final rule carries forward the proposed rule’s

requirement for certification by a higher ranking

company official, with minor revision. OSHA concludes that the company executive certification

process will ensure greater completeness and accuracy of the Summary by raising accountability for

OSHA recordkeeping to a higher managerial level

than existed under the former rule. OSHA believes

that senior management accountability is essential if

the Log and Annual Summary are to be accurate and

complete. The integrity of the OSHA recordkeeping

system, which is relied on by the BLS for national

injury and illness statistics, by OSHA and employers

to understand hazards in the workplaces, by employees to assist in the identification and control of the

hazards identified, and by safety and health professionals everywhere to analyze trends, identify emerging hazards, and develop solutions, is essential to

these objectives. Because OSHA cannot oversee the

preparation of the Log and Summary at each establishment and cannot audit more than a small sample

of all covered employers’ records, this goal is accomplished by requiring employers or company executives to certify the accuracy and completeness of the

Log and Summary.

The company executive certification requirement

imposes different obligations depending on the structure of the company. If the company is a sole proprietorship or partnership, the certification may be

made by the owner. If the company is a corporation,

the certification may be made by a corporate officer.

For any management structure, the certification may

be made by the highest ranking company official

working at the establishment covered by the Log (for

example, the plant manager or site supervisor), or

the latter official’s supervisor (for example, a corporate or regional director who works at a different

establishment, such as company headquarters).

The company executive certification is intended 

to ensure that a high ranking company official with

responsibility for the recordkeeping activity and the

authority to ensure that the recordkeeping function is

performed appropriately has examined the records

and has a reasonable belief, based on his or her

knowledge of that process, that the records are accurate and complete.

The final rule does not specify how employers are

to evaluate their recordkeeping systems to ensure

their accuracy and completeness or what steps an

employer must follow to certify the accuracy and

completeness of the Log and Summary with confi-
§1904.32 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 129

dence. However, to be able to certify that one has a

reasonable belief that the records are complete and

accurate would suggest, at a minimum, that the certifier is familiar with OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements, and the company’s recordkeeping practices

and policies, has read the Log and Summary, and

has obtained assurance from the staff responsible for

maintaining the records (if the certifier does not personally keep the records) that all of OSHA’s requirements have been met and all practices and policies

followed. In most if not all cases, the certifier will be

familiar with the details of some of the injuries and

illnesses that have occurred at the establishment and

will therefore be able to spot check the OSHA 300

Log to see if those cases have been entered correctly.

In many cases, especially in small to medium establishments, the certifier will be aware of all of the

injuries and illnesses that have been reported at the

establishment and will thus be able to inspect the

forms to make sure all of the cases that should have

been entered have in fact been recorded.

The certification required by the final rule may be

made by signing and dating the certification section

of the OSHA 300-A form, which replaces the summary portion of the former OSHA 200 form, or by signing and dating a separate certification statement and

appending it to the OSHA Form 300-A. A separate

certification statement must contain the identical

penalty warnings and employee access information

as found on the OSHA Form 300-A. A separate statement may be needed when the certifier works at

another location and the certification is mailed or

faxed to the location where the Summary is posted....

...The criminal penalties referred to in paragraph

1904.9(a) of the former rule are authorized by section

17(g) of the OSH Act and do not need to be repeated

in the final rule to be enforced. Similarly, the administrative citations and penalties referred to in paragraph 1904.9(b) of the former rule are authorized by

sections 9 and 17 of the OSH Act. The warning statement on the final OSHA 300-A form or its equivalent

should be sufficient to remind those who certify the

forms of their legal obligations under the Act....

Although OSHA believes that the final rule has

many features that will enhance the accuracy and

completeness of reporting, the Agency has included

a company executive level of certification in the final

rule. OSHA believes that company executive certification will raise employer awareness of the importance

of the OSHA records, improve their accuracy and

completeness (and thus utility), and decrease any

underreporting incentive.

The final rule therefore requires a higher level

company official to certify to their accuracy and completeness. Thus the final rule reflects OSHA’s agreement with those commenters who stated that the

Log and Summary must be actively overseen by

higher level management and that certification by

such an official would make management’s responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the system clear....

...In the final rule, the person who must perform

the certification must be a company executive. OSHA

does not believe that an industrial hygienist or a safety officer is likely to have sufficient authority to

ensure the integrity of a company’s recordkeeping

process. Therefore, the final rule requires that the

certification be provided by an owner of a sole proprietorship or partnership, an officer of the corporation, the highest-ranking official at the establishment,

or that person’s supervisor....

The certification required by the final rule must be

based on the official’s “reasonable belief” that the

Log and Summary are accurate and complete.

Certification thus means that the certifying official

has a general understanding of the OSHA recordkeeping requirements, is familiar with the company’s

recordkeeping progess, and knows that the company

has effective recordkeeping procedures and uses

those procedures to produce accurate and complete

records. The precise meaning of “reasonable belief”

will be determined on a case-by-case basis because

circumstances vary from establishment to establishment and decisions about the recordability of individual cases may differ, depending upon case-specific

details.

2. Number of employees and hours worked.

...The final rule requires employers to include in the

Annual Summary (the OSHA Form 300-A) the annual

average number of employees covered by the Log and

the total hours worked by all covered employees....

OSHA’s view is that the value of the total hours

worked and average number of employees information requires its inclusion in the Summary, and the

final rule reflects this determination. Having this

information will enable employers and employees to

calculate injury and illness incidence rates, which are

widely regarded as the best statistical measure for

the purpose of comparing an establishment’s injury

and illness experience with national statistics, the

records of other establishment, or trends over several years. Having the data available on the Form 300-A

will also make it easier for the employer to respond

to government requests for the data, which occurs

when the BLS and OSHA collect the data by mail,
130 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.32 

and when an OSHA or State inspector visits the facility. In particular, it will be easier for the employer to

provide the OSHA inspector with the hours worked

and employment data for past years....

...[T]he rule does not require employers to use

any particular method of calculating the totals, thus

providing employers who do not maintain certain

records--for example the total hours worked by

salaried employees--or employers without sophisticated computer systems, the flexibility to obtain the

information in any reasonable manner that meets the

objectives of the rule. Employers who do not have

the ability to generate precise numbers can use various estimation methods. For example, employers

typically must estimate hours worked for workers

who are paid on a commission or salary basis.

Additionally, the instructions for the OSHA 300-A

Summary form include a worksheet to help the

employer calculate the total number of hours worked

and the average number of employees covered by

the log.

3. Extended posting period.

The final rule’s requirement increasing the summary

Form 300-A posting period from one month to three

months is intended to raise employee awareness of

the recordkeeping process (especially that of new

employees hired during the posting period) by providing greater access to the previous year’s summary

without having to request it from management....

...OSHA has decided to adopt a 3-month posting

period. The additional posting period will provide

employees with additional opportunity to review the

summary information, raise employee awareness of

the records and their right to access them, and generally improve employee participation in the recordkeeping system without creating a “wallpaper” posting of untimely data. In addition, OSHA has concluded that any additional burden on employers will be

minimal at best and, in most cases, insignificant. All

the final rule requires the employer to do is to leave

the posting on the bulletin board instead of removing

it at the end of the one-month period.

The final rule thus requires that the Summary be

posted from February 1 until April 30, a period of three

months; OSHA believes that the 30 days in January

will be ample, as it has been in the past, for preparing

the current year’s Summary preparatory to posting.

4. Review of the records.

The provisions of the final rule requiring the employer to review the Log entries before totaling them for

the Annual Summary are intended as an additional

quality control measure that will improve the accuracy of the information in the Annual Summary, which

is posted to provide information to employees and is

also used as a data source by OSHA and the BLS.

Depending on the size of the establishment and the

number of injuries and illnesses on the OSHA 300

Log, the employer may wish to cross-check with any

other relevant records to make sure that all the

recordable injuries and illnesses have been included

on the Summary. These records may include workers’ compensation injury reports, medical records,

company accident reports, and/or time and attendance records.

In the final rule, OSHA has not adopted regulatory

language that requires formal audits of the OSHA

Part 1904 records. However, the final rule does

require employers to review the OSHA records as

extensively as necessary to ensure their accuracy.

The Agency believes that including audit provisions

is not necessary because the high-level certification

requirement will ensure that recordkeeping receives

the appropriate level of management attention....

...OSHA has not required records audits in the

final rule because the Agency believes that the combination of final rule requirements providing for

employee participation (section 1904.35), protecting

employees against discrimination for reporting workrelated injuries and illnesses to their employer (section 1904.36), requiring review by employers of the

records at the end of the year, and mandating two

level certification of the records will provide the quality control mechanisms needed to improve the quality of the OSHA records.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.32 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.32 Annual summary

Question 32-1. How do I calculate the “total hours

worked” on my annual summary when I have both

hourly and temporary workers?

To calculate the total hours worked by all employees,

include the hours worked by salaried, hourly, parttime and seasonal workers, as well as hours worked

by other workers you supervise (e.g., workers supplied by a temporary help service). Do not include

vacation, sick leave, holidays, or any other non-work

time even if employees were paid for it. If your establishment keeps records of only the hours paid or if
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 131

§1904.32 

you have employees who are not paid by the hour,

you must estimate the hours that the employees

actually worked.

Question 32-2. If an employer has no recordable

cases for the year, is an OSHA 300-A, Annual

Summary, still required to be completed, certified

and posted?

Yes. After the end of the year, employers must

review the Log to verify its accuracy, summarize the

300 Log information on the 300A summary form, and

certify the summary (a company executive must sign

the certification). This information must then be posted for three months, from February 1 to April 30.

Question 32-3. If employers electronically post the

OSHA 300-A Summary of Work-related Injuries and

Illnesses, are they in compliance with the posting

requirements of 1904.32(b)(5)?

No. The recordkeeping rule allows all forms to be

kept on computer equipment or at an alternate location, as long as the employer can produce the data

when needed. Section 1904.32(b)(5), requires

employers to post a copy of the Annual Summary in

each establishment, where notices are normally posted [see 1903.2(a)], no later than February 1 of the

year following the year covered by the records and

kept in place until April 30. Only the OSHA 300-A

Summary form should be posted.
132 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.32 

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.32

Section 1904.32 Annual summary

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Letters of interpretation explain

these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional

employer obligations. These letters constitute OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed.

Note that OSHA enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to

time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. 

Letters of Interpretation constitute OSHA’s interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may

not be applicable to any situation not delineated within the original correspondence.

Letter of interpretation related to sections 1904.26(b)(6), 1904.29(b)(10), 1904.32(a)(4) and 1904.32(b)(6) – 

Posting requirements for the OSHA 300 Log and OSHA 300-A Summary Form.

December 18, 2003 

Ms. Alana Greer

American Civil Liberties Union of Florida

4500 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 340

Miami, FL 33137-3227

Dear Ms. Greer: 

This is in response to your letter dated July 9, 2003. Please excuse the delay in our response.

Thank you for your comments pertaining to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s

(OSHA) Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904.

You state that your office has received several complaints regarding the medical privacy of employees regarding the recordkeeping requirements. Specifically, you ask OSHA to clarify the appropriateness of posting the entire OSHA 300 form (the Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) at the

employer’s establishment. 

You are correct in your understanding that, while employers are required to complete both OSHA

Form 300 Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses and OSHA Form 300-A Summary of WorkRelated Injuries and Illnesses, only the latter, Form 300-A, is required to be posted in the workplace. 

Despite the fact that only the Summary Form 300-A is required to be posted, some employers

apparently have posted both the Form 300 and Form 300-A in the workplace. You suggest that further clarification is needed with the recordkeeping forms or elsewhere, making clear to employers

that the Form 300 should not be posted along with the Summary Form 300-A. 

The instructions that accompany the OSHA recordkeeping forms do include the following Question

and Answer: “When must you post the Summary? You must post the Summary only--not the Log--

by February 1 of the year following the year covered by the form and keep it posted until April 30

of that year.” 

We will take additional steps to emphasize the distinction between the Form 300 and the Form

300-A and the fact that only the latter is required to be posted in the workplace, through News

Releases that we issue that remind employers of the posting requirement, and including this issue

under the Frequently Asked Questions on the Recordkeeping Section of our website. Your assistance in also making employers aware of this distinction is appreciated. 
§1904.32 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 133

I do want to make one further point of clarification. While our rules do not require the Form 300

to be posted (and we will attempt to communicate that more clearly, as described above), the regulation also does not prohibit an employer from posting the Form 300 along with the Form 300-A.

However, if the employer does choose to post the full Form 300 Log, they should post the Log in

an area only accessible by those granted access under the rule (i.e., employees, former employees,

employee representatives, and an authorized employee representative). If the posting area is accessible by others (e.g., members of the public) the employer must remove or hide all names of the

injured or ill employees as set out in Section 1904.29(b)(10). In addition, 1910.29 prohibits the

employer from including the employee’s name for “privacy concern” cases whenever the Form 300

Log is made available to coworkers, former employees, or employee representatives. 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information

helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot

create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules.

Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep

appraised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you

have any further questions, please contact the Division of Recordkeeping Requirements, at 202-

693-1702. 

Sincerely, 

John L. Henshaw

Assistant Secretary
134 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

(a) Basic requirement.

You must save the OSHA 300 Log, the privacy

case list (if one exists), the annual summary, and the

OSHA 301 Incident Report forms for five (5) years following the end of the calendar year that these

records cover.

(b) Implementation.

(1) Do I have to update the OSHA 300 Log during

the five-year storage period? 

Yes, during the storage period, you must update

your stored OSHA 300 Logs to include newly discovered recordable injuries or illnesses and to show any

changes that have occurred in the classification of

previously recorded injuries and illnesses. If the

description or outcome of a case changes, you must

remove or line out the original entry and enter the

new information.

(2) Do I have to update the annual summary? 

No, you are not required to update the annual

summary, but you may do so if you wish.

(3) Do I have to update the OSHA 301 Incident

Reports? 

No, you are not required to update the OSHA 301

Incident Reports, but you may do so if you wish.

Section 1904.33 

Retention and updating

(66 FR 6131, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.33

Subpart D – Other OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping requirements

(66 FR 6130, Jan. 19, 2001) 

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.33 

(66 FR 6048-6050, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.33 Retention and updating.

Section 1904.33 of the final rule deals with the retention and updating of the OSHA Part 1904 records

after they have been created and summarized. The

final rule requires the employer to save the OSHA

300 Log, the Annual Summary, and the OSHA 301

Incident Report forms for five years following the end

of the calendar year covered by the records. The final

rule also requires the employer to update the entries

on the OSHA 300 Log to include newly discovered

cases and show changes that have occurred to previously recorded cases. The provisions in section

1904.33 state that the employer is not required to

update the 300A Annual Summary or the 301

Incident Reports, although the employer is permitted

to update these forms if he or she wishes to do so.

The final rule requires employers to retain their

OSHA 300 and 301 records for five years following

the end of the year to which the records apply.

Additionally, employers must update their OSHA 300

Logs under two circumstances. First, if the employer

discovers a recordable injury or illness that has not

previously been recorded, the case must be entered

on the forms. Second, if a previously recorded injury

or illness turns out, based on later information, not to

have been recorded properly, the employer must

modify the previous entry. For example, if the

description or outcome of a case changes (a case

requiring medical treatment becomes worse and the

employee must take days off work to recuperate), the

employer must remove or line out the original entry

and enter the new information. The employer also

has a duty to enter the date of an employee’s return

to work or the date of an injured worker’s death on

the Form 301; OSHA considers the entering of this

information an integral part of the recordkeeping for

such cases. The Annual Summary and the Form 301

need not be updated, unless the employer wishes to

do so. The requirements in this section 1904.33 do

not affect or supersede any longer retention periods

§1904.33 
§1904.33 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 135

specified in other OSHA standards and regulations,

e.g., in OSHA health standards such as Cadmium,

Benzene, or Lead (29 CFR 1910.1027, 1910.1028, and

1910.1025, respectively)....

In this final rule, OSHA has decided to retain the

five-year retention requirement for OSHA injury and

illness records because the longer time period will

enable employers, employees, and researchers to

obtain sufficient data to discover patterns and trends

of illnesses and injuries and, in many cases, to demonstrate the statistical significance of such data.

In addition, OSHA has concluded that the fiveyear retention period will add little additional cost or

administrative burden, since relatively few cases will

surface more than three years after the injury and illness occurred, and the vast majority of cases are

resolved in a short time and do not require updating.

In addition, OSHA believes that other provisions of

the final rule (e.g., computerization of records, centralized recordkeeping, and the capping of day

counts) will significantly reduce the recordkeeping

costs and administrative burden associated with the

tracking of long-term cases....

...The final rule requires Log updates to be made

on a continuing basis, i.e., as new information is discovered. For example, if a new case is discovered

during the retention period, it must be recorded within 7 calendar days of discovery, the same interval

required for the recording of any new case. If new

information about an existing case is discovered, it

should be entered within 7 days of receiving the new

information. OSHA has also decided to require updating over the entire five-year retention period....

OSHA has decided not to require the updating of

annual summaries. Eliminating this requirement

from the final rule will minimize employers’ administrative burdens and costs, avoid duplication, and

avoid the complications associated with the certification of updated summaries, the replacement of posted summaries, and the transmission of summaries to

remote sites. The Agency concludes that updating the

OSHA Form 300 or its equivalent for a period of five

years will provide a sufficient amount 

of accurate information for recordkeeping purposes.

OSHA is persuaded that updating the year-end summary would provide little benefit as long as the information from which the summaries are derived (the

OSHA Form 300) is updated for a full five-year period....

...[T]he final rule makes it clear that employers

may, if they choose, update either the Summary or

the Form 301.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.33 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.33 Retention and updating

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.33

Section 1904.33 Retention and updating

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.
136 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.34 

If your business changes ownership, you are responsible for recording and reporting work-related injuries

and illnesses only for that period of the year during

which you owned the establishment. You must transfer the Part 1904 records to the new owner. The new

owner must save all records of the establishment

kept by the prior owner, as required by Section

1904.33 of this Part, but need not update or correct

the records of the prior owner.

Section 1904.34 

Change in business ownership

(66 FR 6132, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.34

Subpart D – Other OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping requirements

(66 FR 6130, Jan. 19, 2001) 

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.34 

(66 FR 6050, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.34 Change in business ownership

Section 1904.34 of the final rule addresses the situation that arises when a particular employer ceases

operations at an establishment during a calendar

year, and the establishment is then operated by a

new employer for the remainder of the year. The

phrase “change of ownership,” for the purposes of

this section, is relevant only to the transfer of the

responsibility to make and retain OSHA-required

injury and illness records. In other words, if one

employer, as defined by the OSH Act, transfers ownership of an establishment to a different employer,

the new entity becomes responsible for retaining the

previous employer’s past OSHA-required records and

for creating all new records required by this rule.

The final rule requires the previous owner to

transfer these records to the new owner, and it limits

the recording and recordkeeping responsibilities of

the previous employer only to the period of the prior

owner. Specifically, section 1904.34 provides that if

the business changes ownership, each employer is

responsible for recording and reporting work-related

injuries and illnesses only for that period of the year

during which each employer owned the establishment. The selling employer is required to transfer 

his or her Part 1904 records to the new owner, and

the new owner must save all records of the establishment kept by the prior owner. However, the new

owner is not required to update or correct the

records of the prior owner, even if new information

about old cases becomes available....

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.34 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.34 Change in business ownership

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.34

Section 1904.34 Change in business ownership

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.
§1904.35 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 137

(a) Basic requirement.

Your employees and their representatives must be

involved in the recordkeeping system in several ways.

(1) You must inform each employee of how he or

she is to report an injury or illness to you.

(2) You must provide limited access to your injury

and illness records for your employees and their representatives.

(b) Implementation.

(1) What must I do to make sure that employees

report work-related injuries and illnesses to me?

(i) You must set up a way for employees to report

work-related injuries and illnesses promptly; and

(ii) You must tell each employee how to report

work-related injuries and illnesses to you.

(2) Do I have to give my employees and their representatives access to the OSHA injury and illness

records? 

Yes, your employees, former employees, their

personal representatives, and their authorized

employee representatives have the right to access

the OSHA injury and illness records, with some limitations, as discussed below.

(i) Who is an authorized employee representative? 

An authorized employee representative is an

authorized collective bargaining agent of employees.

(ii) Who is a “personal representative” of an

employee or former employee?

A personal representative is:

(A) Any person that the employee or former

employee designates as such, in writing; or

(B) The legal representative of a deceased or

legally incapacitated employee or former employee.

(iii) If an employee or representative asks for

access to the OSHA 300 Log, when do I have to

provide it? 

When an employee, former employee, personal

representative, or authorized employee representative asks for copies of your current or stored

OSHA 300 Log(s) for an establishment the employee or former employee has worked in, you must

give the requester a copy of the relevant OSHA

300 Log(s) by the end of the next business day.

(iv) May I remove the names of the employees or

any other information from the OSHA 300 Log

before I give copies to an employee, former

employee, or employee representative? 

No, you must leave the names on the 300 Log.

However, to protect the privacy of injured and ill

employees, you may not record the employee’s

name on the OSHA 300 Log for certain “privacy

concern cases,” as specified in paragraphs

1904.29(b)(6) through 1904.29(b)(9).

(v) If an employee or representative asks for

access to the OSHA 301 Incident Report, when do

I have to provide it?

(A) When an employee, former employee, or

personal representative asks for a copy of the

OSHA 301 Incident Report describing an injury or

illness to that employee or former employee, you

must give the requester a copy of the OSHA 301

Incident Report containing that information by the

end of the next business day.

(B) When an authorized employee representative

asks for copies of the OSHA 301 Incident Reports

for an establishment where the agent represents

employees under a collective bargaining agreement, you must give copies of those forms to the

authorized employee representative within 7 calendar days. You are only required to give the authorized employee representative information from the

OSHA 301 Incident Report section titled “Tell us

about the case.” You must remove all other information from the copy of the OSHA 301 Incident

Report or the equivalent substitute form that you

give to the authorized employee representative.

(vi) May I charge for the copies? 

No, you may not charge for these copies the first

time they are provided. However, if one of the designated persons asks for additional copies, you may

assess a reasonable charge for retrieving and copying the records.

Section 1904.35 

Employee involvement

(66 FR 6132, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.35

Subpart D – Other OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping requirements

(66 FR 6132, Jan. 19, 2001) 
138 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.35 

Section[s] 1904.35 Employee Involvement....

One of the goals of the final rule is to enhance employee involvement in the recordkeeping process.

OSHA believes that employee involvement is

essential to the success of all aspects of an employer’s safety and health program. This is especially

true in the area of recordkeeping, because free and

frank reporting by employees is the cornerstone of

the system. If employees fail to report their injuries

and illnesses, the “picture” of the workplace that

the employer’s OSHA forms 300 and 301 reveal will

be inaccurate and misleading. This means, in turn,

that employers and employees will not have the

information they need to improve safety and health

in the workplace.

Section 1904.35 of the final rule therefore establishes an affirmative requirement for employers to

involve their employees and employee representatives in the recordkeeping process. The employer

must inform each employee of how to report an

injury or illness, and must provide limited access to

the injury and illness records for employees and

their representatives....

Under the employee involvement provisions of

the final rule, employers are required to let employees know how and when to report work-related

injuries and illnesses. This means that the employer must establish a procedure for the reporting of

work-related injuries and illnesses and train its

employees to use that procedure. The rule does not

specify how the employer must accomplish these

objectives. The size of the workforce, employees’

language proficiency and literacy levels, the workplace culture, and other factors will determine what

will be effective for any particular workplace.

... The prominent employee involvement issues

in the rulemaking were thus not whether employee

involvement should be strengthened but to what

extent and in what ways employees should be

brought into the process.

...OSHA has strengthened the final rule to promote better injury and illness information by

increasing employees’ knowledge of their employers’ recordkeeping program and by removing barriers that may exist to the reporting of work-related

injuries and illnesses. To achieve this goal, the final

rule establishes a simple two-part process for each

employer who is required to keep records, as follows:

• Set up a way for employees to report work-related injuries and illnesses promptly; and

• Inform each employee of how to report workrelated injuries and illnesses.

OSHA agrees with commenters that employees

must know and understand that they have an affirmative obligation to report injuries and illnesses.

Additionally, OSHA believes that many employers

already take these actions as a common sense

approach to discovering workplace problems, and

that the rule will thus, to a large extent, be codifying current industry practice, rather than breaking

new ground.

OSHA is convinced that a performance requirement, rather than specific requirements, will

achieve this objective effectively, while still giving

employers the flexibility they need to tailor their

programs to the needs of their workplaces. The

Agency finds that employee awareness and participation in the recordkeeping process is best

achieved by such provisions of the final rule as the

requirement to extend the posting period for the

OSHA 300 summary, the addition of accessibility

statements on the OSHA Summary, and requirements designed to facilitate employee access to

records....

Employee access to OSHA injury and illness

records

The Part 1904 final rule continues OSHA’s longstanding policy of allowing employees and their

representatives access to the occupational injury

and illness information kept by their employers,

with some limitations. However, the final rule

includes several changes to improve employees’

access to the information, while at the same time

implementing several measures to protect the privacy interests of injured and ill employees. Section

1904.35 requires an employer covered by the Part

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.35 

(66 FR 6050-6060, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).
§1904.35 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 139

1904 regulation to provide limited access to the

OSHA recordkeeping forms to current and former

employees, as well as to two types of employee

representatives. The first is a personal representative of an employee or former employee, who is a

person that the employee or former employee designates, in writing, as his or her personal representative, or is the legal representative of a deceased

or legally incapacitated employee or former employee. The second is an authorized employee representative, which is defined as an authorized collective bargaining agent of one or more employees

working at the employer’s establishment.

Section 1904.35 accords employees and their

representatives three separate access rights. First,

it gives any employee, former employee, personal

representative, or authorized employee representative the right to a copy of the current OSHA 300

Log, and to any stored OSHA 300 log(s), for any

establishment in which the employee or former

employee has worked. The employer must provide

one free copy of the OSHA 300 Log(s) by the end of

the next business day. The employee, former

employee, personal representative or authorized

employee representative is not entitled to see, or to

obtain a copy of, the confidential list of names and

case numbers for privacy cases. Second, any

employee, former employee, or personal representative is entitled to one free copy of the OSHA 301

Incident Report describing an injury or illness to

that employee by the end of the next business day.

Finally, an authorized employee representative is

entitled to copies of the right-hand portion of all

OSHA 301 forms for the establishment(s) where the

agent represents one or more employees under a

collective bargaining agreement. The right-hand

portion of the 301 form contains the heading

[“Information about the case,”] and elicits information about how the injury occurred, including the

employee’s actions just prior to the incident, the

materials and tools involved, and how the incident

occurred, but does not contain the employee’s

name. No information other than that on the righthand portion of the form may be disclosed to an

authorized employee representative. The employer

must provide the authorized employee representative with one free copy of all the 301 forms for the

establishment within 7 calendar days.

Employee privacy is protected in the final rule in

paragraphs 1904.29(b)(7) to (10). Paragraph

1904.29(b)(7) requires the employer to enter the

words “privacy case” on the OSHA 300 Log, in lieu

of the employee’s name, for recordable privacy

concern cases involving the following types of

injuries and illnesses: (i) an injury from a needle or

sharp object contaminated by another person’s

blood or other potentially infectious material; (ii) an

injury or illness to an intimate body part or to the

reproductive system; (iii) an injury or illness resulting from a sexual assault; (iv) a mental illness; (v)

an illness involving HIV, hepatitis; or tuberculosis,

or (vi) any other illness, if the employee independently and voluntarily requests that his or her name

not be entered on the log....

The employer may take additional action in privacy concern cases if warranted. Paragraph

1904.29(b)(9) allows the employer to use discretion

in describing the nature of the injury or illness in a

privacy concern case, if the employer has a reasonable basis to believe that the injured or ill employee may be identified from the records even though

the employee’s name has been removed. Only the

six types of injuries and illnesses listed in Paragraph 1904.29(b)(7) may be considered privacy 

concern cases, and thus the additional protection

offered by paragraph 1904.29(b)(9) applies only to

such cases.

Paragraph 1904.29(b)(10) protects employee privacy if the employer decides voluntarily to disclose

the OSHA 300 and 301 forms to persons other than

those who have a mandatory right of access under

the final rule. The paragraph requires the employer

to remove or hide employees’ names or other personally identifying information before disclosing

the forms to persons other than government representatives, employees, former employees or

authorized representatives, as required by paragraphs 1904.40 and 1904.35, except in three cases.

The employer may disclose the forms, complete

with personally identifying information, only: (i) to

an auditor or consultant hired by the employer to

evaluate the safety and health program; (ii) to the

extent necessary for processing a claim for workers’ compensation or other insurance benefits; or

(iii) to a public health authority or law enforcement

agency for uses and disclosures for which consent,

an authorization, or opportunity to agree or object

is not required under section 164.512 of the final

rule on Standards for Privacy of Individually

Identifiable Health Information, 45 CFR 164.512....

Balancing the Interests of Privacy and Access

OSHA historically has recognized that the Log and

Incident Report (Forms 300 and 301, respectively)
140 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.35 

may contain information of a sufficiently intimate

and personal nature that a reasonable person

would wish it to remain confidential. In its 1978

records access regulation (29 CFR 1910.1020),

OSHA addressed the privacy implications of its

decision to grant employee access to the Log. The

agency noted that while Log entries are intended to

be brief, they may contain medical information,

including diagnoses of specific illnesses, and that

disclosure to other employees, former employees

or their representatives raised a sensitive privacy

issue. 43 FR 31327 (1978). However, OSHA concluded that disclosure of the Log to current and former

employees and their representatives benefits these

employees generally by increasing their awareness

and understanding of the health and safety hazards

to which they are, or have been, exposed. 

OSHA found that this knowledge “will help employees to protect themselves from future occurrences,” and that “[i]n such cases, the right of privacy must be tempered by the obvious exigencies

of informing employees about the effects of workplace hazards.”... 

OSHA continues to believe that granting employees a broad right of access to injury and illness

records serves important public interests. There is

persuasive evidence that access by employees and

their representatives to the Log and the Incident

Report serves as a useful check on the accuracy 

of the employer’s recordkeeping and promotes

greater employee involvement in prevention programs that contribute to safer, more healthful workplaces....

There exist at present no mechanisms to protect

against unwarranted disclosure of private information contained in OSHA records. While Agency policy is that employees and their representatives with

access to records should treat the information contained therein as confidential except as necessary

to further the purposes of the Act, the Secretary

lacks statutory authority to enforce such a policy

against employees and representatives (e.g., 29

U.S.C. Sections 658, 659) (Act’s enforcement mechanisms directed solely at employers)....

OSHA has concluded that the disclosure of

occupational injury and illness records to employees and their representatives serves important

public policy interests. These interests support a

requirement for access by employees and their

representatives to personally identifiable information for all but a limited number of cases recorded

on the Log, and to all information on the righthand side of the Form 301. However, OSHA also

concludes that prior Agency access policies may

not have given adequate consideration to the harm

which could result from disclosure of intimate

medical information. In the absence of effective

safeguards against unwarranted use or disclosure

of private information in the injury and illness

records, confidentiality must be preserved for particularly sensitive cases. These “privacy concern

cases” listed in paragraph 1904.29 (b)(7) of the

final rule involve diseases, such as AIDS and hepatitis, other illnesses if the employee voluntarily

requests confidentiality, as well as certain types of

injuries, the disclosure of which could be particularly damaging or embarrassing to the affected

employee....

...[T]he final rule requires that the employer

withhold the employee’s name from the OSHA 300

Log for each “privacy concern case,” and maintain

a separate confidential list of employee names and

case numbers. In all other respects, the final rule

ensures full access to the OSHA Log by employees,

former employees, personal representatives and

authorized employee representatives.

Protections Against Broad Public Access

...OSHA agrees that confidentiality of injury and illness records should be maintained except for those

persons with a legitimate need to know the information. This is a logical extension of the agency’s

position that a balancing test is appropriate in

determining the scope of access to be granted

employees and their representatives. Under this

test, “the fact that protected information must be

disclosed to a party who has need for it* * * does

not strip the information of its protection against

disclosure to those who have no similar need.”

Fraternal Order of Police, 812 F2d at 118.

OSHA has determined that employees, former

employees and authorized employee representatives have a need for the information that justifies

their access to records, including employee names,

for all except privacy concern cases. While the possibility exists that employees and their representatives with access to the records could disclose the

information to the general public, OSHA does not

believe that this risk is sufficient to justify restrictions on the use of the records by persons granted

access under sections 1904.40 and 1904.35. Strong

policy and legal considerations militate against

placing restrictions on employees’ and employee

representatives’ use of the injury and illness infor-
§1904.35 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 141

mation.

There is also a concern that employers may voluntarily grant access to OSHA records to persons

outside their organization, who do not need the

information for safety and health purposes. To protect employee confidentiality in these circumstances, paragraph 1904.29(b)(10) requires employers generally to remove or shield employee names

and other personally identifying information when

they disclose the OSHA forms to persons other

than government representatives, employees, former employees or authorized employee representatives. Employers remain free to disclose unredacted records for purposes of evaluating a safety and

health program or safety and health conditions at

the workplace, processing a claim for workers’

compensation or insurance benefits, or carrying out

the public health or law enforcement functions

described in section 164.512 of the final rule on

Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable

Health Information.

OSHA believes that this provision protects employee privacy to a reasonable degree consistent

with the legitimate business needs of employers

and sound public policy considerations....

Misuse of the Records by Employees and 

Their Representatives

...While there may be instances where employees

share the data with third parties who normally

would not be allowed to access the data directly,

the final rule contains no enforceable restrictions

on use by employees or their representatives.

Employees and their representatives might reasonably fear that they could be found personally liable

for violations of such restrictions. This would have

a chilling effect on employees’ willingness to use

the records for safety and health purposes, since

few employees would voluntarily risk such liability.

Moreover, despite the concerns of commenters

about abuse problems, OSHA has not noted any

significant problems of this type in the past. This

suggests that, if such problems exist, they are infrequent. In addition, as noted in the privacy discussion above, a prohibition on the use of the data by

employees or their representatives is beyond the

scope of OSHA’s enforcement authority. For these

reasons, the employer may not require an employee, former employee or designated employee representative to agree to limit the use of the records

as a condition for viewing or obtaining copies of

records.

OSHA has added a statement to the Log and

Incident Report forms indicating that these records

contain information related to employee health and

must be used in a manner that protects the confidentiality of employees to the extent possible while

the information is used for occupational safety and

health purposes. This statement is intended to

inform employees and their representatives of the

potentially sensitive nature of the information in

the OSHA records and to encourage them to maintain employee confidentiality if compatible with 

the safety and health uses of the information.

Encouraging parties with access to the forms to

keep the information confidential where possible is

reasonable and should not discourage the use of

the information for safety and health purposes.

OSHA stresses, however, that the statement does

not reflect a regulatory requirement limiting the

use of records by those with access under sections

1904.35 and 1904.40.

The Records Access Requirement and the ADA

...Section 12112(d)(3)(B) of the ADA permits an

employer to require a job applicant to submit to a

medical examination after an offer of employment

has been made but before commencement of employment duties, provided that medical information

obtained from the examination is kept in a confidential medical file and not disclosed except as

necessary to inform supervisors, first aid and safety personnel, and government officials investigating

compliance with the ADA. Section 12112(d)(4)(C)

requires that the same confidentiality protection be

accorded health information obtained from a voluntary medical examination that is part of an employee health program.

By its terms, the ADA requires confidentiality for

information obtained from medical examinations

given to prospective employees, and from medical

examinations given as part of a voluntary employee health program. The OSHA injury and illness

records are not derived from pre-employment or

voluntary health programs. The information in the

OSHA injury and illness records is similar to that

found in workers’ compensation forms, and may

be obtained by employers by the same process

used to record needed information for workers’

compensation and insurance purposes. The Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recognizes a partial exception to the ADA’s strict confidentiality requirements for medical information

regarding an employee’s occupational injury or
142 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.35 

workers’ compensation claim. See EEOC

Enforcement Guidance: Workers’ Compensation

and the ADA, 5 (September 3, 1996). Therefore, it is

not clear that the ADA applies to the OSHA injury

and illness records.

Even assuming that the OSHA injury and illness

records fall within the literal scope of the ADA’s

confidentiality provisions, it does not follow that a

conflict arises. The ADA states that “nothing in this

Act shall be construed to invalidate or limit the

remedies, rights, and procedures of any Federal

law. * * *” 29 U.S.C. 12201(b). In enacting the ADA,

Congress was aware that other federal standards

imposed requirements for testing an employee’s

health, and for disseminating information about an

employee’s medical condition or history, determined to be necessary to preserve the health and

safety of employees and the public. See H.R. Rep.

No. 101-485 pt. 2, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 74-75

(1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 356, 357 (noting, e.g., medical surveillance requirements of standards promulgated under OSH Act and Federal

Mine Safety and Health Act, and stating “[t]he

Committee does not intend for [the ADA] to override any medical standard or requirement established by Federal * * * law * * * that is job-related

and consistent with business necessity”). See also

29 CFR part 1630 App. p. 356. The ADA recognizes

the primacy of federal safety and health regulations; therefore such regulations, including mandatory OSHA recordkeeping requirements, pose no

conflict with the ADA. Cf. Albertsons, Inc. v.

Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, (1999) (“When Congress

enacted the ADA, it recognized that federal safety

and health rules would limit application of the ADA

as a matter of law.”)

The EEOC, the agency responsible for administering the ADA, has recognized both in the implementing regulations at 29 CFR part 1630, and in

interpretive guidelines, that the ADA yields to the

requirements of other federal safety and health

standards. The implementing regulation codified at

29 CFR 1630.15(e) explicitly states that an employer’s compliance with another federal law or regulation may be a defense to a charge of violating the

ADA:

(e) Conflict with other Federal laws. It may be a

defense to a charge of discrimination under this

part that a challenged action is required or necessitated by another Federal law or regulation, or that

another Federal law or regulation prohibits an

action (including the provision of a particular reasonable accommodation) that would otherwise be

required by this part.

Interpretive guidance provided by the EEOC 

further underscores this point. The 1992 Technical

Assistance Manual on Title I of the ADA states as 

follows:

4.6 Health and Safety Requirements of Other

Federal or State Laws

The ADA recognizes employers’ obligations to

comply with requirements of other laws that establish health and safety standards. However, the

[ADA] gives greater weight to Federal than to state

or local law.

1. Federal Laws and Regulations

The ADA does not override health and safety

requirements established under other Federal laws.

If a standard is required by another Federal law, an

employer must comply with it and does not have

to show that the standard is job related and consistent with business necessity (emphasis added).

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

A Technical Assistance Manual on the Employment

Provisions (Title I) of the Americans With

Disabilities Act, IV-16 (1992) (Technical Assistance

Manual). The Technical Assistance Manual also

states that, while medical-related information about

employees must generally be kept confidential, an

exception applies where “[o]ther Federal laws and

regulations * * * require disclosure of relevant

medical information.” Assistance Manual at VI-12.

See also Assistance Manual at VI-14-15 (actions

taken by employers to comply with requirements

imposed under the OSH Act are job related and

consistent with business necessity). For these reasons, OSHA does not believe that the mandatory

employee access provisions of the final recordkeeping rule conflict with the provisions of the

ADA.

Times Allowed To Provide Records

...Under the final rule, an employer must provide a

copy of the 300 Log to an employee, former employee, personal representative or authorized employee

representative on the business day following the day

on which an oral or written request for records is

received. Likewise, when an employee, former

employee or personal representative asks for copies

of the 301 form for an injury or illness to that

employee, the employer must provide a copy by the
§1904.35 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 143

end of the next business day. OSHA finds that these

are appropriate time frames for supplying a copy of

the existing forms, which in the case of the Form 301

is a single page. The average 300 Log is also only

one page, although employers who have a larger

number of occupational injuries and illnesses will

have more than one page.

The final rule allows the employer seven business

days to provide copies of the OSHA 301 forms for all

occupational injuries and illnesses that occur at the

establishment. 

...[A]s stated in the final rule, the employer may

not provide the authorized employee representative

with the information on the left side of the 301 form,

so the employer needs additional time to redact this

information. Because the final rule only provides a

right of access to an authorized employee representative (authorized collective bargaining agent), the

number of requests should not exceed the number of

unions representing employees at the establishment.

...[T]he employer must provide only one free

copy. If additional copies are requested, the employer

may charge for the copies.

Charging Employees for Copies of the OSHA

Records

...In the final rule, OSHA has implemented the proposed provision requiring employers to provide

copies free of charge to employees who ask for the

records.

...OSHA agrees that there are some circumstances where employers should have the option of

charging for records. After receiving an initial, free

copy of requested records, an employee, former

employee, or designated representative may be

charged a reasonable search and copying fee for

duplicate copies of the records. However, no fee

may be charged for an update of a previously

requested record.

Question 35-2. Do I have to give my employees and

their representatives access to the OSHA injury and

illness records?

Yes, your employees, former employees, their personal representatives, and their authorized employee representatives have the right to access the

OSHA 300 Log Form and the OSHA 300-A Summary

Form. The employer must give the requester a copy

of the OSHA 300 Form and the OSHA 300-A Form by

the end of the next business day. In addition, employees and their representatives have the right to

access the OSHA 301 Incident Form with some limitations, in section 1904.35(b)(2)(v)(B) of the recordkeeping regulation

Question 35-1. How does an employer inform each

employee on how he or she is to report an injury or

illness?

Employers are required to let employees know how

and when to report work-related injuries and illnesses. This means that the employer must set up a way

for the employees to report work-related injuries and

illnesses and tell its employees how to use it. The

Recordkeeping rule does not specify how the employer must accomplish these objectives, so employers

have flexibility to set up systems that are appropriate

to their workplace. The size of the workforce, employee’s language proficiency and literacy levels, the

workplace culture, and other factors will determine

what will be effective for any particular workplace.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.35 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5) 

Section 1904.35 Employee involvement
144 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.35 

Letter of interpretation related to section 1904.35(b)(2)(iv)

OSHA 300 Log requirements versus HIPAA privacy requirements.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.35

Section 1904.35 Employee involvement

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Letters of interpretation explain

these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional

employer obligations. These letters constitute OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed.

Note that OSHA enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to

time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. 

Letters of Interpretation constitute OSHA’s interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may

not be applicable to any situation not delineated within the original correspondence.

August 2, 2004 

Mr. Bill Kojola

Industrial Hygienist

Department of Safety and Health

AFL-CIO

815 Sixteenth St., NW

Washington, DC 20006 

Dear Mr. Kojola: 

Thank you for your February 27, 2004 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) regarding the Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements contained in 29

CFR Part 1904. Your letter was forwarded to my office by Richard Fairfax, Director, Directorate of

Enforcement Programs. The Division of Recordkeeping Requirements, within my Directorate, is

responsible for the administration of the OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping system nationwide.

Please excuse the delay in responding to your request. 

You state that employers are claiming they must remove all the names from the OSHA 300 Log

before providing access in order to comply with the privacy requirements contained in the Health

Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Specifically, you ask OSHA to clarify the

recordkeeping requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904 vs. the HIPAA requirements. 

We do not believe that HIPAA provides a basis for employers to remove employees' names from the

Log before providing access. Even if HIPAA is implicated by the employer's disclosure of the OSHA

Log, the statute and implementing regulation expressly permit the disclosure of protected health

information to the extent required by law. See 45 CFR 164.512(a). This exception for disclosures

required by law applies here because the Recordkeeping rule requires that employees, former

employees, and employee representatives have access to the complete Log, including employee

names, except for privacy concern cases. See 29 CFR 1904.35(b)(2)(iv). 
§1904.35 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 147

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information

helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters

explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create

additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements

discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also,

from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep appraised of

such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further

questions please contact the Division of Recordkeeping Requirements at (202) 693-1702. 

Sincerely, 

Keith Goddard, Director

Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis
146 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.35 

Letter of interpretation related to sections 1904.35, 1904.35(b)(2) and 1905.35(b)(2)(v) – 

Employee and employee representative access rights to OSHA 300 Log and OSHA 300-A Summary forms.

November 7, 2003 

LaMont Byrd

Director Safety and Health Department

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001-2198 

Dear Mr. Byrd: 

Thank you for your April 4, 2003 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

regarding the Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904.

Your letter was forwarded to my office by Richard Fairfax, Director, Directorate of Enforcement Programs. The Division of Recordkeeping Requirements is responsible for the administration of the OSHA

injury and illness recordkeeping system nationwide. Please excuse the delay in responding to your request. 

In your letter, you ask OSHA to clarify the requirements under the access provisions for the OSHA injury

and illness records, 29 CFR 1904.35, specifically the OSHA 300-A, the Summary of Work-related

Injuries and Illnesses. Under section 1904.35(b)(2), employees, former employees, their personal representatives, and their authorized employee representatives have the right to access the OSHA 300 Log Form

and the OSHA 300-A Summary Form. The employer must give the requester a copy of the OSHA 300

Form and the OSHA 300-A Form by the end of the next business day. In addition, employees, former

employees, and their representatives have the right to access the OSHA 301 Incident Form with some limitations and provision time frame differences, as set out in Section 1904.35(b)(2)(v) of the recordkeeping

regulation. 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these

requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer

obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our

enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. In addition, from time to time we

update our guidance in response to new information. To keep appraised of such developments, you can

consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please contact the

Division of Recordkeeping Requirements, at 202-693-1702. 

Sincerely, 

Frank Frodyma, Acting Director

Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis
§1904.36 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 147

Section 11(c) of the Act prohibits you from discriminating against an employee for reporting a workrelated fatality, injury or illness. That provision of the

Act also protects the employee who files a safety and

health complaint, asks for access to the Part 1904

records, or otherwise exercises any rights afforded

by the OSH Act.

Section 1904.36 

Prohibition against discrimination

(66 FR 6132, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.36

Subpart D – Other OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping requirements

(66 FR 6130, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Section 1904.36 Prohibition against discrimination

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.36 

(66 FR 6050, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.36 Prohibition against discrimination

...Section 1904.36 of the final rule makes clear that

Section 11(c) of the Act prohibits employers from discriminating against employees for reporting workrelated injuries and illnesses. Section 1904.36 does

not create a new obligation on employers. Instead, it

clarifies that the OSH Act’s anti-discrimination protection applies to employees who seek to participate in

the recordkeeping process....

OSHA has also included in the final rule, in section 1904.36, a statement that section 11(c) of the

OSH Act protects workers from employer retaliation

for filing a complaint, reporting an injury or illness,

seeking access to records to which they are entitled,

or otherwise exercising their rights under the rule.

This section of the rule does not impose any new

obligations on employers or create new rights for

employees that did not previously exist. In view of

the evidence that retaliation against employees for

reporting injuries is not uncommon and may be

“growing,” this section is intended to serve the informational needs of employees who might not otherwise be aware of their rights and to remind employers of their obligation not to discriminate....

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.36 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.36 Prohibition against discrimination

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.36

Section 1904.36 Prohibition against discrimination

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.
148 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.37 

(a) Basic requirement.

Some States operate their own OSHA programs,

under the authority of a State Plan approved by

OSHA. States operating OSHA-approved State Plans

must have occupational injury and illness recording

and reporting requirements that are substantially

identical to the requirements in this Part (see 29 CFR

1902.3(k), 29 CFR 1952.4 and 29 CFR 1956.10(i)).

(b) Implementation.

(1) State-Plan States must have the same requirements as Federal OSHA for determining which injuries and illnesses are recordable and how they are

recorded.

(2) For other Part 1904 provisions (for example,

industry exemptions, reporting of fatalities and hospitalizations, record retention, or employee involvement), State-Plan State requirements may be more

stringent than or supplemental to the Federal requirements, but because of the unique nature of the

national recordkeeping program, States must consult

with and obtain approval of any such requirements.

(3) Although State and local government employees are not covered Federally, all State-Plan States

must provide coverage, and must develop injury and

illness statistics, for these workers. State Plan recording and reporting requirements for State and local

government entities may differ from those for the private sector but must meet the requirements of paragraphs 1904.37(b)(1) and (b)(2).

(4) A State-Plan State may not issue a variance to

a private sector employer and must recognize all

variances issued by Federal OSHA.

(5) A State Plan State may only grant an injury

and illness recording and reporting variance to a

State or local government employer within the State

after obtaining approval to grant the variance from

Federal OSHA.

Section 1904.37 

State recordkeeping regulations

(66 FR 6132, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.37

Subpart D – Other OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping requirements

(66 FR 6130, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Section 1904.37 State recordkeeping regulations

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.37 

(66 FR 6060, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.37 State recordkeeping regulations 

Section 1904.37 addresses the consistency of the

recordkeeping and reporting requirements between

Federal OSHA and those States where occupational

safety and health enforcement is provided by an

OSHA-approved State Plan. Currently, in 21 States

and 2 territories, the State government has been

granted authority to operate a State OSHA Plan covering both the private and public (State and local

government) sectors under section 18 of the OSH Act

(see the State Plan section of this preamble for a listing of these States). Two additional States currently

operate programs limited in scope to State and local

government employees only. State Plans, once

approved, operate under authority of State law and

provide programs of standards, regulations and

enforcement which must be “at least as effective” as

the Federal program. (State Plans must extend their

coverage to State and local government employees,

workers not otherwise covered by Federal OSHA regulations.) Section 1904.37 of the final rule describes

what State Plan recordkeeping requirements must be

identical to the Federal requirements, which State

regulations may be different, and provides cross references to the State Plan regulations codified in

Section 1902.3(k), 1952.4, and 1956.10(i). The provisions of Subpart A of 29 CFR part 1952 specify the

regulatory discretion of the State Plans in general,
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 149

§1904.37 

and section 1952.4 spells out the regulatory discretion of the State Plans specifically for the recordkeeping regulation.

In the final rule, OSHA has rewritten the text of

the corresponding proposed section and moved it

into Subpart D of the final rule. Under Section 18 of

the OSH Act, a State Plan must require employers in

the State to make reports to the Secretary in the

same manner and to the same extent as if the Plan

were not in effect. Final section 1904.37 makes clear

that States with approved State Plans must promulgate new regulations that are substantially identical

to the final Federal rule. State Plans must have

recording and reporting regulations that impose

identical requirements for the recordability of occupational injuries and illnesses and the manner in

which they are entered. These requirements must be

the same for employers in all the States, whether

under Federal or State Plan jurisdiction, and for State

and local government employers covered only

through State Plans, to ensure that the occupational

injury and illness data for the entire nation are uniform and consistent so that statistics that allow comparisons between the States and between employers

located in different States are created.

For all of the other requirements of the Part 1904

regulations, the regulations adopted by the State

Plans may be more stringent than or supplemental to

the Federal regulations, pursuant to paragraph

1952.4(b). This means that the States’ recording and

reporting regulations could differ in several ways

from their Federal Part 1904 counterparts. For example, a State Plan could require employers to keep

records for the State, even though those employers

are within an industry exempted by the Federal rule.

A State Plan could also require employers to keep

additional supplementary injury and illness information, require employers to report fatality and multiple

hospitalization incidents within a shorter timeframe

than Federal OSHA does, require other types of incidents to be reported as they occur, or impose other

requirements. While a State Plan must assure that 

all employee participation and access rights are

assured, the State may provide broader access to

records by employees and their representatives.

However, because of the unique nature of the national recordkeeping program, States must secure

Federal OSHA approval for these enhancements....

Because Federal OSHA does not provide coverage

to State and local government employees, the StatePlan States may grant State recordkeeping variances

to the State and local governments under their jurisdiction. However, the State must obtain concurrence

from Federal OSHA prior to issuing any such variances. In addition, the State-Plan States may not

grant variances to any other employers and must recognize all 1904 variances granted by Federal OSHA.

These steps are necessary to ensure that the injury

and illness data requirements are consistent from

State to State....

Accordingly, the Part 1904 rules impose identical

requirements where they are needed to create consistent injury and illness statistics for the nation and

allows the States to impose supplemental or more

stringent requirements where doing so will not interfere with the maintenance of comprehensive and uniform national statistics on workplace fatalities,

injuries and illnesses.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.37 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5) 

Section 1904.37 State recordkeeping regulations 

Question 37-1. Do I have to follow these rules if my

State has an OSHA-approved State Plan?

If your workplace is located in a State that operates

an OSHA-approved State Plan, you must follow the

regulations of the State. However, these States must

adopt occupational injury and illness recording and

reporting requirements that are substantially identical

to the requirements in Part 1904. State Plan States

must have the same requirements as Federal OSHA

for determining which injuries and illnesses are

recordable and how they are recorded.

Question 37-2. How may state regulations differ

from the Federal requirements?

For Part 1904 provisions other than recording and

reporting, State requirements may be more stringent

than or supplemental to the Federal requirements.

For example, a State Plan could require employers to

keep records for the State, even though those

employers have 10 or fewer employees (1904.1) or

are within an industry exempted by the Federal rule.

A State Plan could also require employers to keep

additional supplementary injury and illness informa-
150 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.37 

tion, require employers to report fatality and multiple

hospitalization incidents within a shorter time frame

than Federal OSHA does (1904.39), require other

types of incidents to be reported as they occur,

require hearing loss to be recorded at a lower threshold level or impose other requirements.

Question 37-3. Are State and local government

employers covered by this rule?

No, but they are covered under the equivalent State

rule in States that operate OSHA-approved State

Plans. State rules must cover these workplaces and

require the recording and reporting of work-related

injuries and illnesses.

Question 37-4. How can I find out if my State has an

OSHA-approved plan?

The following States have OSHA-approved plans:

Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa,

Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,

New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico,

South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,

Washington, and Wyoming. Connecticut, New

Jersey, New York and the Virgin Islands have plans

that cover State and local government employees

only.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.37

Section 1904.37 State recordkeeping regulations 

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.
§1904.38 

OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 151

(a) Basic requirement.

If you wish to keep records in a different manner

from the manner prescribed by the Part 1904 regulations, you may submit a variance petition to the

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety

and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington,

DC 20210. You can obtain a variance only if you can

show that your alternative recordkeeping system:

(1) Collects the same information as this Part

requires;

(2) Meets the purposes of the Act; and

(3) Does not interfere with the administration of

the Act.

(b) Implementation.

(1) What do I need to include in my variance petition? 

You must include the following items in your petition:

(i) Your name and address;

(ii) A list of the State(s) where the variance would

be used;

(iii) The address(es) of the business establishment(s) involved;

(iv) A description of why you are seeking a variance;

(v) A description of the different recordkeeping

procedures you propose to use;

(vi) A description of how your proposed procedures will collect the same information as would

be collected by this Part and achieve the purpose

of the Act; and

(vii) A statement that you have informed your

employees of the petition by giving them or their

authorized representative a copy of the petition

and by posting a statement summarizing the petition in the same way as notices are posted under

Section 1903.2(a).

(2) How will the Assistant Secretary handle my

variance petition? 

The Assistant Secretary will take the following

steps to process your variance petition.

(i) The Assistant Secretary will offer your employees and their authorized representatives an opportunity to submit written data, views, and arguments about your variance petition.

(ii) The Assistant Secretary may allow the public

to comment on your variance petition by publishing the petition in the Federal Register. If the petition is published, the notice will establish a public

comment period and may include a schedule for a

public meeting on the petition.

(iii) After reviewing your variance petition and any

comments from your employees and the public,

the Assistant Secretary will decide whether or not

your proposed recordkeeping procedures will

meet the purposes of the Act, will not otherwise

interfere with the Act, and will provide the same

information as the Part 1904 regulations provide. If

your procedures meet these criteria, the Assistant

Secretary may grant the variance subject to such

conditions as he or she finds appropriate.

(iv) If the Assistant Secretary grants your variance

petition, OSHA will publish a notice in the Federal

Register to announce the variance. The notice will

include the practices the variance allows you to

use, any conditions that apply, and the reasons for

allowing the variance.

(3) If I apply for a variance, may I use my proposed recordkeeping procedures while the Assistant

Secretary is processing the variance petition? 

No, alternative recordkeeping practices are only

allowed after the variance is approved. You must

comply with the Part 1904 regulations while the

Assistant Secretary is reviewing your variance petition.

(4) If I have already been cited by OSHA for not

following the Part 1904 regulations, will my variance

petition have any effect on the citation and penalty? 

No, in addition, the Assistant Secretary may elect

not to review your variance petition if it includes an

element for which you have been cited and the citation is still under review by a court, an Administrative

Law Judge (ALJ), or the OSH Review Commission.

Section 1904.38 

Variances from the recordkeeping rule

(66 FR 6132, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.38

Subpart D – Other OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping requirements

(66 FR 6130, Jan. 19, 2001)

Section 1904.38 Variances from the recordkeeping rule 
152 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.38 

(5) If I receive a variance, may the Assistant

Secretary revoke the variance at a later date? 

Yes, the Assistant Secretary may revoke your variance if he or she has good cause. The procedures

revoking a variance will follow the same process as

OSHA uses for reviewing variance petitions, as outlined in paragraph 1904.38(b)(2). Except in cases of

willfulness or where necessary for public safety, the

Assistant Secretary will:

(i) Notify you in writing of the facts or conduct

that may warrant revocation of your variance; and

(ii) Provide you, your employees, and authorized

employee representatives with an opportunity to

participate in the revocation procedures.

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.38 

(66 FR 6061-6062, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.38 Variances from the recordkeeping

rule.

Section 1904.38 explains the procedures employers

must follow in those rare instances where they

request that OSHA grant them a variance or exception to the recordkeeping rules in Part 1904. The rule

contains these procedures to allow an employer who

wishes to maintain records in a manner that is different from the approach required by the rules in Part

1904 to petition the Assistant Secretary. Section

1904.8 allows the employer to apply to the Assistant

Secretary for OSHA and request a Part 1904 variance

if he or she can show that the alternative recordkeeping system: (1) Collects the same information as this

Part requires; (2) Meets the purposes of the Act;

and (3) Does not interfere with the administration

of the Act.

The variance petition must include several items,

namely the employer’s name and address; a list of

the State(s) where the variance would be used; the

addresses of the business establishments involved; a

description of why the employer is seeking a variance; a description of the different recordkeeping

procedures the employer is proposing to use; a

description of how the employer’s proposed procedures will collect the same information as would be

collected by the Part 1904 requirements and achieve

the purpose of the Act; and a statement that the

employer has informed its employees of the petition

by giving them or their authorized representative a

copy of the petition and by posting a statement summarizing the petition in the same way notices are

posted under paragraph 1903.2(a).

The final rule describes how the Assistant

Secretary will handle the variance petition by taking

the following steps:

• The Assistant Secretary will offer employees and

their authorized representatives an opportunity to

comment on the variance petition. The employees

and their authorized representatives will be allowed

to submit written data, views, and arguments about

the petition.

• The Assistant Secretary may allow the public to

comment on the variance petition by publishing the

petition in the Federal Register. If the petition is published, the notice will establish a public comment

period and may include a schedule for a public meeting on the petition.

• After reviewing the variance petition and any comments from employees and the public, the Assistant

Secretary will decide whether or not the proposed

recordkeeping procedures will meet the purposes of

the Act, will not otherwise interfere with the Act, and

will provide the same information as the Part 1904

regulations provide. If the procedures meet these criteria, the Assistant Secretary may grant the variance

subject to such conditions as he or she finds appropriate.

• If the Assistant Secretary grants the variance petition, OSHA will publish a notice in the Federal

Register to announce the variance. The notice will

include the practices the variance allows, any conditions that apply, and the reasons for allowing the

variance.

The final rule makes clear that the employer may

not use the proposed recordkeeping procedures

while the Assistant Secretary is processing the variance petition and must wait until the variance is

approved. The rule also provides that, if the Assistant

Secretary denies the petition, the employer will

receive notice of the denial within a reasonable time

and establishes that a variance petition has no effect

on the citation and penalty for a citation that has

been previously issued by OSHA and that the

Assistant Secretary may elect not to review a variance petition if it includes an element which has been
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 153

§1904.38 

cited and the citation is still under review by a court,

an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), or the OSH

Review Commission.

The final rule also states that the Assistant

Secretary may revoke a variance at a later date if the

Assistant Secretary has good cause to do so, and

that the procedures for revoking a variance will follow the same process as OSHA uses for reviewing

variance petitions. Except in cases of willfulness or

where necessary for public safety, the Assistant

Secretary will: Notify the employer in writing of the

facts or conduct that may warrant revocation of a

variance and provide the employer, employees, and

authorized employee representatives with an opportunity to participate in the revocation procedures....

The final rule adds several provisions to those of

the former rule. They include (1) the identification of

petitioning employers’ pending citations in State plan

states, (2) the discretion given to OSHA not to consider a petition if a citation on the same subject matter is pending, (3) the clarification that OSHA may

provide additional notice via the Federal Register and

opportunity for comment, (4) the clarification that

variances have only prospective effect, (5) the opportunity of employees and their representatives to participate in revocation procedures, and (6) the voiding

of all previous variances and exceptions....

OSHA has decided to continue to include a specific recordkeeping variance section in the final rule,

and not to require employers who wish a recordkeeping variance or exception to follow the more rigorous procedures in 29 CFR Part 1905. The procedures in Part 1905, which were developed for rules

issued under sections 6 and 16 of the OSH Act, may

not be appropriate for rules issued under section 8 of

the Act, such as this recordkeeping rule.

The final rule thus retains a section on variance

procedures for the recordkeeping rule. OSHA

believes that few variances or exceptions will be

granted under the variance procedures of the final

rule because other provisions of the final rule already

reflect many of the alternative recordkeeping procedures that employers have asked to use over the

years, such as electronic storage and transmission of

data, centralized record maintenance, and the use of

alternative recordkeeping forms. Because these

changes have been made to other sections of the

final rule, there should be little demand for variances

or exceptions....

Paragraph (i) of the final rule supports paragraph

(c)(7) from this same section because it provides a

mechanism for giving OSHA notice of a citation

pending before a state agency. Paragraph (i) also

clarifies that variances only apply to future events,

not to past practices. Paragraph (j) of section 1904.38

of the final rule nullifies all prior variances and exceptions. OSHA believes that it is important to begin

with a “clean slate” when the final recordkeeping

rule goes into effect. Employers with existing variances can repetition the agency if the rule does not

address their needs. Another addition to the final rule

makes explicit that OSHA can provide additional public notice via the Federal Register and may offer additional opportunity for public comment. A final addition recognizes and makes clear that employees can

participate in variance revocation proceedings.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.38 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.38 Variances from the recordkeeping rule

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.38

Section 1904.38 Variances from the recordkeeping rule

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.
154 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.39 

(a) Basic requirement.

Within eight (8) hours after the death of any

employee from a work-related incident or the inpatient hospitalization of three or more employees as

a result of a work-related incident, you must orally

report the fatality/multiple hospitalization by telephone or in person to the Area Office of the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA), U.S. Department of Labor, that is nearest to

the site of the incident. You may also use the OSHA

toll-free central telephone number, 1-800-321-OSHA

(1-800-321-6742).

(b) Implementation.

(1) If the Area Office is closed, may I report the

incident by leaving a message on OSHA’s answering

machine, faxing the area office, or sending an e-mail? 

No, if you can’t talk to a person at the Area Office,

you must report the fatality or multiple hospitalization incident using the 800 number.

(2) What information do I need to give to OSHA

about the incident? 

You must give OSHA the following information

for each fatality or multiple hospitalization incident:

(i) The establishment name;

(ii) The location of the incident;

(iii) The time of the incident;

(iv) The number of fatalities or hospitalized

employees;

(v) The names of any injured employees;

(vi) Your contact person and his or her phone

number; and

(vii) A brief description of the incident.

(3) Do I have to report every fatality or multiple

hospitalization incident resulting from a motor vehicle accident? 

No, you do not have to report all of these incidents. If the motor vehicle accident occurs on a public street or highway, and does not occur in a construction work zone, you do not have to report the

incident to OSHA. However, these injuries must be

recorded on your OSHA injury and illness records, if

you are required to keep such records.

(4) Do I have to report a fatality or multiple hospitalization incident that occurs on a commercial or

public transportation system? 

No, you do not have to call OSHA to report a fatality or multiple hospitalization incident if it involves a

commercial airplane, train, subway or bus accident.

However, these injuries must be recorded on your

OSHA injury and illness records, if you are required

to keep such records.

(5) Do I have to report a fatality caused by a heart

attack at work? 

Yes, your local OSHA Area Office director will

decide whether to investigate the incident, depending

on the circumstances of the heart attack.

(6) Do I have to report a fatality or hospitalization

that occurs long after the incident? 

No, you must only report each fatality or multiple

hospitalization incident that occurs within thirty (30)

days of an incident.

(7) What if I don’t learn about an incident right

away? 

If you do not learn of a reportable incident at the

time it occurs and the incident would otherwise be

reportable under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, you must make the report within eight (8) hours

of the time the incident is reported to you or to any

of your agent(s) or employee(s).

Section 1904.39 

Reporting fatalities and multiple hospitalization 

incidents to OSHA

(66 FR 6133, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.39

Subpart E – Reporting fatality, injury and illness information to the government

(66 FR 6133, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Section 1904.39 Reporting fatalities and multiple hospitalization incidents to OSHA
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 155

§1904.39 

Section 1904.39 Reporting fatalities and multiple

hospitalization incidents to OSHA

Paragraph (a) of section 1904.39 of the final rule

requires an employer to report work-related events

or exposures involving fatalities or the in-patient hospitalization of three or more employees to OSHA.

The final rule requires the employer, within 8 hours

after the death of any employee from a work-related

incident or the in-patient hospitalization of three or

more employees as a result of a work-related incident, to orally report the fatality/multiple hospitalization by telephone or in person to the Area Office of

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA), or to OSHA via the OSHA toll-free central

telephone number, 1-800-321-6742.

The rule makes clear in paragraph 1904.39(b)(1)

that an employer may not report the incident by leaving a message on OSHA’s answering machine, faxing

the Area Office, or sending an e-mail, but may report

the fatality or multiple hospitalization incident using

the OSHA 800 number. The employer is required by

paragraph 1904.39(b)(2) to report several items of

information for each fatality or multiple hospitalization incident: the establishment name, the location of

the incident, the time of the incident, the number of

fatalities or hospitalized employees, the names of any

injured employees, the employer’s contact person

and his or her phone number, and a brief description

of the incident.

As stipulated in paragraph 1904.39(b)(3), the rule

does not require an employer to call OSHA to report

a fatality or multiple hospitalization incident if it

involves a motor vehicle accident that occurs on a

public street or highway and does not occur in a construction work zone. Employers are also not required

to report a commercial airplane, train, subway or bus

accident (paragraph 1904.39(b)(4)). However, these

injuries must still be recorded on the employer’s

OSHA 300 and 301 forms, if the employer is required

to keep such forms. Because employers are often

unsure about whether they must report a fatality

caused by a heart attack at work, the final rule stipulates, at paragraph 1904.39(b)(5), that such heart

attacks must be reported, and states that the local

OSHA Area Office director will decide whether to

investigate the incident, depending on the circumstances of the heart attack.

Paragraph 1904.39(b)(6) of the final rule clarifies

that the employer is not required to report a fatality

or hospitalization that occurs more than thirty (30)

days after an incident, and paragraph 1904.39(b)(7)

states that, if the employer does not learn about a

reportable incident when it occurs, the employer

must make the report within 8 hours of the time the

incident is reported to the employer or to any of the

employer’s agents or employees.

Section 1904.39 of the final rule...clarifies that the

report an employer makes to OSHA on a workplace

fatality or multiple hospitalization incident must be

an oral report. As the regulatory text makes clear, the

employer must make such reports to OSHA by telephone (either to the nearest Area Office or to the tollfree 800 number) or in person. Third, the employer

may not merely leave a message at the OSHA Area

Office; instead, the employer must actually speak to

an OSHA representative. Fourth, this section of the

rule lists OSHA’s 800 number for the convenience of

employers and to allow flexibility in the event that

the employer has difficulty reaching the OSHA Area

Office. Fifth, this section eliminates the former

requirement that employers report fatalities or multiple hospitalizations that result from an accident on a

commercial or public transportation system, such as

an airplane accident or one that occurs in a motor

vehicle accident on a public highway or street (except

for those occurring in a construction work zone,

which must still be reported)....

Making oral reports of fatalities or multiple hospitalization incidents and the OSHA 800 number. The

former rule required an employer to “orally report”

fatality or multiple hospitalization incidents to OSHA

by telephone or in person, although the rule did not

specify that messages left on the Area Office answering machine or sent by e-mail would not suffice.

Since the purpose of this notification is to alert OSHA

to the occurrence of an accident that may warrant

immediate investigation, such notification must be

made orally to a “live” person....

It is essential for OSHA to speak promptly to any

employer whose employee(s) have experienced a

fatality or multiple hospitalization incident to determine whether the Agency needs to begin an investiPREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.39 

(66 FR 6062-6065, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).
156 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.39 

gation. Therefore, the final rule does not permit employers merely to leave a message on an answering

machine, send a fax, or transmit an e-mail message.

None of these options allows an Agency representative to interact with the employer to clarify the particulars of the catastrophic incident. Additionally, if the

Area Office were closed for the weekend, a holiday,

or for some other reason, OSHA might not learn of

the incident for several days if electronic or facsimile

transmission were permitted. Paragraph 1904.39(b)(1)

of the final rule makes this clear....

...The employer may use whatever method he or

she chooses, at any time, as long as he or she is able

to speak in person to an OSHA representative or the

800 number operator....

This final rule also includes the 800 number in the

text of the regulation. OSHA has decided to include

the number in the regulatory text at this time to provide an easy reference for employers. OSHA will also

continue to include the 800 number in any interpretive materials, guidelines or outreach materials that it

publishes to help employers comply with the reporting requirement....

...OSHA agrees that it would be impractical to

impose on one employer a duty to report cases of

multiple hospitalizations of employees who work for

other employers. Although such a reporting requirement would provide OSHA with information that the

Agency could use to inspect some incidents that it

might otherwise not know about, OSHA believes that

the fatality and catastrophe provisions of the final

rule will capture most such incidents. Accordingly,

OSHA has not included this proposed provision in

the final rule....

OSHA agrees with...commenters that there is no

need for an employer to report a fatality or multiple

hospitalization incident when OSHA is clearly not

going to make an investigation. When a worker is

killed or injured in a motor vehicle accident on a public highway or street, OSHA is only likely to investigate the incident if it occurred in a highway construction zone. Likewise, when a worker is killed or injured

in an airplane crash, a train wreck, or a subway accident, OSHA does not investigate, and there is thus

no need for the employer to report the incident to

OSHA. The text of paragraphs 1904.39(b)(3) and (4) 

of the final rule clarifies that an employer is not required to report these incidents to OSHA. These incidents are normally investigated by other agencies,

including local transit authorities, local or State

police, State transportation officials, and the U.S.

Department of Transportation.

However, although there is no need to report

these incidents to OSHA under the 8-hour reporting

requirement, any fatalities and hospitalizations

caused by motor vehicle accidents, as well as commercial or public transportation accidents, are recordable if they meet OSHA’s recordability criteria. These

cases should be captured by the Nation’s occupational fatality and injury statistics and be included on the

employer’s injury and illness forms. The statistics

need to be complete, so that OSHA, BLS, and the

public can see where and how employees are being

made ill, injured and killed. Accordingly, the final rule

includes a sentence clarifying that employers are still

required to record work-related fatalities and injuries

that occur as a result of public transportation accidents and injuries....

...[T]he final rule provides provisions that require

an employer to report a fatality or multiple hospitalization incident that occurs in a construction zone on

a public highway or street....

...If three or more workers are hospitalized overnight, whether for treatment or observation, the accident is clearly of a catastrophic nature, and OSHA

needs to learn about it promptly. Additionally, the

inpatient distinction provides an easy-to-understand

trigger for reporting. In many instances, a patient

who is admitted for observation as an inpatient later

receives treatment after the true nature and extent of

the injury becomes known. At the time of the incident, when reporting is most useful, the employer is

unlikely to know the details about the treatment that

the worker is receiving (e.g., observation only or

medical treatment). However, the employer will probably know that the employee has been admitted to

the hospital as an inpatient....

...[T]he final rule requires reporting within 8 hours

of the time any agent or employee of the employer

becomes aware of the incident. It is the employer’s

responsibility to ensure that appropriate instructions

and procedures are in place so that corporate officers,managers, supervisors, medical/health personnel, safety officers, receptionists, switchboard personnel, and other employees or agents of the company who learn of employee deaths or multiple hospitalizations know that the company must make a

timely report to OSHA.
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 157

§1904.39 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.39 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.39 Reporting fatalities and multiple hospitalization incidents to OSHA

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.39

Section 1904.39 Reporting fatalities and multiple hospitalization incidents to OSHA

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.

Question 39-1. When a work-related heart attack

occurs in the workplace and the employee dies one

or more days later, how should the case be reported

to OSHA?

The employer must orally report a work-related fatality by telephone or in person to the OSHA Area Office

nearest to the site of the incident. The employer must

report the fatality within eight hours of the employee’s death in cases where the death occurs within 30

days of the incident. The employer need not report a

death occurring more than 30 days after a work-related incident.

Question 39-2. What is considered a “construction

work zone” for purposes of section 1904.39(b)(3)?

A “construction work zone” for purposes of Section

1904.39(b)(3) is an area of a street or highway where

construction activities are taking place, and is typically marked by signs, channeling devices, barriers,

pavement markings and/or work vehicles. The work

zone extends from the first warning sign or rotating/strobe lights on a vehicle to the “END ROAD

WORK” sign or the last temporary traffic control

device.
158 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.40 

(a) Basic requirement.

When an authorized government representative

asks for the records you keep under Part 1904, you

must provide copies of the records within four (4)

business hours.

(b) Implementation.

(1) What government representatives have the

right to get copies of my Part 1904 records? 

The government representatives authorized to

receive the records are:

(i) A representative of the Secretary of Labor conducting an inspection or investigation under the

Act;

(ii) A representative of the Secretary of Health and

Human Services (including the National Institute

Section 1904.40 

Providing records to government representatives

(66 FR 6134, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.40

Subpart E – Reporting fatality, injury and illness information to the government

(66 FR 6133, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Section 1904.40 Providing records to government representatives

for Occupational Safety and Health -- NIOSH) conducting an investigation under section 20(b) of the

Act, or

(iii) A representative of a State agency responsible

for administering a State plan approved under

section 18 of the Act.

(2) Do I have to produce the records within four (4)

hours if my records are kept at a location in a different time zone? 

OSHA will consider your response to be timely if

you give the records to the government representative within four (4) business hours of the request. If

you maintain the records at a location in a different

time zone, you may use the business hours of the

establishment at which the records are located when

calculating the deadline.

Section 1904.40 Providing records to government

representatives

Under the final rule, employers must provide a complete copy of any records required by Part 1904 to an

authorized government representative, including the

Form 300 (Log), the Form 300A (Summary), the confidential listing of privacy concern cases along with

the names of the injured or ill privacy case workers,

and the Form 301 (Incident Report), when the representative asks for the records during a workplace

safety and health inspection....

The final regulatory text of paragraph (a) of section 1904.40 requires an employer to provide an

authorized government representative with records

kept under Part 1904 within four business hours. As

stated in paragraph 1904.40(b)(1), the authorized government representatives who have a right to obtain

the Part 1904 records are a representative of the

Secretary of Labor conducting an inspection or investigation under the Act, a representative of the

Secretary of Health and Human Services (including

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health (NIOSH)) conducting an investigation under

Section 20(b) of the Act, or a representative of a State

agency responsible for administering a State plan

approved under section 18 of the Act. The government’s right to ask for such records is limited by the

jurisdiction of that Agency. For example, a representative of an OSHA approved State plan could only

ask for the records when visiting an establishment

within that state.

The final rule allows the employer to take into

account difficulties that may be encountered if the

records are kept at a location in a different time zone

from the establishment where the government representative has asked for the records. If the employer

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.40 

(66 FR 6065-6069, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 159

§1904.40 

maintains the records at a location in a different time

zone, OSHA will use the business hours of the establishment at which the records are located when calculating the deadline, as permitted by paragraph

1904.40(b)(2)....

...[T]he text of the rule is silent as to the enforcement mechanism OSHA will use in what OSHA

hopes will be the rare case in which an employer

does not provide a copy of the records on request.

OSHA may proceed by applying for a warrant, or by

administrative subpoena, or by citation where doing

so is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. OSHA

notes that employers have a Fourth Amendment

right to require a warrant before an OSHA representative may physically enter a business establishment

for an inspection.

The totality of circumstances surrounding a warrantless or “subpoena-less” administrative investigation or investigation program determines its reasonableness. For example, in McLaughlin v. A.B. Chance,

842 F.2d at 727 (4th Cir. 1988), the Fourth Circuit

upheld a records access citation against an employer

who refused an OSHA inspector access to its OSHA

Logs and forms on the ground that it had a right to

insist on a warrant or subpoena; the Court held that

the inspector had such a right because a summary of

the information was posted annually on the employee bulletin board and the inspector was lawfully on

the premises to investigate a safety complaint. In

New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 702-703 (1987), the

Supreme Court noted that agencies may gather information without a warrant, subpoena, or consent if

the information would serve a substantial governmental interest, a warrantless (or subpoena-less)

inspection is necessary to further the regulatory

scheme, and the agency acts pursuant to an inspection program that is limited in time, place, and scope.

The Burger court upheld a warrantless inspection of

records during an administrative inspection of business premises. See also Kings Island (noting that

under Burger a warrantless or subpoena-less inspection of records might be reasonable, but concluding

that the facts of the case did not satisfy Burger analysis); Emerson Electric (noting that under California

Bankers an agency may gain access to information

without a subpoena or warrant but concluding that

the facts of that case were not comparable to those

reviewed in California Bankers).

Given that some warrantless and subpoena-less

searches during an OSHA inspection may be reasonable while others may not, depending on the circumstances of the individual inspection, OSHA has decided not to include a subpoena or warrant enforcement

mechanism in the text of the rule. However, OSHA

will continue to enforce the rule within the parameters of applicable court decisions....

This section of the final rule does not give unfettered access to the records by the public, but simply

allows a government inspector to use the records

during the course of a safety and health inspection.

As discussed above in the section covering access to

the records for employees, former employees, and

employee representatives (Section 1904.35), OSHA

does not consider the Forms 300 and 301 to be medical records, for the following reasons. First, they do

not have to be completed by a physician or other

licensed health care professional. Second, they do

not contain the detailed diagnostic and treatment

information usually found in medical records. Finally,

the injuries and illnesses found in the records are

usually widely known among other employees at the

workplace where the injured or ill worker works; in

fact, these co-workers may even have witnessed the

accident that gave rise to the injury or illness.

OSHA does not agree that its inspectors should

be required to obtain permission from all injured or

ill employees before accessing the full records.

Gaining this permission would make it essentially

impossible to obtain full access to the records, which

is needed to perform a meaningful workplace investigation. For example, an inspector would not be able

to obtain the names of employees who were no

longer working for the company to perform follow-up

interviews about the specifics of their injuries and illnesses. The names of the injured or ill workers are

needed to allow the government inspector to interview the injured and ill workers and determine the

hazardous circumstances that led to their injury or illness. The government inspector may also need the

employee’s names to access personnel and medical

records if needed (medical records can only be

accessed after the inspector obtains a medical access

order). Additionally, refusing the inspector access to

the names of the injured and ill workers would effectively prohibit any audit of the Part 1904 records by

the government, a practice necessary to verify the

accuracy of employer recordkeeping in general and

to identify problems that employers may be having

in keeping records under OSHA’s recordkeeping

rules...since OSHA inspectors do not allow others to

see the medical records they have accessed, the privacy of employees is not compromised by CSHO

access to the records.

...Paragraphs 1904.40(a) and (b) of the final rule

require records to be made available to a government inspector within 4 business hours of an oral
160 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.40 

request for the records, using the business hours of

the establishment at which the records are located....

OSHA has concluded that 4 hours is a reasonable

and workable length of time for employers to respond to governmental requests for records. The 

4-hour time period for providing records from a centralized source strikes a balance between the practical limitations inherent in record maintenance and

the government official’s need to obtain these

records and use the information to conduct a workplace inspection....

OSHA believes that it is essential for employers to

have systems and procedures that can produce the

records within the 4-hour time. However, the Agency

realizes that there may be unusual or unique circumstances where the employer cannot comply. For

example, if the records are kept by a health care professional and that person is providing emergency

care to an injured worker, the employer may need to

delay production of the records. In such a situation,

the OSHA inspector may allow the employer additional time.

If a government representative requests records

of an establishment, but those records are kept at

another location, the 4-hour period can be measured

in accordance with the normal business hours at the

location where the records are being kept....

OSHA has designed the final rule to give each

employer considerable flexibility in maintaining

records. It permits an employer to centralize its

records, to use computer and facsimile technologies,

and to hire a third party to keep its records. However,

an employer who chooses these options must also

ensure that they are sufficiently reliable to comply

with this rule. In other words, the flexibility provided

to employers for recordkeeping must not impede the

Agency’s ability to obtain and use the records....

...[I]n this final rule, OSHA requires the employer

to provide copies of the records requested to authorized government representatives....

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.40 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5) 

Section 1904.40 Providing records to government representatives

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.40 

Section 1904.40 Providing records to government representatives

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 161

§1904.41 

(a) Basic requirement.

If you receive OSHA’s annual survey form, you

must fill it out and send it to OSHA or OSHA’s

designee, as stated on the survey form. You must

report the following information for the year described on the form:

(1) the number of workers you employed;

(2) the number of hours worked by your employees; and

(3) the requested information from the records

that you keep under Part 1904.

(b) Implementation.

(1) Does every employer have to send data to

OSHA? 

No, each year, OSHA sends injury and illness survey forms to employers in certain industries. In any

year, some employers will receive an OSHA survey

form and others will not. You do not have to send

injury and illness data to OSHA unless you receive a

survey form.

(2) How quickly do I need to respond to an OSHA

survey form? 

You must send the survey reports to OSHA, or

Section 1904.41 

Annual OSHA injury and illness survey of ten 

or more employers

(66 FR 6134, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.41

Subpart E – Reporting fatality, injury and illness information to the government

(66 FR 6133, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Section 1904.41 Annual OSHA injury and illness survey of ten or more employers

OSHA’s designee, by mail or other means described

in the survey form, within 30 calendar days, or by the

date stated in the survey form, whichever is later.

(3) Do I have to respond to an OSHA survey form

if I am normally exempt from keeping OSHA injury

and illness records? 

Yes, even if you are exempt from keeping injury

and illness records under Section 1904.1 to Section

1904.3, OSHA may inform you in writing that it will

be collecting injury and illness information from you

in the following year. If you receive such a letter, you

must keep the injury and illness records required by

Section 1904.5 to Section 1904.15 and make a survey

report for the year covered by the survey.

(4) Do I have to answer the OSHA survey form if I

am located in a State-Plan State? 

Yes, all employers who receive survey forms must

respond to the survey, even those in State-Plan

States.

(5) Does this section affect OSHA’s authority to

inspect my workplace?

No, nothing in this section affects OSHA’s statutory authority to investigate conditions related to occupational safety and health.

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.41 

(66 FR 6069, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Section 1904.41 Annual OSHA injury and illness survey of ten or more employers

Section 1904.41 of this final rule replaces section

1904.17, “Annual OSHA Injury and Illness Survey of

Ten or More Employers,” of the former rule issued

on February 11, 1997. The final rule does not change

the contents or policies of the corresponding section

of the former rule in any way....

Thus, section 1904.41 of the final rule merely

restates, in a plain language question-and-answer

format, the requirements of former rule section

1904.17, with one minor change. The final rule adds

paragraph 1904.41(b)(1), which contains no requirements or prohibitions but simply informs the

employer that there is no need to send in the Part

1904 injury and illness data until the government

asks for it.
162 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.41 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.41 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.41 Annual OSHA injury and illness survey of ten or more employers

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.41

Section 1904.41 Annual OSHA injury and illness survey of ten or more employers

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 163

§1904.42 

Section 1904.42 Requests from the Bureau of Labor

Statistics for data

Both OSHA and the BLS collect occupational injury

and illness information, each for separate purposes.

The BLS collects data from a statistical sample of

employers in all industries and across all size classes,

using the data to compile the occupational injury and

illness statistics for the Nation. The Bureau gives

each respondent a pledge of confidentiality (as it

does on all BLS surveys), and the establishment- specific injury and illness data are not shared with the

public, other government agencies, or OSHA. The

BLS’s sole purpose is to create statistical data.

(a) Basic requirement.

If you receive a Survey of Occupational Injuries

and Illnesses Form from the Bureau of Labor

Statistics (BLS), or a BLS designee, you must

promptly complete the form and return it following

the instructions contained on the survey form.

(b) Implementation.

(1) Does every employer have to send data to the

BLS? 

No, each year, the BLS sends injury and illness

survey forms to randomly selected employers and

uses the information to create the Nation’s occupational injury and illness statistics. In any year, some

employers will receive a BLS survey form and others

will not. You do not have to send injury and illness

data to the BLS unless you receive a survey form.

(2) If I get a survey form from the BLS, what do I

have to do? 

If you receive a Survey of Occupational Injuries

Section 1904.42 

Requests from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for data

(66 FR 6134, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.42

Subpart E – Reporting fatality, injury and illness information to the government

(66 FR 6133, Jan. 19, 2001) 

Section 1904.42 Requests from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for data

and Illnesses Form from the Bureau of Labor

Statistics (BLS), or a BLS designee, you must

promptly complete the form and return it, following

the instructions contained on the survey form.

(3) Do I have to respond to a BLS survey form if I

am normally exempt from keeping OSHA injury and

illness records? 

Yes, even if you are exempt from keeping injury

and illness records under Section 1904.1 to Section

1904.3, the BLS may inform you in writing that it will

be collecting injury and illness information from you

in the coming year. If you receive such a letter, you

must keep the injury and illness records required by

Section 1904.5 to Section 1904.15 and make a survey

report for the year covered by the survey.

(4) Do I have to answer the BLS survey form if I

am located in a State-Plan State? 

Yes, all employers who receive a survey form

must respond to the survey, even those in State-Plan

States.

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.42 

(66 FR 6069-6070, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

OSHA collects data from employers from specific

size and industry classes, but collects from each and

every employer within those parameters. The establishment-specific data collected by OSHA are used to

administer OSHA’s various programs and to measure

the performance of those programs at individual

workplaces....

OSHA and the BLS have worked together for

many years to reduce the number of establishments

that receive both surveys. These efforts have largely

been successful. However, OSHA and BLS use different databases to select employers for their surveys.

This makes it difficult to eliminate the overlap com-
164 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.42 

pletely. We are continuing to work on methods to

reduce further the numbers of employers who

receive both BLS and OSHA survey requests.

...The rule thus specifies that the BLS has the

authority to collect information on occupational fatalities, injuries and illnesses from: (1) employers who

are required to keep records at all times; (2) employers who are normally exempt from keeping records;

and (3) employers under both Federal and State plan

jurisdiction. The information collected in the annual

survey enables BLS to generate consistent statistics

on occupational death, injury and illness for the

entire Nation.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.42 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.42 Requests from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for data

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.42

Section 1904.42 Requests from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for data

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 165

§1904.46 

Section 1904.46 

Definitions

(66 FR 6135, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1904.46

Subpart G – Definitions

(66 FR 6135, Jan. 19, 2001)

Section 1904.46 Definitions 

The Act.

The Act means the Occupational Safety and Health

Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.). The definitions

contained in section 3 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 652) and

related interpretations apply to such terms when

used in this Part 1904.

Establishment.

An establishment is a single physical location where

business is conducted or where services or industrial

operations are performed. For activities where

employees do not work at a single physical location,

such as construction; transportation; communications, electric, gas and sanitary services; and similar

operations, the establishment is represented by main

or branch offices, terminals, stations, etc. that either

supervise such activities or are the base from which

personnel carry out these activities.

(1) Can one business location include two or

more establishments? 

Normally, one business location has only one

establishment. Under limited conditions, the employer may consider two or more separate businesses

that share a single location to be separate establishments. An employer may divide one location into

two or more establishments only when:

(i) Each of the establishments represents a distinctly separate business;

(ii) Each business is engaged in a different economic activity;

(iii) No one industry description in the Standard

Industrial Classification Manual (1987) applies to

the joint activities of the establishments; and 

(iv) Separate reports are routinely prepared for

each establishment on the number of employees,

their wages and salaries, sales or receipts, and

other business information. For example, if an

employer operates a construction company at the

same location as a lumber yard, the employer

may consider each business to be a separate

establishment.

(2) Can an establishment include more than one

physical location? 

Yes, but only under certain conditions. An employer may combine two or more physical locations into

a single establishment only when:

(i) The employer operates the locations as a single business operation under common management;

(ii) The locations are all located in close proximity

to each other; and

(iii) The employer keeps one set of business

records for the locations, such as records on the

number of employees, their wages and salaries,

sales or receipts, and other kinds of business

information. For example, one manufacturing

establishment might include the main plant, a

warehouse a few blocks away, and an administrative services building across the street.

(3) If an employee telecommutes from home, is

his or her home considered a separate establishment? 

No, for employees who telecommute from home,

the employee’s home is not a business establishment

and a separate 300 Log is not required. Employees

who telecommute must be linked to one of your

establishments under Section 1904.30(b)(3).

Injury or illness.

An injury or illness is an abnormal condition or disorder. Injuries include cases such as, but not limited

to, a cut, fracture, sprain, or amputation. Illnesses

include both acute and chronic illnesses, such as, but

not limited to, a skin disease, respiratory disorder, or

poisoning. (Note: Injuries and illnesses are recordable only if they are new, work-related cases that

meet one or more of the Part 1904 recording criteria.)

Physician or Other Licensed Health Care Professional.

A physician or other licensed health care professional

is an individual whose legally permitted scope of

practice (i.e., license, registration, or certification)
166 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.46 

allows him or her to independently perform, or be

delegated the responsibility to perform, the activities

described by this regulation.

You.

“You” means an employer as defined in Section 3 of

the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29

U.S.C. 652).

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1904.46 

(66 FR 6071-6081, Jan. 19, 2001)

The following are selected excerpts from the preamble to the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and

Reporting Requirements, the Recordkeeping rule (66 FR 5916, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952). These excerpts

represent some of the key discussions related to the final rule (66 FR 6122, 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952).

Subpart G – Definitions

The Definitions section of the final rule contains definitions for five terms: “the Act,” “establishment,”

“health care professional,” “injury and illness,” and

“you.” 

The Act

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the

“OSH Act”) is defined because the term is used in

many places in the regulatory text. The final rule’s

definition is essentially identical to the definition in

the proposal. OSHA received no comments on this

definition. The definition of “the Act” follows:

The Act means the Occupational Safety and

Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1590 et seq., 29 U.S. 651

et seq.), as amended. The definitions contained in

section (3) of the Act and related interpretations shall

be applicable to such terms when used in this Part

1904.

Employee

...In the final rule, OSHA has decided that it is not

necessary to define “employee” because the term is

defined in section 3 of the Act and is used in this rule

in accordance with that definition.

Employer

...Because the final rule uses the term “employer”

just as it is defined in the Act, no separate definition

is included in the final rule.

Establishment

The final rule defines an establishment as a single

physical location where business is conducted or

where services or industrial operations are performed. For activities where employees do not work

at a single physical location, such as construction;

transportation; communications, electric, gas and

sanitary services; and similar operations, the establishment is represented by main or branch offices,

terminals, stations, etc. that either supervise such

activities or are the base from which personnel carry

out these activities.

The final rule also addresses whether one business location can include two or more establishments. Normally, one business location has only one

establishment. However, under limited conditions,

the employer may consider two or more separate

businesses that share a single location to be separate

establishments for recordkeeping purposes. An

employer may divide one location into two or more

establishments only when: each of the proposed

establishments represents a distinctly separate business; each business is engaged in a different economic activity; no one industry description in the

Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987)

applies to the joint activities of the proposed establishments; and separate reports are routinely prepared for each establishment on the number of

employees, their wages and salaries, sales or receipts, and other business information. For example,

if an employer operates a construction company at

the same location as a lumber yard, the employer

may consider each business to be a separate establishment.

The final rule also deals with the opposite situation, and explains when an establishment includes

more than one physical location. An employer may

combine two or more physical locations into a single

establishment only when the employer operates the

locations as a single business operation under common management; the locations are all located in

close proximity to each other; and the employer

keeps one set of business records for the locations,

such as records on the number of employees, their

wages and salaries, sales or receipts, and other kinds

of business information. For example, one manufacturing establishment might include the main plant, a

warehouse serving the plant a block away, and an

administrative services building across the street.

The final rule also makes it clear that when an

employee telecommutes from home, the employee’s
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 167

§1904.46 

home is not a business establishment for recordkeeping purposes, and a separate OSHA 300 Log is

not required.

The definition of “establishment” is important in

OSHA’s recordkeeping system for many reasons.

First, the establishment is the basic unit for which

records are maintained and summarized. The employer must keep a separate injury and illness Log

(the OSHA Form 300), and prepare a single summary

(Form 300A), for each establishment. Establishmentspecific records are a key component of the recordkeeping system because each separate record represents the injury and illness experience of a given

location, and therefore reflects the particular circumstances and hazards that led to the injuries and illnesses at that location. The establishment-specific

summary, which totals the establishment’s injury and

illness experience for the preceding year, is posted

for employees at that establishment and may also be

collected by the government for statistical or administrative purposes.

Second, the definition of establishment is important because injuries and illnesses are presumed to

be work-related if they result from events or exposures occurring in the work environment, which

includes the employer’s establishment. The presumption that injuries and illnesses occurring in the work

environment are by definition work-related may be

rebutted under certain circumstances, which are listed in the final rule and discussed in the section of

this preamble devoted to section 1904.5, Determination of work-relatedness. 

Third, the establishment is the unit that determines whether the partial exemption from recordkeeping requirements permitted by the final rule for

establishments of certain sizes or in certain industry

sectors applies (see Subpart B of the final rule).

Under the final rule’s partial exemption, establishments classified in certain Standard Industrial

Classification codes (SIC codes) are not required to

keep injury and illness records except when asked by

the government to do so. Because a given employer

may operate establishments that are classified in different SIC codes, some employers may be required

to keep OSHA injury and illness records for some

establishments but not for others, e.g., if one or more

of the employer’s establishments falls under the final

rule’s partial exemption but others do not.

Fourth, the definition of establishment is used to

determine which records an employee, former

employee, or authorized employee representative

may access. According to the final rule, employees

may ask for, and must be given, injury and illness

records for the establishment they currently work in,

or one they have worked in, during their employment....

Subpart G of the final rule defines “establishment” as “a single physical location where business

is conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed. For activities such as construction; transportation; communications, electric and

gas utility, and sanitary services; and similar operations, the establishment is represented for recordkeeping purposes by main or branch offices, terminals, stations, etc. that either supervise such activities

or are the base from which personnel carry out these

activities.” This part of the definition of “establishment” provides flexibility for employers whose

employees (such as repairmen, meter readers, and

construction superintendents) do not work at the

same workplace but instead move between many different workplaces, often in the course of a single day.

How the definition of “establishment” must be

used by employers for recordkeeping purposes is set

forth in the answers to the questions posed in this

paragraph of Subpart G:

(1) Can one business location include two or

more establishments?

(2) Can an establishment include more than one

physical location?

(3) If an employee telecommutes from home, is

his or her home considered a separate establishment?

The employer may consider two or more economic activities at a single location to be separate establishments (and thus keep separate OSHA Form 300s

and Form 301s for each activity) only when: (1) each

such economic activity represents a separate business, (2) no one industry description in the Standard

Industrial Classification Manual (1987) applies to the

activities carried out at the separate locations; and (3)

separate reports are routinely prepared on the number of employees, their wages and salaries, sales or

receipts, and other business information. This part of

the definition of “establishment” allows for separate

establishments when an employer uses a common

facility to house two or more separate businesses,

but does not allow different departments or divisions

of a single business to be considered separate establishments. However, even if the establishment meets

the three criteria above, the employer may, if it

chooses, consider the physical location to be one

establishment.

The definition also permits an employer to combine two or more physical locations into a single

establishment for recordkeeping purposes (and thus
168 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.46 

to keep only one Form 300 and Form 301 for all of

the locations) only when (1) the locations are all geographically close to each other, (2) the employer

operates the locations as a single business operation

under common management, and (3) the employer

keeps one set of business records for the locations,

such as records on the number of employees, their

wages and salaries, sales or receipts, and other business information. However, even for locations meeting these three criteria, the employer may, if it chooses, consider the separate physical locations to be

separate establishments. This part of the definition

allows an employer to consider a single business

operation to be a single establishment even when

some of his or her business operations are carried

out on separate properties, but does not allow for

separate businesses to be joined together. For example, an employer operating a manufacturing business

would not be allowed to consider a nearby storage

facility to be a separate establishment, while an

employer who operates two separate retail outlets

would be required to consider each to be a separate

establishment....

OSHA has reviewed all of the comments on this

issue and has responded by deleting any reference to

a time-in-operation threshold in the definition of

establishment but specifying a one-year threshold in

section 1904.30 of the final rule....

...Under the final rule, employers will be required

to maintain establishment-specific records for any

workplace that is, or is expected to be, in operation

for one year or longer. Employers may group injuries

and illnesses occurring to workers who are employed

at shorter term establishments onto one or more

consolidated logs. These logs may cover the entire

company; geographic regions such as a county, state

or multi-state area; or individual divisions of the

company. For example, a construction company with

multi-state operations might have separate logs for

each state to show the injuries and illnesses of shortterm projects, as well as separate logs for each construction project expected to last for more than one

year....

OSHA agrees that the recordkeeping system must

recognize the needs of operations of this type and has

adopted language in the final rule to provide some

flexibility for employers in the construction, transportation, communications, electric and gas utility, and

sanitary services industries, as well as other employers with geographically dispersed operations. The final

rule specifies, in Subpart G, that employers may consider main or branch offices, terminals, stations, etc.

that are either (1) responsible for supervising such

activities, or (2) the base from which personnel operate to carry out these activities, as individual establishments for recordkeeping purposes. This addition to

the final rule’s definition of establishment allows an

employer to keep records for geographically dispersed

operations using the existing management structure

of the company as the recording unit....

...The final rule also recognizes that, in some narrowly defined situations, a business may have sideby-side operations at a single location that are operated as separate businesses because they are

engaged in different lines of business. In these situations, the Standard Industrial Classification Manual

(OMB 1987) allows a single business location to be

classified as two separate establishments, each with

its own SIC code. Like all government agencies,

OSHA follows the OMB classification method and

makes allowances for such circumstances....

...[T]he final rule makes clear in Subpart G, that an

employer whose activities meet the final rule’s definition may keep separate logs if he or she chooses to

do so. Thus the final rule includes a provision that

allows an employer to define a single business location as two separate establishments only under specific, narrow conditions. The final rule allows the

employer to keep separate records only when the

location is shared by completely separate business

operations involved in different business activities

(Standard Industrial Classifications) for which separate business records are available. By providing specific, narrow criteria, the final rule reduces ambiguity

and confusion about what is required and sets out

the conditions that must be met in order for employers to deviate from the one place-one establishment

concept.

OSHA expects that the overwhelming majority of

workplaces will continue to be classified as one

establishment for recordkeeping purposes, and will

keep just one Log. However, allowing some flexibility

for the rare cases that meet the specified criteria is

appropriate. The employer is responsible for determining whether a given workplace meets the criteria;

OSHA will consider an employer meeting these criteria to be in compliance with the final rule if he or she

keeps one set of records per facility. This policy

allows an employer to keep one set of records for a

given location and avoid the additional burden or

inconvenience associated with keeping separate

records....

OSHA agrees that there are situations where a

single establishment that has a satellite operation in

close physical proximity to the primary operation

may together constitute a single business operation
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 169

§1904.46 

and thus be a single establishment. For example, a

business may have a storage facility in a nearby

building that is simply an adjunct to the business

operation and is not a separate business location.

OSHA believes that there are situations where

establishments in separate physical locations constitute a single establishment. However, under the final

rule, employers will only be allowed to combine separated physical locations into a single establishment

when they operate the combined locations as a single business operation under common management

and keep a single set of business records for the

combined locations, such as records on the number

of employees, their wages and salaries, sales or

receipts, and other types of business information.

How OSHA defines an establishment also has

implications for the way company parking lots and

recreation facilities, such as company-provided gymnasiums, ball fields, and the like are treated for

recordkeeping purposes. ... The final rule includes

these areas in the definition of establishment but

does not require employers to record cases occurring

to employees engaged in certain activities at these

locations. For example, injuries and illnesses occurring at the establishment while the employee is voluntarily engaged in recreation activities or resulting

from a motor vehicle accident while the employee is

commuting to or from work would not have to be

recorded (see section 1904.5)....

Company Parking Lots and Access Roads

...OSHA agrees...company parking lots can be highly

hazardous and that employers have considerable

control over conditions in such lots. In addition,

OSHA believes that having data on the kinds of

injuries and illnesses occurring on company parking

lots and access roads will permit employers to

address the causes of these injuries and illnesses and

thus to provide their employees with better protection. Accordingly, for recordkeeping purposes, the

final rule includes company parking lots and access

roads in the definition of establishment. However, the

final rule recognizes that some injuries and illnesses

occurring on company parking lots and access roads

are not work-related and delineates those that are

work-related from those that are not work-related on

the basis of the activity the employee was performing at the time the injury or illness occurred. For

example, when an employee is injured in a motor

vehicle accident that occurs during that employee’s

commute to or from work, the injury is not considered work-related. Thus, the final rule allows the

employer to exclude from the Log injuries and illnesses occurring on company parking lots and

access roads while employees are commuting to or

from work or running personal errands in their motor

vehicles (see section 1904.5). However, other injuries

and illnesses occurring in parking lots and on access

roads (such as accidents at loading docks, while

removing snow, falls on ice, assaults, etc.) are considered work-related and must be recorded on the

establishment’s Log if they meet the other recording

criteria of the final rule (e.g., if they involve medical

treatment, lost time, etc.).

OSHA concludes that the activity-based approach

taken in the final rule will be simpler for employers to

use than the former rule’s location-based approach

and will result in the collection of better data. First, the

activity-based approach eliminates the need for

employers to determine where a parking lot begins

and ends, i.e., what specific areas constitute the parking lot, which can be difficult in the case of combined,

interspersed, or poorly defined parking areas. Second,

it ensures the recording of those injuries and illnesses

that are work-related but simply happen to occur in

these areas. If parking lots and access roads are totally

excluded from the definition of establishment,

employers would not record any injury or illness

occurring in such locations. For example, employers

could fail to record an injury occurring to an employee

performing work, such as building an attendant’s

booth or demarcating parking spaces, from the Log.

Recreation facilities. ...In the final rule, OSHA has

decided to include recreational areas in the definition

of establishment but to include voluntary fitness and

recreational activities, and other wellness activities,

on the list of excepted activities employers may use

to rebut the presumption of work-relatedness in paragraph 1904.5(b)(2). OSHA finds that this approach is

simpler and will provide better injury and illness data

because recreational facilities are often multi-use

areas that are sometimes used as work zones and

sometimes as recreational areas....

This approach is also consistent with OSHA’s overall approach in the final rule of using specific activitybased exemptions to allow the employer to rebut the

presumption of work relationship rather than providing exemptions by modifying the definition of establishment. OSHA also does not believe that this

approach will provide an incentive for employers to

eliminate recreational and fitness opportunities for

their employees. Both approaches exempt the same

injuries from recording, but the final rule’s approach

provides employers with a more straightforward

mechanism for rebutting the presumption of work

relationship.
170 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.46 

OSHA believes that injuries and illnesses occurring to employees who are present in recreational

areas as part of their assigned work duties should be

recorded on the Log; the final rule thus only permits

employers to exclude recreational activities that are

being performed by the employee voluntarily from

their Logs. For example, an injury to an exercise

instructor hired by the company to conduct classes

and demonstrate exercises would be considered

work related, as would an injury or illness sustained

by an employee who is required to exercise to maintain specific fitness levels, such as a security guard.

Private homes as an establishment. ...In the final

rule, OSHA has not excluded private homes from the

definition of establishment because many private

homes contain home offices or other home-based

worksites, and injuries and illnesses occurring to

employees during work activities performed there on

behalf of their employer are recordable if the

employer is required to keep a Log. However, the

final rule makes clear that, in the case of an employee who telecommutes from his or her home, the

home is not considered an establishment for OSHA

recordkeeping purposes and the employer is not

required to keep a separate Log for the home office.

For these workers, the worker’s establishment is the

office to which they report, receive direction or supervision, collect pay, and otherwise stay in contact with

their employer, and it is at this establishment that the

Log is kept. For workers who are simply working at

home instead of at the company’s office, i.e., for

employees who are telecommuting, OSHA does not

consider the worker’s home to be an establishment

for recordkeeping purposes, and the definition of

establishment makes this fact clear. OSHA has issued

a compliance directive clarifying that OSHA does not

and will not inspect home offices in the employee’s

home and would inspect a home-based worksite

other than a home office only if the Agency received

a complaint or referral. A fuller discussion concerning

the determination of the work-relatedness of injuries

and illnesses that occur when employees are working in their homes can be found in the discussion of

Section 1904.5 Determination of work-relatedness.

Miscellaneous issues ...[T]he final rule does contain an exception from recordability of cases where

the employee, for example, chokes on his or her

food, is burned by spilling hot coffee, etc. (see paragraph 1904.5(b))....

OSHA will continue to allow employers to keep

their records centrally and on computer equipment,

and nothing in the final rule would preclude such electronic centralization. OSHA believes that the definition

of establishment in the final rule will have no impact

on the ability of the employer to keep records centrally; however, the final rule does continue to require

employers to summarize and post the records for each

establishment at the end of the year....

Health Care Professional

The final rule defines health care professional (HCP)

as “a physician or other state licensed health care

professional whose legally permitted scope of practice (i.e., license, registration or certification) allows

the professional independently to provide or be delegated the responsibility to provide some or all of the

health care services described by this regulation.” ...

...Although the rule does not specify what medical

specialty or training is necessary to provide care for

injured or ill employees, the rule’s use of the term

health care professional is intended to ensure that

those professionals providing treatment and making

determinations about the recordability of certain

complex cases are operating within the scope of their

license, as defined by the appropriate state licensing

agency....

...OSHA does not intend the use of the term

“health care professional” in this rule to modify or

supersede any requirement of any other OSHA regulation or standard....

... The definition in the final rule ensures that,

although decisions about the recordability of a particular case may be made by a wide range of health

care professionals, the professionals making those

decisions must be operating within the scope of their

license or certification when they make such decisions.

Injury or Illness

The final rule’s definition of injury or illness is based

on the definitions of injury and illness used under the

former recordkeeping regulation, except that it combines both definitions into a single term “injury or illness.” Under the final rule, an injury or illness is an

abnormal condition or disorder. Injuries include

cases such as, but not limited to, a cut, fracture,

sprain, or amputation. Illnesses include both acute

and chronic illnesses, such as, but not limited to, a

skin disease, respiratory disorder, or systemic poisoning. The definition also includes a note to inform

employers that some injuries and illnesses are

recordable and others are not, and that injuries and

illnesses are recordable only if they are new, workrelated cases that meet one or more of the final rule’s

recording criteria....

...OSHA has decided to continue to include psy-
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 171

§1904.46 

chological conditions in the final rule’s definition of

injury and illness because many such conditions are

caused, contributed to, or significantly aggravated by

events or exposures in the work environment, and

the Agency would be remiss if it did not collect injury

and illness information about conditions of these

types that meet one or more of the final rule’s recording criteria.

Although injury and illness are broadly defined,

they capture only those changes that reflect an

adverse change in the employee’s condition that is of

some significance, i.e., that reach the level of an

abnormal condition or disorder. For example, a mere

change in mood or experiencing normal end-of-theday tiredness would not be considered an abnormal

condition or disorder. Similarly, a cut or obvious

wound, breathing problems, skin rashes, blood tests

with abnormal results, and the like are clearly abnormal conditions and disorders. Pain and other symptoms that are wholly subjective are also considered

an abnormal condition or disorder. There is no need

for the abnormal condition to include objective signs

to be considered an injury or illness. However, it is

important for employers to remember that identifying a workplace incident as an occupational injury or

illness is only the first step in the determination an

employer makes about the recordability of a given

case.

OSHA finds that this definition provides an appropriate starting point for decision-making about

recordability, and that the requirements for determining which cases are work-related and which are not

(section 1904.5), for determining which work-related

cases reflect new injuries or illnesses rather than

recurrences (section 1904.6), and for determining

which new, work-related cases meet one or more of

the general recording criteria or the additional criteria

(sections 1904.7 to 1904.12) together constitute a system that ensures that those cases that should be

recorded are captured and that minor injuries and illnesses are excluded....OSHA has added language to

the definition of injury and illness to make it clear

that many injuries and illnesses are not recordable,

either because they are not work-related or because

they do not meet any of the final rule’s recording criteria....

After reviewing this issue thoroughly, OSHA finds

that a system that initially defines injury and illness

broadly and then applies a series of screening mechanisms to narrow the number of recordable incidents

to those meeting OSHA and statutory criteria has

several advantages. First, by being inclusive, this system avoids the problem associated with any “narrow

gate” approach: that some cases that should be evaluated are lost even before the evaluation process

begins. Second, this approach is consistent with the

broad definitions of these terms that OSHA has used

for more than 20 years, which means that the

approach is already familiar to employers and their

recordkeepers. Third, adding terminology like “significant” and “reasonable probability that ill-health will

result,” as commenters suggested, would unnecessarily complicate the first step in the evaluation

process.

Accordingly, the definition of injury and illness in

the final rule differs from the former definition only in

minor respects. The definition is based on the former

rule’s definitions, simply combining the separate definitions of injury and illness into a single category, to

be consistent with the elimination of separate recording thresholds for occupational injuries and occupational illnesses. As discussed above, OSHA has elected to continue to use a broad definition of illness or

injury. The definition in the final rule also makes it

clear that each injury and illness must be evaluated

for work-relatedness, to decide if it is a new case, and

to determine if it is recordable before a covered

employer must enter the case in the OSHA recordkeeping system.

“You”

The last definition in the final rule, of the pronoun

“you,” has been added because the final rule uses

the “you” form of the question-and-answer plain-language format recommended in Federal plain-language guidance. “You,” as used in this rule, means

the employer, as that term is defined in the Act. This

definition makes it clear that employers are responsible for implementing the requirements of this final

rule, as mandated by the Occupational Safety and

Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.)
172 OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1904.46 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1904.46 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1904.46 Definitions

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.

Letter of interpretation related to sections 1904.29, 1904.29(a), 1904.29(b), 1904.29(b)(2), 1904.31, 1904.33,

1904.40 and 1904.46 – 

Recording criteria for cases involving workers from a temporary help service, employee leasing service, or 

personnel supply service.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1904.46 

Section 1904.46 Definitions

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Letters of interpretation explain

these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional

employer obligations. These letters constitute OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed.

Note that OSHA enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to

time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. 

Letters of Interpretation constitute OSHA’s interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may

not be applicable to any situation not delineated within the original correspondence.

June 23, 2003

Mr. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.

Jackson Lewis LLP

2100 Landmark Building

301 North Main Street

Greenville, SC 29601-2122

Dear Mr. Foulke:

Thank you for your April 3, 2003 facsimile and April 10, 2003 letter to the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting

Requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904. Specifically, you ask OSHA to clarify the recording

criteria for cases involving workers from a temporary help service, employee leasing service, or personnel supply service. Your questions have been outlined below followed by OSHA’s response.

Question 1: Under 29 CFR Section 1904.31, employers who supervise temporary or leased employees at their facility are required to maintain the OSHA 300 Logs for those employees. With respect

to those injuries, can the employer keep a separate 300 Log for the company employees and one log

for the temporary or leased employees?

Response: The log is to be kept for an establishment. Under Section 1904.46 Definitions, an establishment is a single physical location where business is conducted or where services or industrial

operations are performed. The controlling employer (using firm) may sub-divide the OSHA 300 Log

to provide separate listings of temporary workers, but must consider the separate listings to be one

record for all recordkeeping purposes, including access by government representatives, employees,

former employees and employee representatives as required by Section 1904.35 and 1904.40 in the

Recordkeeping regulation. OSHA’s view is that a given establishment should have one OSHA Log.

Injuries and illnesses for all the covered employees at the establishment are then entered into that

record to create a single OSHA 300-A Summary form at the end of the year.
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 173

§1904.46 

Question 2: Under 29 CFR Section 1904.31, while the standard clearly indicates the 300 Logs must

be maintained for supervised temporary or leased employees, it does not indicate who maintains the

301 documents or the first report of injuries, as well as the medical records on those employees.

Also, if a temporary or leased employee has days away from work, it is normally the temporary or

leased employee provider’s contractual responsibility to handle the medical treatment of the employee. The temporary or leased employee provider is the only person/entity to have the information on

days away from work. Who is responsible for maintaining the 301 logs or the first report of injury

forms as well as the medical records for these employees, assuming that the employee provider can

produce the required documents to the employer for production in the time periods set forth in the

standard?

Response: Section 1904.29(a) says: “You must use OSHA 300, 300-A and 301 forms, or equivalent

forms, for recordable injuries and illnesses.” In addition, 1904.29(b)(2) says: “You must complete

an OSHA 301 Incident Report form, or an equivalent form, for each recordable injury or illness

entered on the OSHA 300 Log.” Therefore, when the workers from a temporary help service or

leasing firm are under the day-to-day supervision of the controlling party (using firm) the entire

OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping responsibility belongs to the using firm.

Question 3: Using the facts in Question 2, it is also important to note that an injured temporary or

leased employee, who requires days from work, may be replaced by another leased or temporary

employee at the work site. From time of the injury, the employer has no information about the

return to work status of the injured employee. In fact, the injured employee may be assigned to

another employer once he or she is able to return to work. How can the original employer keep

accurate 300 Logs when the employee provider has sole access to information on days away from

work and return to work status?

Response: The controlling employer has the ultimate responsibility for making good-faith recordkeeping determinations regarding an injury and illness to any of those temporary employees they

supervise on a day-to-day basis. Although controlling employers ultimately decide if and how a particular case should be recorded, their decision must not be an arbitrary one, but should be made in

accordance with the requirements of the Act, regulation, and the instructions on the forms. Therefore, the controlling employer must make reasonable efforts to acquire the necessary information in

order to satisfy its Part 1904 recordkeeping requirements. However, if the controlling employer is

not able to obtain information from the employer of the leased or temporary employee, the controlling employer should record the injury based on whatever information is available to the controlling

employer. The preamble contains a brief reference about OSHA’s expectation that the employers

share information to produce accurate records, stating that “the two employers have shared responsibilities and may share information when there is a need to do so.” (Federal Register p. 6041)

Finally, the last question you raised is whether your client or contractor has any requirements under

the recordkeeping standard to provide the new contractor the current OSHA 300 Logs for that facility covering those employees who now work for that contractor? Since there was no change of your

client’s business ownership, he or she needs only to retain the records as per 1904.33 and provide

access under 1904.35 and 1904.40.

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information

helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters

explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create

additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements

discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also,

from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep appraised of

such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further

questions, please contact the Division of Recordkeeping Requirements, at 202-693-1702.

Sincerely, 

John L. Henshaw

Assistant Secretary
OSHA RECORDKEEPING HANDBOOK 

§1952.4 

174

2. The authority citation for Part 1952 is revised to

read as follows:

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 667; 29 CFR part 1902,

Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033) and

6-96 (62 FR 111).

3. Section 1952.4 is revised to read as follows:

Section 1952.4 Injury and illness recording and

reporting requirements 

(a) Injury and illness recording and reporting

requirements promulgated by State-Plan States must

be substantially identical to those in 29 CFR part 1904

“Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and

Illnesses.” State-Plan States must promulgate

recording and reporting requirements that are the

same as the Federal requirements for determining

which injuries and illnesses will be entered into the

records and how they are entered. All other injury

and illness recording and reporting requirements that

are promulgated by State-Plan States may be more

stringent than, or supplemental to, the Federal

requirements, but, because of the unique nature of

the national recordkeeping program, States must

consult with OSHA and obtain approval of such addiSection 1952.4 

Injury and illness recording and 

reporting requirements 

(66 FR 6135, Jan. 19, 2001)

REGULATION: Section 1952.4

Injury and illness recording and reporting requirements Part 1952 – [Amended]

(66 FR 6135, Jan. 19, 2001) 

tional or more stringent reporting and recording

requirements to ensure that they will not interfere

with uniform reporting objectives. State-Plan States

must extend the scope of their regulation to State

and local government employers.

(b) A State may not grant a variance to the injury

and illness recording and reporting requirements for

private sector employers. Such variances may only

be granted by Federal OSHA to assure nationally

consistent workplace injury and illness statistics. A

State may only grant a variance to the injury and illness recording and reporting requirements for State

or local government entities in that State after obtaining approval from Federal OSHA.

(c) A State must recognize any variance issued by

Federal OSHA.

(d) A State may, but is not required, to participate

in the Annual OSHA Injury/Illness Survey as authorized by 29 CFR 1904.41. A participating State may

either adopt requirements identical to 1904.41 in its

recording and reporting regulation as an enforceable

State requirement, or may defer to the Federal regulation for enforcement. Nothing in any State plan

shall affect the duties of employers to comply with

1904.41, when surveyed, as provided by section

18(c)(7) of the Act.

PREAMBLE DISCUSSION: Section 1952.4 

Section 1952.4 Injury and illness recording and reporting requirements

See 1904.37

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Section 1952.4 (OSHA Instruction, CPL 2-0.135, Chap. 5)

Section 1952.4 Injury and illness recording and reporting requirements

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.

LETTERS OF INTERPRETATION: Section 1952.4

Section 1952.4 Injury and illness recording and reporting requirements

This section will be developed as letters of interpretation become available.
www.osha.gov