18528 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1 Documents submitted to the docket by OSHA or 

stakeholders are assigned document identification 

numbers (Document ID) for easy identification and 

retrieval. The full Document ID is the docket 

number plus a unique four-digit code. OSHA is 

identifying supporting information in this 

document by author name, publication year, and 

the last four digits of the Document ID. 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1904 

[Docket No. OSHA–2021–0006] 

RIN 1218–AD40 

Improve Tracking of Workplace 

Injuries and Illnesses 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to amend 

its occupational injury and illness 

recordkeeping regulation to require 

certain employers to electronically 

submit injury and illness information to 

OSHA that employers are already 

required to keep under the 

recordkeeping regulation. Specifically, 

OSHA proposes to amend its regulation 

to require establishments with 100 or 

more employees in certain designated 

industries to electronically submit 

information from their OSHA Forms 

300, 301, and 300A to OSHA once a 

year. Establishments with 20 or more 

employees in certain industries would 

continue to be required to electronically 

submit information from their OSHA 

Form 300A annual summary to OSHA 

once a year. OSHA also proposes to 

update the classification system used to 

determine the list of industries covered 

by the electronic submission 

requirement. In addition, the proposed 

rule would remove the current 

requirement for establishments with 250 

or more employees, not in a designated 

industry, to electronically submit 

information from their Form 300A to 

OSHA on an annual basis. OSHA 

intends to post the data from the 

proposed annual electronic submission 

requirement on a public website after 

identifying and removing information 

that reasonably identifies individuals 

directly, such as individuals’ names and 

contact information. Finally, OSHA is 

proposing to require establishments to 

include their company name when 

making electronic submissions to 

OSHA. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

May 31, 2022. 

ADDRESSES:

Comments: Comments, along with 

any submissions and attachments, 

should be submitted electronically at 

https://www.regulations.gov, which is 

the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow 

the instructions online for making 

electronic submissions. After accessing 

‘‘all documents and comments’’ in the 

docket (Docket No. OSHA–2021–0006), 

check the ‘‘proposed rule’’ box in the 

column headed ‘‘Document Type,’’ find 

the document posted on the date of 

publication of this document, and click 

the ‘‘Comment Now’’ link. When 

uploading multiple attachments to 

www.regulations.gov, please number all 

of your attachments, because 

www.regulations.gov will not 

automatically number the attachments. 

This will be very useful in identifying 

all attachments in the preamble. For 

example, Attachment 1—title of your 

document, Attachment 2—title of your 

document, Attachment 3—title of your 

document. For assistance with 

commenting and uploading documents, 

please see the Frequently Asked 

Questions on regulations.gov. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency’s name and the 

docket number for this rulemaking 

(Docket No. OSHA–2021–0006). All 

comments, including any personal 

information you provide, are placed in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at https:// 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA 

cautions commenters about submitting 

information they do not want made 

available to the public, or submitting 

materials that contain personal 

information (either about themselves or 

others), such as Social Security numbers 

and birthdates. 

Docket: To read or download 

comments and other materials 

submitted in the docket, go to Docket 

No. OSHA–2021–0006 at https://

www.regulations.gov. All comments and 

submissions are listed in the https://

www.regulations.gov index; however, 

some information (e.g., copyrighted 

material) is not publicly available to 

read or download through that website. 

All comments and submissions, 

including copyrighted material, are 

available for inspection through the 

OSHA Docket Office.1 Contact the 

OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–2350, 

(TTY (877) 889–5627) for information 

about materials not available through 

the website, and for assistance in using 

the internet to locate docket 

submissions. 

Electronic copies of this Federal 

Register document are available at 

https://www.regulations.gov. This 

document, as well as news releases and 

other relevant information, is available 

at OSHA’s website at https://

www.osha.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For press inquiries: Contact Frank 

Meilinger, Director, Office of 

Communications, Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration, U.S. 

Department of Labor; telephone (202) 

693–1999; email: meilinger.francis2@

dol.gov. 

For general information and technical 

inquiries: Contact Lee Anne Jillings, 

Director, Directorate of Technical 

Support and Emergency Management, 

U.S. Department of Labor; telephone 

(202) 693–2300; email: 

Jillings.LeeAnne@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Introduction 

B. Regulatory History 

C. Litigation Resulting From Previous 

Rulemakings 

D. Injury and Illness Data Collection 

E. Publication of Electronic Data 

F. Differences Between the BLS SOII and 

Proposed OSHA Data Collections 

G. Benefits of Establishment-Specific, CaseSpecific Data Collection and Publication 

II. Legal Authority 

III. Summary and Explanation of the 

Proposed Rule 

A. Description of Proposed Revisions 

1. Section 1904.41(a)(1) Annual Electronic 

Submission of Information From OSHA 

Form 300A Summary of Work-Related 

Injuries and Illnesses by Establishments 

With 20 or More Employees in 

Designated Industries 

2. Section 1904.41(a)(2) Annual Electronic 

Submission of OSHA Form 300A 

Summary of Work-Related Injuries and 

Illnesses, OSHA Form 300 Log of WorkRelated Injuries and Illnesses, and OSHA 

Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident 

Report by Establishments With 100 or 

More Employees in Designated 

Industries 

3. Section 1904.41(b)(1)(i) and (ii) 

4. Section 1904.41(b)(9) 

5. Section 1904.41(b)(10) 

6. Section 1904.41(c) Reporting Dates 

B. Questions 

IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis and 

Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

A. Introduction 

B. Costs 

1. Section 1904.41(a)(1) Annual Electronic 

Submission of Information From OSHA 

Form 300A Summary of Work-Related 

Injuries and Illnesses by Establishments 

With 20 or more Employees in 

Designated Industries 

2. Section 1904.41(a)(2) Annual Electronic 

Submission of OSHA Form 300A 

Summary of Work-Related Injuries and 

Illnesses, OSHA Form 300 Log of WorkRelated Injuries and Illnesses, and OSHA 

Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident 

Report by Establishments With 100 or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18529 

More Employees in Designated 

Industries 

3. Section 1904.41(b)(10) 

4. Budget Costs to the Government for the 

Creation of the Reporting System, 

Helpdesk Assistance, and 

Administration of the Electronic 

Submission Program 

5. Total Costs of the Rule 

C. Benefits 

D. Economic Feasibility 

E. Alternatives 

F. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

V. OMB Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

VI. Unfunded Mandates 

VII. Federalism 

VIII. State Plans 

IX. Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments 

X. Public Participation 

Authority and Signature 

I. Background 

A. Introduction 

OSHA’s regulation at 29 CFR part 

1904 requires employers with more than 

10 employees in most industries to keep 

records of occupational injuries and 

illnesses at their establishments. 

Employers covered by the regulation 

must record each recordable employee 

injury and illness on an OSHA Form 

300, which is the ‘‘Log of Work-Related 

Injuries and Illnesses,’’ or equivalent. 

The OSHA Form 300 includes 

information about the employee’s name, 

job title, date of the injury or illness, 

where the injury or illness occurred, 

description of the injury or illness (e.g., 

body part affected), and the outcome of 

the injury or illness (e.g., death, days 

away from work, restricted work 

activity). Employers must also prepare a 

supplementary OSHA Form 301 ‘‘Injury 

and Illness Incident Report’’ or 

equivalent that provides additional 

details about each case recorded on the 

OSHA Form 300. The OSHA Form 301 

includes information about the 

employee’s name and address, date of 

birth, date hired, gender, the name and 

address of the health care professional 

that treated the employee, as well as 

more detailed information about where 

and how the injury or illness occurred. 

At the end of each year, employers are 

required to prepare a summary report of 

all injuries and illnesses on the OSHA 

Form 300A, which is the ‘‘Summary of 

Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses,’’ 

and post the form in a visible location 

in the workplace. The OSHA Form 

300A does not contain information 

about individual employees, but does 

include general information about an 

employer’s workplace, such as the 

average number of employees and total 

number of hours worked by all 

employees during the calendar year. 

Section 1904.41 of the current 

recordkeeping regulation also requires 

certain employers to electronically 

submit injury and illness data to OSHA. 

Section 1904.41(a)(1) requires 

establishments with 250 or more 

employees in industries that are 

required to routinely keep OSHA injury 

and illness records to electronically 

submit information from the Form 300A 

summary to OSHA once a year. Section 

1904.41(a)(2) requires establishments 

with 20–249 employees in certain 

designated industries to electronically 

submit information from their Form 

300A summary to OSHA once a year. 

Also, § 1904.41(a)(3) provides that, upon 

notification, employers must 

electronically submit requested 

information from their part 1904 records 

to OSHA. Lastly, § 1904.41(a)(4) 

requires each establishment that must 

electronically submit injury and illness 

information to OSHA to also provide 

their Employer Identification Number 

(EIN) in their submittal. 

Under this proposed rule, 

establishments with 20 or more 

employees in certain designated 

industries (listed in appendix A to 

subpart E) would continue to 

electronically submit information from 

their Form 300A annual summary to 

OSHA once a year. However, the 

proposed rule would eliminate the 

requirement for all establishments with 

250 or more employees in industries 

that are required to routinely keep 

OSHA injury and illness records to 

electronically submit information from 

the Form 300A to OSHA. Instead, 

establishments with 100 or more 

employees in certain designated 

industries (listed in appendix B to 

subpart E) would be required to 

electronically submit information from 

their OSHA Forms 300, 301, and 300A 

to OSHA once a year. OSHA also 

proposes to update the industry 

classification system used for the 

proposed list of designated industries in 

appendix A and B to subpart E. In 

addition, OSHA is proposing to require 

establishments to include their 

company name when making electronic 

submissions to OSHA. 

The proposed requirement for 

establishments with 20 or more 

employees in certain designated 

industries to electronically submit 

information from their Form 300A to 

OSHA once a year is essentially the 

same as the current regulation. For 

establishments with 100 or more 

employees in certain designated 

industries, the proposed requirement to 

electronically submit information from 

their Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA on an 

annual basis represents a change from 

the current regulation. The proposed 

requirement would provide systematic 

access for OSHA to the establishmentspecific, case-specific injury and illness 

information that these establishments 

are already required to collect. 

Additionally, OSHA intends to post 

the collected establishment-specific, 

case-specific injury and illness 

information online. As discussed in 

more detail below, the agency will seek 

to minimize the possibility that worker 

information, such as name and contact 

information, will be released, through 

multiple efforts, including limiting the 

worker information collected, designing 

the collection system to provide extra 

protections for some of the information 

that employers would be required to 

submit under the proposal, withholding 

certain fields from public disclosure, 

and using automated software to 

identify and remove information that 

reasonably identifies individuals 

directly. OSHA does not intend to 

include information that reasonably 

identifies individuals directly, such as 

employee name, contact information, 

and name of physician or health care 

professional, in the published 

information. The expanded public 

access to establishment-specific, casespecific injury and illness data would 

allow employers, employees, potential 

employees, employee representatives, 

customers, potential customers, 

researchers, and the general public to 

make informed decisions about the 

workplace safety and health at a given 

establishment, and this accessibility 

will ultimately result in the reduction of 

occupational injuries and illnesses. 

OSHA estimates that this proposed 

rule would have economic costs of $4.3 

million per year, including $3.9 million 

per year to the private sector, with costs 

of $81 per year for affected 

establishments with 100 or more 

employees in designated industries. The 

agency believes that the annual benefits, 

while unquantified, would significantly 

exceed the annual costs. 

OSHA seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

B. Regulatory History 

OSHA’s regulations on recording and 

reporting occupational injuries and 

illnesses (29 CFR part 1904) were first 

issued in 1971 (36 FR 12612 (July 2, 

1971)). These regulations require the 

recording of work-related injuries and 

illnesses that involve death, loss of 

consciousness, days away from work, 

restricted work or transfer to another 

job, medical treatment beyond first aid, 

or diagnosis of a significant injury or 

illness by a physician or other licensed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
18530 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

2All employers covered by the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act (the ‘‘OSH Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’) are 

covered by OSHA’s recordkeeping regulation. 

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 ten or fewer employees, 

as well as businesses with establishments in certain 

industries, are partially exempt from keeping OSHA 

injury and illness records. In addition, all 

employers covered by the OSH Act, including those 

that are partially exempt from keeping injury and 

illness records, are still required to report workrelated fatalities, in-patient hospitalizations, 

amputations, and losses of an eye to OSHA within 

specified timeframes under 29 CFR 1904.39. 

health care professional (29 CFR 

1904.7). 

On July 29, 1977, OSHA amended 

these regulations to partially exempt 

businesses having ten or fewer 

employees during the previous calendar 

year from the requirement to record 

occupational injuries and illnesses (42 

FR 38568). Then, on December 28, 1982, 

OSHA amended the regulations again to 

partially exempt establishments in 

certain lower-hazard industries from the 

requirement to record occupational 

injuries and illnesses (47 FR 57699).2

OSHA also amended the recordkeeping 

regulations in 1994 (Reporting of 

Fatality or Multiple Hospitalization 

Incidents, 59 FR 15594) and 1997 

(Reporting Occupational Injury and 

Illness Data to OSHA, 62 FR 6434). 

Under the version of § 1904.41 added 

by the 1997 final rule, OSHA began 

requiring certain employers to submit 

their 300A data to OSHA annually 

through the OSHA Data Initiative (ODI). 

Through the ODI, OSHA collected data 

on injuries and acute illnesses 

attributable to work-related activities in 

the private sector from approximately 

80,000 establishments in selected highhazard industries. The agency used 

these data to calculate establishmentspecific injury and illness rates, and, in 

combination with other data sources, to 

target enforcement and compliance 

assistance activities. 

On January 19, 2001, OSHA issued a 

final rule amending its requirements for 

the recording and reporting of 

occupational injuries and illnesses (29 

CFR parts 1904 and 1952), along with 

the forms employers use to record those 

injuries and illnesses (66 FR 5916). The 

final rule also updated the list of 

industries that are partially exempt from 

recording occupational injuries and 

illnesses. 

On September 18, 2014, OSHA again 

amended the regulations to require 

employers to report work-related 

fatalities and severe injuries—in-patient 

hospitalizations, amputations, and 

losses of an eye—to OSHA and to allow 

electronic reporting of these events (79 

FR 56130). The final rule also revised 

the list of industries that are partially 

exempt from recording occupational 

injuries and illnesses. 

On May 12, 2016, OSHA amended the 

regulations on recording and reporting 

occupational injuries and illnesses to 

require employers, on an annual basis, 

to submit electronically to OSHA injury 

and illness information that employers 

are already required to keep under part 

1904 (81 FR 29624). Under the 2016 

revisions, establishments with 250 or 

more employees that are routinely 

required to keep records were required 

to electronically submit information 

from their OSHA Forms 300, 300A, and 

301 to OSHA or OSHA’s designee once 

a year, and establishments with 20 to 

249 employees in certain designated 

industries were required to 

electronically submit information from 

their OSHA annual summary (Form 

300A) to OSHA or OSHA’s designee 

once a year. In addition, that final rule 

required employers, upon notification, 

to electronically submit information 

from part 1904 recordkeeping forms to 

OSHA or OSHA’s designee. These 

provisions became effective on January 

1, 2017, with an initial submission 

deadline of July 1, 2017, for 2016 Form 

300A data. That submission deadline 

was subsequently extended to December 

15, 2017 (82 FR 55761). The deadline 

for electronic submission of information 

from OSHA Forms 300 and 301 was July 

1, 2018. Because of a subsequent 

rulemaking, OSHA never received the 

data submissions from Forms 300 and 

301 that the 2016 final rule anticipated. 

On January 25, 2019, OSHA issued a 

final rule that amended the 

recordkeeping regulations to remove the 

requirement for establishments with 250 

or more employees that are routinely 

required to keep records to 

electronically submit information from 

their OSHA Forms 300 and 301 to 

OSHA or OSHA’s designee once a year. 

These establishments are currently 

required to electronically submit only 

information from the OSHA 300A 

annual summary. The final rule also 

added a requirement for covered 

employers to submit their Employer 

Identification Number (EIN) 

electronically along with their injury 

and illness data submission (83 FR 

36494, 84 FR 380–406). 

C. Litigation Resulting From Previous 

Rulemakings 

Both the 2016 and 2019 OSHA final 

rules that addressed the electronic 

submission of injury and illness data 

were challenged in court. In Texo ABC/ 

ABG et al. v. Acosta (N.D. Tex.), and 

NAHB et al. v. Acosta (W.D. Okla.), 

industry groups challenged OSHA’s 

2016 final rule that required 

establishments with 250 or more 

employees to electronically submit data 

from their OSHA Forms 300 and 301 to 

OSHA (as well as other requirements 

not relevant to this rulemaking). The 

complaints alleged that the publication 

of establishment-specific injury and 

illness data would lead to misuse of 

confidential and proprietary 

information by the public and special 

interest groups. The complaints also 

alleged that publication of the data 

exceeds OSHA’s authority under the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act (the 

‘‘OSH Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’) and is 

unconstitutional under the First 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

After OSHA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking on July 30, 2018 

(83 FR 36494), proposing to rescind the 

300 and 301 data submission 

requirement, the Texo case was 

administratively closed, and the 

plaintiffs in the NAHB case dropped 

their claims relating to the 300 and 301 

data submission requirement after the 

2019 final rule was published (and 

moved forward with their other claims, 

which are still pending in the Western 

District of Oklahoma). 

In Public Citizen Health Research 

Group et al. v. Pizella (No. 1:19–cv– 

00166) and State of New Jersey et al. v. 

Pizella (No. 1:19–cv–00621), a group of 

public health organizations and a group 

of states filed separate lawsuits 

challenging OSHA’s 2019 final rule 

rescinding the requirement for certain 

employers to submit the data from 

OSHA Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA 

electronically each year. The District 

Court for the District of Columbia 

resolved the two cases in a consolidated 

opinion and held that rescinding the 

provision was within the agency’s 

discretion. The court concluded the 

record supported OSHA’s determination 

that costly manual review of collected 

300 and 301 data would be needed to 

avoid a meaningful risk of exposing 

sensitive worker information to public 

disclosure. The court also determined 

that OSHA provided adequate notice of 

the estimated costs of manually 

reviewing the data for sensitive 

information, and that the final rule was 

a logical outgrowth of the rulemaking. 

Finally, the court upheld OSHA’s 

conclusion that the uncertain benefits of 

collecting the 300 and 301 data did not 

justify diverting OSHA’s resources from 

other efforts, and the court rejected the 

plaintiffs’ assertion that OSHA’s reasons 

for the 2019 final rule were internally 

inconsistent. 

Additionally, since 2020, the 

Department of Labor (DOL) has received 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18531 

several adverse decisions regarding the 

release of electronically submitted 300A 

data under the Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA). In each of the cases, OSHA 

argued that electronically submitted 

300A injury and illness data was 

covered under the confidentiality 

exemption in FOIA Exemption 4. Two 

courts, one in the U.S. District Court for 

the Northern District of California and 

another in the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia, disagreed with 

OSHA’s position. See, Center for 

Investigative Reporting, et al., v. 

Department of Labor, No. 4:18–cv– 

02414–DMR, 2020 WL 2995209 (N.D. 

Cal. June 4, 2020); Public Citizen 

Foundation v. United States Department 

of Labor, et al., No. 1:18–cv–00117 

(D.D.C. June 23, 2020). In addition, on 

July 6, 2020, the Department received an 

adverse ruling from a magistrate judge 

in the Northern District of California in 

a FOIA case involving Amazon 

fulfillment centers. In that case, 

plaintiffs sought the release of 

individual 300A forms, which consisted 

of summaries of Amazon’s work-related 

injuries and illnesses and which were 

provided to OSHA compliance officers 

during specific OSHA inspections of 

Amazon fulfillment centers in Ohio and 

Illinois. See, Center for Investigative 

Reporting, et al., v. Department of 

Labor, No. 3:19–cv–05603–SK, 2020 WL 

3639646 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2020). 

In holding that FOIA Exemption 4 

was inapplicable, the courts rejected 

OSHA’s position that electronically 

submitted 300A injury and illness data 

is covered under the confidentiality 

exemption in FOIA Exemption 4. The 

decisions noted that the 300A form is 

posted in the workplace for three 

months and that there is no expectation 

that the employer must keep these data 

confidential or private. As a result, 

OSHA provided the requested 300A 

data to the plaintiffs, and initiated a 

policy to post collected 300A data on its 

public website. The data are available at 

https://www.osha.gov/EstablishmentSpecific-Injury-and-Illness-Data and 

include the submissions for calendar 

years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. 

D. Injury and Illness Data Collection 

Currently, two U.S. Department of 

Labor data collections request and 

compile information from the OSHA 

injury and illness records certain 

employers are required to keep under 29 

CFR part 1904: The annual collection 

conducted by OSHA under 29 CFR 

1904.41 (Electronic Submission of 

Employer Identification Number (EIN) 

and Injury and Illness Records), and the 

annual Survey of Occupational Injuries 

and Illnesses (SOII) conducted by BLS 

under 29 CFR 1904.42. This proposed 

rule would amend the current 

regulation at § 1904.41. It would not 

change the SOII or the authority for the 

SOII set forth in § 1904.42. 

The primary purpose of the SOII is to 

provide nationally-representative 

annual estimates of the rates and 

numbers of work-related non-fatal 

injuries and illnesses in the United 

States, and on how these statistics vary 

by incident, industry, geography, 

occupation, and other characteristics. 

Title 44 U.S.C. 3572 prohibits BLS from 

releasing establishment-specific and 

case-specific data to the general public 

or to OSHA. OSHA only has access to 

the publicly-available aggregate 

information from the injury and illness 

records collected through the BLS SOII. 

The BLS has modified their collection 

to allow respondents that have already 

provided their Form 300A data to OSHA 

to provide their OSHA identification 

number (OSHA ID) to import to BLS the 

data that they have submitted to the 

OSHA ITA in that same year. Under this 

data-sharing feature, if BLS can 

successfully match establishment 

information with information reported 

to OSHA, data reported by the 

respondent to the OSHA ITA are 

automatically imported into the BLS 

SOII internet Data Collection Facility 

(IDCF). Imported data are taken from the 

OSHA 300A annual summary. 

Additional information may need to be 

entered manually to complete the SOII 

submission. In the 2021 collection for 

the BLS SOII, roughly 31,000 

establishments had an opportunity to 

use this data-sharing feature for their 

OSHA Form 300A data, i.e., they were 

submitting to both the OSHA ITA and 

the BLS SOII. Of these roughly 31,000 

establishments, 9,479 establishments 

provided their OSHA ID to the BLS SOII 

collection for BLS to try to match for the 

data-sharing feature. Of these 9,479 

establishments, 4,716 establishments 

that passed BLS’s data quality checks 

had their OSHA-submitted data 

automatically imported into the BLS 

SOII IDCF via the data-sharing feature. 

The Department is continuing to 

evaluate opportunities to further reduce 

duplicative reporting. To this end, BLS 

will evaluate the feasibility of using this 

same model for the additional 

information that would be required by 

this proposed rule. 

Authority for the SOII comes from 29 

CFR 1904.42, Requests from the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics for data. Each year, 

BLS collects data from Forms 300, 301, 

and 300A from a scientifically-selected 

probability sample of about 230,000 

establishments, covering nearly all 

private-sector industries, as well as state 

and local government. Employers may 

submit their data on paper forms or 

electronically. BLS releases the 

aggregated data in November of the year 

following the data year (e.g., November 

2020 for 2019 data). 

As discussed above, the OSHA 

recordkeeping regulation has required 

certain employers to submit injury and 

illness information to OSHA since 1997. 

Currently, § 1904.41, Electronic 

submission of Employer Identification 

Number (EIN) and injury and illness 

records to OSHA, requires two groups of 

establishments to annually submit 

information from the OSHA Form 300A 

Annual Summary: Establishments with 

20–249 employees in industries 

included in appendix A to subpart E of 

part 1904, and establishments with 250 

or more employees in industries that are 

routinely required to keep part 1904 

injury and illness records. For purposes 

of § 1904.41, the number of employees 

at a given establishment is based on the 

number of individuals employed at the 

establishment at any time during the 

previous calendar year, including fulltime, part-time, seasonal, and temporary 

workers. In addition, data submissions 

under § 1904.41 are typically limited to 

establishments in industries with high 

injury and illness rates. For example, 

while current § 1904.41(a)(1) covers 

establishments with 20–249 employees, 

only establishments in certain 

designated industries are required to 

electronically submit information from 

their Form 300A under this provision. 

The primary purpose of the electronic 

submission requirements in § 1904.41 is 

to enable OSHA to focus its enforcement 

and compliance assistance efforts on 

individual workplaces with ongoing 

serious safety and health problems, as 

identified by the occupational injury 

and illness rates at those workplaces. 

An establishment’s submission of 

information from its OSHA Form 300A 

Annual Summary provides summary 

information about injuries and illnesses 

at that specific establishment, but not 

about specific cases of injury or illness 

at that establishment. In contrast, the 

OSHA Form 300 Log of Work-Related 

Injuries and Illnesses and Form 301 

Injury and Illness Incident Report 

provide information about specific cases 

of injury or illness. 

E. Publication of Electronic Data 

OSHA intends to make much of the 

data it collects public. As discussed 

below, the publication of specific data 

elements will in part be restricted by 

applicable federal law, including 

provisions under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA), as well as 

specific provisions within part 1904. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
18532 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

3U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Handbook of 

Methods, Survey of Occupational Injuries and 

Illnesses, p. 12 (last modified date October 30, 

2020); https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/soii/pdf/ 

soii.pdf. 

4BLS started collecting nationally representative 

job transfer and restriction cases in January 2022. 

BLS will begin publishing biennial case and 

demographic estimates using these data in 

November 2023. BLS will continue to publish 

summary industry estimates annually. 

OSHA will make the following data 

from the OSHA Form 300 and 301 

available in a searchable online 

database: 

Form 300 (the Log)—All collected 

data fields on the 300 Log will generally 

be made available on OSHA’s website. 

OSHA is proposing to collect all of the 

fields except employee name (column 

B). OSHA currently collects these data 

during inspections and maintains them 

as part of the enforcement case file. 

However, the agency does not currently 

conduct a systematic collection of the 

information on the 300 Log. OSHA 

generally releases copies of the 300 Logs 

maintained in inspection files in 

response to FOIA requests after 

redacting employee names (column B). 

OSHA’s regulations require employers 

to provide employees, former 

employees, their representatives, and 

their authorized employee 

representatives with access to the 300 

Log (29 CFR 1904.32(b)(2)). Specifically, 

when an employee, former employee, 

personal representative, or authorized 

employee representative asks an 

employer for copies of that employer’s 

current or stored OSHA 300 Log(s) for 

an establishment the employee or 

former employee has worked in, the 

employer must give the requester a copy 

of the relevant OSHA 300 Log(s) by the 

end of the next business day (29 CFR 

1904.32(b)(2)(ii)). Once the copy is 

accessed, OSHA’s recordkeeping 

regulation does not place any 

limitations on the use or release of the 

information by employees and 

employee representatives. Moreover, as 

explained in OSHA’s 2001 final rule 

amending its requirements for the 

recording and reporting of occupational 

injuries and illnesses, 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 

(see 66 FR 6056–57 (citing e.g., 29 

U.S.C. 658, 659) (Act’s enforcement 

mechanisms directed solely at 

employers)). In other words, as OSHA 

explained in its 2016 recordkeeping 

final rule, employees and their 

representatives can make the data they 

have accessed public if they wish to do 

so (see 81 FR 29684). However, there are 

some restrictions on what employers 

may do with these data. Under 

§ 1904.29(b)(10), if employers choose to 

voluntarily disclose the Forms to 

persons other than government 

representatives, employees, former 

employees, or authorized 

representatives (as required by 

§§ 1904.35 and 1904.40), the employer 

must remove or hide the employees’ 

names and other personally identifying 

information, with certain exceptions as 

spelled out in OSHA’s regulations. 

Form 301 (Incident Report)—All 

collected data fields on the right-hand 

side of the form (Fields 10 through 18) 

will generally be made available. The 

agency currently occasionally collects 

the form for enforcement case files. 

Section 1904.35(b)(2)(v)(B) prohibits 

employers from releasing the 

information in Fields 1 through 9 (the 

left-hand side of the form) to 

individuals other than the employee or 

former employee who suffered the 

injury or illness and his or her personal 

representatives. Similarly, OSHA will 

not publish establishment-specific data 

from the left side of Form 301. OSHA 

does not release data from Fields 1 

through 9 in response to FOIA requests. 

The agency does not currently conduct 

a systematic collection of the 

information on the Form 301. However, 

the agency does review the entire Form 

301 during some workplace inspections 

and occasionally collects the form for 

inclusion in the enforcement case file. 

Note that OSHA is proposing not to 

collect (and therefore could not publish) 

Field 1 (employee name), Field 2 

(employee address), Field 6 (name of 

treating physician or health care 

provider), or Field 7 (name and address 

of non-workplace treating facility). As 

above, under § 1904.35(a)(3), employers 

must provide access to injury and 

illness records for their employees and 

employees’ representatives, as described 

in § 1904.35(b)(2). Also, as above, the 

OSHA recordkeeping regulation does 

not place limitations on the use or 

release of the information obtained by 

employees and employee 

representatives. 

F. Differences Between the BLS SOII and 

Proposed OSHA Data Collections 

The BLS SOII is an establishmentbased survey used to estimate 

nationally-representative incidence 

rates and counts of workplace injuries 

and illnesses. It also provides detailed 

case and demographic data for cases 

that involve one or more days away 

from work (DAFW) and for days of job 

transfer and restriction (DJTR). 

SOII estimates the number and 

frequency (incidence rates) of workplace 

injuries and illnesses based on 

recordkeeping logs kept by employers 

during the year. These records reflect 

not only the year’s injury and illness 

experience, but also the employer’s 

understanding of which cases are workrelated under recordkeeping rules 

promulgated by OSHA. Although SOII 

uses OSHA’s recordkeeping rules to 

facilitate convenient collection of data, 

it is not administered by OSHA. In 

addition, the scope of SOII encompasses 

industries not required by OSHA to 

routinely keep injury and illness records 

(i.e., industries listed in appendix A to 

subpart B of part 1904). Information 

collected through the program is used 

for purely statistical purposes, cannot be 

viewed by OSHA, and cannot be used 

for any regulatory purpose. Besides 

injury and illness counts, survey 

respondents also are asked to provide 

additional information for the subset of 

nonfatal cases that involved at least 1 

day away from work or job transfer or 

restriction. Employers answer several 

questions about these cases, including 

the demographics of the worker, the 

nature of the disabling condition, the 

event and source producing that 

condition, and the part of body affected. 

A few of the data elements are optional 

for employers, most notably race and 

ethnicity; this resulted in 40 percent of 

the cases involving days away from 

work for which race and ethnicity were 

not reported in the 2016 SOII.3

The presentation of SOII data is 

released in the fall and contains two 

data components. One, sometimes 

referred to as the summary, provides 

estimates of numbers and incidence 

rates of employer-reported nonfatal 

injuries and illnesses at the industry 

level for all types of cases. A second, 

sometimes referred to as the case and 

demographics data, details case 

circumstances and worker 

characteristics for the subset of the cases 

that involved days away from work.4

Prepared tables containing the data can 

be found for industry data at https://

www.bls.gov/iif/oshsum.htm and for 

case and demographics at https://

www.bls.gov/iif/oshcdnew.htm. A 

schedule of releases from the Injuries, 

Illnesses, and Fatalities program, which 

includes SOII, can be found at https:// 

www.bls.gov/iif/osh_nwrl.htm. 

In contrast, under the current data 

collection, OSHA annually collects 

information from the OSHA Form 300A 

Annual Summary from two groups of 

establishments: 

1. Under § 1904.41(a)(1), from 

establishments with 20 or more 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18533 

employees in industries included in 

appendix A to subpart E of part 1904, 

and 

2. under § 1904.41(a)2), from 

establishments with 250 or more 

employees in all industries that are 

routinely required to keep OSHA injury 

and illness records. 

OSHA publishes this information on 

its website at https://www.osha.gov/ 

Establishment-Specific-Injury-andIllness-Data. OSHA is proposing to 

revise this data collection to include 

information from the OSHA Form 300 

Log and Form 301 Incident Report from 

establishments with 100 or more 

employees in certain industries. 

G. Benefits of Establishment-Specific, 

Case-Specific Data Collection and 

Publication 

As discussed in more detail below, 

the proposed rule would amend 

§ 1904.41 to require establishments with 

100 or more employees in certain 

designated industries to electronically 

submit injury and illness information 

from all three recordkeeping forms to 

OSHA once a year (see proposed 

§ 1904.41(a)(2)). All of the 

establishments that would be subject to 

this proposed section are already 

required to annually submit information 

from their Form 300A, but these 

establishments would be newly required 

to also annually submit certain 

information from their Forms 300 and 

301. 

The proposed requirement for the 

electronic submission of establishmentspecific, case-specific information from 

the Forms 300 and 301, and the 

subsequent publication of certain 

establishment-specific, case-specific 

data elements would have numerous 

benefits. 

The main purpose of the proposed 

rule is to prevent worker injuries and 

illnesses through the collection and use 

of timely, establishment-specific injury 

and illness data. With the information 

obtained through this proposed rule, 

employers, employees, employee 

representatives, the government, and 

researchers would be better able to 

identify and mitigate workplace hazards 

and thereby prevent worker injuries and 

illnesses. 

The proposed rule would support 

OSHA’s statutory directive to ‘‘assure so 

far as possible every working man and 

woman in the Nation safe and healthful 

working conditions and to preserve our 

human resources’’ (29 U.S.C. 651(b)) 

‘‘by providing for appropriate reporting 

procedures with respect to occupational 

safety and health which procedures will 

help achieve the objectives of this Act 

and accurately describe the nature of the 

occupational safety and health 

problem’’ (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(12)). 

The importance of this rule in 

preventing worker injuries and illnesses 

can be understood in the context of 

workplace safety and health in the 

United States today. The number of 

workers injured or made ill on the job 

remains unacceptably high. According 

to the SOII, each year employees 

experience 3 million serious (requiring 

more than first aid) injuries and 

illnesses at work, and this number is 

widely recognized to be an undercount 

of the actual number of occupational 

injuries and illnesses that occur 

annually. OSHA currently has limited 

information about the injury/illness 

risks facing workers in specific 

establishments, and the proposed rule 

would increase the agency’s ability to 

focus resources on those workplaces 

where workers are at high risk. 

However, even with improved 

targeting, OSHA Compliance Safety and 

Health Officers can inspect only a small 

proportion of the nation’s workplaces 

each year, and it would take many 

decades to inspect each covered 

workplace in the nation even once. As 

a result, to reduce worker injuries and 

illnesses, it is of great importance for 

OSHA to increase its impact on the 

many thousands of establishments 

where workers are being injured or 

made ill but which OSHA does not have 

the resources to inspect. Public access to 

the collected establishment-specific, 

case-specific information may 

encourage employers to abate hazards 

and thereby prevent injuries and 

illnesses, so that the employer’s 

establishment can be seen by members 

of the public, including investors and 

job seekers, as one in which the risk to 

workers’ safety and health is low. 

A requirement for the electronic 

submission of establishment-specific, 

case-specific recordkeeping data would 

help OSHA encourage employers to 

prevent worker injuries and illnesses by 

greatly expanding OSHA’s access to the 

establishment-specific, case-specific 

information employers are already 

required to record under part 1904. As 

described in the previous section, 

OSHA currently does not have 

systematic access to this information. 

OSHA has limited access to casespecific, establishment-specific injury 

and illness information in a particular 

year. Typically, OSHA only has access 

if the establishment was inspected. 

The proposed rule’s provisions 

requiring regular electronic submission 

of case-specific injury and illness data 

would allow OSHA to obtain a much 

larger data set of establishment-specific, 

case-specific information about injuries 

and illnesses in the workplace. This 

information would help OSHA use its 

enforcement and compliance assistance 

resources more effectively by enabling 

OSHA to identify the workplaces where 

workers are at high risk. 

For example, OSHA could send 

hazard-specific educational materials to 

employers who report high rates of 

injuries or illnesses related to those 

hazards. In addition, OSHA would be 

able to use the information to identify 

emerging hazards, support an agency 

response, and reach out to employers 

whose workplaces might include those 

hazards. The data collection would also 

enable the agency to focus its Emphasis 

Program inspections on establishments 

with specific hazards, such as trench 

and excavation collapses (see CPL 02– 

00–161, October 1, 2018). OSHA would 

be better able to refer employers who 

report certain types of injuries/illnesses 

to OSHA’s free on-site consultation 

program. OSHA would also be able to 

add specific hazards or types of injury 

or illness to the Site Specific Targeting 

(SST) program, which currently is based 

on establishments’ overall injury/illness 

rates. 

The new collection would provide 

establishment-specific, case-specific 

injury and illness data for analyses that 

are not currently possible. For example, 

OSHA could analyze the data collected 

under this system to assess changes in 

types and rates of particular injuries or 

illnesses in a particular industry over 

time. It would also enable OSHA to 

conduct rigorous evaluations of 

different types of programs, initiatives, 

and interventions in different industries 

and geographic areas, enabling the 

agency to become more effective and 

efficient. 

In addition, publication of 

establishment-specific, case-specific 

injury and illness data would benefit the 

majority of employers who want to 

prevent injuries and illnesses among 

their employees, through several 

mechanisms. First, the information 

would enable interested parties to gauge 

the full range of injury and illness case 

types at the establishment. Second, 

employers could compare case-specific 

injury and illness information at their 

establishments to those at comparable 

establishments, and set workplace 

safety/health goals benchmarked to the 

establishments they consider most 

comparable. Third, online availability of 

case-specific, establishment-specific 

injury and illness information would 

allow employees to compare their own 

workplaces to the safest workplaces in 

their industries. In addition, if 

employees were able to preferentially 

choose employment at the safest 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
18534 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

workplaces in their industries, then 

employers might take steps to improve 

workplace safety and health (preventing 

injuries and illnesses from occurring) in 

order to attract and retain employees. 

Fourth, access to these data could 

improve the workings of the labor 

market by providing more complete 

information to job seekers, and, as a 

result, encourage employers to abate 

hazards in order to attract more indemand employees. Using data newly 

accessible under this proposed rule, 

potential employees could examine the 

case-specific information at 

establishments where they are 

interested in working, to help them 

make a more informed decision about a 

future place of employment. This could 

also encourage employers with more 

hazardous workplaces in a given 

industry to make improvements in 

workplace safety and health, because 

potential employees, especially the ones 

whose skills are most in demand, might 

be reluctant to work at more hazardous 

establishments. In addition, this would 

help address a problem of information 

asymmetry in the labor market, where 

the businesses with the greatest 

problems have the lowest incentive to 

self-disclose. 

Disclosure of and access to casespecific injury and illness data have the 

potential to improve research on the 

distribution and determinants of 

workplace injuries and illnesses, and 

therefore to prevent workplace injuries 

and illnesses from occurring. Using data 

collected under the proposed rule, 

researchers might identify previously 

unrecognized patterns of injuries and 

illnesses across establishments where 

workers are exposed to similar hazards. 

Such research would be especially 

useful in identifying hazards that result 

in a small number of injuries or 

illnesses in each establishment but a 

large number overall, due to a wide 

distribution of those hazards in a 

particular area, industry, or 

establishment type. Case-specific data 

made available under this proposed rule 

could also allow researchers to identify 

patterns of injuries or illnesses that are 

masked by the aggregated, 

establishment-level data currently 

available. 

The availability of establishmentspecific injury and illness data would 

also be of great use to county, state and 

territorial Departments of Health and 

other public institutions charged with 

injury and illness surveillance. In 

particular, aggregation of case-specific 

injury and illness data from similar 

establishments could facilitate 

identification of newly-emerging 

hazards. Public health surveillance 

programs must currently primarily rely 

on reporting of cases seen by medical 

practitioners, any one of whom would 

rarely see enough cases to identify an 

occupational etiology. 

Workplace safety and health 

professionals might use the case-specific 

data to identify establishments whose 

injury/illness records suggest that the 

establishments would benefit from their 

services. In general, online access to this 

large database of case-specific injury 

and illness information could support 

the development of innovative ideas for 

improving workplace safety and health, 

and would allow everyone with a stake 

in workplace safety and health to 

participate in improving occupational 

safety and health. 

Furthermore, because the casespecific data would be publicly 

available, industries, trade associations, 

unions, and other groups representing 

employers and workers would be able to 

evaluate the effectiveness of privatelyinitiated injury and illness prevention 

initiatives that affect groups of 

establishments. In addition, linking 

these data with data residing in other 

administrative data sets would enable 

researchers to conduct rigorous studies 

that would increase our understanding 

of injury causation, prevention, and 

consequences. For example, by 

combining these data with data 

collected in the Annual Survey of 

Manufactures (conducted by the United 

States Census Bureau), it would be 

possible to examine the impact of a 

range of management practices on 

specific injury and illness types, and in 

turn the impact of those injury and 

illness types on the financial status of 

employers. 

And finally, public access to these 

data would also enable software 

developers to develop tools that 

facilitate use of these data by employers, 

workers, researchers, consumers and 

others. 

II. Legal Authority 

OSHA is issuing this proposed rule 

pursuant to authority expressly granted 

by several provisions of the OSH Act 

that address the recording and reporting 

of occupational injuries and illnesses. 

Section 2(b)(12) of the OSH Act states 

that one of the purposes of the OSH Act 

is to ‘‘assure so far as possible . . . safe 

and healthful working conditions . . . 

by providing for appropriate reporting 

procedures . . . which will help 

achieve the objective of th[e] Act and 

accurately describe the nature of the 

occupational safety and health 

problem.’’ 29 U.S.C. 651(b)(12). Section 

8(c)(1) requires each employer to ‘‘make, 

keep and preserve, and make available 

to the Secretary [of Labor] or the 

Secretary of Health and Human 

Services, such records regarding his 

activities relating to this Act as the 

Secretary . . . may prescribe by 

regulation as necessary or appropriate 

for the enforcement of this Act or for 

developing information regarding the 

causes and prevention of occupational 

accidents and illnesses’’ (29 U.S.C. 

657(c)(1)). Section 8(c)(2) directs the 

Secretary to prescribe regulations 

‘‘requiring employers to maintain 

accurate records of, and to make 

periodic reports on, work-related 

deaths, injuries and illnesses other than 

minor injuries requiring only first aid 

treatment and which do not involve 

medical treatment, loss of 

consciousness, restriction of work or 

motion, or transfer to another job’’ (29 

U.S.C. 657(c)(2)). 

Section 8(g)(1) authorizes the 

Secretary ‘‘to compile, analyze, and 

publish, whether in summary or 

detailed form, all reports or information 

obtained under this section.’’ Section 

8(g)(2) of the Act broadly empowers the 

Secretary ‘‘to prescribe such rules and 

regulations as he may deem necessary to 

carry out his responsibilities under th[e] 

Act.’’ 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2). 

Section 24 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 

673) contains a similar grant of 

authority. This section requires the 

Secretary to ‘‘develop and maintain an 

effective program of collection, 

compilation, and analysis of 

occupational safety and health 

statistics’’ and ‘‘compile accurate 

statistics on work injuries and illnesses 

which shall include all disabling, 

serious, or significant injuries and 

illnesses . . .’’ (29 U.S.C. 673(a)). 

Section 24 also requires employers to 

‘‘file such reports with the Secretary as 

he shall prescribe by regulation’’ (29 

U.S.C. 673(e)). These reports are to be 

based on ‘‘the records made and kept 

pursuant to § 8(c) of this Act’’ (29 U.S.C. 

673(e)). 

Section 20 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 669, 

contains additional implicit authority 

for collecting and disseminating data on 

occupational injuries and illnesses. 

Section 20(a) empowers the Secretaries 

of Labor and Health and Human 

Services to consult on research 

concerning occupational safety and 

health problems, and provides for the 

use of such research, ‘‘and other 

information available,’’ in developing 

criteria on toxic materials and harmful 

physical agents. Section 20(d) states that 

‘‘[i]nformation obtained by the Secretary 

. . . under this section shall be 

disseminated by the Secretary to 

employers and employees and 

organizations thereof.’’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18535 

Further support for the Secretary’s 

authority to require employers to keep 

and submit records of work-related 

illnesses and injuries can be found in 

the Congressional Findings and Purpose 

at the beginning of the OSH Act (29 

U.S.C. 651). In this section, Congress 

declares the overarching purpose of the 

Act to be ‘‘to assure so far as possible 

every working man and woman in the 

Nation safe and healthful working 

conditions’’ (29 U.S.C. 651(b)). One of 

the ways in which the Act is meant to 

achieve this goal is ‘‘by providing for 

appropriate reporting 

procedures. . .[that] will help achieve 

the objectives of this Act and accurately 

describe the nature of the occupational 

safety and health problem’’ (29 U.S.C. 

651(b)(12)). 

The OSH Act authorizes the Secretary 

of Labor to issue two types of 

occupational safety and health rules: 

Standards and regulations. Standards, 

which are authorized by section 6 of the 

Act, aim to correct particular identified 

workplace hazards, while regulations 

further the general enforcement and 

detection purposes of the OSH Act (see 

Workplace Health & Safety Council v. 

Reich, 56 F.3d 1465, 1468 (D.C. Cir. 

1995) (citing La. Chem. Ass’n v. 

Bingham, 657 F.2d 777, 781–82 (5th Cir. 

1981)); United Steelworkers of Am. v. 

Auchter, 763 F.2d 728, 735 (3d Cir. 

1985)). Recordkeeping requirements 

promulgated under the Act are 

characterized as regulations (see 29 

U.S.C. 657 (using the term ‘‘regulations’’ 

to describe recordkeeping 

requirements); see also Workplace 

Health & Safety Council v. Reich, 56 

F.3d 1465, 1468 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citing 

La. Chem. Ass’n. v. Bingham, 657 F.2d 

777, 781–82 (5th Cir. 1981); United 

Steelworkers of Am. v. Auchter, 763 

F.2d 728, 735 (3d Cir. 1985)). 

This proposed rule does not infringe 

on employers’ Fourth Amendment 

rights. The Fourth Amendment protects 

against searches and seizures of private 

property by the government, but only 

when a person has a ‘‘legitimate 

expectation of privacy’’ in the object of 

the search or seizure (Rakas v. Illinois, 

439 U.S. 128, 143–47 (1978)). There is 

little or no expectation of privacy in 

records that are required by the 

government to be kept and made 

available (Free Speech Coalition v. 

Holder, 729 F. Supp. 2d 691, 747, 750– 

51 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (citing cases); United 

States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 442–43 

(1976); cf. Shapiro v. United States, 335 

U.S. 1, 33 (1948) (no Fifth Amendment 

interest in required records)). 

Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit held, in 

McLaughlin v. A.B. Chance, that an 

employer has little expectation of 

privacy in the records of occupational 

injuries and illnesses kept pursuant to 

OSHA regulations, and must disclose 

them to the agency on request (842 F.2d 

724, 727–28 (4th Cir. 1988)). 

Even if there were an expectation of 

privacy, the Fourth Amendment 

prohibits only unreasonable intrusions 

by the government (Kentucky v. King, 

131 S. Ct. 1849, 1856 (2011)). The 

information submission requirement in 

this proposed rule is reasonable. The 

proposed requirement serves a 

substantial government interest in the 

health and safety of workers, has a 

strong statutory basis, and rests on 

reasonable, objective criteria for 

determining which employers must 

report information to OSHA (see New 

York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 702–703 

(1987)). 

OSHA notes that two courts have 

held, contrary to A.B. Chance, that the 

Fourth Amendment requires prior 

judicial review of the reasonableness of 

an OSHA field inspector’s demand for 

access to injury and illness logs before 

the agency could issue a citation for 

denial of access (McLaughlin v. Kings 

Island, 849 F.2d 990 (6th Cir. 1988); 

Brock v. Emerson Electric Co., 834 F.2d 

994 (11th Cir. 1987)). Those decisions 

are inapposite here. The courts based 

their rulings on a concern that field 

enforcement staff had unbridled 

discretion to choose the employers they 

would inspect and the circumstances in 

which they would demand access to 

employer records. The Emerson Electric 

court specifically noted that in 

situations where ‘‘businesses or 

individuals are required to report 

particular information to the 

government on a regular basis[,] a 

uniform statutory or regulatory 

reporting requirement [would] satisf[y] 

the Fourth Amendment concern 

regarding the potential for arbitrary 

invasions of privacy’’ (834 F.2d at 997, 

n.2). This proposed rule, like that 

hypothetical, establishes general 

reporting requirements based on 

objective criteria and does not vest field 

staff with any discretion. The employers 

that are required to report data, the 

information they must report, and the 

time when they must report it are 

clearly identified in the text of the rule 

and in supplemental notices that will be 

published pursuant to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

Additionally, with regard to 

publication of collected data, FOIA 

generally supports OSHA’s intention to 

publish information on a publicly 

available website. FOIA provides that 

certain Federal agency records must be 

routinely made ‘‘available for public 

inspection and copying’’ in agency 

reading rooms. See, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) 

(2000). These reading rooms contain 

basic agency materials such as agency 

manuals, specific agency policy 

statements, and opinions developed in 

the adjudication of cases. Subsection 

(a)(2) provides that agencies must 

include any records processed and 

disclosed in response to a FOIA request 

that ‘‘the agency determines have 

become or are likely to become the 

subject of subsequent requests for 

substantially the same records.’’ 

Based on its experience, OSHA 

believes that the recordkeeping 

information from the Forms 300, 301, 

and 300A required to be submitted 

under this proposed rule will likely be 

the subject of multiple FOIA requests in 

the future. As such, the agency plans to 

place the recordkeeping information 

that will be posted on the public OSHA 

website in its Electronic FOIA Library. 

Since agencies may ‘‘withhold’’ (i.e., not 

make available) a record (or portion of 

such a record) if it falls within a FOIA 

exemption, just as they can do in 

response to FOIA requests, OSHA will 

place the published information in its 

FOIA Library consistent with all FOIA 

exemptions. 

III. Summary and Explanation of the 

Proposed Rule 

A. Description of Proposed Revisions 

1. Section 1904.41(a)(1)—Annual 

Electronic Submission of Information 

From OSHA Form 300A Summary of 

Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses by 

Establishments With 20 or More 

Employees in Designated Industries 

Under proposed § 1904.41(a)(1), 

establishments that had 20 or more 

employees at any time during the 

previous calendar year, and are 

classified in an industry listed in 

appendix A to subpart E, would be 

required to electronically submit 

information from their OSHA Form 

300A to OSHA or OSHA’s designee 

once a year. The current recordkeeping 

regulation requires two categories of 

establishments to electronically submit 

information from their Form 300A to 

OSHA on an annual basis. First, current 

§ 1904.41(a)(1) requires establishments 

with 250 or more employees at any time 

during the previous calendar year, in all 

industries that are routinely required to 

keep OSHA injury and illness records, 

to electronically submit information 

from their 300A to OSHA once a year. 

Second, current § 1904.41(a)(2) requires 

establishments with 20–249 employees 

at any time during the previous calendar 

year, in industries listed in appendix A 

to subpart E of part 1904, to 

electronically submit information from 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
18536 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

5See docket exhibit OSHA–2021–006–0003 for 

the list of industries in which establishments with 

250 or more employees would no longer be required 

to electronically submit Form 300A data to OSHA. 

6 In 2016, OSHA established the list of industries 

in current appendix A to subpart E based on a 

2011–2013 three-year-average Days Away, 

Restriction, and Job Transfer (DART) rate greater 

than 2.0 in the BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries 

and Illnesses. 

7Note that the proposed rule would remove 

NAICS 7213, Rooming and Boarding Houses, from 

proposed appendix A to subpart E. That specific 

NAICS industry group, which is listed in the part 

1904 Non-Mandatory appendix A to subpart B— 

Partially Exempt Industries, is not routinely 

required to keep OSHA injury and illness records. 

However, that NAICS industry group was 

mistakenly included in appendix A to subpart E 

when OSHA published the 2016 final rule. 

their OSHA 300A to OSHA or OSHA’s 

designee once a year. 

The proposed rule would not impose 

any new requirements on 

establishments to electronically submit 

information from their Form 300A to 

OSHA. All establishments that would be 

required to electronically submit Form 

300A information to OSHA on an 

annual basis under the proposed rule 

are already subject to that requirement 

under the current regulation. This 

includes all of the establishments with 

250 or more employees that would be 

required to electronically submit 

information to OSHA under proposed 

§ 1904.41(a)(2), which are already 

required to submit this information 

under the current regulation at 

§ 1904.41(a)(1). 

As discussed in more detail below, 

proposed § 1904.41(a) would remove the 

electronic submission requirement for 

certain establishments with 250 or more 

employees. Currently, all establishments 

of this size in industries routinely 

required to keep injury and illness 

records are required to electronically 

submit information from their Form 

300A to OSHA once a year. The 

proposal requires this submission only 

for the establishments in industries 

listed in appendix A. OSHA believes 

that only a small number of 

establishments would be excluded by 

the proposal. In calendar year 2020, 

2,665 establishments with 250 or more 

employees, in an industry not in current 

appendix A to subpart E, submitted 

information from their 2019 Form 300A 

to OSHA. Under proposed § 1904.41(a), 

these establishments would no longer be 

required to electronically submit Form 

300A data to OSHA.5 The agency has 

preliminarily determined that collecting 

Form 300A data from this relatively 

small number of large establishments in 

lower-hazard industries is not a priority 

for OSHA inspection targeting or 

compliance assistance activities.6

Additionally, OSHA proposes to 

revise appendix A to subpart E to 

update the list of designated industries 

to conform with the 2017 version of the 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS). The Office of 

Management and Budget, through its 

Economic Classification Policy 

Committee (ECPC), reviews and 

considers revisions for NAICS, a 

statistical classification system, every 

five years. In 2016, when OSHA revised 

§ 1904.41, the agency used the 2012 

version of NAICS to designate the 

industries in which establishments with 

20–249 employees were required to 

electronically submit Form 300A data to 

OSHA. (See current appendix A to 

subpart E of part 1904). The Office of 

Management and Budget has since 

issued two updates to the NAICS codes: 

2017 NAICS codes and 2022 NAICS 

codes. The update from 2012 NAICS to 

2017 NAICS would have the benefit of 

using more current NAICS codes, as 

well as ensuring that both proposed 

appendix A and proposed appendix B 

(referenced in proposed § 1904.41) use 

the same version of NAICS. As 

explained below, the industries in 

proposed appendix B are a subset of the 

industries in appendix A. Also, the 2017 

version of NAICS is the version 

currently used by BLS for the SOII data 

that OSHA is using for this rulemaking, 

and employers are likely more familiar 

with the 2017 industry codes. 

This proposed revision would not 

impact which industries are covered 

and therefore required to provide their 

data.7 It would merely reflect the 

updated 2017 NAICS codes. For 

appendix A, OSHA is limiting the scope 

of this rulemaking to the proposed 

update from the 2012 version of NAICS 

to the 2017 version of NAICS. Other 

changes to appendix A are not within 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

For proposed (i.e., updated) appendix 

A, the change from the 2012 NAICS to 

the 2017 NAICS would affect only a few 

industry groups at the 4-digit NAICS 

level. Specifically, the 2012 NAICS 

industry group 4521 (Department 

Stores) is split between the 2017 NAICS 

industry groups 4522 (Department 

Stores) and 4523 (General Merchandise 

Stores, including Warehouse Clubs and 

Supercenters). Also, the 2012 NAICS 

industry group 4529 (Other General 

Merchandise Stores) is included in 2017 

NAICS industry group 4523 (General 

Merchandise Stores, including 

Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters). 

The proposed revised appendix A is 

as follows: 

PROPOSED APPENDIX A 

2017 

NAICS code 2017 NAICS title 

11 ................. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting. 

22 ................. Utilities. 

23 ................. Construction. 

31–33 ........... Manufacturing. 

42 ................. Wholesale trade. 

4413 ............. Automotive Parts, Accessories, and Tire Stores. 

4421 ............. Furniture Stores. 

4422 ............. Home Furnishings Stores. 

4441 ............. Building Material and Supplies Dealers. 

4442 ............. Lawn and Garden Equipment and Supplies Stores. 

4451 ............. Grocery Stores. 

4452 ............. Specialty Food Stores. 

4522 ............. Department Stores. 

4523 ............. General Merchandise Stores, including Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters. 

4533 ............. Used Merchandise Stores. 

4542 ............. Vending Machine Operators. 

4543 ............. Direct Selling Establishments. 

4811 ............. Scheduled Air Transportation. 

4841 ............. General Freight Trucking. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18537 

PROPOSED APPENDIX A—Continued 

2017 

NAICS code 2017 NAICS title 

4842 ............. Specialized Freight Trucking. 

4851 ............. Urban Transit Systems. 

4852 ............. Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation. 

4853 ............. Taxi and Limousine Service. 

4854 ............. School and Employee Bus Transportation. 

4855 ............. Charter Bus Industry. 

4859 ............. Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation. 

4871 ............. Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Land. 

4881 ............. Support Activities for Air Transportation. 

4882 ............. Support Activities for Rail Transportation. 

4883 ............. Support Activities for Water Transportation. 

4884 ............. Support Activities for Road Transportation. 

4889 ............. Other Support Activities for Transportation. 

4911 ............. Postal Service. 

4921 ............. Couriers and Express Delivery Services. 

4922 ............. Local Messengers and Local Delivery. 

4931 ............. Warehousing and Storage. 

5152 ............. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. 

5311 ............. Lessors of Real Estate. 

5321 ............. Automotive Equipment Rental and Leasing. 

5322 ............. Consumer Goods Rental. 

5323 ............. General Rental Centers. 

5617 ............. Services to Buildings and Dwellings. 

5621 ............. Waste Collection. 

5622 ............. Waste Treatment and Disposal. 

5629 ............. Remediation and Other Waste Management Services. 

6219 ............. Other Ambulatory Health Care Services. 

6221 ............. General Medical and Surgical Hospitals. 

6222 ............. Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospitals. 

6223 ............. Specialty (except Psychiatric and Substance Abuse) Hospitals. 

6231 ............. Nursing Care Facilities (Skilled Nursing Facilities). 

6232 ............. Residential Intellectual and Developmental Disability, Mental Health, and Substance Abuse Facilities. 

6233 ............. Continuing Care Retirement Communities and Assisted Living Facilities for the Elderly. 

6239 ............. Other Residential Care Facilities. 

6242 ............. Community Food and Housing, and Emergency and Other Relief Services. 

6243 ............. Vocational Rehabilitation Services. 

7111 ............. Performing Arts Companies. 

7112 ............. Spectator Sports. 

7121 ............. Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions. 

7131 ............. Amusement Parks and Arcades. 

7132 ............. Gambling Industries. 

7211 ............. Traveler Accommodation. 

7212 ............. RV (Recreational Vehicle) Parks and Recreational Camps. 

7223 ............. Special Food Services. 

8113 ............. Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance. 

8123 ............. Drycleaning and Laundry Services. 

OSHA welcomes public comment on 

the proposed changes to § 1904.41(a)(1). 

2. Section 1904.41(a)(2)—Annual 

Electronic Submission of OSHA Form 

300A Summary of Work-Related Injuries 

and Illnesses, OSHA Form 300 Log of 

Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, and 

OSHA Form 301 Injury and Illness 

Incident Report by Establishments With 

100 or More Employees in Designated 

Industries 

Section 1904.41(a)(2) of the proposed 

rule would add a requirement for 

establishments that had 100 or more 

employees at any time during the 

previous calendar year, and that are in 

an industry listed in proposed appendix 

B to subpart E, to electronically submit 

to OSHA or OSHA’s designee once a 

year, certain information from the 

OSHA Forms 300, 301, and 300A. 

The requirement in proposed 

§ 1904.41(a)(2) for the submission of 

300A data by establishments with 100 

or more employees in industries listed 

in proposed appendix B to subpart E 

would not be new. All of the 

establishments with 100 or more 

employees in industries listed in 

proposed appendix B to subpart E are 

already required to electronically 

submit 300A data to OSHA once a year 

under current 29 CFR 1904.41. 

However, the proposed requirement for 

the electronic submission of data from 

the 300 and 301 forms would be new. 

As discussed above in the Regulatory 

History section of this preamble, in 

2016, OSHA issued a final rule that 

revised the recordkeeping regulation at 

29 CFR 1904.41 to require 

establishments with 250 or more 

employees that are routinely required to 

keep injury and illness records to 

electronically submit information from 

their 300 and 301 forms to OSHA once 

a year. The 300 and 301 data submission 

requirement from the 2016 rulemaking 

was never fully implemented, and 

OSHA never collected 300 and 301 data 

electronically from employers covered 

by the requirements in the 2016 final 

rule. 

In 2019, OSHA issued a final rule that 

removed the requirement for the annual 

electronic submission of 300 and 301 

data to OSHA. In the preamble to the 

2019 final rule, OSHA explained that 

the 300/301 submission requirement 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
18538 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

was being removed because the 

collection of such data would expose 

sensitive worker information to a 

meaningful risk of disclosure, and that 

‘‘OSHA cannot justify that risk given its 

resource allocation concerns and the 

uncertain incremental benefits to OSHA 

of collecting the data’’ (84 FR 387). In 

addition, ‘‘OSHA . . . determined that 

the best use of its resources [was] to 

focus on data it already receives— 

including a large set of data from Form 

300A, as well as discrete data about 

urgent issues from severe injury 

reports—and has found useful in its past 

experience’’ (84 FR 387). 

OSHA has preliminarily determined 

that the reasons given in the preamble 

to the 2019 final rule for the removal of 

the 300 and 301 data submission 

requirement are no longer compelling. 

As discussed in more detail below, 

recent advancements in technology have 

reduced the risk that information that 

reasonably identifies individuals 

directly, such as name and contact 

information, will be disclosed to the 

public. The improved technology used 

to protect sensitive employee data will 

reduce costs and resource-allocation 

issues for OSHA by eliminating the 

need to manually identify and remove 

information that reasonably identifies 

individuals directly from submitted 

data. In addition, the improved 

technology has decreased the resources 

required to analyze the data. Moreover, 

because of these improvements, OSHA 

is now better able to collect, analyze, 

and publish data from the 300 and 301 

forms, so the anticipated benefits of 

collecting the data are more certain. The 

collection of case-specific data will 

allow the agency to focus its 

enforcement and compliance assistance 

resources based on hazard-specific 

information and trends, and to increase 

its ability to identify emerging hazards, 

at the establishment level. Accordingly, 

at this point, the significant benefits of 

collecting establishment-specific, casespecific data from the 300 and 301 

forms outweigh the slight risk to 

employee privacy. 

To this point in time, OSHA has 

successfully collected reference year 

2016 through 2020 Form 300A data 

through the OSHA Injury Tracking 

Application. Approximately 300,000 

records have been submitted to the 

agency each year. OSHA has 

successfully analyzed these data to 

identify establishments with elevated 

injury and illness rates and has focused 

both its enforcement and outreach 

resources towards these establishments. 

This experience demonstrates OSHA’s 

ability to collect, analyze, and use large 

volumes of data to interact with 

establishments where workers are being 

injured or becoming ill. However, this 

same experience has demonstrated the 

limits of the data currently collected. 

For example, OSHA is currently 

developing a National Emphasis 

Program to address the hazards 

associated with environmental heat. 

Without case-specific injury and illness 

data, the agency is unable to identify 

specific establishments where workers 

are suffering work-related heat 

disorders. The Summary data from 

Form 300A do not provide the level of 

detail required to address specific 

occupational hazards. 

Based on the agency’s experience 

with collecting and using the Form 

300A data and the development of a 

system to auto-code case-specific data, 

OSHA is now better able to collect, 

analyze, and publish data from the 300 

and 301 forms, so the anticipated 

benefits of collecting the data are more 

certain. 

a. The Data Collection Will Adequately 

Protect Information That Reasonably 

Identifies Individuals Directly 

As explained in the 2019 final rule, 

OSHA Forms 300 and 301 contain 

information that reasonably identifies 

individuals directly, such as name, 

contact information, date of birth, and 

physician name, for the workers who 

experienced a recordable injury or 

illness. The OSHA Forms 300 and 301 

also contain fields that are not direct 

identifiers but that could act as indirect 

identifiers if released and combined 

with other information, such as job title 

on the Form 300, time employee began 

work on the Form 301, and date of death 

on the Form 301. 

In this rulemaking, OSHA has 

preliminarily determined that the 

proposed data collection would 

adequately protect information that 

reasonably identifies individuals 

directly, such as name and address, 

with multiple layers of protection, 

including by limiting the amount of 

information submitted by employers; 

reminding employers not to submit 

information that reasonably identifies 

individuals directly; withholding 

certain fields from disclosure; and using 

automated information technology to 

detect and remove information that 

reasonably identifies individuals 

directly. In particular, advances in 

neural networks and machine learning 

have strengthened OSHA’s ability to 

protect information that reasonably 

identifies individuals directly. 

First, the proposed rule would protect 

information that reasonably identifies 

individuals directly by limiting the 

amount of information submitted by 

employers. Under proposed 

§ 1904.41(b)(9), for the 300 Log, OSHA 

does not intend to collect employees’ 

names (column B). For the 301 Incident 

Report, OSHA will not collect the 

following information: Employee name 

(field 1), employee address (field 2), 

name of physician or other health care 

professional (field 6), and facility name 

and address if treatment was given away 

from the worksite (field 7). Since these 

fields would not be collected, there 

would be no risk of public disclosure of 

the data in these fields. 

In addition, OSHA plans to limit the 

information that reasonably identifies 

individuals directly collected in the 

system by posting reminders to 

employers to omit information that 

reasonably identifies individuals 

directly, such as names, addresses, or 

Social Security numbers, from the text 

fields they submit. OSHA routinely uses 

these types of instructions, such as 

when it requests comments from 

stakeholders in rulemakings such as this 

one (see ‘‘Instructions’’ on submitting 

comments above), and has found these 

reminders to be an effective manner of 

preventing the unintentional 

submission and collection of personal 

information that reasonably identifies 

individuals directly. Again, if this 

information is not submitted in the first 

place, there will be no risk of its 

disclosure to the public. 

Second, OSHA plans to design the 

collection system to provide extra 

protections for some of the personal 

information that employers would be 

required to submit under the proposal. 

Specifically, the proposal would require 

employers to submit the employee’s 

date of birth from OSHA Form 301 

(Field 3 on OSHA Form 301). However, 

the agency plans to design the collection 

system so that it will immediately 

calculate the employee’s age based on 

the date of birth entered and then store 

only the employee’s age, not their date 

of birth. 

Third, as described in more detail 

below, OSHA would seek to protect 

information that reasonably identifies 

individuals directly and certain other 

elements of personal information 

submitted under the proposed rule by 

withholding certain fields from public 

disclosure. The OSHA Form 301, Fields 

1 through 9 (the left side of the 301), 

includes personal information about the 

injured or ill employee as well as the 

physician or other health care 

professional. Under the provisions 

about access to employees and 

employee representatives in OSHA’s 

recordkeeping regulation, 

§ 1904.35(b)(2)(v)(A) and (B) prohibit 

the release of information in fields 1 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18539 

through 9 to individuals other than the 

employee or former employee who 

suffered the injury or illness and his or 

her personal representatives. As noted 

above, OSHA’s proposal would not 

require employers to submit some of 

those items (fields 1, employee full 

name; 2, employee address; 6, name of 

physician or other health care 

professional; and 7, treatment location). 

In addition, consistent with 

§ 1904.35(b)(2)(v)(A) and (B), OSHA 

proposes to collect but would not 

release the information from the 

remaining fields that are likely to 

contain private worker information: Age 

(calculated from date of birth in field 3), 

date hired (field 4), gender (field 5), 

whether the employee was treated in the 

emergency room (field 8), and whether 

the employee was hospitalized 

overnight as an in-patient (field 9). 

Thus, there would be little risk of public 

disclosure of this information. 

Fourth, as explained above, consistent 

with FOIA, OSHA does not intend to 

release or post information that 

reasonably identifies individuals 

directly collected through proposed 

§ 1904.41(a)(2) and, via the use of the 

protective measures described above 

and the scrubbing technology described 

below, the agency preliminarily finds 

that it can effectively remove such 

information that reasonably identifies 

individuals directly before releasing or 

posting the data. Moreover, OSHA notes 

that the 2019 rulemaking took an 

expansive view of the term ‘‘PII.’’ For 

example, in that rule, OSHA regarded 

information such as descriptions of 

workers’ injuries and the body parts 

affected (Field F on Form 300, Field 16 

on Form 301), as ‘‘quite sensitive,’’ and 

stated that public disclosure of this 

information under FOIA or through the 

OSHA Injury Tracking Application 

(ITA) would pose a risk to worker 

privacy. As further justification for 

deciding to rescind the requirement to 

submit information from Forms 300 and 

301, the agency stated that ‘‘although 

OSHA believes data from Forms 300 

and 301 would be exempt from 

disclosure under FOIA exemptions, 

OSHA is concerned that it still could be 

required by a court to release the data’’ 

(84 FR 383). 

After further consideration, OSHA has 

preliminarily determined that the 2019 

rule’s position on such information is at 

odds with the agency’s usual practice of 

releasing such data. OSHA currently 

collects these forms from employers 

during inspections and, when the 

agency receives a FOIA request to which 

these records are responsive, the only 

field on OSHA Form 300 that is always 

withheld from disclosure under the 

FOIA is employee name (column B). 

Similarly, OSHA has often released the 

fields on the right-hand side of the 

OSHA Form 301 (fields 10 through 18) 

in response to FOIA requests. And the 

agency has regularly released similar 

information contained in the OSHA 

Information System (OIS) database in 

response to FOIA requests. For example, 

OSHA regularly releases data in the 

Hazard Description and Location field 

in closed cases in OIS, which often 

contains specific information about 

injuries. This practice of producing such 

case-specific information is longstanding, and the agency has not been 

notified of issues regarding employee 

identification or re-identification, 

despite that some of the released fields 

could act as indirect identifiers if 

combined with additional information 

or data external to the agency release or 

already in the requestor’s possession. 

In addition, OSHA uses FOIA 

Exemption 7(c) to withhold from 

disclosure information that reasonably 

identifies individuals directly, such as 

Social Security numbers or telephone 

numbers, included anywhere on the 

three OSHA recordkeeping forms. In 

addition, FOIA Exemption 6 protects 

information about individuals in 

‘‘personnel and medical and similar 

files’’ when the disclosure of such 

information ‘‘would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of personal 

privacy.’’ [5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)]. Thus, for 

example, although OSHA sometimes 

releases information in Field 15 of the 

301 incident report (‘‘Tell us how the 

injury occurred’’) in response to a FOIA 

request, it redacts information that 

reasonably identifies individuals 

directly, such as a name or Social 

Security number, by applying either 

Exemption 6, which permits the 

withholding of information contained in 

personnel and medical files or similar 

files, the disclosure of which would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy, or 

Exemption 7(C), which protects 

information found in law enforcement 

files where disclosure could reasonably 

be expected to constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of personal 

privacy. 

Finally, OSHA preliminarily finds 

that existing privacy scrubbing 

technology is capable of de-identifying 

certain information that reasonably 

identifies individuals directly (such as 

name, phone number, email address, 

etc.) that may be submitted by 

employers to the system. As explained 

in the 2019 rulemaking, in order for 

OSHA to avoid publishing information 

that reasonably identifies individuals 

directly that may be contained within 

text fields in the employer-submitted 

300 and 301 data, information that 

reasonably identifies individuals 

directly that has been submitted must be 

identified and removed. The large 

volume of information from text fields 

submitted under the proposed 

requirement would preclude human 

review and redaction of information that 

reasonably identifies individuals 

directly without great expenditure of 

resources. However, there are recent 

advances in automated computer 

programs that can detect information 

that reasonably identifies individuals 

directly, and which can be customized 

to also replace submitted text strings 

with placeholder characters or 

anonymized descriptive phrasing that 

indicate what type of information was 

replaced. This replacement process 

anonymizes and improves readability of 

the text entry. For example, a telephone 

number would be replaced with the 

word ‘‘[number]’’ or ‘‘[telephone 

number],’’ formatted to indicate a 

replacement has occurred. 

In general, the tasks of detecting and 

categorizing information that reasonably 

identifies individuals directly can be 

accomplished either by automated 

systems using rules-based methods, 

machine-learning methods, deep 

learning, or hybrid approaches using 

Natural Language Processing (NLP). 

NLP refers to computer algorithms that 

both recognize and categorize text 

strings according to tested business 

rules. Machine learning methods 

typically refer to trained automated deidentification using labeled test datasets 

to develop relationships within the 

wording of, in this case, text fields in 

the Forms 300 and 301. With this 

approach, the statistical likelihood of 

phrases and wording being information 

that reasonably identifies individuals 

directly can be calculated based on 

evaluating the word or phrase as well as 

wording around a phrase and 

throughout the passage. Detection and 

anonymization rules developed with 

test datasets can be examined for 

accuracy, and revised as needed, by 

applying de-identification protocols to a 

separate set of test records or review by 

an independent expert prior to use. 

Deep learning systems apply 

detection algorithms in a fashion that 

mimics the non-linear processing of 

human neural networks. ‘‘Deep’’ refers 

to the number of layers through which 

the data are examined to extract higher 

level relationships in the input data. 

The statistical methods used for this 

approach are specific to the type of 

domain and type of information being 

processed (e.g., text or photographic 

images). Deep learning solutions to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
18540 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

classification of text, and the 

subcategory of de-identification, can 

yield results superior to classical 

machine-based learning in that they can 

capture contextual information in the 

passage. OSHA is committed to 

protecting information that reasonably 

identifies individuals directly such as 

name and address in published data, 

and the agency intends to test multiple 

applications for identifying and 

removing this information using a test 

database of the four free text fields, and 

then analyzing the results (including 

manual review) to identify the best 

product. 

AI or machine learning—the 

technology used to detect, redact, and 

remove information that reasonably 

identifies individuals directly from 

structured and unstructured data 

fields—has advanced rapidly in recent 

years. Many vendors, including large 

commercial vendors, provide solutions 

for securing information that reasonably 

identifies individuals directly, 

including Cloud-based solutions and 

packages for detecting and redacting or 

removing information that reasonably 

identifies individuals directly from 

unstructured text like the OSHA 300 

and 301 data fields. For example, 

Vendor A has a natural-language 

processing (NLP) service that uses 

machine learning to identify key words 

and phrases in unstructured text to 

detect and redact information that 

reasonably identifies individuals 

directly by replacing the term of interest 

with a character. Vendor A’s service 

automatically identifies personal (e.g., 

name, address, and age), financial (e.g., 

bank account and routing numbers and 

PINs), technical security (e.g., 

passwords, usernames, and IP 

addresses), and national (e.g., SSN and 

driver’s license numbers) identifying 

information. Vendor A also has a 

HIPAA-eligible NLP for extracting 

health data from unstructured text/data 

fields, thus protecting patient 

information. The initial release date for 

Vendor A’s product was November 29, 

2017. Similarly, Vendor B offers a 

service to detect, categorize, and remove 

personal identifying information (PII) 

and personal health information (PHI) 

in unstructured text across several predefined categories (e.g., name, job types, 

email, address, phone); the initial 

release date for Vendor B’s product was 

March 1, 2018. Vendor C provides an 

open-source package for identification, 

anonymization, and redaction of certain 

PII in structured and unstructured text; 

the initial release date for Vendor C’s 

product was March 21, 2018. Vendor D 

provides a similar product that deidentifies sensitive data in text by 

replacing it with a token, symbol, or key 

thereby hiding the sensitive data. The 

hidden data can only be restored with 

a specific key or token that was used to 

de-identify the data. The initial release 

date for Vendor D’s product was March 

2, 2021. Each of these commercially 

available services is customizable and 

could be modified to identify and 

remove information that reasonably 

identifies individuals directly such as 

name and address from the 300 and 301 

data collected. 

OSHA intends to test multiple AI or 

machine learning methods, including 

commercial services, and analyze the 

results carefully to select the best option 

to secure and protect information that 

reasonably identifies individuals 

directly, such as name and address. No 

option, including a manual review, is 

100% effective. Therefore, OSHA could 

consider a combination of the selected 

scrubbing application supplemented by 

some manual review of the data to 

protect information that reasonably 

identifies individuals directly. 

In summary, OSHA preliminarily 

finds that the agency would be able to 

adequately protect workers’ information 

that reasonably identifies individuals 

directly (such as name and address) 

using the safeguards in the proposed 

rule and OSHA’s planned data 

collection system, in combination with 

warnings to employers and available 

automated information technology. In 

addition, the use of the automated 

informational technology would 

significantly decrease the need for the 

type of resource-intensive manual 

reviews that OSHA was concerned 

about in the 2019 rulemaking. 

Moreover, even if some of these data 

were ultimately used to identify 

employees, OSHA preliminarily finds 

that the benefits of collecting and 

publishing the data for improving safety 

and health outweigh potential privacy 

problems. As discussed below, the 

proposed data collection will further 

OSHA’s statutory mission to assure safe 

and healthful working conditions for 

working people by providing data 

information for OSHA’s targeting and 

compliance assistance efforts. 

OSHA expects a Privacy Impact 

Assessment to be completed before 

issuing the final rule. OSHA welcomes 

public comment on the issue of 

collecting data that includes PII and 

protecting information that reasonably 

identifies individuals directly such as 

name and address from disclosure. 

b. Recent Technological Developments 

Have Significantly Decreased the 

Resources Needed for OSHA To Collect, 

Analyze, Use, and Publish 

Establishment-Specific, Case-Specific 

Data 

In addition to the worker privacy 

concerns, OSHA’s decisions in the 2019 

final rule relied in part on resource 

concerns. The agency preliminarily 

finds that these concerns are no longer 

compelling, in part, because recent 

technological developments in 

automated data coding for text-based 

fields have made it easier and more cost 

effective for OSHA to efficiently use 

electronically-submitted, establishmentspecific, case-specific injury and illness 

data to improve OSHA’s ability to 

identify, target, and remove workplace 

safety and health hazards, resulting in 

the prevention of work-related fatalities, 

injuries, and illnesses. The specific 

estimated cost burden on OSHA and 

employers for data collection is 

discussed in the Preliminary Economic 

Analysis section, below. 

The primary information technology 

improvement relates to the coding of 

data. Specifically, in order to enable 

OSHA and stakeholders to undertake 

statistical analyses of information in text 

fields in the Forms 300 and 301, which 

include details regarding the 

circumstances and causes of workplace 

injuries and illnesses, OSHA intends to 

use automated systems to assign 

standardized codes based on the 

information contained in the text fields 

(e.g., type of accident is ‘‘fall’’). 

Automated, standardized coding of 

information in text fields would allow 

OSHA to easily identify individual 

establishments that have experienced 

injuries and illnesses of a focused 

interest (such as falls from heights), 

assess the effectiveness of employers’ 

health and safety programs, and 

evaluate OSHA’s assistance programs. 

Standardized coding of information 

from text fields in Forms 300 and 301 

is already being done by BLS. Each year, 

BLS collects SOII data from sampled 

OSHA Forms 300 and 301, with 

approximately 300,000 written 

descriptions of work-related injuries 

and illnesses collected by the survey. 

BLS uses the information provided on 

these OSHA forms to generate detailed 

statistics on the case characteristics of 

work-related injuries or illnesses. In 

order to generate statistics, the text 

entries in the OSHA forms must be 

converted to standard BLS codes. 

SOII data are coded according to the 

BLS Occupational Injury and Illness 

Classification System (OIICS) (Version 

2.01). Specific codes are assigned to the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18541 

8See ‘‘Deep neural networks for worker injury 

autocoding’’, Alexander Measure, U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, draft as of 9/18/2017: https://

www.bls.gov/iif/deep-neural-networks.pdf. 

9See https://www.bls.gov/iif/autocoding.htm. 

narrative to classify case characteristics 

such as the nature of the injury/illness, 

the part of the body affected, the event 

or exposure, and the source of the injury 

or illness. Prior to 2014, BLS assigned 

OIICS codes to the case narratives 

manually, which was both time 

consuming and subject to error. In 2014, 

BLS began using machine learning to 

code a subset of cases, first by selecting 

a learning algorithm, then by training it 

on large quantities of previously coded 

SOII narratives. During this training 

process, the algorithm calculated how 

strongly various features, such as words, 

pairs of words, and other items, were 

associated with the codes that could be 

assigned. After the training process, the 

algorithm was used to estimate the best 

codes for each uncoded narrative and 

assigned the codes if the model’s 

confidence exceeded a predetermined 

threshold. 

When codes were assigned manually, 

overall accuracy was around 71%. 

Accuracy with neural network 

autocoding was around 82%. 

Autocoding could be used for all the 

information collected but performance 

was worse on rarer codes. BLS decided 

to use a combination of autocoding and 

manual coding. From 2014 to 2017, the 

percent of codes automatically assigned 

rose to around 67%, but autocoding had 

reached a point of diminishing returns. 

With the old autocoder previously 

coded narratives were broken up into 

smaller pieces, typically individual 

words and short word sequences, and 

used to estimate how strongly each 

piece was associated with each possible 

code. New narratives were then coded 

by identifying their individual pieces 

and aggregating the previously learned 

associations to choose the most closely 

associated code. Some of the problems 

with the old autocoder included only 

identifying words in a phrase without 

thought to context, i.e., ‘‘worker fell on 

car’’ was the same as ‘‘car fell on 

worker’’; too many two- and three-word 

sequences; and separate autocoder 

models for each type of information, i.e., 

separate models for occupation, nature, 

part, event, and source. 

However, in 2018, BLS switched to 

deep neural networks. Like the older 

autocoder, neural networks rely on 

training data to learn and improve their 

accuracy over time. 2017 research found 

that the neural network autocoder 

outperformed the alternatives across all 

coding tasks and made an average of 

24% fewer errors than the logistic 

regression autocoders, and an estimated 

39% fewer errors than the manual 

coding process. On each task the neural 

network’s accuracy was statistically 

greater than the next best alternative at 

a p-value of 0.001 or less.8 By 2019, 

automatic coding had been expanded to 

include all six primary coding tasks 

(occupation, nature, part, source, 

secondary source, and event) with the 

model assigning approximately 85% of 

these codes.9

The BLS system is already collecting 

data using OSHA Forms 300 and 301, so 

OSHA should be able to mirror the BLS 

system to code the OSHA data fairly 

easily. OSHA could use the BLS source 

code to create a pilot system where the 

autocoding of realistic OSHA data could 

be tested and compared to manual 

coding of the same data. Upon 

successful testing and adoption of the 

BLS system, OSHA plans to consult and 

work with BLS for the long-term system 

maintenance to continuously update the 

neural network code and refine 

automation of the data. 

Once the data were coded, OSHA 

would be able to use the data similarly 

to how the agency currently uses coded 

data from the Severe Injury Reporting 

(SIR) program. The SIR Program collects 

data on all severe work-related injuries 

and illnesses, defined as an amputation, 

in-patient hospitalization, or loss of an 

eye. Under OSHA’s recordkeeping 

regulation at 29 CFR 1904.39, employers 

must report certain information about 

these severe injuries/illnesses to OSHA 

within 24 hours of occurrence. On a 

monthly basis, OSHA reviews the SIR 

data and trained analysts assign OIICS 

codes (nature, part, event, and source) 

for each SIR narrative, thus making the 

data searchable/query-able and more 

useful for agency programs. See Docket 

exhibit OSHA–2021–006–0005 for an 

example of a search interface for the 

data that would be collected under this 

proposal. OSHA could also combine the 

coded data with other data sources (e.g., 

inspection data or ITA data) to increase 

the utility of the data. 

In making these preliminary findings 

for this rulemaking, OSHA notes that 

some autocoding information 

technology was available during the 

2019 rulemaking. In fact, in the 2018 

NPRM, OSHA specifically requested 

comment on other agencies or 

organizations that use automated coding 

systems for text data in data collections 

(83 FR 36494, 36500). Commenters on 

this issue urged OSHA to consult with 

other agencies that collect this type of 

data, including the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH), 

the Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA), BLS, the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), 

and the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), to learn about 

database design and best practices for 

collecting this kind of data (84 FR 389). 

In its own comments, NIOSH noted that 

it had already developed autocoding 

methods for categorizing occupation 

and industry based on free text data and 

had successfully utilized similar free 

text data collected from workers’ 

compensation claims (84 FR 389). 

NIOSH also generously offered to help 

OSHA with data analysis (84 FR 389). 

After reviewing these comments to 

the 2018 NPRM, OSHA determined that 

‘‘NIOSH’s ability to analyze data 

collected from Forms 300 and 301 does 

not reduce the burden on OSHA to 

collect the data. Even if NIOSH could 

make the data useful for OSHA’s 

enforcement targeting and outreach 

efforts, which NIOSH itself has 

suggested would present analytical 

challenges due to the volume of the 

data, OSHA and employers would be 

left covering the expense of collection, 

not to mention additional expense 

associated with the need to process and 

otherwise manually review data from 

the forms—costs that would detract 

from OSHA’s priorities of enforcement 

and compliance assistance to reduce 

workforce hazards’’ (84 FR 389). 

Ultimately, OSHA determined that any 

benefits of electronically collecting the 

Form 300 and 301 data were 

outweighed by the cost of developing a 

system to manage that volume of data, 

particularly when making use of the 

data would divert resources away from 

OSHA’s then-current priority of fully 

utilizing Form 300A and severe injury 

data for targeting and outreach (84 FR 

389). 

In this proposal, OSHA has specific 

information from BLS regarding its 

technology. Following conversations 

with BLS since the 2019 rulemaking, 

OSHA is confident that it would be able 

to utilize similar technology in a costeffective manner to code the data from 

OSHA Forms 300 and 301, avoiding 

many of the resource concerns specified 

in the 2019 rulemaking. Moreover, as 

discussed in more detail below, OSHA 

has preliminarily determined that 

benefits to worker safety and health far 

outweigh the potential costs of the 

systems necessary to collect these data, 

make them useful for analysis, analyze 

them, and publish them for stakeholder 

use. 

In summary, available technology, 

including recent improvements in 

autocoding information technology, 

would enable OSHA to efficiently 

autocode the data from electronicallyVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Mar 29, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MRP2.SGM 30MRP2

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
18542 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

submitted OSHA Forms 300 and 301. 

The agency would not need to rely 

primarily on manual review or analysis. 

Consequently, OSHA has preliminarily 

determined that the agency’s 2019 

resource-related concerns are no longer 

compelling. The agency welcomes 

public comment on the issue of 

automated coding of text-field data and 

other available technology that would 

enable OSHA to automatically code 

these data. 

c. The Collection, Analysis, and 

Publishing of These Data Would 

Improve Worker Safety and Health 

The value of the new de-identification 

and autocoding information technology 

discussed is significant. Most 

importantly, the new autocoding 

technology will allow OSHA to more 

effectively focus its enforcement and 

compliance assistance resources on 

specific establishments experiencing 

safety and health problems. Access to 

case-specific injury and illness data will 

also allow OSHA to better identify 

safety and health hazards. For example, 

unlike 300A data, which include heat 

illnesses in the category ‘‘all other 

illnesses’’ (Field M6), 300 and 301 data 

would allow OSHA to identify 

establishments with heat illnesses and 

allow the agency to focus its 

enforcement and compliance assistance 

resources on specific industries or types 

of workplaces with that specific hazard. 

Similarly, 300A data group all injuries 

into the single category ‘‘injuries’’ (Field 

M1), but 300 and 301 data would allow 

OSHA to identify establishments whose 

delivery workers experience different 

types of injuries, such as traffic violence 

injuries or lifting injuries. 

In addition, reliance on only 300A 

data limits OSHA’s ability to analyze 

and address existing workplace hazards. 

For example, the collection of 300A data 

provides OSHA with access to general 

information about certain illnesses, such 

as recorded cases involving workrelated respiratory illness. However, the 

collection of 300A data does not provide 

OSHA with information about specific 

respiratory illnesses, such as cases 

involving work-related COVID–19. On 

the other hand, the collection and 

analysis of case-specific data would 

allow OSHA to identify specific 

establishments that have experienced 

recorded cases of work-related COVID– 

19, which could result in OSHA 

enforcement efforts and compliance 

assistance at that facility. 

Similarly, together with the other 

protections proposed for the data 

collection, the new de-identification 

technology will allow OSHA to make 

the establishment-specific, case-specific, 

data publicly available in both coded 

and uncoded form, increasing 

workplace safety and health while 

providing protection against release of 

PII. Employers, employees, employee 

representatives, potential employees, 

customers and potential customers, 

workplace safety consultants, and 

members of the general public will all 

benefit from access to this information 

in a timely manner. For example, 

potential employees and potential 

customers will be able to review casespecific injury and illness data to make 

informed decisions on whether to seek 

employment at, or whether to do 

business with, a specific establishment. 

In turn, with heightened public 

awareness of injuries and illnesses at a 

given establishment, individual 

employers will be encouraged to 

increase their focus on enhancing 

workplace safety and health at their 

facility. 

In addition, researchers will have 

access to a detailed, case-specific, 

establishment-specific dataset of workrelated recordable injuries and illnesses, 

improving their ability to conduct 

occupational-health studies, as well as 

identify increasing or emerging hazards. 

For example, access to case-specific 

information could be extremely useful 

to individuals and public health 

agencies conducting research on the 

causes and prevention of work-related 

COVID–19. 

In summary, OSHA preliminarily 

finds that the benefits for worker safety 

and health of collecting, analyzing, and 

publishing data from Forms 300 and 301 

outweigh the cost of the actual 

collection, analysis, and publication of 

those data, which have been reduced 

since the 2019 rule. The agency invites 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. 

d. Data Tools Will Enable Stakeholders 

To Efficiently Use OSHA-Published 

Establishment-Specific, Case-Specific 

Data 

Once OSHA has removed PII and 

coded the case-specific injury and 

illness data submitted by employers, the 

agency plans to make the data available 

and able to be queried via a web-based 

tool. Stakeholders (including employers, 

employees, job-seekers, customers, 

researchers, workplace safety 

consultants, and the general public) 

who are interested in learning about 

occupational injuries and illnesses will 

have access to information on when 

injuries and illnesses occur, where they 

occur, and how they occur. 

Stakeholders could also use such a tool 

to analyze injury and illness data and 

identify patterns that are masked by the 

aggregation of injury/illness data in 

existing data sources. 

Tool functionality could include: 

• The ability to compare rates with 

other establishments by industry sector, 

occupation, size, region, and other 

variables. 

• The ability to track trends and 

emerging hazards over time. 

• Easy searches by common variables 

such as OIICS category (e.g., event), 

industry sector, occupation, geography, 

etc. 

• Provision of related data including 

workplace-specific violations, and 

demographic and economic data for 

reporting industries, to help 

contextualize the injury and illness 

data. 

• Links to resources useful in 

increasing workplace safety such as best 

practices for the industry, injury 

reduction interventions, and other 

current health and safety information. 

• Options for data visualization of the 

submitted data (e.g., data visualizations 

of trends, data table displays, reports 

with summary counts and statistics). 

• Flexibility for accommodating the 

different needs of different types of 

users (for example, an employee might 

only want to access information on one 

establishment, while a researcher may 

want to analyze data across an entire 

industry sector). 

• Application programming 

interfaces (APIs) that allow other webbased tools to retrieve, process, and 

publish publicly-accessible OSHA data. 

In developing a publicly-accessible 

tool for injury and illness data, OSHA 

would review how other federal 

agencies, such as the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), have made 

their data publicly available via online 

tools that support some analyses. 

Examples of EPA tools include: 

• Toxics Release Inventory Program 

Pollution Prevention (P2) Tool (https:// 

enviro.epa.gov/facts/tri/p2.html) 

provides information that allows users 

to explore and compare facility and 

parent company environmental 

performance with respect to the 

management of toxic chemical waste, 

including facilities’ waste management 

practices and trends. 

• Enforcement and Compliance 

History Online (ECHO, https://

echo.epa.gov/) contains enforcement 

and compliance information for EPAregulated facilities and allows for 

analysis in trends of compliance and 

enforcement and creation of 

enforcement-related maps. 

• Envirofacts (https://enviro.epa.gov/) 

provides access to several EPA 

databases containing information about 

environmental activities that affect air, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18543 

water, and land resources in the United 

States. The data are in a searchable, 

downloadable format. 

• Enviromapper (https://

enviro.epa.gov/enviro/em4ef.home) 

allows Envirofacts users to generate 

maps that contain the environmental 

information contained in Envirofacts. 

• Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) 

Pollutant Loading Tool (https://

echo.epa.gov/trends/loading-tool/waterpollution-search/) allows users to 

determine what pollutants are being 

discharged into waterways and by 

which companies. The output from this 

tool is in the form of interactive charts 

and graphs. 

• Facility Level Information on 

Greenhouse Gases Tool (FLIGHT, 

https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do) 

provides information about greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions from large facilities 

in the U.S. and offers mapping, charting, 

comparing, and other analysis of 

facility-reported data. 

Thus, OSHA preliminarily finds that 

available tools could enable 

stakeholders to use OSHA-published 

data from Forms 300 and 301 to 

improve worker safety and health. 

OSHA welcomes public comment on 

the utility of these data for researchers, 

employers, and other stakeholders, as 

well as on available data tools that 

would enable these stakeholders to 

efficiently use OSHA-published 

establishment-specific, case-specific 

data to improve worker safety and 

health. 

e. The Covered Industries 

In proposed § 1904.41(a)(2), for 

establishments with 100 or more 

employees, OSHA is seeking to balance 

the utility of the information collection 

for enforcement, outreach, and research, 

on the one hand, and the burden on 

employers to provide the information to 

OSHA, on the other hand. The 2016 

final rule, which was subsequently 

rescinded, required submission of 

information from the OSHA Form 300, 

301, and 300A from all establishments 

with 250 or more employees in 

industries routinely required to keep 

part 1904 injury and illness records. In 

the 2016 final rule, OSHA estimated 

that establishments with 250 or more 

employees covered by that section of the 

submission requirement would report 

713,397 injury and illness cases per 

year. 

For this rulemaking, to identify the 

appropriate balance of utility versus 

burden, OSHA analyzed five years of 

injury and illness summary data 

collected through OSHA’s Injury 

Tracking Application (ITA). OSHA 

examined combinations of 

establishment size and industry 

hazardousness that, like the 2016 final 

rule, would provide the agency with 

information on roughly 750,000 cases of 

injuries and illnesses per year. Based on 

this analysis, OSHA is proposing a 

reporting requirement for 

establishments with 100 or more 

employees in 4-digit NAICS (2017) 

industries that: 

1. Had a 3-year-average rate of total 

recordable cases (Total Case Rate, or 

TCR) in the BLS SOII for 2017, 2018, 

and 2019, of at least 3.5 cases per 100 

full-time-equivalent employees, and 

2. are included in proposed appendix 

A to subpart E. (All of the industries in 

proposed appendix B are also in 

appendix A.) 

OSHA proposes to list the designated 

industries required to submit data from 

all three recordkeeping forms under 

proposed § 1904.41(a)(2) in proposed 

appendix B to subpart E. 

OSHA is proposing one exception to 

these criteria, for the United States 

Postal Service (USPS), which is the only 

employer in NAICS 4911 Postal Service. 

BLS does not include USPS in the SOII. 

However, under the Postal Employees 

Safety Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 105– 

241), OSHA treats the USPS as a private 

sector employer for purposes of 

occupational safety and health, and 

establishments in NAICS 4911 (i.e., 

USPS establishments) with 20 or more 

employees are currently required to 

electronically submit Form 300A 

information to OSHA. Using the 2017, 

2018, and 2019 data submitted by USPS, 

OSHA calculated a TCR of 7.5 for 

NAICS 4911. Because this TCR is greater 

than the proposed 3.5 criterion for 

designated industries in proposed 

appendix B, OSHA is including NAICS 

4911 in proposed appendix B to subpart 

E. OSHA notes that NAICS 4911 is also 

included in both current and proposed 

appendix A to subpart E. 

In the 2016 final rule that revised 

§ 1904.41, OSHA used the rate of cases 

with days away from work, job 

restriction, or transfer (DART) from the 

BLS SOII to determine the industries 

included in appendix A to subpart E of 

part 1904. However, proposed appendix 

B to subpart E is based on the TCR, 

which includes both cases resulting in 

days away from work, job restriction, or 

transfer, as well as other recordable 

cases such as those resulting in medical 

treatment beyond first aid. OSHA 

believes that TCR is the appropriate rate 

to use for determining the list of 

industries in proposed appendix B to 

subpart E because covered 

establishments will be required to 

electronically submit information to 

OSHA on all of their recordable cases, 

not just cases that resulted in days away 

from work, job restriction, or transfer. In 

2020, OSHA received submissions of 

2019 Form 300A data from 46,911 

establishments that had 100 or more 

employees and were in one of the 

industries listed in proposed appendix 

B to subpart E, accounting for 680,930 

total recordable cases and a TCR of 3.6. 

OSHA requests comment on whether 

TCR is the appropriate method for 

determining the list of industries in 

proposed appendix B to subpart E. 

Additionally, OSHA anticipates that, 

by the time that the department expects 

to issue the final rule in this 

rulemaking, more current industry-level 

injury and illness data from BLS, as well 

as more establishment-specific injury 

and illness information from the ITA, 

will be available. When developing the 

final rule, OSHA may rely on the most 

current data available, as appropriate, 

for determining the list of industries in 

appendix B to subpart E. OSHA seeks 

comment from the public on whether 

the agency should use the most current 

data when developing the final rule. 

The designated industries, which 

would be published as appendix B to 

subpart E of part 1904, are proposed to 

be as follows: 

PROPOSED APPENDIX B 

2017 

NAICS code 2017 NAICS title 

1111 ............. Oilseed and grain farming. 

1112 ............. Vegetable and melon farming. 

1113 ............. Fruit and tree nut farming. 

1114 ............. Greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture production. 

1119 ............. Other crop farming. 

1121 ............. Cattle ranching and farming. 

1122 ............. Hog and pig farming. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
18544 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

PROPOSED APPENDIX B—Continued 

2017 

NAICS code 2017 NAICS title 

1123 ............. Poultry and egg production. 

1129 ............. Other animal production. 

1141 ............. Fishing. 

1151 ............. Support activities for crop production. 

1152 ............. Support activities for animal production. 

1153 ............. Support activities for forestry. 

2213 ............. Water, sewage and other systems. 

2381 ............. Foundation, structure, and building exterior contractors. 

3111 ............. Animal food manufacturing. 

3113 ............. Sugar and confectionery product manufacturing. 

3114 ............. Fruit and vegetable preserving and specialty food manufacturing. 

3115 ............. Dairy product manufacturing. 

3116 ............. Animal slaughtering and processing. 

3117 ............. Seafood product preparation and packaging. 

3118 ............. Bakeries and tortilla manufacturing. 

3119 ............. Other food manufacturing. 

3121 ............. Beverage manufacturing. 

3161 ............. Leather and hide tanning and finishing. 

3162 ............. Footwear manufacturing. 

3211 ............. Sawmills and wood preservation. 

3212 ............. Veneer, plywood, and engineered wood product manufacturing. 

3219 ............. Other wood product manufacturing. 

3261 ............. Plastics product manufacturing. 

3262 ............. Rubber product manufacturing. 

3271 ............. Clay product and refractory manufacturing. 

3272 ............. Glass and glass product manufacturing. 

3273 ............. Cement and concrete product manufacturing. 

3279 ............. Other nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing. 

3312 ............. Steel product manufacturing from purchased steel. 

3314 ............. Nonferrous metal production and processing. 

3315 ............. Foundries. 

3321 ............. Forging and stamping. 

3323 ............. Architectural and structural metals manufacturing. 

3324 ............. Boiler, tank, and shipping container manufacturing. 

3325 ............. Hardware manufacturing. 

3326 ............. Spring and wire product manufacturing. 

3327 ............. Machine shops; turned product; and screw, nut, and bolt manufacturing. 

3328 ............. Coating, engraving, heat treating, and allied activities. 

3331 ............. Agriculture, construction, and mining machinery manufacturing. 

3335 ............. Metalworking machinery manufacturing. 

3361 ............. Motor vehicle manufacturing. 

3362 ............. Motor vehicle body and trailer manufacturing. 

3363 ............. Motor vehicle parts manufacturing. 

3366 ............. Ship and boat building. 

3371 ............. Household and institutional furniture and kitchen cabinet manufacturing. 

3372 ............. Office furniture manufacturing. 

4231 ............. Motor vehicle and motor vehicle parts and supplies merchant wholesalers. 

4233 ............. Lumber and other construction materials merchant wholesalers. 

4235 ............. Metal and mineral merchant wholesalers. 

4244 ............. Grocery and related product merchant wholesalers. 

4248 ............. Beer, wine, and distilled alcoholic beverage merchant wholesalers. 

4413 ............. Automotive parts, accessories, and tire stores. 

4422 ............. Home furnishings stores. 

4441 ............. Building material and supplies dealers. 

4442 ............. Lawn and garden equipment and supplies stores. 

4451 ............. Grocery stores. 

4522 ............. Department stores. 

4523 ............. General merchandise stores, including warehouse clubs and supercenters. 

4533 ............. Used merchandise stores. 

4543 ............. Direct selling establishments. 

4811 ............. Scheduled air transportation. 

4841 ............. General freight trucking. 

4842 ............. Specialized freight trucking. 

4851 ............. Urban transit systems. 

4852 ............. Interurban and rural bus transportation. 

4854 ............. School and employee bus transportation. 

4859 ............. Other transit and ground passenger transportation. 

4871 ............. Scenic and sightseeing transportation, land. 

4881 ............. Support activities for air transportation. 

4883 ............. Support activities for water transportation. 

4911 ............. Postal Service. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18545 

10The differences between current appendix A 

and proposed appendix A are (1) current appendix 

A has 2012 NAICS industry group 4521 

(Department Stores), whereas proposed appendix A 

has 2017 NAICS industry groups 4522 (Department 

Stores) and 4523 (General Merchandise Stores, 

including Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters); (2) 

current appendix A has 2012 NAICS industry group 

4529 (Other General Merchandise Stores), whereas 

in proposed appendix A, that industry group is 

included in 2017 NAICS industry group 4523 

(General Merchandise Stores, including Warehouse 

Clubs and Supercenters); (3) proposed appendix A 

does not include NAICS 7213, Rooming and 

Boarding Houses, which is exempt from the 

requirement to routinely keep injury and illness 

records and was included in current appendix A in 

error. 

PROPOSED APPENDIX B—Continued 

2017 

NAICS code 2017 NAICS title 

4921 ............. Couriers and express delivery services. 

4931 ............. Warehousing and storage. 

5322 ............. Consumer goods rental. 

5621 ............. Waste collection. 

5622 ............. Waste treatment and disposal. 

6219 ............. Other ambulatory health care services. 

6221 ............. General medical and surgical hospitals. 

6222 ............. Psychiatric and substance abuse hospitals. 

6223 ............. Specialty hospitals. 

6231 ............. Nursing care facilities. 

6232 ............. Residential intellectual and developmental disability, mental health, and substance abuse facilities. 

6233 ............. Continuing care retirement communities and assisted living facilities for the elderly. 

6239 ............. Other residential care facilities. 

6243 ............. Vocational rehabilitation services. 

7111 ............. Performing arts companies. 

7112 ............. Spectator sports. 

7131 ............. Amusement parks and arcades. 

7211 ............. Traveler accommodation. 

7212 ............. RV parks and recreational camps. 

7223 ............. Special food services. 

6239 ............. Other residential care facilities. 

6243 ............. Vocational rehabilitation services. 

7111 ............. Performing arts companies. 

7112 ............. Spectator sports. 

7131 ............. Amusement parks and arcades. 

7211 ............. Traveler accommodation. 

7212 ............. RV parks and recreational camps. 

7223 ............. Special food services. 

OSHA welcomes public comment on 

all aspects of proposed appendix B, 

including the specific issues noted 

above. 

3. Section 1904.41(b)(1)(i) and (ii) 

Proposed § 1904.41(b)(1) would 

provide employers with further clarity 

on which employers and establishments 

need to submit data under proposed 

§ 1904.41(a)(1) and (2) and how the 

requirements of those provisions 

interact with each other. These 

proposed provisions, like many of the 

provisions within part 1904 are written 

in question-and-answer format to help 

employers easily identify the 

information they seek. 

Proposed § 1904.41(b)(1)(i) focuses on 

the issue of who must submit their 

information to OSHA. Specifically, it 

would reiterate the question posed in 

current § 1904.41(b) (which asks 

whether every employer has to routinely 

make an annual electronic submission 

of information from part 1904 injury 

and illness recordkeeping forms to 

OSHA), but update the answer to be 

consistent with proposed § 1904.41(a)(1) 

and (2). 

Proposed § 1904.41(b)(1)(ii) would 

similarly clarify that an establishment 

that has 100 or more employees, and is 

in an industry included in both 

appendix A and appendix B, need only 

make one submission of the OSHA 

Form 300A in order to fulfill the 

requirements of both proposed 

§ 1904.41(a)(1) and (2). Proposed 

appendix B is a subset of appendix A; 

i.e., all industries included in proposed 

appendix B are also included in 

proposed appendix A, but there are 

some industries included in proposed 

appendix A that are not included in 

proposed appendix B.10

OSHA welcomes public comment on 

proposed § 1904.41(b)(1)(i) and (ii), 

including whether these proposed 

provisions appropriately clarify the 

proposed requirements for employers. 

4. Section 1904.41(b)(9) 

Proposed § 1904.41(b)(9) would pose 

and answer a question regarding which 

information would be required to be 

submitted under proposed § 1904.41(a). 

Specifically, proposed § 1904.41(b)(9) 

would ask the following question: If I 

have to submit information under 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, do I 

have to submit all of the information 

from the recordkeeping forms? 

The proposed answer would clarify 

that OSHA will not require employers to 

submit the following case-specific 

information from the OSHA Form 300 

and Form 301: 

• Log of Work-Related Injuries and 

Illnesses (OSHA Form 300): Employee 

name (column B). 

• Injury and Illness Incident Report 

(OSHA Form 301): Employee name 

(field 1), employee address (field 2), 

name of physician or other health care 

professional (field 6), facility name and 

address if treatment was given away 

from the worksite (field 7). 

Collecting data from these fields 

would not add to OSHA’s ability to 

identify establishments with specific 

hazards or elevated injury and illness 

rates. Therefore, OSHA proposes to 

exclude these fields from the submittal 

requirements to minimize any potential 

release or unauthorized access to any PII 

contained in the fields. Because the data 

collection will not collect the 

information from these fields, there will 

be no risk of public disclosure of the 

information from these fields through 

the data collection. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
18546 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

OSHA welcomes public comment on 

§ 1904.41(b)(9), including whether the 

specified fields should be excluded 

from data that would be collected, and 

whether other data should be similarly 

excluded to protect employee privacy or 

for other reasons. Any comments 

suggesting exclusion of other fields or 

data from the proposed submission 

requirements should also address 

whether the exclusion of that particular 

field or data from collection would 

hinder OSHA’s ability to use the 

collection to protect employee safety 

and health. 

5. Section 1904.41(b)(10) 

Proposed § 1904.41(b)(10) would 

address an issue related to how 

establishments identify themselves in 

their electronic recordkeeping 

submissions. As noted above, OSHA’s 

recordkeeping regulation requires 

employers to maintain and report their 

injury and illness data at the 

establishment level. An establishment is 

defined as a single physical location 

where business is conducted or where 

services or industrial operations are 

performed (see 29 CFR 1904.46). Part 

1904 injury and illness records must be 

specific for each individual 

establishment. 

Under the current requirements at 29 

CFR 1904.41, a firm with more than one 

establishment must submit 

establishment-specific 300A data for 

each establishment that meets the size 

and industry reporting criteria. OSHA’s 

current data submission portal, the 

Injury Tracking Application (ITA), 

contains two text fields used to identify 

an establishment, Company Name and 

Establishment Name. The Establishment 

Name field is a mandatory field; the 

user must make an entry in that field. 

In addition, a user submitting 

information for more than one 

establishment must provide a unique 

Establishment Name for each 

establishment. In contrast, the Company 

Name field is an optional field; the user 

is not required to make an entry in that 

field. 

OSHA’s review of five years of data 

electronically submitted under part 

1904.41 shows that many large firms 

with multiple establishments use codes 

for the Establishment Name field in 

their submission. A subset of these firms 

use codes for the Establishment Name 

field and do not provide a company 

name in the Company Name field. For 

example, in the 2020 submissions of 

2019 Form 300A data, users submitted 

data for more than 18,000 

establishments with a code in the 

Establishment Name field and no 

information in the Company Name field. 

Unfortunately, the data are 

considerably less useful and more 

difficult to work with when 

establishments have a code in the 

Establishment Name field and no 

information in the Company Name field. 

For example, it is not possible for a data 

user to search for data from that 

company. In addition, OSHA is unable 

to determine whether or not a particular 

establishment in that company met the 

reporting requirements. Further, since 

OSHA now makes these data publicly 

available, the use of codes and the lack 

of information in the Company Name 

field may hamper stakeholders’ and 

researchers’ ability to use the 

information. 

To date, OSHA has made an effort to 

identify and assign company names to 

these establishments. For example, 

sometimes OSHA is able to use the EIN 

or the user’s email address to identify 

the company associated with the 

establishment. However, OSHA is not 

always able to identify the company. In 

addition, the effort requires substantial 

review for verification. 

To address this problem, OSHA 

proposes to require employers who use 

codes for the Establishment Name to 

include a legal name in the Company 

Name field. This requirement would be 

spelled out in question-and-answer 

format in proposed § 1904.41(b)(10). 

The proposed provision would provide: 

My company uses numbers or codes to 

identify our establishments. May I use 

numbers or codes as the establishment 

name in my submission? Yes, you may 

use numbers or codes as the 

establishment name. However, the 

submission must include the legal 

company name, either as part of the 

establishment name or separately as the 

company name. 

OSHA welcomes public comment on 

the proposed requirement to submit the 

company name, including any 

comments on the utility of such a 

requirement and how the company 

name should be included in an 

establishment’s submission. 

6. Section 1904.41(c) Reporting Dates 

Proposed § 1904.41(c) would simplify 

the regulatory language in current 

§ 1904.41(c)(1)–(2) concerning the dates 

by which establishments must make 

their annual submissions. Current 

§ 1904.41(c)(1) included information for 

establishments on what to submit to 

OSHA during the phase-in period of the 

2016 final rule and the deadline for 

submission. That information is no 

longer relevant and, thus, OSHA 

proposes to remove it to streamline the 

section. 

The substantive information already 

contained in current § 1904.41(c)(1) 

would then be consolidated into 

proposed § 1904.41(c). Like current 

§ 1904.41(c)(1), proposed § 1904.41(c) 

would require all covered 

establishments to make their electronic 

submissions by March 2 of the year after 

the calendar year covered by the 

form(s). Proposed § 1904.41(c) would 

also provide an updated example of that 

requirement, i.e., it explains that the 

forms covering calendar year 2021 

would be due by March 2, 2022. 

OSHA welcomes public comment on 

these proposed revisions to § 1904.41(c). 

B. Questions 

OSHA welcomes comments and data 

from the public regarding any aspect of 

the proposed amendments to § 1904.41 

Electronic Submission of Employer 

Identification Number (EIN) and Injury 

and Illness Records to OSHA. OSHA is 

particularly interested in any comments 

on these specific questions: 

1. Is Total Case Rate (TCR) the most 

appropriate incidence rate to use for 

proposed appendix B to subpart E, or 

would the Days Away Restricted or 

Transferred (DART) rate be more 

appropriate? 

2. Is 100 or more employees the 

appropriate size criterion for the 

proposed requirement to electronically 

submit data from the OSHA Form 300, 

301, and 300A? Would a different size 

criterion be more appropriate? 

3. Is it appropriate for OSHA to 

remove the requirement for 

establishments with 250 or more 

employees, in industries not included in 

appendix A, to submit the information 

from their OSHA Form 300A? 

4. Are there electronic interface 

features that would help users 

electronically submit part 1904 data, 

particularly for case data from the 

OSHA Form 300 and Form 301 and for 

establishments that submit using batch 

files? For example, would it be helpful 

for OSHA to provide a forms package or 

software application that exports the 

required files into a submission-ready 

format? 

5. What features could OSHA provide 

to help establishments determine which 

submission requirements apply to their 

establishment? 

6. What additional guidance could 

OSHA add to the instructions for 

electronic submission to remind 

employers not to include information 

that reasonably identifies individuals 

directly in the information they submit 

from the text-based fields on the OSHA 

Form 300 or Form 301? 

7. What other agencies and 

organizations use automated deVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Mar 29, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MRP2.SGM 30MRP2

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18547 

identification systems to remove 

information that reasonably identifies 

individuals directly from text data 

before making the data available to the 

general public? What levels of 

sensitivity for the automated system for 

the identification and removal of 

information that reasonably identifies 

individuals directly from text data do 

these agencies use? 

8. What other open-source and/or 

proprietary software is available to 

remove information that reasonably 

identifies individuals directly from text 

data? 

9. What methods or systems exist to 

identify and remove information that 

reasonably identifies individuals 

directly from text data before the data 

are submitted? 

10. What criteria should OSHA use to 

determine whether the sensitivity of 

automated systems to identify and 

remove information that reasonably 

identifies individuals directly is 

sufficient for OSHA to make the data 

available to the general public? 

11. What processes could OSHA 

establish to remove inadvertentlypublished information that reasonably 

identifies individuals directly as soon as 

OSHA became aware of the information 

that reasonably identifies individuals 

directly? 

12. OSHA is proposing not to collect 

employee names under proposed 

§ 1904.41(a)(2) and (b)(9), consistent 

with worker privacy concerns expressed 

in public comments during previous 

rulemakings. However, BLS uses the 

‘‘employee name’’ field on the Form 300 

and Form 301 in their data collection for 

the SOII. Beginning in 2021, a datasharing feature has allowed some 

establishments that are required to 

submit Form 300A information to both 

OSHA and BLS, under the current 

regulation, to use their data submission 

to the OSHA ITA in their submission to 

the BLS SOII. BLS anticipates an 

inability to use this data-sharing feature 

for establishments required to submit 

under proposed § 1904.41(a)(2), unless 

OSHA requires these establishments to 

submit the ‘‘employee name’’ field on 

the Form 300 and 301. Without the datasharing feature, establishments that 

submit data to OSHA under proposed 

§ 1904.41(a)(2), and that also submit 

data to the BLS SOII, would not be able 

to use their OSHA data submission of 

case-specific data to prefill their BLS 

SOII submission. What would be the 

advantages and disadvantages, in terms 

of employer burden and worker privacy 

concerns or otherwise, of requiring all 

establishments subject to proposed 

§ 1904.41(a)(2) to submit employee 

names, to support this data-sharing 

feature for Form 300 and 301 

submissions? (Please note that OSHA 

would not intend to publish employee 

names.) 

13. NAICS codes are reviewed and 

revised every five years to keep the 

classification system current with 

changes in economic activities. The 

2022 NAICS became effective on 

January 1, 2022. Going forward, OSHA 

intends to use the 2022 NAICS in the 

ITA for establishments that are newly 

creating accounts. However, for 

establishments that already have 

accounts in the ITA, the version of 

NAICS used is the 2012 NAICS. BLS 

anticipates that establishments that 

already have accounts in the ITA, are 

also subject to the SOII, and have 2022 

NAICS codes that are different from 

their 2012 NAICS codes, would be 

unable to use the data-sharing feature 

(also discussed in question 13) to prefill 

their BLS SOII submission with data 

already submitted through the OSHA 

ITA, unless these establishments 

updated their accounts to revise their 

industry classification from the 2012 

NAICS to the 2022 NAICS. What are the 

advantages and disadvantages of 

requiring establishments that already 

have accounts in the ITA to update their 

accounts to the 2022 NAICS? How much 

time would an establishment require to 

determine whether their 2022 NAICS is 

different from their 2012 NAICS? How 

much time would an establishment 

require to edit their NAICS code in the 

ITA to reflect any changes? 

14. In addition to the automated 

methods for coding text-based data 

discussed above, what additional 

automated methods exist to code textbased data? 

15. What are some ways that 

employers could use the collected data 

to improve the safety and health of their 

workplaces? 

16. What are some ways that 

employees could use the collected data 

to improve the safety and health of their 

workplaces? 

17. What are some ways that federal 

and state agencies could use the 

collected data to improve workplace 

safety and health? 

18. What are some ways that 

researchers could use the collected data 

to improve workplace safety and health? 

19. What are some ways that 

workplace safety consultants could use 

the collected data to improve workplace 

safety and health? 

20. What are some ways that members 

of the public and other stakeholders, 

such as job-seekers, could use the 

collected data to improve workplace 

safety and health? 

21. Are there potential negative 

consequences to the collection of this 

data that OSHA has not considered 

here? 

22. The proposed regulatory text is 

structured as follows: § 1904.41(a)(1) 

Annual electronic submission of 

information from OSHA Form 300A 

Summary of Work-Related Injuries and 

Illnesses by establishments with 20 or 

more employees in designated 

industries; § 1904.41(a)(2) Annual 

electronic submission of information 

from OSHA Form 300 Log of WorkRelated Injuries and Illnesses, OSHA 

Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident 

Report, and OSHA Form 300A 

Summary of Work-Related Injuries and 

Illnesses by establishments with 100 or 

more employees in designated 

industries. This is the structure used by 

the 2016 and 2019 rulemakings. An 

alternative structure would be as 

follows: § 1904.41(a)(1) Annual 

electronic submission of information 

from OSHA Form 300A Summary of 

Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses by 

establishments with 20 or more 

employees in designated industries; 

§ 1904.41(a)(2) Annual electronic 

submission of information from OSHA 

Form 300 Log of Work-Related Injuries 

and Illnesses and OSHA Form 301 

Injury and Illness Incident Report by 

establishments with 100 or more 

employees in designated industries. 

Which structure would result in better 

understanding of the requirements by 

employers? 

IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis and 

Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

A. Introduction 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of the intended regulation and, 

if regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, and public 

health and safety effects; distributive 

impacts; and equity). Executive Order 

13563 emphasized the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. This rule is 

not an economically significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 and has been 

reviewed by the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of 

Management and Budget, as required by 

executive order. 

OSHA estimates that this rule will 

have economic costs of $4.3 million per 

year, including $3.9 million per year to 

the private sector, with average costs of 

$81 per year for affected establishments 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
18548 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

with 100 or more employees, 

annualized over 10 years with a 

discount rate of seven percent. The 

agency believes that the annual benefits, 

while unquantified, significantly exceed 

the annual costs. 

The proposed rule is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866 or 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)), and it is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ under the Congressional 

Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). The 

agency estimates that the rulemaking 

imposes far less than $100 million in 

annual economic costs. In addition, it 

does not meet any of the other criteria 

specified by UMRA or the Congressional 

Review Act for an economically 

significant regulatory action or major 

rule. This Preliminary Economic 

Analysis (PEA) addresses the costs, 

benefits, and economic impacts of the 

proposed rule. 

OSHA is proposing to amend its 

recordkeeping regulations to revise the 

requirements for the electronic 

submission of information from part 

1904 injury and illness recordkeeping 

forms (§ 1904.41—Electronic submission 

of injury and illness records to OSHA). 

First, OSHA will require all 

establishments that have 20 or more 

employees and are in certain designated 

industries to electronically submit 

information from the OSHA Form 300A 

Annual Summary to OSHA or OSHA’s 

designee once a year (proposed 

§ 1904.41(a)(1) Annual electronic 

submission of information from OSHA 

Form 300A Summary of Work-Related 

Injuries and Illnesses by establishments 

with 20 or more employees in 

designated industries). 

The current requirement 

(§ 1904.41(a)(2) Annual electronic 

submission of OSHA Form 300A 

Summary of Work-Related Injuries and 

Illnesses by establishments with 20 or 

more employees but fewer than 250 

employees in designated industries.) 

applies only to establishments with 

fewer than 250 employees in industries 

designated by appendix A to subpart E 

of part 1904. However, establishments 

with 250 or more employees in these 

industries are also currently required to 

submit this information under current 

§ 1904.41(a)(1) Annual electronic 

submission of OSHA Form 300A 

Summary of Work-Related Injuries and 

Illnesses by establishments with 250 or 

more employees. Note that OSHA is 

proposing to revise appendix A to 

update the list of industries from the 

2012 to the 2017 NAICS. 

Second, OSHA will require all 

establishments that have 100 or more 

employees and are in certain designated 

industries to electronically submit 

information from the OSHA Forms 300, 

301, and 300A to OSHA or OSHA’s 

designee (proposed § 1904.41(a)(2) 

Annual electronic submission of 

information from OSHA Form 300 Log 

of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, 

OSHA Form 301 Injury and Illness 

Incident Report, and OSHA Form 300A 

Summary of Work-Related Injuries and 

Illnesses by establishments with 100 or 

more employees in designated 

industries). The industries are 

designated by proposed appendix B to 

subpart E of part 1904. 

As discussed above, the current 

§ 1904.41(a)(1) Annual electronic 

submission of OSHA Form 300A 

Summary of Work-Related Injuries and 

Illnesses by establishments with 250 or 

more employees requires submission of 

the Form 300A from all establishments 

that have 250 or more employees and 

that are in industries routinely required 

to keep part 1904 records. Under the 

proposed revisions, establishments that 

have 250 or more employees would only 

have to routinely make electronic 

submissions of part 1904 information if 

they are in an industry in appendix A 

to subpart E (proposed § 1904.41(a)(1)) 

or in appendix B to subpart E (proposed 

§ 1904.41(a)(2)), which is a subset of 

appendix A. The proposed rule will 

remove the requirement for routine 

electronic submission of Form 300A 

information from establishments with 

250 or more employees in all other 

industries (i.e., industries that are not 

included in appendix A or proposed 

appendix B). 

Under proposed § 1904.41(b)(9), 

OSHA will not collect the following 

case-specific information from the Form 

300 and Form 301 submitted by 

establishments with 100 or more 

employees in designated industries 

under proposed § 1904.41(a)(2): 

(i) Log of Work-Related Injuries and 

Illnesses (OSHA Form 300): Employee 

name (column B). 

(ii) Injury and Illness Incident Report 

(OSHA Form 301): Employee name 

(field 1), employee address (field 2), 

name of physician or other health care 

professional (field 6), facility name and 

address if treatment was given away 

from the worksite (field 7). 

The OSHA Form 300A does not have 

any case-specific information. 

In addition, under proposed 

§ 1904.41(b)(10), OSHA will require 

establishments that are required to 

electronically report information from 

their injury and illness records to OSHA 

under part 1904, to include their 

company name as part of the 

submission. 

Finally, OSHA proposes language in 

proposed § 1904.41(b)(1)(i) and (ii) to 

further clarify the requirements spelled 

out in proposed § 1904.41(a)(1) and (2) 

and current § 1904.41(a)(3), and, in 

proposed § 1904.41(c), OSHA proposes 

updates to the reporting deadlines. 

B. Costs 

1. Section 1904.41(a)(1) Annual 

Electronic Submission of Information 

From OSHA Form 300A Summary of 

Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses by 

Establishments With 20 or More 

Employees in Designated Industries 

Currently, two groups of 

establishments are required to submit 

information from the Form 300A annual 

summary, under two separate 

requirements: § 1904.41(a)(1) For all 

establishments with 250 or more 

employees in all industries where 

establishments must routinely keep part 

1904 injury and illness records, and 

§ 1904.41(a)(2) for establishments with 

20 or more employees in the industries 

designated in appendix A to subpart E. 

In contrast, under the proposed 

revisions, only establishments with 20 

or more employees in the industries 

designated in appendix A to subpart E 

would be required to submit 

information from the Form 300A annual 

summary. (As noted above, although 

proposed § 1904.41(a)(2) also requires 

employers in the industries designated 

in appendix B to submit information 

from their Form 300A annual summary, 

those industries are a subset of the 

industries listed in appendix A, so no 

new submission would be required (see 

proposed § 1904.41(b)(1)). Thus, the net 

effect of this section is to reduce the 

number of establishments that are 

required to submit information from the 

Form 300A annual summary. This 

section calculates the cost savings 

resulting from the reduction in number 

of establishments that are required to 

submit information from the Form 300A 

annual summary. 

For this part of the proposed rule, 

OSHA obtained the estimated cost of 

electronic hour (in dollars) of the person 

expected to perform the task of 

electronic submission by multiplying 

the estimated total compensation per 

hour (in dollars) of the person expected 

to perform the task of electronic 

submission by the time required for the 

electronic data submission. OSHA 

estimated occupation-specific wage 

rates from BLS 2020 Occupational 

Employment and Wage Statistics data 

(BLS, May 2020), reporting a mean 

hourly wage of $37.55 for Occupational 

Health and Safety Specialists (19–5011 

in the 2018 Standard Occupational 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18549 

11OMB issued revised SOC codes in 2017, 

changing SOC 29–9011 to SOC 19–5011. The 2010 

SOC to the 2018 SOC crosswalk can be downloaded 

here (accessed July 2021): https://www.bls.gov/soc/ 

2018/crosswalks_used_by_agencies.htm. 

12Fringe benefit factor calculated as [1/(1–0.312)], 

where 0.312 is the percent of the average total 

benefits of civilian workers in all industries, as 

reported on Table 2 of the BLS’s ECEC report, June 

2021: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

ecec.t02.htm. 

13 17 percent is OSHA’s standard estimate for the 

overhead cost incurred by the average employer. 

14See docket exhibit OSHA–2021–006–0002 for a 

spreadsheet with the full calculations. 

15For example, OSHA added an estimate of 10 

minutes of familiarization time to its 2016 

Recordkeeping regulation (81 FR 29680), in 

response to public comments. 

16Review of the 2019 Form 300A data submitted 

through the ITA in 2020 shows that 44% of 

establishments with 100 or more employees in 

proposed appendix B submitted their data by 

uploading a batch file. OSHA expects that this 

percentage would increase to 50% or more for two 

reasons. First, the increase in the amount of data 

required from these establishments would make the 

batch-file upload a more efficient method of 

submission for more establishments. Second, OSHA 

plans to make it easier for users to submit a batch 

file by providing a set of forms that allow users to 

create the export file for batch-file submission. 

Classification System (SOC); formerly 

29–9011 in the 2010 SOC System).11

Note that this is the same occupational 

classification that OSHA used in the 

Final Economic Analysis (FEA) in the 

2016 final rule, based on public 

comments, as well as in the 2018 notice 

of proposed rulemaking and 2019 final 

rule. 

Next, OSHA used June 2021 data from 

the BLS National Compensation Survey, 

reporting a mean fringe benefit factor of 

1.45 for civilian workers in general.12

OSHA then multiplied the mean hourly 

wage ($37.55) by the mean fringe benefit 

factor (1.45) to obtain an estimated total 

compensation (wages and benefits) for 

Occupational Health and Safety 

Specialists of $54.58 per hour ([$37.55 

per hour] × 1.45). OSHA next applied a 

17% overhead rate to the base wage 

([$37.55 per hour] × [0.17]), totaling 

$6.38.13 The $6.38 was added to the 

total compensation ($54.58) yielding a 

fully loaded wage rate of $60.96 [$54.58 

+ $6.38].14

TABLE X.Y—LOADED WAGE USED IN ANALYSIS, INCLUDING OVERHEAD COST 1

Occupation description Occupational 

code 

Loaded wage 

rate 

Occupational Health and Safety Specialists ........................................................................................................... 2 19–5011 $60.96 

1Source: OSHA, based on BLS (May 2020) and BLS (June 17, 2021). 

2OMB issued revised SOC codes in 2017, changing SOC 29–9011 to SOC 19–5011. The 2010 SOC to the 2018 SOC crosswalk can be 

downloaded here (accessed July 2021): https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/crosswalks_used_by_agencies.htm. 

For time required for the data 

submission, OSHA used the time 

estimate of 10 minutes per 

establishment for the OSHA Form 300A 

from the current information collection 

for Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (29 

CFR part 1904) (OMB Control Number 

1218–0176). OSHA then multiplied this 

time by the total compensation of 

$60.96 per hour to obtain an estimated 

submission cost per establishment of 

$10.16 [($60.96/hour) × (1 hour/60 

minutes) × (10 minutes)]. 

Then OSHA multiplied this 

submission cost per establishment by 

the estimated number of establishments 

that would no longer be required to 

submit data, to obtain the total 

estimated cost savings of this part of the 

proposed rule. In the 2020 data 

collection, there were 2,665 

establishments with 250 or more 

employees, in an industry not in 

appendix A, which submitted 

information from the 2019 OSHA Form 

300A to OSHA. 

Thus, OSHA estimates the total 

annual cost savings of this part of the 

proposed rule as $27,077 [(2,665 

establishments no longer required to 

electronically submit Form 300A 

information) × ($10.16 per 

establishment for electronic submission 

of Form 300A information per year)]. 

OSHA welcomes public comment on 

this estimate. 

2. Section 1904.41(a)(2)—Annual 

Electronic Submission of Information 

From OSHA Form 300 Log of WorkRelated Injuries and Illnesses, OSHA 

Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident 

Report, and OSHA Form 300A 

Summary of Work-Related Injuries and 

Illnesses by Establishments With 100 or 

More Employees in Designated 

Industries 

This proposed section would require 

establishments that have 100 or more 

employees and that are in the industries 

included in proposed appendix B to 

submit the information from the OSHA 

Form 300 Log, OSHA Form 301 incident 

report, and OSHA Form 300A annual 

summary. Note that all of the 

establishments affected by this 

requirement are already currently 

required to submit the information from 

their OSHA Form 300A. Consequently, 

this section calculates only the 

additional costs for these establishments 

of submitting the information from the 

OSHA Form 300 and 301. 

Based in part on OSHA’s previous 

experience, the agency estimates that 

establishments will first need to take 10 

minutes, on average, to familiarize 

themselves with changes to the existing 

recordkeeping requirements within this 

proposed rule.15 Thus, the agency 

calculates a one-time cost for 

familiarization of $497,033 [(48,919 

establishments) times (ten minutes/ 

establishment) times (1 hour/60 

minutes) times ($60.96/hour)]. 

Annualizing this rate over 10 years with 

a seven percent discount rate produces 

an annual cost of $70,782 to the private 

sector. 

In the 2020 data collection of 2019 

OSHA Form 300A data, establishments 

with 100 or more employees, in 

appendix B industries, reported 718,316 

cases to OSHA. For time required for 

data submission of the OSHA Form 300 

and 301, OSHA estimates 10 minutes 

per case, based on the current 

Information Collection Request (ICR). 

Note that this may overestimate costs, 

because while OSHA’s estimates reflect 

manual entry of the data for each case, 

in the agency’s experience, roughly half 

of the covered establishments submit 

data to the ITA by uploading a batch 

file. In general, OSHA expects 

companies with many establishments/ 

many cases to have computer systems 

that can export their part 1904 injury 

and illness recordkeeping data into an 

easily-uploaded file format. OSHA seeks 

comment on this point. 

OSHA estimates that half of the 

establishments submitting reports 

(24,460) will submit 359,193 cases total 

(half of the overall total number of 

718,386 cases) via batch file—one batch 

file per establishment.16 This yields an 

estimated cost of $248,517 [(24,460 

establishments) times (10 minutes/ 

establishment) times (1 hour/60 

minutes) times ($60.96/hour)]. The 

average cost per establishment would be 

$10.16 per establishment. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
18550 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

17OSHA does not anticipate that the proposed 

revisions to § 1904.41(b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), or (c) would 

have any substantial costs associated with them. 

18See docket exhibit OSHA–2021–006–0002 for 

the full calculations. 

OSHA estimates that the other half of 

the establishments (24,460) will 

manually submit each case individually. 

The mean number of cases per 

establishment is 14.7 (718,386 total 

cases divided by 48,919 total 

establishments). For manual 

submission, OSHA estimates a time of 

10 minutes per case, or 147 minutes per 

establishment for the mean number of 

cases. This produces a total cost for 

manual submission of $3,649,520 

[(48,919 establishments) times (10 

minutes/case) times (14.7 cases) times (1 

hour/60 minutes) times ($60.96/hour)], 

or $149 per establishment [(14.7 cases) 

times (1 hour/60 minutes) times 

($60.96/hour)]. 

Summing the estimated batch-file 

($248,517) and manual submission 

($3,649,520) costs results in an 

estimated total cost of $3,898,037 to 

submit the 718,316 records. Combined 

with the annualized cost of $70,782 per 

year for familiarization estimated above 

(at seven percent), the estimated total 

annual private-sector cost of this part of 

the proposed rule is $3,968,819. To 

obtain the estimated average cost of 

submission per establishment of $81.13, 

OSHA divided the total estimated cost 

of submission ($3,968,819) by the 

estimated number of establishments that 

would be required to submit data 

(48,919 establishments). 

For reference, as explained above, 

48,919 establishments with 100 or more 

employees, in proposed appendix B, 

submitted CY 2019 Form 300A 

information about 718,386 cases to 

OSHA in 2020. The mean number of 

cases per establishment is 14.7, and the 

median number of cases per 

establishment is seven. However, some 

establishments will have no recordable 

injuries in a given year, and their time 

burden will be zero minutes. In contrast, 

establishments with many recordable 

injuries and illnesses could have a time 

burden of multiple hours if they enter 

the data manually. OSHA preliminarily 

believes that the establishments that 

submit a single batch file are more likely 

to be among the establishments with 

many cases, while the establishments 

that submit cases manually are more 

likely to be among the establishments 

with only a few cases. Thus, OSHA’s 

estimate of half of establishments 

submitting half of cases manually may 

result in an overestimate of the total and 

per-establishment costs of this part of 

the proposed rule. 

OSHA welcomes public comment on 

these estimates, including on time 

necessary to prepare and submit a batch 

file and on establishments’ 

considerations for deciding to submit 

via batch file versus manual submission. 

3. Section 1904.41(b)(10) 

This proposed section would require 

establishments to provide their 

company name as part of their 

submission, either included in the 

establishment name or separately as the 

company. For this part of the proposed 

rule, based on submissions of 

information from the 2019 Form 300A 

to the ITA in 2020, OSHA estimates that 

18,182 establishments do not include 

the company name. The time necessary 

to include the company name is 

included in the PEA estimate of 10 

minutes per submission per 

establishment. OSHA has also 

preliminarily determined that this 

requirement will result in a small, 

unquantified benefit/cost-savings for the 

government, due to no longer needing to 

spend time trying to assign company 

names to establishments with coded 

names. 

OSHA welcomes public comment on 

these preliminary determinations.17

4. Budget Costs to the Government for 

the Creation of the Reporting System, 

Helpdesk Assistance, and 

Administration of the Electronic 

Submission Program 

In this preliminary economic analysis, 

OSHA is including an estimate of the 

costs of the proposed new requirement, 

because these costs represent a 

significant fraction of the total costs of 

the new requirement. OSHA received 

estimates for the costs from the US 

Department of Labor Office of the Chief 

Information Officer (DOL OCIO). 

Based on the DOL OCIO estimates 

shown in the table below, OSHA is 

estimating that modification of the 

reporting system hardware and software 

infrastructure to accept submissions of 

Form 300 and 301 data will have an 

initial one-time cost of $1.2 million. 

TABLE V–1—ESTIMATES OF THE COST

OF SOFTWARE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

Lower cost 

range 

Upper cost 

range 

Development ...... $516,417.00 $866,250.00 

Cyber/ATO 150,000.00 200,000.00 

Cloud ........ 20,000.00 20,000.00 

Migration ... 100,000.00 150,000.00 

Total ...... 786,417.00 1,236,250.00 

Annualized over 10 years at a seven 

percent discount rate, $1.2 million is 

$170,853 per year, or $140,677 

annualized over 10 years at three 

percent. OSHA also estimates $201,128 

as the annual cost of additional 

transactions ($0.28 per case times 

718,316 cases). Finally, OSHA estimates 

that annual help desk support costs will 

increase by $25,000. This estimate is 

based on the annual help desk support 

costs under the current provisions. 

5. Total Costs of the Rule 

As shown in the table below, the total 

costs of the proposed rule would be an 

estimated $4.3 million per year. 

TABLE V–2—TOTAL COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE 18

Cost element Annual costs One-time 

costs 1

Annual electronic submission of OSHA Form 300A annual summary by establishments with 20 or more employees in designated industries .......................................................................................................................... ($27,077) 

Annual electronic submission of OSHA Form 300 Log and OSHA Form 301 Incident Report by establishments 

with 100 or more employees in designated industries ........................................................................................ 3,968,819 

Submission cost ............................................................................................................................................... 3,898,037 

Cost of rule familiarization ................................................................................................................................ 2 70,782 $497,033 

Total Private Sector Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 3,941,741 

Total Government Costs .......................................................................................................................................... 397,001 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18551 

19See ‘‘EMPLOYER-REPORTED WORKPLACE 

INJURIES AND ILLNESSES—2020’’, news release 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics/U.S. Department 

of Labor, 10:00 a.m. (ET) Wednesday, November 3, 

2021. 

20See e.g., Leigh JP, Du J, McCurdy SA. An 

estimate of the U.S. government’s undercount of 

nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses in 

agriculture. Ann Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;24(4):254–9. 

doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.01.006. Epub 2014 

Jan 22. PMID: 24507952; PMCID: PMC6597012; 

Spieler EA, Wagner GR. Counting matters: 

Implications of undercounting in the BLS survey of 

occupational injuries and illnesses. Am J Ind Med. 

2014 Oct;57(10):1077–84. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22382. 

PMID: 25223513. 

TABLE V–2—TOTAL COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE 18—Continued 

Cost element Annual costs One-time 

costs 1

Processing of annual submission of cases ...................................................................................................... 201,148 

Increased help desk support ............................................................................................................................ 25,000 

Software design/development .......................................................................................................................... 3 170,853 1,200,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 4,338,742 1,697,033 

1The annualized one-time costs appear in the Annual Costs column. The one-time costs are not additional costs. 

2 If annualized over 10 years at 7%. $58,313 if annualized at 3%. 

3 If annualized over 10 years at 7%. $140,677 if annualized at 3%. 

4 Includes the one-time costs for rule familiarization and software design and development, annualized over 10 years at 7%. 

OSHA welcomes public comment on 

this analysis. 

C. Benefits 

The main purpose of the proposed 

rule is to prevent worker injuries and 

illnesses through the collection and use 

of timely, establishment-specific and 

case-specific injury and illness data. 

With the information obtained through 

this proposed rule, employers, 

employees, employee representatives, 

the government, and researchers will be 

better able to identify and mitigate 

workplace hazards and thereby prevent 

worker injuries and illnesses. 

The proposed rule would support 

OSHA’s statutory directive to ‘‘assure so 

far as possible every working man and 

woman in the Nation safe and healthful 

working conditions and to preserve our 

human resources’’ (29 U.S.C. 651(b)) 

‘‘by providing for appropriate reporting 

procedures with respect to occupational 

safety and health which procedures will 

help achieve the objectives of this Act 

and accurately describe the nature of the 

occupational safety and health 

problem’’ (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(12)). 

The importance of the proposed rule 

in preventing worker injuries and 

illnesses can be understood in the 

context of workplace safety and health 

in the United States today. The number 

of workers injured or made ill on the job 

remains unacceptably high. According 

to the SOII, each year employees 

experience 2.7 million recordable nonfatal injuries and illnesses at work,19

and this number is widely recognized to 

be an undercount of the actual number 

of occupational injuries and illnesses 

that occur annually.20 As described 

above, the proposed rule would increase 

the agency’s ability to focus resources 

on those workplaces where workers are 

at greatest risk. However, even with 

improved targeting, OSHA Compliance 

Safety and Health Officers can inspect 

only a small proportion of the nation’s 

workplaces each year, and it would take 

many decades to inspect each covered 

workplace in the nation even once. As 

a result, to reduce worker injuries and 

illnesses, it is of great importance for 

OSHA to leverage its resources for 

workplace safety at the many thousands 

of establishments in which workers are 

being injured or made ill but which 

OSHA does not have the resources to 

inspect. 

The proposed requirement would 

help OSHA encourage employers to 

prevent worker injuries and illnesses by 

greatly expanding OSHA’s access to the 

establishment-specific, case-specific 

information employers are already 

required to record under part 1904. The 

proposed provisions requiring regular 

electronic submission of case-specific 

injury and illness data would allow 

OSHA to obtain a much larger data set 

of more timely, establishment-specific 

information about injuries and illnesses 

in the workplace. This information 

would help OSHA use its enforcement 

and compliance assistance resources 

more effectively by enabling OSHA to 

identify the workplaces where workers 

are at greatest risk. For example, OSHA 

could send hazard-specific educational 

materials to employers who reported 

cases related to those hazards. In 

addition, as discussed above, OSHA 

would be able to use the information to 

identify emerging hazards, support an 

agency response, and reach out to 

employers whose workplaces might 

include those hazards. 

The proposed collection would 

provide establishment-specific, casespecific injury and illness data for 

analyses that are not currently possible. 

For example, OSHA could analyze the 

case-specific data collected under this 

system to answer the following 

questions: 

1. Within a given industry, what are 

the characteristics of recorded injuries 

or illnesses related to specific hazards 

(for example, fall from ladder or heat)? 

2. Within a given industry, what are 

the relationships between an 

establishment’s hazard-specific/casespecific injury and illness data and data 

from other agencies or departments, 

such as the Wage and Hour Division, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, or 

the Equal Employment Opportunities 

Commission? 

3. What are the changes in hazardspecific injuries or illnesses in a 

particular industry over time? 

Furthermore, access to establishmentspecific, case-specific injury and illness 

data will enable OSHA to improve its 

evaluations of the effectiveness of its 

enforcement and compliance assistance 

activities. Having these data will enable 

OSHA to conduct rigorous evaluations 

of different types of programs, 

initiatives, and interventions in 

different industries and geographic 

areas, enabling the agency to become 

more effective and efficient. For 

example, OSHA would be able to 

compare the incidence and 

characteristics of heat-related illnesses 

before and after promulgation of a 

regulation on heat injury and illness 

prevention in outdoor and indoor work 

settings, thereby allowing the agency to 

evaluate the implementation and 

effectiveness of the regulation. 

OSHA’s collection and publication of 

establishment-specific, case-specific 

injury and illness data would also 

encourage employers with 100 or more 

employees to prevent injuries and 

illnesses among their employees, 

because 

• Employers would prefer to support 

their reputations as good places to work 

at or do business with; 

• Employers in a given high-hazard 

industry would be able to compare their 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
18552 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

workplace’s experience with a 

particular hazard with the experiences 

at other workplaces, allowing them to 

set hazard-abatement goals 

benchmarked to comparable 

establishments in their industry. 

• Employees in establishments with 

100 or more employees would be able 

to access the case-specific injury and 

illness information without having to 

request the information from their 

employers; this, in turn, would allow 

the employees in these establishments 

to better identify hazards within their 

own workplace and to take actions to 

have the hazards abated. 

• Prospective employees would have 

access to data about specific hazards of 

particular concern, such as lead or 

trench collapses, allowing them to make 

a more informed decision about a future 

place of employment; this, in turn, 

would encourage employers to abate 

these hazards because potential 

employees, especially the ones whose 

skills are most in demand, might be 

reluctant to work at establishments that 

did not abate these hazards. 

• Potential investors and the public 

would also have access to information 

about an establishment’s experience 

with specific hazards, allowing them to 

preferentially invest in or patronize 

businesses that have successfully abated 

the hazards common in a given 

industry; this, in turn, would encourage 

employers to abate the hazards in order 

to attract investors and/or customers. 

Finally, disclosure of and access to 

establishment-specific, case-specific 

injury and illness data have the 

potential to improve research on the 

distribution and determinants of 

workplace hazards, and therefore to 

prevent workplace injuries and illnesses 

from occurring by abating those hazards. 

Using data collected under the proposed 

rule, researchers might identify 

previously unrecognized patterns of 

injuries and illnesses across 

establishments where workers are 

exposed to similar hazards. Such 

research would be especially useful in 

identifying hazards that result in a small 

number of injuries or illnesses in each 

establishment but a large number 

overall, due to a wide distribution of 

those hazards in a particular area, 

industry, or establishment type. Data 

made available under this proposed rule 

could also allow researchers to identify 

patterns of hazard-specific injuries or 

illnesses that are masked by the 

aggregation of injury/illness data in the 

SOII. 

The availability of case-specific, 

establishment-specific injury and illness 

data would also be of great use to 

county, state and territorial health 

departments and other public 

institutions charged with injury and 

illness surveillance. In particular, 

aggregation of case-specific, 

establishment-specific injury and illness 

reports and rates from similar 

establishments would facilitate 

identification of newly-emerging 

hazards that would not easily be 

identified without linkage to specific 

industries or occupations. There are 

currently no comparable data sets 

available, and these public health 

surveillance programs must primarily 

rely on reporting of cases seen by 

medical practitioners, any one of whom 

would rarely see enough cases to 

identify an occupational etiology. 

Workplace safety and health 

professionals might use data published 

under this proposed rule to identify 

establishments whose injury/illness 

records suggest that the establishments 

would benefit from their services to 

abate particular hazards or sets of 

hazards. In general, online access to this 

large database of establishment-specific, 

case-specific injury and illness 

information would support the 

development of innovative ideas for 

improving workplace safety and health, 

and would better the ability of everyone 

with a stake in workplace safety and 

health to participate in improving 

occupational safety and health. 

Furthermore, because the data would 

be publicly available, industries, trade 

associations, unions, and other groups 

representing employers and workers 

would be able to evaluate the 

effectiveness of privately-initiated 

hazard-abatement initiatives that affect 

groups of establishments. In addition, 

linking these data with data residing in 

other administrative data sets would 

enable researchers to conduct rigorous 

studies that will increase our 

understanding of injury/illness 

causation, prevention, and 

consequences. 

Public access to these data would 

enable developers of software 

applications to develop tools that 

facilitate use of these data by employers, 

workers, researchers, consumers and 

others. Examples of this in other areas 

include apps for finding and comparing 

nursing homes, creating thematic maps 

of data from the American Community 

Survey, and obtaining real-time 

information on stream levels or bus/ 

subway arrivals. 

The database resulting from this 

proposed rule would enable the 

collection and publication of casespecific, establishment-specific data 

without having to work under the 

restrictions imposed by the Confidential 

Information Protection and Statistical 

Efficiency Act (CIPSEA) to protect 

information acquired for statistical 

purposes under a pledge of 

confidentiality. It would also provide 

data on injuries and illnesses that are 

not currently available from any source, 

including the BLS SOII. Specifically, 

under this collection, there would be 

case-specific data for injuries and 

illnesses that do not involve days away 

from work. The BLS case and 

demographic data is limited to cases 

involving days away from work or cases 

involving job transfer or restricted work 

activity. 

D. Economic Feasibility 

OSHA preliminarily concludes that 

the proposed rule will be economically 

feasible. For establishments with 100 or 

more employees in the industries 

designated in proposed appendix B, the 

average additional cost of submitting 

information from the OSHA Form 300 

and 301 will be $81 per year. These 

costs will not affect the economic 

viability of these establishments. 

E. Alternatives 

1. Appendix A (industries where 

establishments with 20 or more 

employees are required to submit 

information from the OSHA Form 300A) 

is based on 2011–2013 injury rates from 

the SOII. OSHA could update appendix 

A to reflect the 2017–2019 injury rates 

from the SOII. This would result in the 

addition of one industry (NAICS 4831 

(Deep sea, coastal, and great lakes water 

transportation)) and the removal of 13 

industries, as follows: 

• 4421 Furniture Stores 

• 4452 Specialty Food Stores 

• 4853 Taxi and Limousine Service 

• 4855 Charter Bus Industry 

• 5152 Cable and Other Subscription 

Programming 

• 5311 Lessors of Real Estate 

• 5321 Automotive Equipment Rental 

and Leasing 

• 5323 General Rental Centers 

• 6242 Community Food and Housing, 

and Emergency and Other Relief 

Services 

• 7132 Gambling Industries 

• 7212 RV (Recreational Vehicle) Parks 

and Recreational Camps 

• 7223 Special Food Services 

• 8113 Commercial and Industrial 

Machinery and Equipment (except 

Automotive and Electronic) Repair 

and Maintenance. 

OSHA is proposing not to modify 

appendix A because it took several years 

for the regulated community to 

understand which industries were and 

were not required to submit 

information. Misunderstandings result 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18553 

21The revenue numbers used to determine costto-revenue ratios were obtained from the 2017 

Economic Census. This is the most current 

information available from this source, which 

OSHA considers to be the best available source of 

revenue data for U.S. businesses. OSHA adjusted 

these figures to 2019 dollars using the Bureau of 

Economic Analysis’s GDP deflator, which is 

OSHA’s standard source for inflation and deflation 

analysis. 

22The profit screening test for feasibility (i.e., the 

cost-to-profit ratio) was calculated as ETS costs 

divided by profits. Profits were calculated as profit 

rates multiplied by revenues. The before-tax profit 

rates that OSHA used were estimated using 

corporate balance sheet data from the 2013 

Corporation Source Book (Internal Revenue Service, 

2013). The IRS discontinued the publication of 

these data after 2013, and therefore the most current 

years available are 2000–2013. The most recent 

version of the Source Book represents the best 

available evidence for these data on profit rates. 

in both underreporting and 

overreporting. OSHA preliminarily 

believes that changing the requirements 

now would result in confusion for the 

regulated community. However, OSHA 

welcomes public comment on this 

alternative. 

2. OSHA could regularly update the 

list of designated industries in proposed 

appendix B (industries where 

establishments with 100 or more 

employees must submit information 

from the Form 300 and 301 as well as 

the 300A)—for example, every 6 years, 

to align with the PRA approval periods. 

In the 2016 final rule, OSHA agreed 

with the commenters who stated that 

the list of designated industries 

[appendix A, in this case] should not be 

updated each year. OSHA believed that 

moving industries in and out of the 

appendix each year would be confusing. 

OSHA also believed that keeping the 

same industries in the appendix each 

year would increase the stability of the 

system and reduce uncertainty for 

employers. Accordingly, OSHA did not, 

as part of that rulemaking, include a 

requirement to annually or periodically 

adjust the list of designated industries to 

reflect more recent BLS injury and 

illness data. OSHA committed that any 

such revision to the list of industries in 

the future would require additional 

notice and comment rulemaking. 

However, OSHA again welcomes public 

comment on this alternative for this 

rulemaking. 

F. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

The part of the proposed rule 

requiring submission of Form 300 and 

301 information from establishments 

with 100 or more employees in 

designated industries will affect some 

small entities, according to the 

definition of small entity used by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

In some sectors, such as construction, 

where SBA’s definition only allows 

relatively smaller firms, there are 

unlikely to be many firms with 100 or 

more employees that meet SBA smallbusiness definitions. In other sectors, 

such as manufacturing, many SBAdefined small businesses will be subject 

to this rule. Thus, this part of the 

proposed rule will affect a small 

percentage of all small entities. 

However, because some small firms 

will be affected, especially in 

manufacturing, OSHA has examined the 

impacts on small businesses of the costs 

of this rule. OSHA’s procedures for 

assessing the significance of proposed 

rules on small businesses suggest that if 

costs are greater than 1 percent of 

revenues or 5 percent of profits for the 

average firm, then OSHA conducts an 

additional assessment. To meet this 

level of significance at an estimated 

annual average cost of $81.13 per 

affected establishment per year, annual 

revenues for an establishment with 100 

or more employees would have to be 

less than $8,113, and annual profits 

would have to be less than $1,623. 

According to the 2017 Economic 

Census,21 there are no impacted 

industries that have revenues less than 

$8,113. Furthermore, based on the 2013 

Corporation Source Book,22 there are no 

impacted industries earning less than 

$1,623. 

As a result of these considerations, 

per section 605 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, OSHA certifies that the 

rule will not, if promulgated, have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Thus, OSHA has not prepared an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis. OSHA is 

interested in comments on this 

certification. 

V. OMB Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

A. Overview 

OSHA is proposing to amend its 

occupational injury and illness 

recordkeeping regulation, 29 CFR 

1904.41, which contains information 

collections that are subject to review by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq., and OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 

1320. The agency is not revising the 

existing ICR, 1218–0176, but rather 

requesting a new number for provisions 

being added or modified. The PRA 

defines ‘‘collection of information’’ to 

mean ‘‘the obtaining, causing to be 

obtained, soliciting, or requiring the 

disclosure to third parties or the public, 

of facts or opinions by or for an agency, 

regardless of form or format.’’ 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3)(A). Under the PRA, a Federal 

agency cannot conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless OMB 

approves it and the agency displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 44 

U.S.C. 3507. Also, notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, no employer 

shall be subject to penalty for failing to 

comply with a collection of information 

if the collection of information does not 

display a currently valid OMB control 

number. 44 U.S.C. 3512. 

B. Solicitation of Comments 

OSHA prepared and submitted an ICR 

to OMB proposing to revise certain 

information collection requirements 

currently contained in the paperwork 

package in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 

3507(d). The agency solicits comments 

on the revision to the information 

collection requirements and the 

reduction in estimated burden hours 

associated with these requirements, 

including comments on the following 

items: 

• Whether the collection of 

information are necessary for the proper 

performance of the agency’s functions, 

including whether the information is 

useful; 

• The accuracy of OSHA’s estimate of 

the burden (time and cost) of the 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

• The quality, utility, and clarity of 

the information collected; and 

• Ways to minimize the compliance 

burden on employers, for example, by 

using automated or other technological 

techniques for collecting and 

transmitting information. 

C. Proposed Information Collection 

Requirements 

As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) 

and 1320.8(d)(2), the following 

paragraphs provide information about 

this ICR. 

1. Title: Improve Tracking Workplace 

Injury and Illness. 

2. Description of the ICR: This 

proposed rule would revise the 

currently approved Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Occupational Injuries and 

Illnesses Information Collection and 

change the existing information 

collection requirements currently 

approved by OMB. 

3. Brief Summary of the Information 

Collection Requirements. Under 

‘‘Information Requirements on 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Occupational Injuries and Illnesses,’’ 

OMB Control Number 1218–0176, 

OSHA currently has OMB approval to 

conduct an information collection that 

requires employers to maintain 

information on work-related fatalities, 

injuries, and illnesses, and to report this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
18554 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

information to OSHA. The proposed 

rule would make three changes to 

§ 1904.41. 

First, OSHA will no longer require 

electronic submission of Form 300A 

information from establishments with 

250 or more employees in industries 

that are routinely required to keep part 

1904 injury and illness records but are 

not in appendix A. 

Second, OSHA will newly require all 

establishments that have 100 or more 

employees and are in certain designated 

industries to electronically submit 

information from the OSHA Form 300 

and 301 to OSHA or OSHA’s designee. 

This is in addition to the current 

requirement for these establishments to 

electronically submit information from 

the OSHA Form 300A. Each 

establishment subject to this provision 

will require time to familiarize 

themselves with the reporting website. 

Third, OSHA will require 

establishments that are required to 

electronically report information from 

their injury and illness records to OSHA 

under part 1904, to include their 

company name as part of the 

submission. No additional paperwork 

burden is associated with the provision. 

In addition, Docket exhibit OSHA– 

2021–006–0004 shows an example of an 

expanded interface to collect casespecific data. Screen shots of this 

interface can also be viewed on OSHA’s 

website at http://www.osha.gov/ 

recordkeeping/proposed_data_

form.html. OSHA invites public 

comment on these user interfaces, 

including suggestions on any interface 

features that would minimize the 

burden of reporting the required data. 

4. OMB Control Number: 1218– 

0NEW. 

5. Affected Public: Business or other 

for-profit. 

6. Number of Respondents: 48,919. 

7. Frequency of Responses: Annually. 

8. Number of Responses: 429,876. 

9. Average Time per Response: Time 

per response varies. 

10. Estimated total burden hours: 

71,646. 

11. Estimated costs (capital-operation 

and maintenance): $0. 

D. Submitting Comments 

Members of the public may comment 

on the paperwork requirements in this 

proposed regulation by sending their 

comments to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk 

Officer for the Department of Labor, 

OSHA Regulation Identifier Number 

(RIN) (1218–AD40), by email: OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov. Please limit 

the comments to only the proposed 

changed provisions of the recordkeeping 

rule (i.e., proposed § 1904.41). 

OSHA encourages commenters also to 

submit their comments on these 

paperwork requirements to the 

rulemaking docket (OSHA–2021–0006), 

along with their comments on other 

parts of the proposed regulation. For 

instructions on submitting these 

comments to the docket, see the sections 

of this Federal Register document titled 

DATES and ADDRESSES. Comments 

submitted in response to this document 

are public records; therefore, OSHA 

cautions commenters about submitting 

personal information, such as Social 

Security numbers and dates of birth. 

E. Docket and Inquiries 

To access the docket to read or 

download comments and other 

materials related to this paperwork 

determination, including the complete 

Information Collection Request (ICR), 

use the procedures described under the 

section of this document titled 

ADDRESSES. You may obtain an 

electronic copy of the complete ICR by 

going to the website at https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, 

then select ‘‘Department of Labor’’ 

under ‘‘Currently Under Review’’, then 

click on ‘‘submit’’. This will show all of 

the Department’s ICRs currently under 

review, including the ICRs submitted for 

proposed rulemakings. To make 

inquiries, or to request other 

information, contact Ms. Seleda 

Perryman, Directorate of Standards and 

Guidance, Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration, U.S. Department 

of Labor; telephone (202) 693–4131; 

email perryman.seleda.m@dol.gov. 

VI. Unfunded Mandates 

For purposes of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq.), as well as Executive Order 

13132 (64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999)), this 

proposed rule does not include any 

Federal mandate that may result in 

increased expenditures by state, local, 

and tribal governments, or increased 

expenditures by the private sector of 

more than $100 million. 

VII. Federalism 

OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132 

(64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999)), regarding 

federalism. Because this rulemaking 

involves a ‘‘regulation’’ issued under 

sections 8 and 24 of the OSH Act (29 

U.S.C. 657, 673), and not an 

‘‘occupational safety and health 

standard’’ issued under section 6 of the 

OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655), the rule will 

not preempt state law (see 29 U.S.C. 

667(a)). The effect of the proposed rule 

on states is discussed in section VIII. 

State Plans. 

VIII. State Plans 

For the purposes of section 18 of the 

OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 667) and the 

requirements of 29 CFR 1904.37, 

1902.3(j), 1902.7, and 1956.10(i), within 

6 months after publication of the final 

OSHA rule, State Plans must 

promulgate occupational injury and 

illness recording and reporting 

requirements that are substantially 

identical to those in 29 CFR part 1904 

‘‘Recording and Reporting Occupational 

Injuries and Illnesses.’’ State Plans must 

have the same requirements as Federal 

OSHA for determining which injuries 

and illnesses are recordable and how 

they are recorded (29 CFR 

1904.37(b)(1)). All other part 1904 

injury and illness recording and 

reporting requirements (for example, 

industry exemptions, reporting of 

fatalities and hospitalizations, record 

retention, or employee involvement) 

that are promulgated by State Plans 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 additional or more 

stringent reporting and recording 

requirements to ensure that they will 

not interfere with uniform reporting 

objectives (29 CFR 1904.37(b)(2)). 

There are 28 State Plans. The states 

and territories that cover private sector 

employers are 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, Illinois, Maine, New 

Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands 

have OSHA-approved State Plans that 

apply to state and local government 

employees only. 

IX. Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments 

OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in 

accordance with Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249) and determined that it 

would not have ‘‘tribal implications’’ as 

defined in that order. The proposed rule 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18555 

X. Public Participation 

Because this rulemaking involves a 

regulation rather than a standard, it is 

governed by the notice and comment 

requirements in the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) 

rather than section 6 of the OSH Act (29 

U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR part 1911 (both 

of which only apply to ‘‘promulgating, 

modifying or revoking occupational 

safety or health standards’’ (29 CFR 

1911.1)). Therefore, the OSH Act 

requirement to hold an informal public 

hearing (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(3)) on a 

proposed rule, when requested, does not 

apply to this rulemaking. 

Section 553(b)(1) of the APA requires 

the agency to issue a ‘‘statement of the 

time, place, and nature of public 

rulemaking proceedings’’ (5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(1)). The APA does not specify a 

minimum period for submitting 

comments. 

OSHA invites comment on all aspects 

of the proposed rule. OSHA specifically 

encourages comment on the questions 

raised in the issues and questions 

subsection. Interested persons must 

submit comments by May 31, 2022. The 

agency will carefully review and 

evaluate all comments, information, and 

data, as well as all other information in 

the rulemaking record, to determine 

how to proceed. When submitting 

comments, persons must follow the 

procedures specified above in the 

sections titled DATES and ADDRESSES. 

Authority and Signature 

This document was prepared under 

the direction of Douglas L. Parker, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. It 

is issued under sections 8 and 24 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 

U.S.C. 657, 673), section 553 of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

553), and Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 

08–2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020). 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1904 

Health statistics, Occupational safety 

and health, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Signed at Washington, DC, on March 23, 

2022. 

Douglas L. Parker, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

Amendments to Standards 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, OSHA proposes to amend 

part 1904 of chapter XVII of title 29 as 

follows: 

PART 1904—[AMENDED] 

Subpart E—Reporting Fatality, Injury 

and Illness Information to the 

Government 

■ 1. Revise the authority citation for part 

1904, subpart E, to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 657, 673, 5 U.S.C. 

553, and Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 08– 

2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020) or 1–2012 

(77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), as applicable. 

■ 2. Amend § 1904.41 as follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and 

(b)(1); 

■ b. Add paragraphs (b)(9) and (10); and 

■ c. Revise paragraph (c). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 1904.41 Electronic submission of 

Employer Identification Number (EIN) and 

injury and illness records to OSHA. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) Annual electronic submission of 

information from OSHA Form 300A 

Summary of Work-Related Injuries and 

Illnesses by establishments with 20 or 

more employees in designated 

industries. If your establishment had 20 

or more employees at any time during 

the previous calendar year, and your 

establishment is classified in an 

industry listed in appendix A to subpart 

E of this part, then you must 

electronically submit information from 

OSHA Form 300A Summary of WorkRelated Injuries and Illnesses to OSHA 

or OSHA’s designee. You must submit 

the information once a year, no later 

than the date listed in paragraph (c) of 

this section of the year after the calendar 

year covered by the form. 

(2) Annual electronic submission of 

information from OSHA Form 300 Log 

of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, 

OSHA Form 301 Injury and Illness 

Incident Report, and OSHA Form 300A 

Summary of Work-Related Injuries and 

Illnesses by establishments with 100 or 

more employees in designated 

industries. If your establishment had 

100 or more employees at any time 

during the previous calendar year, and 

your establishment is classified in an 

industry listed in appendix B to subpart 

E of this part, then you must 

electronically submit information from 

OSHA Forms 300, 301, and 300A to 

OSHA or OSHA’s designee. You must 

submit the information once a year, no 

later than the date listed in paragraph 

(c) of this section of the year after the 

calendar year covered by the forms. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Annual electronic submission of 

information from part 1904 injury and 

illness recordkeeping forms to OSHA— 

(i) Does every employer have to 

routinely make an annual electronic 

submission of information from part 

1904 injury and illness recordkeeping 

forms to OSHA? No, only two categories 

of employers must routinely submit this 

information. The first category is 

establishments that had 20 or more 

employees at any time during the 

previous calendar year, and are 

classified in an industry listed in 

appendix A to this subpart; 

establishments in this category must 

submit the required information from 

Form 300A to OSHA once a year. The 

second category is establishments that 

had 100 or more employees at any time 

during the previous calendar year, and 

are classified in an industry listed in 

appendix B to this subpart; 

establishments in this category must 

submit the required information from 

Forms 300, 301, and 300A to OSHA 

once a year. Employers in these two 

categories must submit the required 

information by the date listed in 

paragraph (c) of this section of the year 

after the calendar year covered by the 

form (for example, 2022 for the 2021 

form(s)). If your establishment is not in 

either of these two categories, then you 

must submit the information to OSHA 

only if OSHA notifies you to do so for 

an individual data collection. 

(ii) My establishment had 100 or more 

employees last year and is in an 

industry that is listed in both appendix 

A and appendix B. Do I have to submit 

the information from the Form 300A 

twice? No, you only have to submit the 

information from the Form 300A once. 

* * * * * 

(9) If I have to submit information 

under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, 

do I have to submit all of the 

information from the recordkeeping 

forms? No, you are required to submit 

all of the information from the forms 

except the following: 

(i) Log of Work-Related Injuries and 

Illnesses (OSHA Form 300): Employee 

name (column B). 

(ii) Injury and Illness Incident Report 

(OSHA Form 301): Employee name 

(field 1), employee address (field 2), 

name of physician or other health care 

professional (field 6), facility name and 

address if treatment was given away 

from the worksite (field 7). 

(10) My company uses numbers or 

codes to identify our establishments. 

May I use numbers or codes as the 

establishment name in my submission? 

Yes, you may use numbers or codes as 

the establishment name. However, the 

submission must include the company 

name, either as part of the establishment 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
18556 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

name or separately as the company 

name. 

(c) Reporting dates. Establishments 

that are required to submit under 

paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section 

must submit all of the required 

information by March 2 of the year after 

the calendar year covered by the form(s) 

(for example, by March 2, 2022, for the 

forms covering 2021). 

■ 3. Revise appendix A to subpart E to 

read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart E of Part 1904— 

Designated Industries for 

§ 1904.41(a)(1) Annual Electronic 

Submission of Information From OSHA 

Form 300A Summary of Work-Related 

Injuries and Illnesses by Establishments 

With 20 or More Employees in 

Designated Industries 

NAICS Industry 

11 ................. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting. 

22 ................. Utilities. 

23 ................. Construction. 

31–33 ........... Manufacturing. 

42 ................. Wholesale trade. 

4413 ............. Automotive Parts, Accessories, and Tire Stores. 

4421 ............. Furniture Stores. 

4422 ............. Home Furnishings Stores. 

4441 ............. Building Material and Supplies Dealers. 

4442 ............. Lawn and Garden Equipment and Supplies Stores. 

4451 ............. Grocery Stores. 

4452 ............. Specialty Food Stores. 

4522 ............. Department Stores. 

4523 ............. General Merchandise Stores, including Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters. 

4533 ............. Used Merchandise Stores. 

4542 ............. Vending Machine Operators. 

4543 ............. Direct Selling Establishments. 

4811 ............. Scheduled Air Transportation. 

4841 ............. General Freight Trucking. 

4842 ............. Specialized Freight Trucking. 

4851 ............. Urban Transit Systems. 

4852 ............. Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation. 

4853 ............. Taxi and Limousine Service. 

4854 ............. School and Employee Bus Transportation. 

4855 ............. Charter Bus Industry. 

4859 ............. Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation. 

4871 ............. Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Land. 

4881 ............. Support Activities for Air Transportation. 

4882 ............. Support Activities for Rail Transportation. 

4883 ............. Support Activities for Water Transportation. 

4884 ............. Support Activities for Road Transportation. 

4889 ............. Other Support Activities for Transportation. 

4911 ............. Postal Service. 

4921 ............. Couriers and Express Delivery Services. 

4922 ............. Local Messengers and Local Delivery. 

4931 ............. Warehousing and Storage. 

5152 ............. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. 

5311 ............. Lessors of Real Estate. 

5321 ............. Automotive Equipment Rental and Leasing. 

5322 ............. Consumer Goods Rental. 

5323 ............. General Rental Centers. 

5617 ............. Services to Buildings and Dwellings. 

5621 ............. Waste Collection. 

5622 ............. Waste Treatment and Disposal. 

5629 ............. Remediation and Other Waste Management Services. 

6219 ............. Other Ambulatory Health Care Services. 

6221 ............. General Medical and Surgical Hospitals. 

6222 ............. Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospitals. 

6223 ............. Specialty (except Psychiatric and Substance Abuse) Hospitals. 

6231 ............. Nursing Care Facilities (Skilled Nursing Facilities). 

6232 ............. Residential Intellectual and Developmental Disability, Mental Health, and Substance Abuse Facilities. 

6233 ............. Continuing Care Retirement Communities and Assisted Living Facilities for the Elderly. 

6239 ............. Other Residential Care Facilities. 

6242 ............. Community Food and Housing, and Emergency and Other Relief Services. 

6243 ............. Vocational Rehabilitation Services. 

7111 ............. Performing Arts Companies. 

7112 ............. Spectator Sports. 

7121 ............. Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions. 

7131 ............. Amusement Parks and Arcades. 

7132 ............. Gambling Industries. 

7211 ............. Traveler Accommodation. 

7212 ............. RV (Recreational Vehicle) Parks and Recreational Camps. 

7223 ............. Special Food Services. 

8113 ............. Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18557 

NAICS Industry 

8123 ............. Drycleaning and Laundry Services. 

■ 4. Add appendix B to subpart E to 

read as follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart E of Part 1904— 

Designated Industries for 

§ 1904.41(a)(2) Annual Electronic 

Submission of Information From OSHA 

Form 300 Log of Work-Related Injuries 

and Illnesses, OSHA Form 301 Injury 

and Illness Incident Report, and OSHA 

Form 300A Summary of Work-Related 

Injuries and Illnesses by Establishments 

With 100 or More Employees in 

Designated Industries 

NAICS Industry 

1111 ............. Oilseed and grain farming. 

1112 ............. Vegetable and melon farming. 

1113 ............. Fruit and tree nut farming. 

1114 ............. Greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture production. 

1119 ............. Other crop farming. 

1121 ............. Cattle ranching and farming. 

1122 ............. Hog and pig farming. 

1123 ............. Poultry and egg production. 

1129 ............. Other animal production. 

1141 ............. Fishing. 

1151 ............. Support activities for crop production. 

1152 ............. Support activities for animal production. 

1153 ............. Support activities for forestry. 

2213 ............. Water, sewage and other systems. 

2381 ............. Foundation, structure, and building exterior contractors. 

3111 ............. Animal food manufacturing. 

3113 ............. Sugar and confectionery product manufacturing. 

3114 ............. Fruit and vegetable preserving and specialty food manufacturing. 

3115 ............. Dairy product manufacturing. 

3116 ............. Animal slaughtering and processing. 

3117 ............. Seafood product preparation and packaging. 

3118 ............. Bakeries and tortilla manufacturing. 

3119 ............. Other food manufacturing. 

3121 ............. Beverage manufacturing. 

3161 ............. Leather and hide tanning and finishing. 

3162 ............. Footwear manufacturing. 

3211 ............. Sawmills and wood preservation. 

3212 ............. Veneer, plywood, and engineered wood product manufacturing. 

3219 ............. Other wood product manufacturing. 

3261 ............. Plastics product manufacturing. 

3262 ............. Rubber product manufacturing. 

3271 ............. Clay product and refractory manufacturing. 

3272 ............. Glass and glass product manufacturing. 

3273 ............. Cement and concrete product manufacturing. 

3279 ............. Other nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing. 

3312 ............. Steel product manufacturing from purchased steel. 

3314 ............. Nonferrous metal production and processing. 

3315 ............. Foundries. 

3321 ............. Forging and stamping. 

3323 ............. Architectural and structural metals manufacturing. 

3324 ............. Boiler, tank, and shipping container manufacturing. 

3325 ............. Hardware manufacturing. 

3326 ............. Spring and wire product manufacturing. 

3327 ............. Machine shops; turned product; and screw, nut, and bolt manufacturing. 

3328 ............. Coating, engraving, heat treating, and allied activities. 

3331 ............. Agriculture, construction, and mining machinery manufacturing. 

3335 ............. Metalworking machinery manufacturing. 

3361 ............. Motor vehicle manufacturing. 

3362 ............. Motor vehicle body and trailer manufacturing. 

3363 ............. Motor vehicle parts manufacturing. 

3366 ............. Ship and boat building. 

3371 ............. Household and institutional furniture and kitchen cabinet manufacturing. 

3372 ............. Office furniture manufacturing. 

4231 ............. Motor vehicle and motor vehicle parts and supplies merchant wholesalers. 

4233 ............. Lumber and other construction materials merchant wholesalers. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
18558 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

NAICS Industry 

4235 ............. Metal and mineral merchant wholesalers. 

4244 ............. Grocery and related product merchant wholesalers. 

4248 ............. Beer, wine, and distilled alcoholic beverage merchant wholesalers. 

4413 ............. Automotive parts, accessories, and tire stores. 

4422 ............. Home furnishings stores. 

4441 ............. Building material and supplies dealers. 

4442 ............. Lawn and garden equipment and supplies stores. 

4451 ............. Grocery stores. 

4522 ............. Department stores. 

4523 ............. General merchandise stores, including warehouse clubs and supercenters. 

4533 ............. Used merchandise stores. 

4543 ............. Direct selling establishments. 

4811 ............. Scheduled air transportation. 

4841 ............. General freight trucking. 

4842 ............. Specialized freight trucking. 

4851 ............. Urban transit systems. 

4852 ............. Interurban and rural bus transportation. 

4854 ............. School and employee bus transportation. 

4859 ............. Other transit and ground passenger transportation. 

4871 ............. Scenic and sightseeing transportation, land. 

4881 ............. Support activities for air transportation. 

4883 ............. Support activities for water transportation. 

4911 ............. Postal Service. 

4921 ............. Couriers and express delivery services. 

4931 ............. Warehousing and storage. 

5322 ............. Consumer goods rental. 

5621 ............. Waste collection. 

5622 ............. Waste treatment and disposal. 

6219 ............. Other ambulatory health care services. 

6221 ............. General medical and surgical hospitals. 

6222 ............. Psychiatric and substance abuse hospitals. 

6223 ............. Specialty hospitals. 

6231 ............. Nursing care facilities. 

6232 ............. Residential intellectual and developmental disability, mental health, and substance abuse facilities. 

6233 ............. Continuing care retirement communities and assisted living facilities for the elderly. 

6239 ............. Other residential care facilities. 

6243 ............. Vocational rehabilitation services. 

7111 ............. Performing arts companies. 

7112 ............. Spectator sports. 

7131 ............. Amusement parks and arcades. 

7211 ............. Traveler accommodation. 

7212 ............. RV parks and recreational camps. 

7223 ............. Special food services. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06546 Filed 3–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2