Document ID: OSHA-2021-0006-0108
Agency: osha
Document Type: Rule
Title: Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses
Posted Date: 2023-07-21T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47254-47349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15091]

[[Page 47253]]

Vol. 88

Friday,

No. 139

July 21, 2023

Part II

Department of Labor

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 Occupational Safety and Health Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

29 CFR Part 1904

Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2023 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 47254]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: OSHA is amending 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 is amending its regulation to require establishments 
with 100 or more employees in certain designated industries to 
electronically submit information from their OSHA Forms 300 and 301 to 
OSHA once a year. OSHA will not collect employee names or addresses, 
names of health care professionals, or names and addresses of 
facilities where treatment was provided if treatment was provided away 
from the worksite from the Forms 300 and 301. Establishments with 20 to 
249 employees in certain industries will continue to be required to 
electronically submit information from their OSHA Form 300A annual 
summary to OSHA once a year. All establishments with 250 or more 
employees that are required to keep records under OSHA's injury and 
illness regulation will also continue to be required to electronically 
submit information from their Form 300A to OSHA on an annual basis. 
OSHA is also updating the NAICS codes used in appendix A, which 
designates the industries required to submit their Form 300A data, and 
is adding appendix B, which designates the industries required to 
submit Form 300 and Form 301 data. In addition, establishments will be 
required to include their company name when making electronic 
submissions to OSHA. OSHA intends to post some of the data from the 
annual electronic submissions on a public website after identifying and 
removing information that could reasonably be expected to identify 
individuals directly, such as individuals' names and contact 
information.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective on January 1, 2024.
    Collections of information: There are collections of information 
contained in this final rule (see Section V, OMB Review Under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995). Notwithstanding the general date of 
applicability for the requirements contained in the final rule, 
affected parties do not have to comply with the collections of 
information until the Department of Labor publishes a separate document 
in the Federal Register announcing that the Office of Management and 
Budget has approved them under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of this Federal Register document and news 
releases are available at OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For press inquiries: Frank Meilinger, Director, Office of 
Communications, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. 
Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-1999; email: 
[email protected].
    For general information and technical inquiries: Lee Anne Jillings, 
Director, Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, 
U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2300; email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. References and Exhibits
    B. Introduction
    C. Regulatory History
    D. Related Litigation
    E. Injury and Illness Data Collection
II. Legal Authority
    A. Statutory Authority To Promulgate the Rule
    B. Fourth Amendment Issues
    C. Publication of Collected Data and FOIA
    D. Reasoned Explanation for Policy Change
III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule
    A. Section 1904.41(a)(1)(i) and (ii)--Annual Electronic 
Submission of Information From OSHA Form 300A Summary of Work-
Related Injuries and Illnesses
    1. Section 1904.41(a)(1)(i)--Establishments With 20-249 
employees That Are Required To Submit Information From OSHA Form 
300A
    2. Section 1904.41(a)(1)(ii)--Establishments With 250 or More 
Employees That Are Required To Submit Information From OSHA Form 
300A
    3. Restructuring of Previous Section 1904.41(a)(1) and (2) Into 
Final Section 1904.41(a)(1)(i) and (ii)
    4. Updating Appendix A
    B. Section 1904.41(a)(2)--Annual Electronic Submission of 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)
    1. Covered Establishments and Industries
    a. The Size Threshold for Submitting Information From OSHA Forms 
300 and 301
    b. The Criteria for Determining the Industries in Appendix B to 
Subpart E
    c. Cut-Off Rates for Determining the Industries in Appendix B to 
Subpart E
    d. Using the Most Current Data To Determine Designated 
Industries
    e. Industries Included in Final Appendix B After Applying the 
Final Criteria, Cut-Off Rates, and Data Sources
    2. Information To Be Submitted
    3. Publication of Electronic Data
    4. Benefits of Collecting and Publishing Data From Forms 300 and 
301
    a. General Benefits of Collecting and Publishing Data From Forms 
300 and 301
    b. Beneficial Ways That OSHA Can Use The Data From Forms 300 and 
301
    c. Beneficial Ways That Employers Can Use the Data From Forms 
300 and 301
    d. Beneficial Ways That Employees Can Use the Data From Forms 
300 and 301
    e. Beneficial Ways That Federal and State Agencies Can Use the 
Data From Forms 300 and 301
    f. Beneficial Ways That Researchers Can Use the Data From Forms 
300 and 301
    g. Beneficial Ways That Workplace Safety Consultants Can Use the 
Data From Forms 300 and 301
    h. Beneficial Ways That Members of the Public and Other 
Interested Parties Can Use the Data From Forms 300 and 301
    5. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
    6. Safeguarding Individual Privacy (Direct Identification)
    7. Indirect Identification of Individuals
    8. The Experience of Other Federal Agencies
    9. Risk of Cyber Attack
    10. The Health Information Portability and Accountability Act 
(HIPAA)
    11. The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
    12. The Privacy Act
    13. Privacy Impact Assessment
    14. Other Issues Related to OSHA's Proposal To Require the 
Submission of and Then Publish Certain Data From Establishments' 
Forms 300 and 301
    a. Miscellaneous Comments
    b. The Effect of the Rule on the Accuracy of Injury and Illness 
Records
    c. Collecting and Processing the Data From Forms 300 and 301 
Will Help OSHA Use Its Resources More Effectively
    d. OSHA's Capacity To Collect and Process the Data From Forms 
300 and 301
    e. Data Submission
    f. Tools To Make the Collected Data From Forms 300 and 301 More 
Useful
    C. Section 1904.41(b)(1)
    D. Section 1904.41(b)(9)
    1. Collecting Employee Names
    2. Excluding Other Specified Fields
    E. Section 1904.41(b)(10)
    F. Section 1904.41(c)
    G. Additional Comments Which Concern More Than One Section of 
the Proposal

[[Page 47255]]

    1. General Comments
    2. Misunderstandings About Scope
    3. Diversion of Resources
    4. Lagging v. Leading Indicators
    5. Employer Shaming
    6. Impact on Employee Recruiting
    7. Legal Disputes
    8. No Fault Recordkeeping
    9. Confidentiality of Business Locations
    10. Employer-Vaccine-Mandate-Related Concerns
    11. Constitutional Issues and OSHA's Authority To Publish 
Information From Forms 300 and 301
    a. The First Amendment
    b. The Fourth Amendment
    c. The Fifth Amendment
    d. OSHA's Authority To Publish Information Submitted Under This 
Rule
    12. Administrative Issues
    a. Public Hearing
    b. The Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health 
(ACCSH)
    c. Reasonable Alternatives Considered
IV. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Certification
    A. Introduction
    B. Changes From the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) 
(Reflecting Changes in the Final Rule From the Proposal)
    1. Continued Submission of OSHA 300A Annual Summaries by 
Establishments With 250 or More Employees
    2. Additional Appendix B Industries
    3. Updated Data
    C. Cost
    1. Wages
    a. Wage Estimates in the PEA
    b. Comments on OSHA's Wage Estimates
    c. Wage Estimates in the FEA
    2. Estimated Case Counts
    3. Familiarization
    4. Record Submission
    5. Custom Forms
    6. Batch-File Submissions
    7. Software/System Upgrades Needed
    8. Other Costs
    a. Harm to Reputation
    b. Additional Time Needed To Review for PII
    c. Company Name
    d. Training Costs
    D. Effect on Prices
    E. Budget Costs to the Government
    F. Total Cost
    G. Benefits
    H. Economic Feasibility
    I. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
V. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    A. Overview
    B. Summary of Information Collection Requirements
VI. Unfunded Mandates
VII. Federalism
VIII. State Plans
IX. National Environmental Policy Act
X. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 
Authority and Signature

I. Background

A. References and Exhibits

    In this preamble, OSHA references documents in Docket No. OSHA-
2021-0006, the docket for this rulemaking. The docket is available at 
http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
    When citing exhibits in the docket, OSHA includes the term 
``Document ID'' followed by the last four digits of the Document ID 
number. For example, OSHA's preliminary economic analysis is in the 
docket as OSHA-2021-0006-0002. Citations also include the attachment 
number or other attachment identifier, if applicable, page numbers 
(designated ``p.'' or ``Tr.'' for pages from a hearing transcript), and 
in a limited number of cases a footnote number (designated ``Fn.''). In 
a citation that contains two or more Document ID numbers, the Document 
ID numbers are separated by semi-colons (e.g., ``Document ID 1231, 
Attachment 1, p. 6; 1383, Attachment 1, p. 2'').
    All materials in the docket, including public comments, supporting 
materials, meeting transcripts, and other documents, are listed on 
http://www.regulations.gov. However, some exhibits (e.g., copyrighted 
material) are not available to read or download from that web page. All 
materials in the docket, including copyrighted material, are available 
for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket 
Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY (877) 889-5627) for assistance in 
locating docket submissions.

B. 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 use three forms, or their equivalent, to record 
recordable employee injuries and illnesses:
     OSHA Form 300, the Log of Work-Related Injuries and 
Illnesses. This form 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, job transfer or restriction).
     OSHA Form 301, the Injury and Illness Incident Report. 
This form includes the employee's name and address, date of birth, date 
hired, and gender and 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.
     OSHA Form 300A, the Annual Summary of Work-Related 
Injuries and Illnesses. This form includes 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. It 
does not contain information about individual employees. Employers are 
required to prepare this form at the end of each year and post the form 
in a visible location in the workplace from February 1 to April 30 of 
the year following the year covered by the form.
    Section 1904.41 of the previous recordkeeping regulation also 
required two groups of establishments to electronically submit injury 
and illness data to OSHA once a year.
     Sec.  1904.41(a)(1) required 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.
     Sec.  1904.41(a)(2) required establishments with 20-249 
employees in certain designated industries (those listed on appendix A 
of part 1904 subpart E) to electronically submit information from their 
Form 300A summary to OSHA once a year.
    Also, Sec.  1904.41(a)(4) required each establishment that must 
electronically submit injury and illness information to OSHA to provide 
their Employer Identification Number (EIN) in their submittal.
    Under this final rule, three groups of establishments will be 
required to electronically submit information from their injury and 
illness recordkeeping forms to OSHA once a year.
     Establishments with 20-249 employees in certain designated 
industries (listed in appendix A to subpart E) will continue to be 
required to electronically submit information from their Form 300A 
annual summary to OSHA once a year (final Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(i)). OSHA 
is also updating the NAICS codes used for appendix A to subpart E.
     Establishments with 250 or more employees in industries 
that are required to routinely keep OSHA injury and illness records 
will continue to be required to electronically submit information from 
the Form 300A to OSHA once a year (final Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(ii)).
     Establishments with 100 or more employees in certain 
designated industries (listed in new appendix B to subpart E) will be 
newly required to electronically submit information from their OSHA 
Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA once a year (final Sec.  1904.41(a)(2)). The 
industries listed in new appendix B were chosen based on

[[Page 47256]]

three measures of industry hazardousness.
    OSHA will also require establishments to include their company name 
when making electronic submissions to OSHA (final Sec.  
1904.41(b)(10)).
    Additionally, although publication is not part of the regulatory 
requirements of this final rule, 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 of the release of information that could 
reasonably be expected to identify individuals directly, such as 
employee name, contact information, and name of physician or health 
care professional. OSHA will minimize the possibility of releasing such 
information in multiple ways, including by limiting the worker 
information collected, designing the collection system to provide extra 
protections for some of the information that employers will be required 
to submit, withholding certain fields from public disclosure, and using 
automated software to identify and remove information that could 
reasonably be expected to identify individuals directly.
    OSHA has determined that the data collection will assist the agency 
in its statutory mission to assure safe and healthful working 
conditions for working people (see 29 U.S.C. 651(b)). In addition, OSHA 
has determined that the expanded public access to establishment-
specific, case-specific injury and illness data will allow employers, 
employees, potential employees, employee representatives, customers, 
potential customers, researchers, and the general public to make more 
informed decisions about workplace safety and health at a given 
establishment. OSHA believes that this accessibility will ultimately 
result in the reduction of occupational injuries and illnesses.
    OSHA estimates that this rule will have economic costs of $7.7 
million per year, including $7.1 million per year to the private 
sector, with average costs of $136 per year for affected establishments 
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.

C. Regulatory History

    As discussed in section II, Legal Authority, the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act (OSH Act or Act) requires employers to keep 
records of employee illnesses and injuries as prescribed by OSHA 
through regulation. 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 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).\1\ 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 Sec.  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 high-hazard 
industries. The agency used these data to calculate establishment-
specific injury and illness rates, and, in combination with other data 
sources, to target enforcement and compliance assistance activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All employers covered by the OSH Act are covered by OSHA's 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements found in 29 CFR part 1904. 
However, there are several exceptions to OSHA's recordkeeping 
requirements that apply unless OSHA or the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) informs them in writing that they must keep records 
(29 CFR 1904.1(a)(1), 1904.2(a)(1)). 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 (29 CFR 1904.1, 1904.2). The provision excepts 
most employers covered by the OSH Act. All employers covered by the 
OSH Act, including those that are partially exempt from keeping 
injury and illness records, are still required to report work-
related fatalities, in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, and 
losses of an eye to OSHA within specified timeframes under 29 CFR 
1904.39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 initial 
submission 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. As a result, those 
establishments were required to electronically submit only information 
from their OSHA 300A

[[Page 47257]]

annual summary. The 2019 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, 395-97).
    On March 30, 2022, OSHA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM or proposed rule) proposing to amend the recordkeeping 
regulations to require establishments with 100 or more employees in 
certain designated industries to electronically submit information from 
their OSHA Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA once a year (87 FR 18528). In 
addition, OSHA proposed to continue the requirement for establishments 
with 20 or more employees in certain designated industries to 
electronically submit data from their OSHA Form 300A annual summary to 
OSHA once a year. OSHA also proposed to update the appendices 
containing the designated industries covered by the electronic 
submission requirement and to remove the 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. Further, OSHA expressed its intention to post the data 
from the proposed electronic submission requirement on a public website 
after identifying and removing information that could reasonably be 
expected to identify individuals directly, such as individuals' names 
and contact information. Finally, OSHA proposed to require 
establishments to include their company name when making electronic 
submissions to OSHA.
    Comments on the NPRM were initially due on May 30, 2022 (87 
FR18528). However, in response to requests for an extension, OSHA 
published a second Federal Register notice on May 25, 2022, extending 
the comment period until June 30, 2022 (87 FR 31793). By the end of the 
extended comment period, OSHA had received 87 comments on the proposed 
rule. The issues raised in those comments are addressed herein.

D. Related Litigation

    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/AGC, Inc., et al. v. Acosta, No. 3:16-cv-01998-L 
(N.D. Tex. filed July 8, 2016), and NAHB, et al. v. Acosta, No. 5:17-
cv-00009-PRW (W.D. Okla. filed Jan. 4, 2017), 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 OSH Act and is unconstitutional 
under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. After OSHA 
published a notice in the Federal Register on June 28, 2017, noting 
that the agency planned to publish a proposal that would reconsider the 
requirements of the 2016 final rule (82 FR 29261), Texo was 
administratively closed. The plaintiffs in NAHB 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. Pizzella, No. 
1:19-cv-00166 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 25, 2019) and State of New Jersey et 
al. v. Pizzella, No. 1:19-cv-00621 (D.D.C. filed Mar. 6, 2019), 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 U.S. 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 
(Public Citizen Health Research Group et al. v. Pizzella, No. 1:19-cv-
00166-TJK (D.D.C. Jan. 11, 2021)). The court first dismissed Public 
Citizen's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Next, 
turning to the merits of the States' complaint, the court held that 
OSHA's rescission of the Form 300 and Form 301 data-submission 
requirements was within the agency's discretion based on its 
rebalancing of the ``uncertain benefits'' of collecting the 300 and 301 
data against the diversion of OSHA's resources from other efforts and 
potential privacy harms to employees. The court also rejected the 
plaintiffs' assertion that OSHA's reasons for the 2019 final rule were 
internally inconsistent. Both groups of plaintiffs have appealed to the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Nos. 21-
5016, 21-5018).
    Additionally, since 2020, the Department of Labor (DOL) has 
received multiple 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 are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 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 are 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 posted 
collected 300A data on its public website beginning in August 2020. The 
data are available at https://www.osha.gov/Establishment-Specific-Injury-and-Illness-Data and include the submissions for calendar years 
2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021.

E. 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 that 
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 to

[[Page 47258]]

OSHA), and the annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses 
(SOII) conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) under 29 CFR 
1904.42. This final rule amends the regulation at Sec.  1904.41. It 
does not change the SOII or the authority for the SOII set forth in 
Sec.  1904.42.
    The BLS SOII is an establishment-based 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). 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. Title 44 U.S.C. 3572 prohibits BLS from releasing 
establishment-specific and case-specific data to the general public or 
to OSHA. However, BLS has modified its collection procedures to be able 
to automatically import certain Form 300A submissions from the OSHA ITA 
into the BLS SOII Internet Data Collection Facility (IDCF). As 
discussed below, the Department is continuing to evaluate opportunities 
to further reduce duplicative reporting.

II. Legal Authority

A. Statutory Authority To Promulgate the Rule

    OSHA is issuing this final 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 objectives 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] . . . , 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'' (29 U.S.C. 657(g)(1)). 
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 section 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'' (29 U.S.C. 669(d)).
    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 (29 U.S.C. 
655), 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)).

B. Fourth Amendment Issues

    This final 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 
requirements in this final rule are reasonable. The requirements serve 
a substantial government interest in the health and safety of workers, 
have a strong statutory basis, and rest 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

[[Page 47259]]

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 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.

C. Publication of Collected Data and FOIA

    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 in an 
electronic format'' (see 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) (2016)). Subsection 
(a)(2)(D)(ii) 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'' or ``have been 
requested 3 or more times.''
    Based on its experience, OSHA believes that the recordkeeping 
information from the Forms 300, 301, and 300A required to be submitted 
under this rule will likely be the subject of multiple FOIA requests in 
the future. Consequently, 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.

D. Reasoned Explanation for Policy Change

    When a Federal agency action changes or reverses prior policy, that 
action is subject to the same standard of review as an action that 
addresses an issue for the first time or is consistent with prior 
policy (F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 514-15 
(2009)). As with any other agency action, agencies must simply 
``provide a reasoned explanation for the change'' (Encino Motorcars, 
LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221 (2016)). An agency that is changing 
policy must ``display awareness that it is changing position,'' but 
``need not demonstrate . . . that the reasons for the new policy are 
better than the reasons for the old one''; ``it suffices that the new 
policy is permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons 
for it, and that the agency believes it to be better, which the 
conscious change of course adequately indicates'' (F.C.C., 556 U.S. at 
515; accord DHS v. Regents of Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891 
(2020); Encino Motorcars, LLC, 579 at 221; see also Advocates for 
Highway & Auto Safety v. FMCSA, 41 F.4th 586 (D.C. Cir. 2022) 
(upholding 2020 change to 2015 rule); Overdevest Nurseries, L.P. v. 
Walsh, 2 F. 4th 977 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (upholding 2010 change to 2008 
rule)). In sum, the Administrative Procedure Act imposes ``no special 
burden when an agency elects to change course'' (Home Care Ass'n of Am. 
v. Weil, 799 F.3d 1084, 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2015)).
    Although agencies may need to provide more detailed explanations 
for changes in policy that ``engendered serious reliance interests,'' 
F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009), OSHA 
has found no such reliance interests at stake in this rulemaking. The 
prior policy, contained within the 2019 final recordkeeping rule, 
represented a return to the pre-2016 status quo wherein large employers 
were not required to submit their Form 300 and Form 301 information to 
OSHA. Essentially, the prior policy relieved employers of the 
requirement to incur the costs they would have had to incur to comply 
with the 2016 final rule. Therefore, the prior policy did not require 
employers to take any steps or invest any resources to comply with it. 
Further, OSHA made it clear in the 2019 final rule that its decision 
was based on a temporal weighing of the potential risks to privacy 
against the benefits of collecting the data (e.g., ``OSHA has 
determined that because it already has systems in place to use the 300A 
data for enforcement targeting and compliance assistance without 
impacting worker privacy, and because the Form 300 and 301 data would 
provide uncertain additional value, the Form 300A data are sufficient 
for enforcement targeting and compliance assistance at this time'' (84 
FR 392)). Employers were therefore placed on notice that the policy 
announced in the 2019 rule could change based on OSHA's weighing of the 
relevant considerations over time, further alleviating any reliance 
interests the rule might have engendered. In any event, OSHA provides 
detailed and specific reasons for the change in prior policy throughout 
this preamble.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ OSHA has determined that it is necessary and appropriate to 
require certain establishments to electronically submit case-
specific, establishment-specific data from their Forms 300 and 301 
to OSHA. Any claimed reliance interest in the prior policy, which 
did not contain that requirement, is outweighed by the significant 
benefits to occupational safety and health, discussed in Section 
III.B.4 of the Summary and Explanation, that OSHA expects to accrue 
from this rule (see Regents of the Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 
at 1914 (it is ``the agency's job'' to determine ``in the particular 
context before it, that other interests and policy concerns outweigh 
any reliance interests'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule

    OSHA is amending its occupational injury and illness recordkeeping 
regulations at 29 CFR part 1904 to require certain employers to 
electronically submit injury and illness information to OSHA that 
employers are already required to keep. Specifically, this final rule 
requires establishments with 100 or more employees in certain 
designated industries (i.e., the industries on appendix B to subpart E 
of part 1904) to electronically submit information from their OSHA 
Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA once a year. OSHA will not collect certain 
information, like employee and healthcare provider names and addresses, 
from the Forms 300 and 301 in order to protect the privacy of workers 
and other individuals identified on those forms. In addition, the final 
rule retains the requirements for the annual electronic submission of 
information from the Form 300A annual summary. Establishments with 20 
to 249 employees in certain industries (i.e., those on appendix A to 
subpart E of part 1904) will continue to be required to electronically 
submit information from their OSHA Form 300A to OSHA once a year. And, 
all establishments with 250 or more employees that are required to keep 
records under part 1904 will continue to be required to electronically 
submit information from their Form 300A to OSHA once a year. In 
addition, the final rule requires establishments to

[[Page 47260]]

include their legal company name as part of their annual submission. 
OSHA intends to post some of the information from these annual 
electronic submissions on a public website after removing any submitted 
information that could reasonably be expected to identify individuals 
directly. OSHA received a number of comments on the proposed rule, 
which was published in March 2022.
    Many commenters strongly support this rulemaking effort (e.g., 
Docket IDs 0008, 0026, 0029, 0033, 0040, 0047, 0048, 0049, 0061, 0063, 
0067, 0069, 0073, 0084, 0089), while others are strenuously opposed 
(e.g., Docket IDs 0043, 0050, 0052, 0053, 0058, 0059, 0062, 0088, 
0090). Several commenters requested that OSHA withdraw the proposed 
rule (e.g., Docket IDs 0042, 0065, 0075). Organizations that represent 
employees generally advocated for OSHA to proceed with the rulemaking, 
arguing that collecting and publishing workplace illness and injury 
information will lead to improvements in worker safety and health in a 
number of different ways. Organizations commenting on behalf of 
employers argued, in many cases, that the required submission and 
subsequent publication of this information could harm businesses or 
result in violations of employees' privacy. OSHA has evaluated the 
public comments and other evidence in the record and agrees with 
commenters who believe that electronic submission of worker injury and 
illness information to OSHA will lead to safer workplaces. The agency 
has decided to move forward with a final rule requiring electronic 
submission of this information.
    Public comments regarding the final regulatory provisions and 
specific issues related to the submission and publication of workplace 
injury and illness information are discussed throughout this preamble. 
The Summary and Explanation is organized by regulatory provision, with 
issues related to each provision discussed in the section for that 
provision. Comments not specifically related to a regulatory provision 
and comments that apply to the rulemaking in general are addressed at 
the end of the Summary and Explanation. OSHA's economic analysis and 
related issues and comments are discussed in Section IV, Final Economic 
Analysis, following the Summary and Explanation.

A. Section 1904.41(a)(1)(i) and (ii)--Annual Electronic Submission of 
Information From OSHA Form 300A Summary of Work-Related Injuries and 
Illnesses

    The final rule requires electronic submission of Form 300A 
information from two categories of establishments. First, Sec.  
1904.41(a)(1)(i) requires establishments with 20-249 employees that are 
in an industry listed in appendix A of subpart E of part 1904 to 
electronically submit information from their Form 300A to OSHA. The 
industries included on appendix A are listed by the NAICS codes from 
2017. Second, Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(ii) requires establishments with 250 
or more employees that are required to keep records under part 1904 to 
electronically submit their Form 300A information to OSHA. For all 
establishments, the size of the establishment is determined based on 
how many employees the establishment had during the previous calendar 
year. Data must be submitted annually, for the previous calendar year, 
by the date specified in Sec.  1904.41(c), which is March 2.
    As discussed in more detail below, the requirements for 
establishment submission of Form 300A information under the final rule 
are substantively identical to the requirements previously found in 
Sec.  1904.41(a)(1) and (a)(2). In other words, all establishments with 
250 or more employees are still required to submit information from 
Form 300A, and establishments with 20-249 employees in industries on 
appendix A of subpart E are still required to submit information from 
their Form 300A. However, OSHA has made minor revisions to the language 
of final Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(i) and (ii), and the final regulatory text 
of both provisions has been restructured, with final Sec.  
1904.41(a)(1)(i) addressing the Form 300A submission requirements for 
establishments with 20-249 employees and final Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(ii) 
addressing the Form 300A submission requirements for establishments 
with 250 or more employees. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, 
final Sec.  1904.41(a)(2) addresses the submission requirements for 
OSHA Forms 300 and 301 by establishments with 100 or more employees in 
the industries listed in appendix B. The final rule's requirements in 
Sec.  1904.41(a)(1) are discussed below, along with the proposed 
provisions and related evidence in the rulemaking record.
1. Section 1904.41(a)(1)(i)--Establishments With 20-249 Employees That 
Are Required To Submit Information From OSHA Form 300A
    Under proposed Sec.  1904.41(a)(1), establishments that had 20 or 
more employees at any time during the previous calendar year, and that 
are classified in an industry listed in appendix A to subpart E, would 
have been required to electronically submit information from their OSHA 
Form 300A to OSHA or OSHA's designee once a year. As OSHA explained in 
the preamble to the NPRM, this proposed provision was essentially the 
same as the previous requirements. OSHA requested comment on proposed 
Sec.  1904.41(a)(1) generally.
    OSHA did not receive many comments specifically about the proposed 
continuation of the requirement for certain establishments with 20 or 
more employees to submit their Form 300A data electronically. The 
Laborers Health and Safety Fund of North America stated that the 
proposal for establishments with 20 or more employees in certain high-
hazard industries to electronically submit Form 300A data to OSHA 
``must be a requirement,'' and emphasized the value of the data for 
numerous interested parties (Docket ID 0080). The Communications 
Workers of America (CWA) urged OSHA to expand the submission 
requirements for the 300A by requiring all establishments with at least 
20 employees to submit information from the Form 300A, instead of 
limiting the requirement to only those industries on appendix A (Docket 
ID 0092). In addition, the National Federation of Independent Business 
(NFIB) commented on this provision, noting that ``the proposed rule 
lowers the previous threshold that triggers a duty to file with OSHA 
automatically (i.e., without any request from OSHA) from 250 or more 
employees to 20 or more employees, increasing the number of small and 
independent businesses within the appendix A industries required to 
submit Form 300A'' (Docket ID 0036). However, NFIB's comment appears to 
misunderstand the previous requirements. As OSHA explained in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, establishments with 20-249 employees, in 
industries listed in appendix A, were already required to 
electronically submit information from their OSHA 300A to OSHA every 
year (87 FR18535-6). OSHA was not proposing an expansion of this 
requirement.
    Having reviewed the evidence in the record, OSHA has decided to 
retain the

[[Page 47261]]

requirement for establishments with 20-249 employees to annually submit 
their Form 300A data to OSHA. As noted by the Laborers Health and 
Safety Fund of North America and discussed further below, this 
requirement provides a good deal of useful data to many types of 
interested parties and should not be displaced. OSHA acknowledges the 
comments supporting expansion of the previous requirement but notes 
that expanding the requirement for submission of Form 300A data to all 
establishments with 20-249 employees that are covered by part 1904 
would expand the data collection to a total of about 557,000 
establishments with 20-249 employees, according to 2019 County Business 
Patterns data (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp/data/datasets.html). In contrast, OSHA estimates that about 463,000 
establishments with 20-249 employees in industries that are in appendix 
A will be required to submit data under the final rule (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp/data/datasets.html). OSHA does not 
believe, at this time, that the benefits from the additional data 
collection would outweigh the disadvantages of the additional time and 
resources required for compliance.
    In the previous regulation, this requirement was at Sec.  
1904.41(a)(2). In the final rule, it is at Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(i). This 
final rule will not impose any new requirements on establishments with 
20-249 employees to electronically submit information from their Form 
300A to OSHA. All establishments that will be required to 
electronically submit Form 300A information to OSHA on an annual basis 
under the final rule are already required to do so.
    Additionally, as noted above, OSHA revised the language of this 
requirement slightly for clarity. Specifically, the previous version 
referred to establishments with ``20 or more employees but fewer than 
250 employees[,]'' while final Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(i) refers to 
establishments with ``20-249 employees[.]'' These clarifying edits do 
not change the substantive requirements of the provision.
    Similarly, OSHA revised the language of proposed Sec.  
1904.41(a)(1) in this final rule for clarity without adding any new 
requirements for employers. Specifically, proposed Sec.  1904.41(a)(1) 
would have required establishments with 20 or more employees that are 
in an industry listed in appendix A of subpart E of part 1904 to 
electronically submit information from their Form 300A to OSHA. The 
final version of that provision, Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(i), addresses only 
establishments with 20-249 employees, because final Sec.  
1904.41(a)(1)(ii) addresses establishments with 250 or more employees. 
This change was made to eliminate the overlap, and potential confusion, 
that would have resulted if both Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(i) and Sec.  
1904.41(a)(1)(ii) addressed establishments with 250 or more employees.
2. Section 1904.41(a)(1)(ii)--Establishments With 250 or More Employees 
That Are Required To Submit Information From OSHA Form 300A
    Although OSHA proposed to maintain the same Form 300A submission 
requirement for establishments with 20-249 employees, the agency 
proposed to remove the electronic submission requirement for certain 
establishments with 250 or more employees. Under previous Sec.  
1904.41(a)(1), all establishments of this size in industries routinely 
required to keep injury and illness records were required to 
electronically submit information from their Form 300A to OSHA once a 
year. The proposal would have required this submission only from those 
establishments with 250 or more employees in industries listed in 
appendix A to subpart E. As explained in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, OSHA had preliminarily determined that collecting Form 300A data 
from a relatively small number of large establishments in lower-hazard 
industries was not a priority for OSHA inspection targeting or 
compliance assistance activities. OSHA asked for comment on the 
proposed changes to Sec.  1904.41(a)(1) generally, and also 
specifically asked the question, ``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?'' (87 FR18546).
    There were no comments specifically supporting the proposal 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. In contrast, multiple commenters opposed the 
proposal and urged OSHA to retain the existing requirement for 
establishments with 250 or more employees that are normally required to 
report under part 1904 to submit data from their 300As (e.g., Docket 
IDs 0024, 0035, Attachment 2, 0039, 0040, 0045, 0047, 0048, 0049, 0051, 
0061, 0066, 0067, 0069, 0079, 0080, 0083, 0089, 0092, 0093). Reasons 
for objecting to the proposed removal of the requirement for some large 
establishments to submit data from their Form 300As included: OSHA 
offered no compelling reason for removal; the need for continued 
oversight over large establishments in lower-hazard industries in 
general and certain industries in particular; the ability to use the 
data to protect the large number of employees employed in these 
establishments; and the value of the public information to employee 
safety and health efforts.
    Some commenters argued that OSHA had not made a persuasive case for 
removing the requirement for large establishments in industries not 
listed on appendix A to submit their 300A data. For example, Hunter 
Cisiewski commented, ``The proposed rule ultimately fails to present a 
compelling argument for why `lower hazard' industries should no longer 
be required to electronically submit Form 300A when they must still 
keep record of the form, present it to employees on request, and post 
it publicly in the workplace'' (Docket ID 0024). The AFL-CIO argued, 
``There is no reason that these establishments should be excluded from 
a standard they are already subject to and have been complying with. 
OSHA should at minimum, maintain the requirements for large 
establishments in these sectors that are already in place'' (Docket ID 
0061; see also Docket ID 0079). Similarly, Public Citizen and the 
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) noted 
that there would be no significant burden on employers to maintaining 
the requirement because these employers are already required to keep 
Form 300A data and they have systems in place for submitting the data 
to OSHA electronically (Docket IDs 0093, 0066). The United Steelworkers 
Union (USW) argued that keeping industries covered helps increase the 
stability of the system. USW urged OSHA to ``focus on expanding, not 
limiting, those covered by disclosure requirements, and to ensure that 
all employers currently covered by the reporting requirements remain 
covered'' (Docket ID 0067; see also Docket ID 0080). The UFCW stated 
that ``[A]ll available evidence reflects that OSHA's current 
requirements provide easy access to important data that is crucial to 
reducing and preventing workplace injuries and illnesses'' (Docket ID 
0066).
    Other commenters, such as the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters, noted that although the industries that are not listed in 
appendix A may have

[[Page 47262]]

relatively low injury rates overall, ``injury rates can vary greatly 
across employers and establishments within industries. The requirement 
for large establishments to submit a 300A Log annually would be a 
reasonable way to identify establishments that have high injury rates 
for their industry, and to identify subsegments of industries that may 
have more hazardous work processes and activities'' (Docket ID 0035, 
Attachment 2; see also Docket ID 0083). Similarly, the Seventeen 
Attorneys General from New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Delaware, 
the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode 
Island, and Vermont (Seventeen AGs) noted their states' concern that 
removing the 300A submission requirement for ``lower-hazard'' 
industries would leave Federal OSHA and State occupational safety and 
health agencies with little way of determining whether these industries 
were becoming more dangerous for workers over time. This, in turn, 
could affect the States' outreach and enforcement efforts. ``For 
example, if [s]tates had previously conducted enforcement and outreach 
in `low hazard' industries, thus keeping risks down, but deprioritize 
such enforcement based on a lack of reporting, any uptick of illnesses 
and injuries in those industries, requiring enforcement efforts, may 
initially go unnoticed by the [s]tates'' (Docket ID 0045).
    Other commenters emphasized the significant number of workers 
employed by the large establishments that OSHA had proposed to exclude 
from submitting their 300A data, and the usefulness of the data in 
providing them with safe work environments. Hunter Cisiewski estimated 
that at least 666,250 workers are employed by the approximately 2,665 
establishments with 250 or more employees that were proposed to be 
removed from the Form 300A submission requirement (assuming that each 
establishment employs only 250 workers). The same commenter also noted 
that the workers in these large establishments already rely on the 
required reporting of their injuries to OSHA ``to ensure compliance 
with workplace regulations'' (Docket ID 0024). Similarly, the Council 
of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) noted that even if the 
industries proposed for exclusion have lower injury and illness rates 
than the industries on appendix A, they employ a large number of 
people. ``Numbers [of workers] as well as rates of work-related 
injuries or illness need to be considered in setting prevention 
priorities. These establishments need to provide a safe work 
environment, and electronic collection of summary data will allow OSHA 
and public health agencies to monitor their ability to do so'' (Docket 
ID 0040). The International Brotherhood of Teamsters commented, ``we 
think continuing to collect OSHA 300A data for the large numbers of 
workers employed in these establishments, would help to identify less 
obvious problems and implement corresponding preventive measures'' 
(Docket ID 0083).
    Various commenters pointed to known or potentially hazardous 
industry segments that would have been exempt from submitting 300A data 
under the proposal. For example, the National Council for Occupational 
Safety and Health (National COSH) as well as the Centro de los Derechos 
del Migrantes pointed to the temporary service industry and the home 
health care industry as industries with known hazards for which OSHA 
and the public should have access to injury and illness data (Docket 
IDs 0048, 0089; see also Docket ID 0049). The AFL-CIO pointed to home 
health services, an industry heavily affected by COVID-19, employment 
services, which includes vulnerable temporary workers, and some 
wholesalers with rates of cases with days away from work, restricted 
work activity, or job transfer (DART) above 2.0 per 10,000 workers in 
2020 (e.g., NAICS 4231, 4233, 4235, 423930, 4244, 4248, 4249) as 
industries containing large establishments that would be newly exempted 
from the 300A submission requirements The AFL-CIO argued that 
``limiting the data these industries provide the agency would severely 
limit the ability to track and identify emerging workplace hazards'' 
(Docket ID 0061).
    Some commenters argued that maintaining the existing 300A reporting 
requirement for all large establishments is particularly important 
because the industries on appendix A reflect injury and illness data 
from the BLS SOII that is not current. Therefore, exempting industries 
not on appendix A could result in missing information from industries 
that may have become more dangerous since publication of the SOII data 
for 2011 to 2013. The United Steelworkers Union (USW) commented, ``By 
tying the proposed rule to outdated and underreported injury and 
illness data, many employers with 250 or more employees in potentially 
high-hazard industries would be exempted, limiting workers' ability to 
make informed decisions about a workplace's safety and health. . . . 
These industries are currently covered by reporting requirements and 
many, like home health, have seen a rise in injuries and illnesses 
since the COVID-19 pandemic began'' (Docket ID 0067). Public Citizen 
echoed this comment, stating that past injury rates, which are used to 
designate industries required to submit data, may not reflect more 
recent safety conditions. Public Citizen noted, in addition, that the 
pandemic served as a reminder ``that even seemingly `low-hazard' 
workplaces can be the epicenter of deadly outbreaks'' (Docket ID 0093).
    Finally, a number of commenters underscored the value of the 300A 
data that is being collected from large establishments. The UFCW urged 
OSHA to retain the requirement for collection from all large 
establishments because it would allow many types of users (the public, 
employers, workers, researchers, and the government) to use the data 
``in the very positive ways that the UFCW has used it'' already. The 
UFCW described, in its comment, the many specific ways in which UFCW 
has used published and union-collected illness and injury data from the 
OSHA Form 300A, among other information, to increase safety and health 
at large union-represented facilities (Docket ID 0066). Public Citizen 
commented that ``the value of continuing to collect the information 
from these employers outweighs any supposed burden . . . data collected 
from electronic submission of injury and illness information can help 
identify broad patterns from small injury and illness numbers per 
establishment. Having this additional data from Form 300A summaries 
would assist with research into specific types of injuries and 
illnesses'' (Docket ID 0093).
    In addition to supporting maintenance of the requirement for 
submission of 300A data by large establishments, several commenters 
supported expanding the submission requirements for large 
establishments even further. For example, the National Employment Law 
Project (NELP) supported requiring all employers with 250 or more 
employees to submit information from the Form 300 Log in addition to 
the Form 300A. NELP argued that certain industries, such as home health 
care and employment services, contain very large employers that have 
Total Case Rates (TCRs) that are well above the private sector average. 
NELP therefore urged OSHA to retain as well as expand electronic 
submission requirements for large establishments with 250 or more 
employees in industries that are required to keep records under part 
1904 so that researchers and other

[[Page 47263]]

organizations could more effectively track and monitor occupational 
health and safety trends in home health care, employment services, and 
other sectors (Docket ID 0049; see also Docket ID 0089).
    The Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of North America argued that 
OSHA should require all establishments with 250 or more employees to 
submit the Form 300 and Form 301, in addition to the Form 300A: 
``Establishments with 250 or more employees account for large 
contractors that work on larger construction sites that can be 
considered high-risk. For these reasons, establishments should be 
required to submit electronic OSHA 300, 300A and 301 forms to not only 
track injury and illness, but prove to OSHA that they are taking the 
steps to mitigate and prevent them from happening'' (Docket ID 0080).
    Having reviewed the information in the record on this issue, OSHA 
has decided not to make the proposed change of restricting the universe 
of large establishments that are required to submit data from Form 
300A. Instead, the agency will maintain the requirement for all 
establishments with 250 or more employees that are covered by part 1904 
to submit the information from their OSHA Form 300A to OSHA, or its 
designee, once a year. As explained by commenters, these establishments 
are already submitting this information, so there is no new burden for 
employers. Furthermore, access to the information provides multiple 
benefits for workers, Federal and State occupational safety and health 
agencies, and other interested parties. For example, continuing to 
collect and make this data available to the public will allow tracking 
of industry hazards over time, even for industries that are not on 
appendix A. Commenters noted that this type of tracking was 
particularly critical for industry segments and establishments that 
have injury rates higher than the rate for their 4-digit NAICS industry 
overall. They also noted that requiring information to be submitted 
from all large establishments will help blunt the effect of using SOII 
data that is several years old in determining which NAICS will be 
included on appendix A. OSHA agrees with these rationales.
    Although OSHA stated in the proposal 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, OSHA is persuaded by commenters who see the 
value in providing such data to the public; this includes the UFCW, 
which has been using this data to make positive safety and health 
changes in large establishments. In addition, OSHA recognizes the large 
number of workers represented by the relatively small number of 
establishments that would have been affected by the proposed change and 
does not wish to remove resources that could be used to improve their 
safety and health.
    OSHA acknowledges the comments supporting expansion of the final 
requirement by requiring submission of information from Forms 300 and 
301 by all large establishments (250 or more employees) required to 
keep records under part 1904. However, this change would expand the 
universe of large establishments required to submit Form 300 and Form 
301 data from about 22,000 (establishments with at least 250 employees 
that are in NAICS listed on appendix B) to about 40,000 (establishments 
with at least 250 employees that are required to keep records under 
part 1904), an increase of 80 percent (data are as of 2019; see https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp/data/datasets.html). OSHA does not 
believe, at this time, that the benefits from the additional data 
collection would outweigh the disadvantages of the additional time and 
resources that employers would have to expend to comply. OSHA also 
values the stability provided to employers by keeping the universe of 
establishments required to submit 300A data the same, in light of the 
multiple recent changes to OSHA's data submission requirements.
    In the previous regulation, this requirement was at Sec.  
1904.41(a)(1). In the final rule, it is at Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(ii). 
This final rule will not impose any new requirements on establishments 
to electronically submit information from their Form 300A to OSHA. All 
establishments that will be required to electronically submit Form 300A 
information to OSHA on an annual basis under the final rule were 
already required to do so under the previous regulation. OSHA made only 
one non-substantive change in the final regulatory text; whereas the 
previous regulatory text at Sec.  1904.41(a)(1) contained an example 
stating that data for calendar year 2018 would be submitted by the 
month and day listed in Sec.  1904.41(c) of calendar year 2019, that 
example has been removed from the final regulatory provision at Sec.  
1904.41(a)(1)(ii). A similar, updated example is included in final 
Sec.  1904.41(b)(1).
3. Restructuring of Previous Section 1904.41(a)(1) and (2) Into Final 
Section 1904.41(a)(1)(i) and (ii)
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA asked the following 
question about the structure of the regulatory text containing the 
requirements to submit data from OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping 
forms: ``The proposed regulatory text is structured as follows: Sec.  
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; 
Sec.  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. This is the structure used by the 
2016 and 2019 rulemakings. An alternative structure would be as 
follows: Sec.  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; Sec.  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?'' (87 FR 18547).
    OSHA did not receive many comments on this proposed alternative 
structure for the regulatory text. However, NIOSH noted that it 
preferred the second option. ``NIOSH finds the second alternative . . . 
to be somewhat preferable. That alternative focuses first on which 
establishments are required to submit OSHA Form 300A, and then focuses 
on which establishments are required to submit OSHA Forms 300 and 301. 
This structure may help employers to more directly answer their 
questions about what forms to submit'' (Docket ID 0035, Attachment 2).
    OSHA agrees that the proposed alternative structure, which 
separates the provisions by recordkeeping form, may help employers 
better understand the regulatory requirements for their establishments. 
Based on this reasoning, as well as on OSHA's decision to retain the 
requirement for all establishments with 250 or more employees in 
industries covered by part 1904 to

[[Page 47264]]

submit information from their Form 300A annual summary (discussed 
above), OSHA has decided to restructure the final regulation by 
recordkeeping form, rather than establishment size and industry. 
Therefore, in the final rule, Sec.  1904.41(a)(1) covers the 
requirement to submit the OSHA Form 300A, with Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(i) 
for establishments with 20-249 employees in appendix A industries, and 
Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(ii) for establishments with 250 or more employees 
in industries covered by part 1904. Final Sec.  1904.41(a)(2) covers 
the requirement to submit the OSHA Forms 300 and 301, as discussed 
below.
4. Updating Appendix A
    Additionally, OSHA proposed 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). 
Since OSHA revised Sec.  1904.41 in 2016, the Office of Management and 
Budget has issued two updates to the NAICS codes, in 2017 and 2022. As 
explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA believed that the 
proposed update from 2012 NAICS to 2017 NAICS would have the benefits 
of using more current NAICS codes, ensuring that both proposed appendix 
A and proposed appendix B used the same version of NAICS, aligning with 
the version currently used by BLS for the SOII data that OSHA used for 
this rulemaking, and increasing the likelihood that employers were 
familiar with the industry codes.
    As OSHA explained, this revision would not affect which industries 
were required to provide their data, but rather simply reflect the 
updated 2017 NAICS codes. For appendix A, OSHA limited the scope of 
this rulemaking to the proposed update from the 2012 version of NAICS 
to the 2017 version of NAICS. 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). As noted above, however, the establishments in 
these industries were already covered by the previous record submission 
requirements, so this would not represent a substantive change in those 
requirements.
    The Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable (PRR) supported the proposed 
update from the 2012 version of NAICS to the 2017 version of NAICS for 
appendix A, commenting, ``It is both practical and logical to align 
with the most recent codes from an accuracy standpoint'' (Docket ID 
0094). The Coalition for Workplace Safety (CWS), on the other hand, 
commented that using the 2017 NAICS codes for Appendices A and B when 
the 2022 codes have already been released by OMB will lead to confusion 
and mistakes, unduly complicating the proposed requirements (Docket ID 
0058).
    While OSHA did not propose modifications to appendix A other than 
the update from 2012 NAICS to 2017 NAICS, OSHA did discuss one 
alternative in the proposal that would affect the industries on 
appendix A: updating appendix A to reflect the 2017-2019 injury rates 
from the SOII. Appendix A is based on the SOII's injury rates from 
2011-2013. This alternative would have resulted in the addition of one 
industry to appendix A (NAICS 4831 (Deep sea, coastal, and great lakes 
water transportation)) and the removal of 13 industries (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, and 8113 Commercial and Industrial 
Machinery and Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and 
Maintenance).
    OSHA did not receive many comments in response to this alternative. 
The AFL-CIO stated that the use of ``outdated'' SOII data to determine 
the industries on appendix A would lead to missing information from 
industries that might have become (or might become in the future) more 
hazardous since the time period used as the basis for appendix A (2011-
2013). However, this statement was made in the context of the AFL-CIO's 
argument that OSHA should not restrict the large establishments 
required to submit 300A data to those in industries on appendix A, as 
OSHA proposed. Because OSHA is not adopting that approach, and instead 
is requiring all large establishments covered by part 1904 to continue 
submitting data from Form 300A, OSHA believes this concern will be 
minimized under the final regulatory requirements.
    Having reviewed the record, OSHA has decided to update appendix A 
to subpart E from the 2012 version of NAICS to the 2017 version of 
NAICS. As the PRR commented, it is practical and logical to align the 
industry list in appendix A with the more recent NAICS codes (see 
Docket ID 0094). Indeed, employers are likely more familiar with the 
2017 codes than the 2012 codes. This change would also ensure that 
appendices A and B use the same version of NAICS. Finally, the 2017 
NAICS codes are used by BLS for the SOII data that OSHA is using for 
this rulemaking. While CWS stated that using the 2017 codes when the 
2022 codes have already been released will cause confusion (Docket ID 
0058), OSHA notes that both appendices are based on SOII data from BLS, 
and that no SOII data using the 2022 NAICS codes are currently 
available. SOII data for 2022 will not be available until November 
2023. Thus, it is not possible for OSHA to base appendix A or B on SOII 
data that use the 2022 NAICS codes, even though the 2022 codes are the 
most recent ones available.
    OSHA has also decided not to update appendix A using more recent 
SOII data. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, it took 
several years for the regulated community to understand which 
industries were and were not required to submit information, and such 
misunderstandings could result in both underreporting and 
overreporting. OSHA has determined that changing the covered 
industries, by changing the data that forms the basis for the NAICS on 
appendix A, would result in additional confusion for the regulated 
community that is not warranted at this time. Moreover, three of the 
industries that would be removed from appendix A if OSHA based that 
appendix on updated data are also listed in appendix B, indicating that 
they remain hazardous under other measures. Finally, as noted above, 
OSHA agrees with interested parties who commented that requiring 
information to be submitted from all large establishments will help 
blunt the effect of using the older SOII data in determining which 
NAICS will be included on appendix A.
    The final appendix A to subpart E of part 1904 (Designated 
industries for Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(i) Annual electronic submission of 
information from OSHA Form 300A Summary of Work-Related Injuries and 
Illnesses by establishments

[[Page 47265]]

with 20-249 employees in designated industries) is as follows: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As noted in the NPRM, OSHA proposed to remove NAICS 7213, 
Rooming and Boarding Houses, from appendix A (see 87 FR 18536, n.7). 
Employers in NAICS 7213 are not required to routinely keep OSHA 
injury and illness records, per the part 1904 non-mandatory appendix 
A to subpart B. This NAICS industry group was mistakenly included in 
appendix A to subpart E when OSHA published its 2016 final rule (see 
81 FR 29642). OSHA received no comments objecting to the removal of 
NAICS 7213 from appendix A to subpart E and thus has excluded this 
industry group from the final version of this appendix.

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

[[Page 47266]]

B. Section 1904.41(a)(2)--Annual Electronic Submission of 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 final rule requires establishments 
that (1) had 100 or more employees at any point during the previous 
calendar year and (2) are classified in one of the industries listed in 
appendix B to subpart E of part 1904 to electronically submit certain 
information from their Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA or OSHA's designee. 
Data from the 300 and 301 forms must be submitted annually, for the 
previous calendar year, by March 2 (Sec.  1904.41(c)). The only change 
from the proposed rule is the deletion of the proposed rule's reference 
to Form 300A. That reference has been deleted from this provision 
because the requirements for establishments to submit Form 300A are 
contained in Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(i) and (ii) in this final rule. 
Comments related to the submission of Form 300A are discussed in that 
section. Appendix B has also changed from the proposal. Specifically, 
OSHA has added six industries to appendix B. All six of the industries 
added to appendix B have been part of appendix A since appendix A's 
creation in 2016.
    As discussed in Section I.C, Regulatory History, in 2016, OSHA 
issued a final rule that required establishments with 250 or more 
employees that are routinely required to keep injury and illness 
records under part 1904 to electronically submit information from their 
300 and 301 forms to OSHA once a year. However, OSHA never collected 
that Form 300 and 301 data, and in 2019, it issued a final rule that 
removed the requirement for these establishments to electronically 
submit that information to OSHA.
    As noted above, in this rulemaking, OSHA re-proposed a requirement 
for certain establishments to submit information from their 300 and 301 
forms to OSHA annually. The proposed provision in this rulemaking 
differed from the 2016 final rule in that the proposed provision would 
apply to establishments that (1) had 100 or more employees (rather than 
250 or more employees, as in the 2016 final rule) and (2) are 
classified in an industry listed in appendix B to subpart E of part 
1904 (rather than all industries which are required by part 1904 to 
keep records, as in the 2016 rule). OSHA received a wide range of 
comments on the proposed provision. The issues related to these 
comments are addressed below.
1. Covered Establishments and Industries
    Like the proposed rule, Sec.  1904.41(a)(2) of the final rule 
requires establishments that had 100 or more employees at any time 
during the previous calendar year, and that are in an industry listed 
in final appendix B to subpart E, to electronically submit certain 
information from their Form 300 and 301 to OSHA or OSHA's designee once 
a year. As discussed in more detail below, under final paragraph 
1904.41(c), employers subject to the reporting requirement in Sec.  
1904.41(a)(2) must submit all of the required information to OSHA or 
OSHA's designee by March 2 of the year after the calendar year covered 
by the forms.
    As discussed above, in 2016, OSHA issued a final rule that required 
all establishments with 250 or more employees in all industries 
routinely required to keep part 1904 injury and illness records to 
electronically submit information from their 300 and 301 forms to OSHA 
once a year. In that rulemaking, OSHA estimated that establishments 
with 250 or more employees covered by the submission requirement would 
report 713,397 injury and illness cases each year. However, the 300 and 
301 data submission requirements from the 2016 final rule were never 
fully implemented, and OSHA never collected 300 and 301 data 
electronically from covered employers. 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 NPRM in this rulemaking, OSHA explained that in developing 
the requirement for establishments with 100 or more employees to 
electronically submit data from their OSHA Form 300 and 301, OSHA 
sought 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 (see 87 
FR 18543). To achieve this balance in the proposed rule, OSHA analyzed 
five years of injury and illness Form 300A summary data collected 
through OSHA's 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--roughly the same burden as the case-
specific requirement in the 2016 final rule. Based on this analysis, 
OSHA proposed a reporting requirement for establishments with 100 or 
more employees in 4-digit NAICS (2017) industries that:
    1. had a 3-year-average Total Case Rate (TCR) in the BLS SOII for 
2017, 2018, and 2019, of at least 3.5 cases per 100 full-time-
equivalent employees, and
    2. were included in proposed appendix A to subpart E. (All of the 
industries in proposed appendix B were also in appendix A).
    The proposed rule listed the designated industries in proposed 
appendix B to subpart E.
    OSHA proposed one exception to the above criteria, for the United 
States Postal Service (USPS), which is the only employer in NAICS 4911 
Postal Services. Under the Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act 
(Pub. L. 105-241), OSHA treats USPS as a private sector employer for 
purposes of occupational safety and health, and USPS establishments 
with 20 or more employees have been required to electronically submit 
300A information to OSHA. However, BLS does not include USPS in the 
SOII. Using the 2017, 2018, and 2019 data submitted by USPS to the ITA, 
OSHA was able to calculate a TCR of 7.5 for NAICS 4911. Therefore, OSHA 
included NAICS 4911 in proposed appendix B to subpart E.
    Also, in the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA explained that the 
agency believed TCR, which represents the number of work-related 
injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time-employees during a one-year 
period, was the appropriate rate to use for determining the list of 
industries in proposed appendix B to subpart E because covered 
establishments would 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. OSHA explained in 
the preamble that, in 2020, OSHA received submissions to the ITA of 
Form 300A data for 2019 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.
    The designated industries in proposed appendix B to subpart E were 
as follows:

[[Page 47267]]

                           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.
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.

[[Page 47268]]

 
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.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. The Size Threshold for Submitting Information From OSHA Forms 300 
and 301
    Like the proposed rule, Sec.  1904.41(a)(2) of the final rule 
requires establishments in industries listed in appendix B to subpart E 
with 100 or more employees to electronically submit certain information 
from their 300 and 301 forms to OSHA once a year. The size criterion of 
100 or more employees is based on the total number of employees at an 
establishment during the previous calendar year. All individuals who 
are ``employees'' under the OSH Act are counted in the total. The count 
includes all full-time, part-time, temporary, and seasonal employees. 
For businesses that are sole proprietorships or partnerships, the 
owners and partners would not be considered employees and would not be 
counted. Other examples of individuals who are not considered to be 
employees under the OSH Act are unpaid volunteers and family members of 
farm employers (see 66 FR 5916, 6038).
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA specifically requested 
comment on whether the threshold of 100 or more employees was the 
appropriate size criterion for the requirement to electronically submit 
data from the OSHA Form 300, 301, and 300A. OSHA also asked whether a 
different size criterion would be more appropriate (see 87 FR 18546).
    OSHA received a number of comments on the 100-or-more-employee 
criterion as to the submission of OSHA Forms 300 and 301. Some 
commenters supported the 100-or-more threshold (e.g., Docket IDs 0040, 
0048, 0049, 0051, 0054, 0064, 0067, 0073, 0080, 0083, 0089, 0092, 
0093). For example, the Council of State and Territorial 
Epidemiologists stated that setting the threshold at 100 employees will 
allow OSHA to receive more detailed information from the 300/301 forms 
on the nature and circumstances of injuries and illnesses (Docket ID 
0040). Also, the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades/AFL-
CIO commented that while they would have preferred to see the threshold 
for large establishments dropped even further, they recognized that the 
reduction from 250 to 100 from the 2016 final rule is significant and 
will assist their industry and others in capturing additional data 
(Docket ID 0073).
    The National Nurses Union commented, ``An OSHA rule requiring 
reporting from establishments with 100 or more employees is a superior 
threshold to the 250-employee threshold. As an example, if the 
establishment threshold was 250 employees, 299 hospitals in California 
would have had to comply with electronic reporting requirements in 
2021, covering over 378,000 hospital employees. Applying a reporting 
rule to establishments with 100 or more employees would add an 
additional 73 hospitals and protect nearly 12,017 additional hospital 
employees in California alone. This is a significant increase in the 
data available on workplace hazards'' (Docket ID 0064). Additionally, 
the Communication Workers of America commented, ``We support OSHA's 
proposal to be inclusive of more workplaces by changing the definition 
of a ``large'' establishment to those with 100 or more employees, 
rather than 250 employees. We support large establishments submitting 
certain information from all three recordkeeping forms. . . .'' (Docket 
ID 0092).

[[Page 47269]]

    Other commenters opposed or questioned the 100-or-more employee 
threshold (e.g., Docket IDs 0030, 0050, 0071, 0076, 0087, 0094). Of 
those commenters who opposed the proposed threshold, most argued that 
OSHA should set the threshold higher than 100 employees. For example, 
the Employers E-Recordkeeping Coalition (Coalition) commented that, to 
the extent employers in industries designated in appendix B are 
required to submit information from their OSHA Form 300, 301, and 300A, 
such a requirement should apply to employers with 250 or more 
employees, not employers with 100 or more employees. The Coalition 
asserted that, ``OSHA does not appear to provide any rationale for 
lowering the threshold of what it considers to be ``larger employers'' 
from those with 250 or more'' (Docket ID 0087). Similarly, the National 
Propane and Gas Association (NPGA) commented that OSHA does not explain 
its rationale for lowering the size threshold to 100 employees (Docket 
ID 0050).
    OSHA agrees with commenters who supported the proposed 100-or-more-
employee threshold and disagrees with commenters who stated that the 
employee threshold should be higher than 100 or more employees (e.g., 
250 or more employees). Increasing the threshold would reduce the 
number of establishments required to electronically submit information 
from their 300 and 301 forms, as well as decrease the number of injury 
and illness case reports collected by the agency. For example, 
increasing the size threshold from 100 or more employees to 250 or more 
employees would reduce the number of establishments required to 
electronically submit 300/301 data by 67 percent (i.e., from 52,092 
establishments to 17,106 establishments). Likewise, raising the 
threshold from 100 or more employees to 250 or more employees would 
reduce the number of reported injury and illness cases by 32 percent 
(i.e., from 766,257 cases to 523,562 cases). This reduction in the 
amount of collected information would significantly limit OSHA's 
ability to identify and target hazardous occupations and workplaces. 
Also, a reduction in the amount of collected information would 
adversely impact the benefits (discussed elsewhere) of making this 
information available to employees, the public, and other interested 
parties. OSHA is concerned that an increase in the employee threshold, 
along with the corresponding reduction in publicly available injury and 
illness information, will hinder efforts to prevent occupational 
injuries and illnesses in the future.
    Moreover, the question is more complex than merely whether to 
``increase'' or ``decrease'' the establishment-size threshold, because 
the scope of industries required to submit the Form 300 and 301 data 
has also changed between the 2016 rule and this one. Under the 2016 
final rule, all establishments that (1) had 250 or more employees at 
any time during the previous calendar year, and (2) were required to 
keep records pursuant to part 1904 were required to submit Forms 300 
and 301. In contrast, in this rulemaking, OSHA proposed requiring 
establishments with 100-or-more employees to submit only if they are 
classified in one of the high-hazard industries listed in appendix B. 
This approach--lowering the establishment-size threshold to capture 
enough workplaces and cases to allow appropriate targeting and analysis 
while focusing in on particularly hazardous industries--is fully 
distinguishable from the agency's approach in 2016. OSHA's approach in 
this rulemaking focuses on higher hazard industries and provides the 
agency with information on more establishments, as compared to the 
number of establishments which would have been required to submit their 
Forms 300 and 301 information under the 2016 final rule. The increase 
in the number of establishments required to submit information, 
relative to the 2016 final rule, will allow OSHA to identify more 
places where intervention will be beneficial, including targeting its 
compliance assistance efforts.
    Other interested parties recommended that OSHA conduct additional 
analysis to determine which establishments should be required to 
electronically submit Form 300/301 data to OSHA. For example, the 
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) commented, ``There 
should be an analysis of the impact of any company size selected to 
report electronically. There are at least two considerations here: (1) 
The number of responses that will be received if the threshold is 
lowered to 100 (there is also a question of whether OSHA can manage an 
associated increase in reports); and (2) Most companies in the U.S. are 
small businesses and new regulations such as this can have an indirect 
impact on them. Will companies of this size have the capability and IT 
expertise to participate in electronic reporting? OSHA should conduct a 
thorough analysis before imposing new reporting requirements on small 
businesses.'' (Docket ID 0030). The Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning 
Contractors' National Association submitted similar comments (Docket ID 
0046).
    OSHA agrees with AIHA that these factors are important in 
determining the appropriate threshold for data submission and 
considered them in setting the threshold. As to the first consideration 
noted by AIHA, the number of responses, as noted above, OSHA estimates 
that 52,092 establishments will be required to electronically submit 
Form 300/301 data each year pursuant to Sec.  1904.41(a)(2) of the 
final rule. OSHA further estimates that those establishments would 
annually submit 766,257 injury and illness cases. In choosing the 
proposed threshold, OSHA sought 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. And OSHA expects that the 100-employee 
threshold will be an easy threshold for employers to understand and 
keep track of. Further, as discussed in Section III.B. of this Summary 
and Explanation, OSHA has determined that it is capable of managing, 
analyzing, and utilizing the data it will receive pursuant to this 
requirement.
    As to AIHA's second factor, whether establishments with 100 or more 
but fewer than 250 employees have the capability and IT expertise to 
participate in electronic reporting, OSHA has also determined that such 
establishments are capable of submitting these reports to OSHA. 
Significantly, because the industries that appear in appendix B are a 
subset of those in appendix A and the previous version of Sec.  
1904.41(a)(2) required all establishments with 20-249 employees which 
are classified in an industry listed in appendix A to submit 
information from their Form 300A annually to OSHA, all of the 
establishments which would be required to submit information from their 
Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA under the proposal were already required to 
submit information from their Forms 300A. In other words, the 
establishments covered under the proposal (and this final rule) already 
have experience submitting (and thus the ability to submit) such data 
to OSHA electronically. For more details on this issue, see Section IV, 
Final Economic Analysis.
    OSHA also received comments questioning its preliminary decision to 
use establishment size as a threshold criterion. For example, the 
National Safety Council (NSC) supported a risk-based approach, 
commenting that larger operations are not inherently less safe and that 
OSHA should move to a risk-

[[Page 47270]]

based approach to protect workers. It argued, ``OSHA should evaluate 
factors like the degree of the hazard, the magnitude of exposure 
(number of workers exposed and duration of exposure), and the relative 
risk at the site (likelihood of an incident based on current hazards 
and the level of controls being applied to those hazards and past 
experience). These data points should govern reporting requirements and 
guide OSHA inspections, consulting and compliance resources.'' (Docket 
ID 0041).
    OSHA agrees that using a risk-based approach to collecting data can 
be valuable. Indeed, as discussed in Section III.B.14.c in this Summary 
and Explanation, OSHA anticipates this to be one of the benefits of the 
data collection for the agency. That is, the data collection will 
provide OSHA with establishment-specific, case-specific information the 
agency can use to evaluate risk factors and guide OSHA activities based 
on risk factors. However, in order to obtain this information, OSHA 
must first set the criteria for collecting the information, through 
this final rule. Risk is one of the reasons the agency proposed using a 
Forms 300 and 301 data collection criteria based on industry hazard 
level as well as establishment size, i.e., it is reasonable to assume 
that establishments in industries with higher injury/illness rates are 
higher-hazard industries with higher risks. As discussed elsewhere in 
this preamble, the list of higher-hazard industries in final appendix B 
to subpart E is based on several criteria, including the analysis of 
average injury and illness rates over several years. OSHA believes this 
approach represents a practical way of evaluating risks and hazards in 
specific industries. OSHA also believes it would be difficult to 
calculate an appropriate employee threshold based on the degree of 
hazard or the magnitude of exposure at individual establishments, 
especially when such case-specific data are not now available to the 
agency. Moreover, OSHA expects that including a numerical threshold of 
100 or more employees is easier for employers to understand and 
provides certainty for the regulated community. The inclusion of a 
numerical threshold with or without an additional industry criterion is 
a familiar part of OSHA's recordkeeping regulations (see, e.g., 29 CFR 
1904.1(a)(1); previous 29 CFR 1904.41(a)(1)-(2)). Further, OSHA 
believes that the 100-employee threshold balances the burden on 
employers with the benefits to worker safety and health.
    Other commenters questioned OSHA's proposed 100-employee threshold 
because the agency did not choose that threshold in the 2016 
rulemaking. For example, the Coalition pointed out that ``OSHA 
considered a lower threshold of 100 or more employees, and expressly 
denied that approach in the 2016 rulemaking'' (Docket ID 0087). In 
response to this comment, OSHA notes that the alternative (Alternative 
E) in the 2013 NPRM (the NPRM which lead to the 2016 final rule) to 
which the Coalition refers differs from the requirement OSHA proposed 
in this rulemaking. Specifically, with regard to Forms 300 and 301, 
Alternative E would have required all establishments which were 
required to keep records and had 100 or more employees at any time 
during the previous calendar year to submit Form 300 and 301 data to 
OSHA annually (see 78 FR 67264, 67281). However, in this rulemaking, 
OSHA proposed for only a subset of establishments with 100 or more 
employees (i.e., those whose industries appear on appendix B) to submit 
the data. OSHA estimated that it would receive 1,170,000 injury and 
illness cases with incident report (OSHA Form 301) and Log (OSHA Form 
300) data under Alternative E (81 FR 29636). OSHA further estimated 
that 120,000 establishments would have been required to submit data 
under the alternative (81 FR 29636). Ultimately, in 2016, OSHA agreed 
with commenters who stated that reducing the size criterion to 100 
would increase the burden on employers with diminishing benefit.
    OSHA's 2016 decision to reject Alternative E was based on the 
employer burden and benefits under that alternative. As discussed 
above, under this rule, OSHA estimates that only 52,092 establishments 
will be required to electronically submit Form 300/301 data each year 
and those establishments would annually submit only 766,257 injury and 
illness cases. Thus, an estimated 67,908 fewer establishments will be 
required to submit data under this rule, as compared to the estimate of 
those that would have been required to submit under Alternative E in 
the 2016 final rule, and approximately 403,000 fewer cases are 
estimated to be submitted than were estimated to have been submitted 
under that alternative. The number of cases estimated to be submitted 
under this final rule is similar to that which was estimated to have 
been required to be submitted under the 2016 final rule (720,000 in 
2016). Consequently, OSHA finds that its rejection of Alternative E in 
the 2016 rulemaking has no bearing on its decision to use a 100-
employee threshold in this rulemaking. In fact, the agency's finding 
that it could handle data from 720,000 cases in 2016 actually supports 
its finding that it can handle a similar number of records in this 
rulemaking.
    The Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable (PRR) objected to OSHA's proposed 
100-or-more-employee threshold for a different reason than the above 
commenters. Specifically, it maintained that the requirement for 
establishments with 100 or more employees in certain industries could 
result in inaccurate or misleading information. In support of this 
point, it stated that ``an establishment with few employees may have a 
high case rate purely based on numbers which is not reflective of 
workplace hazards or employer commitment. High injury and illness rates 
are not an automatic indication that the company or establishment is 
operating an unsafe environment'' (Docket ID 0094).
    OSHA disagrees with PRR's assertion about the 100-or-more employee 
threshold resulting in misleading information. While a small number of 
injuries or illnesses could have a disproportionate effect on incidence 
rates in an establishment with a small number of employees, this is 
unlikely in larger establishments with 100 or more employees. Incidence 
rate of injuries and illnesses are computed from the following formula: 
Incidence rate per 100 full-time employees = (Number of injuries and 
illnesses x 200,000)/Employee hours worked. The 200,000 figure in the 
formula represents the number of hours 100 employees working 40 hours 
per week, 50 weeks per year would work, and provides the standard base 
for calculating incidence rate for an entire year. Mathematically, the 
effect of a small change in the numerator (number of injuries and 
illnesses x 200,000) on the incidence rate becomes smaller as the 
denominator (employee hours worked) becomes larger, and the more 
employees there are, the larger the denominator will tend to be. Two 
recordable injuries or illnesses instead of one, at an establishment 
with 20 full-time employees, would increase the TCR from 5.0 to 10.0; 
in contrast, at an establishment with 100 full-time employees, the TCR 
would only increase from 1.0 to 2.0. As discussed above, the TCR 
threshold for industry inclusion in Appendix B is 3.5; an establishment 
with 100 full-time employees would have to have at least 4 recordable 
injuries in a year to exceed this threshold. In addition, as discussed

[[Page 47271]]

elsewhere, OSHA plans to publish narrative information from the Form 
300 and 301 (after identifying and removing information that could 
reasonably be expected to identify individuals directly), which will 
enable the users of the data to determine the relevance of the data. In 
fact, OSHA believes that the inclusion of more information about the 
specific cases (rather than the summary information from Forms 300A) 
will mitigate against potential misunderstandings, because the public 
can use that information to determine the circumstances that led to the 
injury or illness (e.g., through showing that a particular injury or 
illness occurred for a reason other than a hazard in the work 
environment). This is further discussed below in Section III.B.4 of 
this Summary and Explanation, which also explains additional steps OSHA 
plans to take to provide information to the public to aid their 
understanding of the data.
    OSHA also received a comment from NPGA opposing the proposed 100-
or-more employee threshold because it is not included in any other 
portion of OSHA's recordkeeping regulations (Docket ID 0050). NPGA's 
statement is accurate: OSHA's proposal in this rulemaking is the first 
time OSHA has specifically tied a part 1904 recordkeeping requirement 
to a 100-or-more-employee threshold. However, OSHA does not think the 
presence of a new threshold is problematic. As stated above, a 100-
employee threshold is easy for establishments to understand and 
balances OSHA's need for the data with the burden on establishments. 
Moreover, OSHA expects that establishments are familiar with this 
threshold from their experience with other Federal standards. For 
example, private sector employers with 100 or more employees are 
required to file an EEO-1 Component 1 Report with the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Federal Contract 
Compliance Programs (OFCCP), U.S. Department of Labor, every year (see 
42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c); 29 CFR 1602.7-.14; 41 CFR 60-1.7(a)).
    Other commenters maintained that the 100-employee threshold was not 
inclusive enough. For example, the AFL-CIO commented that if OSHA did 
not adopt its recommendation to require all establishments with 100 or 
more employees to submit data from all their recordkeeping forms 
(rather than establishments with 100 or more employees which are also 
classified in an industry listed in appendix B) (comment and OSHA's 
response discussed below), then OSHA should adopt the provisions 
contained in the 2016 final rule (i.e., require all establishments with 
250 or more employees to submit data from Forms 300A, 300, and 301). It 
argued that ``[a]t a minimum'' OSHA should require establishments with 
250 or more employees to submit data from the Forms 300A and 300 
(Docket ID 0061). The United Food and Commercial Workers International 
Union submitted a similar comment (Docket ID 0066).
    OSHA disagrees with commenters who suggested that OSHA should adopt 
a threshold below 100 or more employees or eliminate the threshold 
completely. OSHA acknowledges commenters who stated that a lower 
threshold would result in an increase in the amount of injury and 
illness data collected by the agency. However, the agency notes that 
any reduction in the employee size threshold would increase the number 
of establishments required to electronically submit Form 300 and 301 
data, and this would result in an increased burden to smaller 
employers. Again, the agency chose the 100-employee threshold by 
balancing 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 100-employee 
threshold will provide enough case-specific information, about enough 
establishments, for wide-spread targeted outreach and enforcement while 
minimizing the burden on employers, especially smaller employers, as 
required by Section 8(d) of the OSH Act. In addition, OSHA notes that 
the 100-or-more-employee threshold is appropriate since larger 
establishments typically have more resources to support electronic 
submission of case-specific injury and illness information to OSHA. 
OSHA also finds that the 100-or-employee threshold is appropriate 
because there is a lesser risk of employee reidentification from 
information published regarding larger establishments. (For more 
information on this issue, see the discussion of indirect 
identification in Section III.B of this Summary and Explanation.)
    In summary, after considering the entire record on the issue of the 
size threshold for submitting OSHA Form 300 and 301 data, OSHA agrees 
with commenters who supported the 100-or-more-employee threshold for 
determining which establishments must electronically submit information 
from their 300 and 301 forms. The 100-or-more-employee threshold will 
allow OSHA to strike an appropriate balance between the total number of 
establishments required to submit case-specific data to OSHA and the 
total number of injury and illness cases collected, on the one hand, 
with burden on employers (especially smaller employers) on the other. 
As discussed above, as well as in Section IV, Final Economic Analysis, 
OSHA believes that establishments with 100 or more employees have the 
necessary personnel and IT resources to comply with the electronic 
submission requirement in final Sec.  1904.41(a)(2). By setting the 
threshold at 100 or more employees and limiting the covered industries 
to the higher hazard industries listed in final appendix B to subpart 
E, the agency is focusing its data collection efforts in a more 
targeted manner. This approach is consistent with OSHA's stated 
intention in the preamble to the proposed rule 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.
    Accordingly, like the proposed rule, final Sec.  1904.41(a)(2) 
requires establishments with 100 or more employees that are in the 
designated industries listed in appendix B to subpart E to 
electronically submit data from their 300 and 301 forms to OSHA once a 
year.
b. The Criteria for Determining the Industries in Appendix B to Subpart 
E
    As stated above, OSHA proposed to require establishments with 100 
or more employees at any time during the previous calendar year to 
annually submit their Form 300 and 301 if they are in an industry 
listed in proposed appendix B to subpart E. The criteria for including 
the designated industries in proposed appendix B to subpart E was based 
on a three-year average rate of Total Case Rate (TCR) in the BLS SOII 
for 2017, 2018, and 2019, of at least 3.5 cases per 100 full-time-
employees. In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA requested comment 
on whether TCR is the appropriate method for determining the list of 
industries in proposed appendix B to subpart E. In addition, OSHA 
specifically asked, ``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?'' (87 FR 18546).
    The TCR represents the number of work-related injuries and 
illnesses per 100 full-time-employees during a one-year period. It is 
based on all work-related injuries and illnesses recorded on the OSHA 
300 Log resulting in death, days away from work, work restriction or 
transfer to another job, and other

[[Page 47272]]

recorded cases (e.g., cases resulting in medical treatment beyond first 
aid). On the other hand, the DART rate is based only on the number of 
work-related injuries and illnesses recorded on the OSHA 300 Log 
resulting in days away from work, restricted work activity or transfer 
to another job.
    A number of commenters opined on the appropriate criteria for 
determining the industries designated in appendix B to Subpart E. Many 
of these commenters supported the proposed use of the TCR (e.g., Docket 
IDs 0030, 0040, 0047, 0048, 0054, 0064, 0066, 0084, 0089). For example, 
AIHA indicated its support for using the TCR in the final rule, adding 
that, ``All incident rate metrics suffer from inaccuracy due to a lack 
of understanding of complex and intricately nuanced recording rules. 
The TCR is the most widely used and least misunderstood of these 
measures in the United States'' (Docket ID 0030). Also, the National 
Nurses Union stated that TCR is a more appropriate metric than a DART-
rate-only metric because it includes all types of recorded injuries and 
illnesses, not just those where an employer gave an injured or ill 
employee ``time to rest and recover'' (Docket ID 0064).
    Other commenters argued against OSHA's proposed use of the TCR and 
for the use of a DART-rate metric. For example, the International 
Bottled Water Association (IBWA) and the Coalition asserted that, per 
OSHA's preamble, ``[a]ppendix B is meant to reflect employers in higher 
hazard industries. While a higher DART may reflect such industries to 
some extent, a higher TCR does not. This is because the TCR captures 
relatively minor incidents--those that do not result in days away from 
work, job restriction, or transfer'' (Docket IDs 0076, 0087). Both of 
these commenters expressed concern that ``for example, under the 
proposal, employers in industries with very few or no 'major' incidents 
(i.e., those that result in days away from work, job restriction, or 
transfer), but a larger number of 'minor' incidents will unfairly be 
included in [a]ppendix B'' (Docket IDs 0076, 0087). On the other hand, 
other commenters, such as AIHA, argued against the use of the DART rate 
(Docket ID 0030).
    Other commenters suggested other possible metrics in their 
comments. For example, NIOSH commented, ``TCR may be the most 
appropriate single criterion for selection of industries; however, 
NIOSH believes that DART (Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred) and 
fatality rates are also valuable for determining the magnitude of 
injury risks in specific industries. There are two basic reasons why 
some industries would rank differently based on TCR than they would on 
DART or fatality rate. First, the nature of work differs among 
industries and can result in different ratios of mild to severe 
injuries. While the TCR represents mostly relatively mild injuries, the 
severest injuries are the most important targets of prevention and 
account for a very large share of the costs of injuries in the workers' 
compensation system. Second, some industries may more fully report 
injuries than others and so tend to have a higher ratio of TCR to DART 
or fatality rate.'' (Docket ID 0035, Attachment 2). The International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters concurred with NIOSH's comment (Docket ID 
0083). AIHA offered a fourth possible metric: cases with days away, 
observing, ``One other candidate, cases with days away, is perhaps the 
most intuitive metric and most closely (though not exactly) aligned 
with workers' compensation systems'' (Docket ID 0030).
    Finally, AFL-CIO ``urge[d] OSHA to require all large establishments 
with 100 or more employees, currently subject to recordkeeping 
standards, to electronically report detailed injury and illness 
information . . . as the value of these data has been thoroughly 
explained by the agency and record of evidence in the 2016 final rule'' 
(Docket ID 0061). In other words, AFL-CIO asked OSHA to revise the 
proposed provision to eliminate the requirement that only those 
establishments in industries listed in appendix B would be required to 
report. In AFL-CIO's recommendation, the only limitations would be 
establishment size and being routinely required to keep injury and 
illness records under part 1904.
    Having reviewed the information in the record, OSHA rejects AFL-
CIO's suggestion to require all large establishments with 100 or more 
employees (without regard to industry hazardousness) to submit 
information. In the provisions related to the electronic submission of 
Forms 300 and 301, OSHA has decided that it is appropriate to focus on 
the most hazardous industries. Such a focus is a regular feature of 
OSHA's recordkeeping regulations. For example, since 1982, OSHA has 
exempted some low-hazard industries from maintaining injury and illness 
records on a regular basis (see https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/directives/cpl-02-00-135). This partial exemption for low-hazard 
industries currently appears in 29 CFR 1904.2. Similarly, since the 
2016 final rule, OSHA has only required establishments with 20 or more 
employees but fewer than 250 employees to submit information from Form 
300A if those establishments are classified in an industry listed in 
appendix A to subpart E to part 1904, i.e., if they are higher hazard 
industries.
    Focusing some recordkeeping requirements on higher hazard 
industries has the benefit of enabling OSHA to better focus its 
attention where it might have the highest impact, and lessens the 
burden on less hazardous industries. OSHA finds that such a balance is 
appropriate. Moreover, the agency will continue receiving information 
from Form 300A from all recordkeeping establishments with 250 or more 
employees. If the information from submitting establishments' Forms 
300A, or from the BLS SOII and/or Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries 
(CFOI), were to indicate that industries not listed on appendix B were 
becoming more hazardous, OSHA could consider engaging in notice-and-
comment rulemaking to update appendix B. Further discussion on the 
possibility of updating appendix B appears below in this section of the 
Summary and Explanation.
    As to the appropriate criteria, OSHA has decided to use several 
data sources to populate the list of higher hazard industries in final 
appendix B to subpart E. Specifically, OSHA finds that the TCR, the 
DART rate, and the fatality rate are all important methods of 
identifying higher hazard industries. As noted by some commenters, 
while it is widely used in the United States and includes all types of 
recorded injuries and illnesses, the TCR also includes data concerning 
less severe injuries and illnesses (i.e., cases that resulted in 
medical treatment beyond first aid but did not involve loss of 
consciousness and/or did not result in restricted work or transfer to 
another job, days away from work, or death). OSHA still considers the 
TCR to be an appropriate rate to use for determining the list of 
industries in appendix B to subpart E, especially since covered 
establishments will be required to electronically submit information to 
OSHA on all their recordable cases (i.e., total cases). However, OSHA 
also agrees with commenters who suggested that information specifically 
about severe injuries and illnesses is a reliable indication of whether 
a specific industry is a high hazard industry. As NIOSH noted, the 
nature of work differs among industries, and this can result in 
different ratios of less severe and more severe injuries and illnesses.
    Accordingly, OSHA has decided to use the DART rate and the fatality 
rate in the BLS CFOI in addition to the TCR.

[[Page 47273]]

Adding the DART rate, which measures severe injuries and illnesses 
resulting in days away from work, restricted work activity, or transfer 
to another job, will ensure that industries with higher rates of severe 
injuries are included, while using the TCR will ensure that OSHA is 
capturing industries with higher injury and illness rates overall 
(including less severe injuries and illnesses and, as discussed by NNU, 
more serious injuries and illnesses in establishments where an employer 
does not give the injured or ill employee ``time to rest and recover'') 
(see Docket ID 0084).
    Adding the fatality rate will also be helpful because fatalities 
are more consistently reported than other injuries and illnesses. CFOI 
produces comprehensive counts of workplace fatalities in the United 
States. It is a Federal-State cooperative program that has been 
implemented in all 50 States and the District of Columbia since 1992. 
To compile counts that are as complete and accurate as possible, the 
census uses multiple sources to identify, verify, and profile fatal 
worker injuries. CFOI includes specific information about each 
workplace fatality, including information about occupation and other 
worker characteristics, equipment involved, and circumstances of the 
event. All of the information in the CFOI is obtained by cross-
referencing the source records, such as death certificates, workers' 
compensation reports, and Federal and State agency administrative 
reports. To ensure that fatalities are work-related, cases are 
substantiated with two or more independent source documents, or a 
source document and a follow-up questionnaire. The CFOI fatality rate 
is based on the number of deaths per 100,000 full-time-or-equivalent 
employees. Adding the fatality rate from CFOI to the metrics used to 
determine which industries should report in this final rule allows OSHA 
to obtain data from industries with low non-fatal injury and illness 
rates but high fatality rates.
    OSHA does not think that the metric offered by AIHA (cases with 
days away, or DAFW) is appropriate for this rulemaking. The DAFW rate 
is a subset of the DART rate. It does not include cases in which an ill 
or injured employee continues to work but is engaged in restricted 
activities or job transfer. This is obviously more possible in some 
establishments and industries than in others. For example, there might 
be no alternative for restricted work or job transfer at a nursing care 
facility for a patient-care worker who is unable to perform their 
regular job duties due to an injury; thus, the injury would result in a 
DAFW case. In contrast, it might be possible to temporarily reassign an 
injured production-line worker to a different job on the production 
line that accounts for the restrictions due to the injury; thus, the 
injury would not result in a DAFW case. However, both injuries--the 
days away from work case, as well as the restricted activities/job 
transfer case--would be DART cases. Thus, the DART rate is a better 
indicator of hazardousness across establishments and industries.
    Given the concerns raised by commenters about specific injury and 
illness rates, and in order to accurately identify higher hazard 
industries, OSHA decided to use several factors in determining the list 
of industries in final appendix B to subpart E. In addition to using 
the TCR, OSHA analyzed industry hazardousness based on the DART rate 
and the fatality rate. OSHA believes that using this approach more 
comprehensively identifies higher hazard industries. The agency also 
finds that this combination of factors furthers the agency's intention 
of balancing the number of establishments covered and injury and 
illness cases reported with the burden on employers, as well as not 
expanding the submission requirement beyond establishments that are 
already required to report information from the Form 300A. OSHA again 
notes that all of the industries in final appendix B to subpart E are 
also included in final appendix A to subpart E.
c. Cut-Off Rates for Determining the Industries in Appendix B to 
Subpart E
    Having determined the appropriate metrics (TCR, DART, and fatality 
rates), OSHA now turns to the appropriate cut-off rates for selecting 
the designated industries in appendix B to subpart E using the chosen 
metrics. As discussed above, OSHA proposed including those industries 
which 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. Some commenters argued 
that the proposed cut-off (3.5 per 100 workers) was too low (e.g., 
Docket IDs 0054, 0076, 0087). For example, the Employers E-
Recordkeeping Coalition (``Coalition'') argued that, whether the DART 
or TCR rate is used, ``OSHA should establish a higher threshold value 
than it proposes.'' The Coalition explained that the proposed threshold 
TCR value of 3.5 was based on BLS SOII data for 2017, 2018, and 2019, 
but that ``BLS data--specifically data representing the highest rates 
for cases with days away from work, restricted work activity, or job 
transfer (DART)--from the same time period (2017, 2018, 2019) 
demonstrates that the lowest incidence rate was 4.2.'' It further 
observed, ``Similarly, even if use of the TCR for purposes of 
determining those industries that should be included in [a]ppendix B is 
maintained in the final rule, a higher threshold value should be used. 
According to BLS data representing highest rates for total cases from 
the same time period (2017, 2018, 2019), the lowest incidence rate was 
6.8. . . Accordingly, to the extent the TCR is used for purposes of 
determining those industries that should be included in [a]ppendix B, 
the threshold value should be set at no less than 6.8. '' (Docket ID 
0087). IBWA submitted a similar comment (Docket ID 0076). Additionally, 
Dow Chemical Company argued that OSHA should use a TCR ``triggering'' 
rate that is substantially higher than the private industry average for 
full time equivalent workers (which was 2.8 in 2019 and 2.7 in 2020). 
Dow explained, ``This will reduce the burden on industry sectors who 
have a TCR at or below private industry average'' (Docket ID 0054).
    Other commenters suggested that the proposed cut-off of 3.5 was too 
high (e.g., Docket IDs 0037, 0047, 0048, 0049, 0066, 0069, 0079, 0084). 
Several commenters urged OSHA to include more industries in appendix B 
by lowering the cut-off to the three-year national average for private 
industry. These commenters expressed concern about many hazardous 
workplaces and high-risk occupations in industries that are above the 
national average for private industry but below the proposed 3.5 cut-
off, including many industries with establishments operated by the 
nation's major employers (Docket IDs 0030, 0047, 0048, 0049, 0066, 
0069, 0084). For example, the Strategic Organizing Center (SOC) 
``applaud[ed] OSHA's decision to lower the employment threshold for 
report[ing] the 300/301 data . . . [but] urge[d] OSHA to reject the use 
of such a high rate threshold for the inclusion of the specific 
industry codes'' (Docket ID0079). In support of this recommendation, 
SOC argued that OSHA had not justified the proposed TCR level other 
than projecting that it would result in a volume of cases (roughly 
750,000) similar to the 2016 rule (Docket ID 0079).
    With regard to the appropriate value for triggering the inclusion 
of industries in appendix B to subpart E, the final rule, like the 
proposed rule, has a cut-off of 3.5 cases per 100 employees. As 
reflected in the comments, the 3.5 cut-off value, which OSHA proposed, 
represents a balance between more

[[Page 47274]]

information and more employer burden with a lower cut-off, and less 
information and less employer burden with a higher cut-off. For 
example, the cut-offs suggested by the Employers E-Recordkeeping 
Coalition in their comment (Docket ID 0087) would only result in the 
submission of an estimated 90,395 cases from 3,087 establishments 
(using the 6.8 TCR rate taken from BLS table 19SNR01 ``Highest 
incidence rates of total nonfatal occupational injury and illness 
cases'', 2019) or an estimated 72,143 cases from 3,946 establishments 
(using the 4.2 DART rate taken from BLS table 19SNR02 ``Highest 
incidence rates of nonfatal occupational injury and illness cases with 
days away from work, restricted work activity, or job transfer'', 
2019).\4\ The Coalition's proposal would severely restrict the list of 
industries which would be required to submit data pursuant to this 
rulemaking, which would, in turn, restrict OSHA's ability to target its 
enforcement and compliance assistance efforts beyond that small subset 
of industries. It would also limit the information available to 
interested parties for occupational safety and health purposes, e.g., 
to evaluate occupational safety and health trends and patterns. 
Consequently, it would drastically decrease the benefits of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See https://www.bls.gov/iif/nonfatal-injuries-and-illnesses-tables/soii-summary-historical/supplemental-table-1-2019-national.xlsx for the TCR table and https://www.bls.gov/iif/nonfatal-injuries-and-illnesses-tables/soii-summary-historical/supplemental-table-2-2019-national.xlsx for the DART table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, for this final rule, OSHA has chosen to use a DART 
rate of 2.25 per 100 employees and CFOI fatality rate of 5.7 deaths per 
100,000 full-time-or-equivalent employees) to identify higher hazard 
industries. Both represent 1.5 times the national average for private 
industry for the respective rates. OSHA believes that these thresholds, 
which are well above the national averages for private industry, 
represent an appropriate cut-off for determining whether a given 
industry is a higher hazard industry. As discussed below, adding the 
DART criterion and the CFOI fatality criterion adds 6 industries to 
Appendix B (3 per criterion) that are below the TCR threshold; this 
addresses, to some degree, the concerns expressed by commenters about 
hazardous workplaces that are below the TCR threshold.
    Moreover, OSHA projects that the use of these cutoffs will enable 
it to receive Form 300 and 301 data on approximately 750,000 cases of 
injuries and illnesses per year. Based on the record of the 2016 
rulemaking, OSHA determined that roughly this amount of cases would 
provide OSHA and others with sufficient information to make workplaces 
safer, while not overburdening employers (see 87 FR 18543). Nothing in 
the record of this rulemaking, or the comments OSHA had received in the 
2019 rulemaking, has convinced OSHA that a different balance should be 
struck in this rule. However, as discussed above, the agency has 
tailored the collection to industries and establishments where the 
information would be most useful for improving workplace safety and 
health.
    OSHA only proposed including industries in appendix B if they also 
appeared in appendix A; establishments with 20 or more employees in 
industries in appendix A have already been required to electronically 
submit information from their Form 300A since 2017. OSHA did not 
receive any comments objecting to this part of the proposal and has 
decided to retain this requirement in the final rule. However, several 
interested parties argued that additional appendix A industries should 
be listed in appendix B.
    For example, the AFL-CIO commented that the proposed exclusion for 
large establishments in certain industries from appendix B, ``which 
further limits the ability to identify trends among workplace hazards 
in high risk industries,'' means that a significant number of 
industries will not be required to electronically submit OSHA Form 300 
and 301 data to OSHA, including all of the utility sectors and almost 
all of the construction industry[,]'' as well as a number of other 
industries with large establishments (Docket ID 0061). The 
Communications Workers of America commented that appendix B, like 
appendix A, should include all industries in the manufacturing sector 
(Docket ID 0092). SOC similarly characterized OSHA's proposal to limit 
the requirement to submit Forms 300 and 301 to industries with a TCR of 
at least 3.5 as a decision to ``arbitrarily exclude entire hazardous 
industries from the revised reporting requirement.'' In particular, SOC 
objected to the exclusion of the hotel industry, which, based on an 
analysis by the National Employment Law Project, SOC believes is a high 
hazard industry (Docket ID 0079).
    The AFL-CIO also commented that the industry exclusions from 
appendix B should not be based on BLS SOII data, because the data are 
an inadequate measure of industry hazardousness. It argued that SOII 
data, even recent three-year averages, is not an effective way to 
ensure that high-hazard industries are captured consistently in the 
data. The AFL-CIO further asserted that, ``[R]elying on these data to 
create exclusion criteria ignores the known limitations of current 
workplace injury and illnesses data. Over the last decade, studies have 
documented that the BLS injury and illness survey fails to capture an 
estimated 33-69% of work-related injuries. Some of the undercount has 
been attributed to injuries and illnesses excluded from the BLS 
survey's scope and the design of the survey.'' (Docket ID 0061).
    In response, OSHA notes that there is no express exemption for 
specific industries in appendix B to subpart E. The list of industries 
in final appendix B is based on objective injury and illness data 
indicating that a specific industry is a higher hazard industry. Any 
exclusion or omission from the list of designated industries in final 
appendix B is solely the result of a given industry not meeting the 
higher hazard industry criteria specified above, criteria which have 
been expanded under this final rule based on public comments. Moreover, 
OSHA disagrees with SOC's characterization of its preliminary decisions 
regarding the industries included on appendix B as ``arbitrar[y]'' 
(Docket ID 0079). As stated throughout the preamble to this final rule, 
in proposing a higher hazard cut-off level, the agency was seeking to 
balance the utility of the information collection for enforcement, 
outreach, and research, on the one hand, with the burden on 
establishments on the other. That is not to say that the agency found 
that it would be economically infeasible for industries other than 
those listed on proposed or final appendix B to submit their Form 300 
or 301 data. Indeed, no such finding is required here. Rather, OSHA 
looked to see what amount of information would be useful, considering 
the number of establishments that would be reporting under the final 
rule, the number of cases that would be submitted, the agency's 
capacity to review such information, and the benefits that would stem 
from the collection. The agency has determined that at the current 
time, requiring larger, high hazard establishments to submit their data 
can make a substantial impact on worker safety and health, and the 
benefits of making other employers do so as well is less certain. OSHA 
has decided to focus the rule on the establishments in industries in 
which additional information has the most promise of addressing serious 
workplace hazards. Further, OSHA notes that it will continue to receive 
300A data from very large establishments (those with 250 or

[[Page 47275]]

more employees) in all industries required to keep records under part 
1904 and can continue to use those data for targeting purposes as well. 
OSHA will monitor the data it receives, and in the future, it may 
consider new notice-and-comment rulemaking to adjust its approach in 
light of its experience with the data collected under this final rule.
    In addition, OSHA disagrees with the comment from the AFL-CIO that 
BLS SOII data are not a reliable method for measuring industry 
hazardousness. While BLS and its research partners have conducted 
multiple studies which indicate that SOII fails to capture some cases, 
the BLS SOII is an important indicator of occupational safety and 
health and is the only source of national-level data on nonfatal 
injuries and illnesses that spans the private sector and State and 
local governments. Accordingly, OSHA is not making any adjustments to 
the proposed appendix B industries based on these comments. However, as 
discussed in more detail below, OSHA notes that the application of the 
updated criteria for inclusion on appendix B has led to six new 
industries being added to appendix B. These industries include NAICS 
1133, Logging, NAICS 4853, Taxi and Limousine Services, and NAICS 4889, 
Other Support Activities for Transportation--all industries that AFL-
CIO identified as industries with large establishments not included in 
proposed appendix B that ``should be required to submit the injury and 
illness data they are already required to collect'' (Docket ID 0061). 
Consequently, the final rule responds to AFL-CIO's comment in part by 
adding three additional NAICS codes based on the objective criteria in 
this final rule.
d. Using the Most Current Data To Determine Designated Industries
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA stated that the agency 
anticipated that more current industry-level injury and illness data 
from BLS, as well as more establishment-specific injury and illness 
information from the ITA, would become available. OSHA therefore 
explained that the agency may rely on the most current data available, 
as appropriate, for determining the list of industries in appendix B to 
subpart E. OSHA sought comment from the public on whether the agency 
should use the most current data when developing the final rule (see 87 
FR 18543).
    The Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable (PRR) Occupational Safety and 
Health, OSH Forum commented that while it agrees with the concept that 
the most up-to-date information is the most accurate and should 
determine the list of industries, OSHA should not include any new 
industries in appendix B to subpart E in the final rule. According to 
this commenter, doing so would not allow impacted industries the 
opportunity to comment on such significant changes. Also, PRR 
recommended that any additions to the list of industries (or sub-sets 
of industries) in appendix B that result from OSHA analyzing updated 
data should be conducted through notice and comment rulemaking (Docket 
ID 0094).
    In response, OSHA agrees with PRR that the list of higher hazard 
industries in appendix B to subpart E should be based on data that was 
available at the time of the proposed rule. OSHA notes that, although 
the criteria used for determining the list of higher hazard industries 
in appendix B has been modified for the final rule, all of the data 
used to develop those criteria were available at the time of the 
proposed rule. Specifically, the cut-off threshold used for the TCR 
rate is based on a 3-year-average from 2017, 2018, and 2019, the cut-
off threshold for the DART rate is based on a 3-year-average from 2017, 
2018, and 2019, and the cut-off threshold for the fatality rate is 
based on data from 2019.
    Additionally, in the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA stated 
that during the 2016 rulemaking, the agency agreed with commenters who 
stated that the list of designated industries (listed in appendix A at 
that time) should not be updated each year. OSHA explained that moving 
industries in and out of the appendix each year would be confusing. 
OSHA also stated 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 the 2016 
rulemaking, include a requirement to annually or periodically adjust 
the list of designated industries to reflect more recent BLS injury and 
illness data. OSHA also committed that any such revision to the list of 
designated industries in the future would require additional notice and 
comment rulemaking (see 87 FR 29641). However, OSHA again raised the 
issue of periodic updating of the designated industries in appendix B 
to subpart E in the preamble to the proposed rule in this rulemaking 
(see 87 FR 18543). Specifically, in Alternative #2, OSHA explained the 
above information regarding its decision in the 2016 rulemaking, 
explained that it ``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,'' and then welcomed comment on this issue (87 FR 
18543).
    OSHA received several comments on this issue. In its comments, Dow 
stated that it did not support the regular updating of the list of 
designated industries proposed in appendix B. Dow argued, ``Revising 
this list and moving employers in and out would be extremely confusing 
and introduce unneeded instability into the data collection process. If 
the list of designated industries in appendix B were to be revised, 
OSHA must provide notice and a rulemaking comment period'' (Docket ID 
0054). In contrast, PRR commented that, if OSHA's assumption that the 
collection of establishment-specific data will reduce injury and 
illness rates, then the agency should be able to analyze data for the 
designated industries and consider updating and removing industries 
from the appendices (Docket ID 0094).
    OSHA agrees with the comments stating that the list of designated 
industries in appendix B to subpart E should not be updated on a 
regular basis. As in the 2016 rulemaking, OSHA finds that moving 
industries in and out of appendix B to subpart E on a periodic basis 
would be confusing for employers. Employers are less likely to 
encounter confusion when trying to determine whether their 
establishments are required to electronically submit data to OSHA if 
the list of industries in appendix B remains stable; appropriate future 
adjustments, if any, would be accomplished through notice and comment 
rulemaking. OSHA also believes that keeping the same industries in 
appendix B to subpart E will increase the stability of the electronic 
submission system and increase compliance with the submission 
requirement. Accordingly, OSHA will not, as part of this rulemaking, 
include a provision for the regular or periodic updating of the list of 
industries in appendix B to subpart E.
    In making this decision, OSHA acknowledges that industries' injury 
and illness rates may change. As PRR commented, OSHA expects that this 
rulemaking will aid in the decrease in such rates. If OSHA's ongoing 
analyses of injury and illness rates show a decrease in injuries and 
illnesses in particular industries included on appendix B, then OSHA 
may consider removing those industries from appendix B. Similarly, if 
OSHA learns that injury and illness rates in industries that are not 
included on appendix B are

[[Page 47276]]

rising, then OSHA may consider adding those industries to appendix B. 
However, in either case, OSHA would propose any such change via notice-
and-comment rulemaking, in part to obviate the confusion mentioned 
above.
e. Industries Included in Final Appendix B After Applying the Final 
Criteria, Cut-Off Rates, and Data Sources
    Based on the above decisions, final appendix B to subpart E of part 
1904 includes 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, OR
    2. had a 3-year-average DART rate in the BLS SOII for 2017, 2018, 
and 2019 of at least 2.25 cases per 100 full-time-equivalent employees, 
OR
    3. had a fatality rate in the BLS Census of Fatal Occupational 
Injuries (CFOI) of at least 5.7 deaths per 100,000 full-time-equivalent 
employees, AND
    4. are included in appendix A to subpart E. (All of the industries 
in appendix B are also in appendix A.)
    No industries were removed from appendix B based on these criteria. 
However, six new industries have been added to appendix B. The new 
industries are:
     NAICS 1133--Logging (2019 fatality rate of 47.6),
     NAICS 1142--Hunting and Trapping (three-year average DART 
rate of 3.1),
     NAICS 3379--Other Furniture Related Product Manufacturing 
(three-year average DART rate of 2.27),
     NAICS 4239--Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant 
Wholesalers (2019 fatality rate of 15.6),
     NAICS 4853--Taxi and Limousine Service (2019 fatality rate 
of 6.9), and
     NAICS 4889--Other Support Activities for Transportation 
(three-year average DART rate of 2.4).
    The application of the criteria and cut-offs to each industry that 
was added to appendix B is summarized in the following table:

                                       New Industries in Final Appendix B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 High  fatality
      2017 NAICS 4-digit                Industry               High TCR          High DART            rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1133.........................  Logging..................  No...............  .................  Yes.
1142.........................  Hunting and Trapping.....  No...............  Yes.
3379.........................  Other Furniture Related    No...............  Yes.
                                Product Manufacturing.
4239.........................  Miscellaneous Durable      No...............  .................  Yes.
                                Goods Merchant
                                Wholesalers.
4853.........................  Taxi and Limousine         No...............  .................  Yes.
                                Service.
4889.........................  Other Support Activities   No...............  Yes.               ................
                                for Transportation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the establishments with 100 or more employees in these newly 
included industries are also included in appendix A to subpart E, and, 
therefore, have been required to electronically submit data from their 
300A to OSHA once a year since January 1, 2017. Because of their 
inclusion in appendix A, OSHA finds that each of these newly included 
industries should have been aware of this rulemaking. Moreover, in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA specifically indicated that the 
criteria for determining higher hazard industries might be modified for 
the final rule (indeed, OSHA asked for comment on this issue (see, 
e.g., 87 FR 18543, 18546)). Consequently, OSHA finds that the proposal 
placed all six of the newly added industries on notice that they could 
be included in appendix B in this final rule and, thus, these 
industries had an opportunity to comment on issues related to that 
determination.
    In the proposed rule, OSHA stated that it was proposing one 
exception to these criteria, for the United States Postal Service 
(USPS), which is the only employer in NAICS 4911 Postal Service. OSHA 
explained 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 included NAICS 
4911 in proposed appendix B to subpart E. In so doing, OSHA noted that 
NAICS 4911 was also included in both current and proposed appendix A to 
subpart E (87 FR 18543).
    OSHA did not receive any comments from interested parties regarding 
the proposed inclusion of USPS in appendix B. Due to the lack of an 
objection to its inclusion and USPS's high TCR level (as calculated by 
OSHA), the agency has decided to include USPS in the final version of 
appendix B.
    The final appendix B to subpart E is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           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.
1133.......................  Logging.
1141.......................  Fishing.
1142.......................  Hunting and Trapping.
1151.......................  Support Activities for Crop Production.
1152.......................  Support Activities for Animal Production.

[[Page 47277]]

 
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 (except Aluminum)
                              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 (including Fixtures)
                              Manufacturing.
3379.......................  Other Furniture Related Product
                              Manufacturing.
4231.......................  Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Parts and
                              Supplies Merchant Wholesalers.
4233.......................  Lumber and Other Construction Materials
                              Merchant Wholesalers.
4235.......................  Metal and Mineral (except Petroleum)
                              Merchant Wholesalers.
4239.......................  Miscellaneous Durable Goods 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.
4853.......................  Taxi and Limousine Service.
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.
4889.......................  Other Support Activities for
                              Transportation.
4911.......................  Postal Service.
4921.......................  Couriers and Express Delivery Services.
4931.......................  Warehousing and Storage.
5322.......................  Consumer Goods Rental.
5621.......................  Waste Collection.

[[Page 47278]]

 
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 (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.
6243.......................  Vocational Rehabilitation Services.
7111.......................  Performing Arts Companies.
7112.......................  Spectator Sports.
7131.......................  Amusement Parks and Arcades.
7211.......................  Traveler Accommodation.
7212.......................  RV (Recreational Vehicle) Parks and
                              Recreational Camps.
7223.......................  Special Food Services.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Information To Be Submitted
    Section 1904.41(b)(9) of the final rule specifies which information 
must be submitted under Sec.  1904.41(a)(2). Consequently, comments on 
the proposed information to be submitted and OSHA's responses to those 
comments are discussed in Section III.D of this Summary and 
Explanation, on Sec.  1904.41(b)(9). However, because this summary and 
explanation section covers comments on issues that relate to the 
information that establishments must submit under Sec.  1904.41(a)(2), 
OSHA is briefly previewing those requirements here. Specifically, as 
laid out in question-and-answer format in Sec.  1904.41(b)(9), 
establishments that are required to submit information under Sec.  
1904.41(a)(2) of this section must submit all the information from the 
OSHA Forms 300 and 301 except for the following case-specific 
information:
     Employee name (column B), from the Log of Work-Related 
Injuries and Illnesses (OSHA Form 300).
     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) from the Injury and Illness Incident Report (OSHA Form 301).
    Section 1904.41(b)(9) of the final rule is identical to proposed 
Sec.  1904.41(b)(9).
3. Publication of Electronic Data
    As discussed above, OSHA intends to make some of the data it 
collects public. The publication of specific data elements will in part 
be restricted by applicable Federal law, including provisions of the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as well as specific provisions 
within part 1904. OSHA will make the following data from Forms 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. As specified in 
Sec.  1904.41(b)(9), employee names will not be collected. OSHA notes 
that it often collects copies of establishments' Forms 300 during 
inspections and includes them as part of the enforcement case file. 
Prior to this rulemaking, OSHA has not conducted a systematic 
collection of the information on the 300 Log. However, OSHA releases 
the Forms 300 that it does have (in case files) in response to FOIA 
requests, subject to application of the FOIA exemptions. In those 
responses, OSHA redacts employee names pursuant to FOIA Exemptions.
     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. As specified in Sec.  1904.41(b)(9), 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) will not be 
collected. OSHA notes that it often collects copies of establishments' 
Forms 301 during inspections and includes them as part of the 
enforcement case file. Prior to this rulemaking, OSHA has not conducted 
a systematic collection of the information on the 301 Incident Report. 
However, OSHA releases the forms that it does have in response to FOIA 
requests, subject to application of the FOIA exemptions. 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, and OSHA does not 
release this information under FOIA. Similarly, OSHA will not publish 
establishment-specific data from the left side of Form 301.
    OSHA intends to publish information from the Forms 300 and 301 as 
both text-based and coded data. An example of text-based data would be, 
``Second degree burns on right forearm from acetylene torch'' in Field 
F (``Describe injury or illness, parts of body affected, and object/
substance that directly injured or made person ill'') on the Form 300. 
An example of coded data for this case, using the Occupational Injury 
and Illness Classification System (OIICS) Manual, would be:

 Nature of injury: 1,520 (heat (thermal) burns, unspecified)
 Part of body affected: 423 (forearm)
 Source of injury or illness: 7,261 (welding, cutting, and blow 
torches)
 Event or exposure: 533 (contact with hot objects or 
substances)

    For text-based data, as discussed below, OSHA plans to use 
automated de-identification technology, supplemented with some manual 
review of the data, to identify and remove information that could 
reasonably be expected to identify individuals directly from the fields 
the agency intends to publish (as discussed above); the agency will not 
publish text-based data until such information, if any, has been 
identified and removed. For coded data, also as discussed below, OSHA 
plans to use an automated coding system to code the collected data; 
until the autocoding system has been tested and is in place, OSHA 
intends to only use and publish uncoded data. The coded data by its 
nature will not include any information which could reasonably be 
expected to identify employees directly, and thus there will be no need 
to use automated de-identification technology or manual de-
identification before publishing coded data.

[[Page 47279]]

4. Benefits of Collecting and Publishing Data From Forms 300 and 301
    As discussed in more detail below, OSHA has determined that this 
final rule will improve worker safety and health because the collection 
of, and expanded public access to, establishment-specific, case-
specific, injury and illness data from Forms 300 and 301 will allow 
OSHA, employers, employees, researchers, safety consultants, and the 
general public to use the data in ways that will ultimately result in 
the reduction of occupational injuries and illnesses.
    In the preamble to the 2019 final rule, OSHA stated that, because 
the agency ``already has systems in place to use the 300A data for 
enforcement targeting and compliance assistance without impacting 
worker privacy, and because the Form 300 and 301 data would provide 
uncertain additional value, the Form 300A data are sufficient for 
enforcement targeting and compliance assistance at this time'' (84 FR 
392). The uncertainty regarding the extent of the benefits was based, 
in part, on the determination that ``[b]ecause . . . publishing the 
data would do more harm than good for reasons described more fully 
below and in the privacy discussion above, OSHA would not make the data 
public even if collected'' (84 FR 390). In addition, at the time of the 
2019 final rule, ``OSHA ha[d] already taken the position that data from 
Form 300A is exempt from disclosure under FOIA and that OSHA will not 
make such data public for at least the approximately four years after 
its receipt that OSHA intends to use the data for enforcement 
purposes'' (84 FR 391).
    Since publication of the 2019 final rule, however, OSHA is now 
better able to collect, analyze, and publish data from Forms 300 and 
301, and advances in technology have reduced the risk that information 
that could reasonably be expected to identify individuals directly will 
be disclosed to the public. Also, improvements in technology have 
reduced the manual resources needed to identify and remove sensitive 
worker information from 300 and 301 forms. These developments will 
allow OSHA to more effectively review and analyze the collected 300 and 
301 data and ensure that information which could reasonably be expected 
to identify employees directly is removed prior to publication. For 
example, as discussed below, more advanced autocoding technology will 
allow OSHA to more efficiently review and analyze the data, allowing 
the agency to focus its enforcement targeting and compliance assistance 
resources on specific hazards at establishments with safety and health 
problems, resulting in a reduction of work-related injuries and 
illnesses. Similarly, advances in technology to identify and remove 
information which could reasonably be expected to identify employees 
directly will reduce the resources needed to publish text-based 
information while adequately protecting worker privacy. In addition, 
OSHA plans to publish the coded data produced by the more advanced 
autocoding technology, which by its nature will not include any 
information which could reasonably be expected to identify employees 
directly.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OSHA, like other Federal agencies, is responsible for 
protecting personally identifiable information (PII) in accordance 
with law and policy. Throughout this preamble, OSHA identifies and 
discusses multiple ways in which the agency fulfills this 
responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as explained above, since 2020, there have been 
multiple court decisions adverse to the Department of Labor's position 
that electronically submitted Form 300A data are exempt from public 
disclosure under the FOIA. In these decisions, courts have rejected the 
Department of Labor's position that electronically submitted 300A 
injury and illness data was covered under the confidentiality exemption 
in FOIA Exemption 4. As a result, in August 2020, OSHA initiated a 
policy to post collected 300A data on its public website at https://www.osha.gov/Establishment-Specific-Injury-and-Illness-Data, with 
submissions for calendar years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021.
    Accordingly, based on the recent developments described above, and 
the additional information included in the record for this rulemaking, 
OSHA now believes there are significant benefits resulting from the 
collection and publication of establishment-specific, case-specific, 
injury and illness data from Forms 300 and 301. In addition, as 
explained below, OSHA concludes that the significant benefits 
associated with the collection and publication of Forms 300 and 301 
data outweigh the slight risk to employee privacy. Indeed, the benefits 
of collection alone would outweigh the slight risk to employee privacy.
    As explained in more detail below, after considering the record as 
a whole, including commenters' responses to specific questions in the 
NPRM on this topic, OSHA finds that the collection of, and expanded 
public access to, establishment-specific, case-specific, injury and 
illness data will allow OSHA, employers, employees, potential 
customers, employee representatives, researchers, safety consultants, 
and the general public to use the data in ways that will ultimately 
result in the reduction of occupational injuries and illnesses (see 87 
FR 18547).
a. General Benefits of Collecting and Publishing Data From Forms 300 
and 301
    OSHA received several comments on the general benefits of 
collecting and publishing data from Forms 300 and 301. For example, 
Miranda Ames commented, ``The more data we have about workplace safety, 
the better we can do at protecting workers. Collection of information 
like this by OSHA will enable better statistical analysis of workplace 
injuries across industries, and incentivize employers to keep more 
thorough records of workplace incidents and accidents'' (Docket ID 
0011).
    Similarly, Cal/OSHA commented, ``Complete and accurate surveillance 
of occupational injury and illness is essential and holds significant 
value for informed policy decisions and for effective intervention and 
prevention programs. The policy of requiring submission of detailed 
information from larger employers specifically helps identify and abate 
workplace hazards by improving the surveillance of occupational injury 
and illness.'' (Docket ID 0084). This commenter also explained that the 
proposed requirements for reporting detailed information, and the 
transparency that it creates, encourage and support accurate 
occupational injury and illness reporting (Docket ID 0084). Similarly, 
Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. commented that making the 
data publicly available will increase the accuracy of such records and 
address underreporting by employers (Docket ID 0089).
    In addition, commenters suggested that the collection and 
publication of Forms 300 and 301 data will allow the agency to receive 
more detailed information on the nature and circumstances of work-
related injuries and illnesses, and target its limited enforcement and 
compliance assistance resources to protect the greatest number of 
workers (Docket IDs 0040, 0064). Commenters also noted that this rule 
may particularly benefit low-income and minority workers (Docket IDs 
0045, 0048). For example, National COSH stated that Latino and Black 
workers are at greater risk of dying on the job than other workers, and 
this rule ``is critical to improving worker safety and health, 
especially for workers at elevated risk of injury, illness and death'' 
(Docket ID 0048).
    On the other hand, some commenters questioned whether OSHA had

[[Page 47280]]

adequately justified the benefits of collecting and publishing data in 
the proposed rule. For example, NFIB stated that many of the reasons 
that OSHA gives in the preamble to the proposed rule to justify the 
collection and publication of information are ``rather flimsy'' (Docket 
ID 0036). Some commenters stated that the collected data would not 
benefit workplace safety and health, concluding that OSHA recordkeeping 
data are not useful. For example, an anonymous commenter stated that 
data collection is reactive, and that taxpayer money would be much 
better spent on proactive programs that improve safety and health in 
the workplace. This commenter also asked, ``How do employers know that 
OSHA will not start targeting them due to injuries that are reported?'' 
(Docket ID 0014). The U.S. Poultry & Egg Association commented that the 
existing reporting rules are adequate to allow employers to identify 
risks and allow OSHA to direct its enforcement activities, and stated 
that a reduction in injury and illness rates in poultry processing and 
general manufacturing from 1994 to 2020 is evidence that OSHA's 
proposed changes are unnecessary (Docket ID 0053).
    Mid Valley Agricultural Services commented, ``It is unclear how the 
proposed rule will result in reductions to injuries/illnesses in the 
workplace or the frequency and severity of instances. Aggregating more 
data on workplace injuries/illnesses does nothing in and of itself to 
reduce the possibility of workplace injuries/illnesses'' (Docket ID 
0019). The Plastics Industry Association (Docket ID 0086) and Angela 
Rodriguez (Docket ID 0052) submitted similar comments. In addition, the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce resubmitted a comment from the 2016 rulemaking 
that argued that OSHA's collection of injury and illness data would not 
lead to effective targeting of workplaces ``because information about 
an establishment's incidences of workplace injuries and illnesses does 
not accurately or reliably correlate with an establishment that is 
hazardous or that has failed to take OSHA-compliant steps to prevent 
injuries'' (Docket ID 0088, Attachment 2). The comment asserted that a 
study by the RAND Corporation ``found that no research supports the 
preconception that the goal of reducing workplace injuries and 
illnesses can be most effectively reached by focusing on workplaces 
with the highest number of incidents of injuries or illnesses'' and 
that ``there appears to be little relationship between the injury rate 
and the likelihood of violations at inspected establishments.'' The 
comment concluded that ``this proposed database will provide raw data 
subject to so many caveats, complexities, and assumptions as to be 
meaningless.''
    In response, OSHA agrees with commenters who generally stated that 
there are benefits resulting from the collection and publication of 
establishment-specific, case-specific, injury and illness data from 
Forms 300 and 301. As discussed in more detail below, the primary 
purpose of the requirement in the final rule for the electronic 
submission of 300 and 301 data, and the subsequent publication of 
certain data, is to prevent occupational injuries and illnesses through 
the use of timely, establishment-specific injury and illness data by 
OSHA, employers, employees, other Federal agencies and States, 
researchers, workplace safety consultants, and the public. The 
collection and publication of data from Forms 300 and 301 will not only 
increase the amount of information available for analysis, but will 
also result in more accurate statistics regarding work-related injuries 
and illnesses, including more detailed statistics on injuries and 
illnesses for specific occupations and industries. In other words, the 
increase in collected injury and illness data will necessarily result 
in more accurate statistics. In turn, more accurate statistics will 
enhance interested parties' knowledge regarding specific workplace 
hazards.
    Relatedly, OSHA agrees with commenters that said making the data 
publicly available will increase the accuracy of occupational injury 
and illness reporting. To the extent that underreporting is a problem, 
the public availability of case-specific data will allow employees to 
assess whether their personally experienced injuries and illnesses have 
been accurately recorded on their employers' Forms 300 and 301. 
Although others would not be able to identify that a specific employee 
suffered a particular injury or illness, OSHA expects that the injured 
or ill worker would be able to determine whether their particular 
injury or illness was recorded. This check would work in tandem with 
employees' ability to check such things in an employer's Forms 300 and 
301 and would address employees' fear that asking to view those forms 
could result in retaliation. OSHA has also discussed these issues in 
further detail in Section III.B.4.d of the Summary and Explanation.
    The requirement to submit establishment-specific, case-specific 
data will also assist OSHA in encouraging employers to prevent 
occupational injuries and illnesses by expanding OSHA's access to the 
information that employers are already required to keep under part 
1904. As noted elsewhere, OSHA typically only has access to 
establishment-specific, case-specific, injury and illness information 
when it conducts an onsite safety and health inspection at an 
individual establishment. However, the electronic submission of 300 and 
301 data will allow OSHA to obtain a much larger data set of 
information about work-related injuries and illnesses and will enable 
the agency to use its enforcement and compliance assistance resources 
more effectively. OSHA intends to use the collected data to identify 
establishments with recognized workplace hazards where workers face a 
high risk of sustaining occupational injuries and illnesses.
    The collection of establishment-specific, case-specific information 
will also provide data for analyses that are not currently possible. 
OSHA plans to use the data collected from this final rule to assess 
changes in the types and rates of specific injuries and illnesses in a 
given industry over a long period of time. In addition, the data 
collection will allow OSHA to better evaluate the effectiveness and 
efficiency of its various safety and health programs, initiatives, and 
interventions in different industries and geographic areas. 
Additionally, for these reasons, OSHA disagrees with commenters that 
suggest current reporting requirements are adequate to protect worker 
safety and health.
    OSHA disagrees with commenters that stated that part 1904 injury 
and illness data are not useful in improving occupational safety and 
health, and that taxpayer funds would be better spent on more proactive 
measures. As noted above, OSHA's injury and illness recordkeeping 
regulation has been in place since 1971. The information recorded on 
the OSHA forms is recognized by safety and health professionals as an 
essential tool for identifying and preventing workplace injuries and 
illnesses. Historically, employers, employees, and OSHA have used part 
1904 information to identify injury and illness trends and to evaluate 
the effectiveness of abatement methods at an individual establishment. 
The collection and publication of certain data from the 300 and 301 
forms required by this final rule will enable interested parties and 
OSHA to have access to a much larger data set, resulting in increased 
knowledge of workplace hazards, and a reduction in occupational 
injuries and illnesses. In addition, implementation of the collection 
and publication of

[[Page 47281]]

establishment-specific, case-specific, injury and illness data is a 
cost-effective measure used to improve workplace safety and health. 
OSHA estimates that the total cost for implementing the requirements of 
this final rule will have an annual cost to the government of 
approximately $554,000 per year. However, the agency expects that the 
increased knowledge of workplace hazards and injury and illness trends, 
as well as the expected improved accuracy of part 1904 records, will 
result in decreased workers' compensation costs for employers and 
decreased healthcare costs for injured or ill employees by virtue of 
the reduction in workplaces injuries and illnesses that OSHA expects to 
result from this final rule. OSHA also notes, as discussed below, that 
the agency's collection of this information will allow it to more 
effectively prioritize its compliance assistance resources, which will 
help employers better protect their employees.
    OSHA agrees that the injury and illness data collected as a result 
of this final rule may be used to target certain establishments for 
safety and health inspection or compliance assistance. The agency 
considers the use of the collected data for possible targeting of 
specific establishments for enforcement or compliance assistance 
intervention as a benefit of this final rule. Again, as noted above, 
OSHA expects the accuracy and quality of occupational injury and 
illness data to improve as a result of this final rule. The increased 
amount of data collected by the agency, along with the expected 
improvement in data accuracy, will enable OSHA to better analyze and 
evaluate workplace safety and health hazards. Accordingly, the overall 
improvement in the data collected by the agency will allow OSHA to more 
accurately and objectively target specific establishments where workers 
are at high risk and thereby reduce the overall occurrence of workplace 
injuries and illnesses.
    With regard to the Chamber's comment on the 2013 RAND Corporation 
study, OSHA notes that the study focuses primarily on the effectiveness 
of various types of Cal/OSHA inspections (e.g., programed, planned, and 
complaint) rather than on issues related to workplace injury and 
illness rates. Indeed, similar to how OSHA intends to use the collected 
data from this final rule, one of the recommendations included in the 
study states, ``Workplaces in high-injury-rate industries that have not 
been inspected at all or not for many years should be identified and 
deserve some priority in programmed inspections'' (see Inspection 
Targeting Issues for the California Department of Industrial Relations 
Division of Occupational Safety and Health (John Mendeloff & Seth A. 
Seabury) (Docket ID 0099) at 13). Finally, as noted above, Cal/OSHA 
itself commented in this rulemaking that injury and illness 
surveillance is essential for informed policy decisions and in the 
identification, prevention, and abatement of workplace hazards (Docket 
ID 0084).
    Additionally, the National Propane Gas Association stated that OSHA 
``does not provide any details as to how publicly available information 
could improve workplace safety'' (Docket ID 0050). In response, as the 
agency explained in the NPRM (87 FR 18538), by that point in time, OSHA 
had successfully collected reference year 2016 through 2020 Form 300A 
data through the OSHA Injury Tracking Application. (Since publication 
of the NPRM, OSHA has completed collection of reference year 2021 Form 
300A data and has begun collecting 2022 data.) 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 300A data currently collected. As explained in more 
detail below, the collection and publication of establishment-specific, 
case-specific, injury and illness data from Forms 300 and 301 will 
result in significant benefits for the agency.
    The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) commented, from 
an enforcement standpoint, ``by the time the data could be evaluated 
for use in selecting OSHA's enforcement targets, the data would surely 
be stale and provide no useful basis for the agency to initiate 
enforcement against employers within the six-month statute of 
limitations set forth in the OSH Act.'' This commenter also stated 
that, ``[b]ecause the data is insufficient in and of itself as a 
targeting tool, and because OSHA would be able to rely on such data 
only when it likely no longer reflects current conditions at a 
particular worksite, OSHA's enforcement program is better served by 
continuing to use 300A summary data to target enforcement resources,'' 
and then obtaining a copy employer's current Forms 300 and 301 at the 
time of an inspection (Docket ID 0076). IBWA added, ``[u]sing the more 
detailed 300 and 301 data in the context of an individual inspection, 
as the agency has historically done, is a better and more effective use 
of this data than OSHA's proposed new plan'' (Docket ID 0076).
    In response, for purposes of enforcement inspection and compliance 
assistance targeting, the agency intends to use the collected data from 
this final rule in two ways. First, OSHA plans to continue to use 
administrative plans based on neutral criteria to target individual 
establishments with high injury and illness rates based on submitted 
Form 300A summary data. Second, OSHA intends to use administrative 
plans based on neutral criteria to target individual establishments 
based on submitted case-specific, establishment-specific, injury and 
illness data from the Forms 300 and 301.
    OSHA agrees with IBWA that relying on Form 300A summary data is an 
effective source of information for targeting the agency's enforcement 
resources. For example, the Site-Specific Targeting (SST) plan is 
OSHA's main site-specific programmed inspection initiative for non-
construction workplaces that have 20 or more employees. Currently, the 
SST program targets individual establishments based on 300A injury and 
illness data that employers are already required to electronically 
submit to OSHA under 29 CFR 1904.41. OSHA uses submitted 300A data to 
calculate injury and illness rates for individual establishments. The 
SST program helps OSHA achieve the goal of ensuring that employers 
provide safe and healthful workplaces by directing enforcement 
resources to those workplaces with the highest rates of injuries and 
illnesses. Moving forward, OSHA intends to continue to use the 300A 
data submitted under 1904.41(a)(1) of this final rule to calculate 
injury and illness rates and target individual establishments for 
inspection under the SST.
    OSHA also intends to use collected case-specific, establishment-
specific data from the Forms 300 and 301 to identify individual 
establishments for enforcement inspection and compliance assistance 
outreach. OSHA believes that reviewing and analyzing specific data from 
the Forms 300 and 301 is an effective method for the agency to identify 
individual establishments for enforcement inspection or compliance 
assistance targeting. For example, OSHA will be able to use 300 and 301 
data to identify specific hazards at a given

[[Page 47282]]

establishment. In turn, the agency will be able to more effectively 
deploy its enforcement and compliance assistance resources to eliminate 
identified hazards and enhance worker safety and health. Of course, and 
as discussed elsewhere, OSHA enforcement targeting based on the data 
submitted as a result of this final rule will be conducted in 
accordance with a neutral-based scheme for identifying workplaces for 
closer inspection.
    OSHA disagrees with IBWA's comment that the collected injury and 
illness data the agency intends to use for its enforcement inspection 
and compliance assistance targeting is stale. OSHA acknowledges that 
the Forms 300 and 301 data are based on injuries and illnesses that 
occurred during the previous calendar year. However, OSHA's current SST 
inspection targeting program is also based on Form 300A summary data 
from the previous calendar year. Even though the injuries and illnesses 
occurred during the previous calendar year, the information is helpful 
to OSHA in determining whether a hazard is an ongoing problem at a 
specific establishment. For example, although a heat-related illness 
may have occurred more than six months before the submission deadline, 
it may be reasonable for OSHA to conclude that multiple entries of this 
illness on the OSHA forms represent an ongoing hazard at that 
establishment. In addition, research indicates that high injury and 
illness rates are persistent over time until there is some type of 
safety and health intervention at the facility (see Evaluation of 
OSHA's Impact on Workplace Injuries and Illnesses in Manufacturing 
Using Establishment-Specific Targeting of Interventions: Programmed 
Inspections and High Hazard Notification Letters, FINAL REPORT. 
Prepared by: ERG, Lexington, MA, July 16, 2004 (Docket ID 0098)). By 
identifying an establishment with ongoing hazards, the agency has the 
opportunity to use its enforcement and compliance assistance resources 
to conduct an intervention and improve workplace safety and health.
b. Beneficial Ways That OSHA Can Use the Data From Forms 300 and 301
    OSHA expects to use the collected data in many ways to improve 
worker safety and health. Most importantly, having this information 
will provide OSHA with a much fuller and more detailed understanding of 
the kinds of injuries and illnesses experienced by workers doing 
different jobs in a range of industries.
    The data available from the 300A forms currently collected by OSHA 
show primarily only how many ``injuries'' and ``illnesses'' occur. (The 
300A ITA data also provide information on the number of cases of 
illnesses involving hearing loss, poisonings, skin disorders, and 
respiratory disorders, but even for those, knowing that they occurred 
at a particular workplace provides little if any useful information 
about how the workers developed them.) The data provide no meaningful 
information about the kinds of injuries or illnesses suffered by 
workers, the kind of work they do, or the hazards present at their 
workplaces. The establishment-wide scope of the 300A data currently 
available to OSHA also tends to obscure particular types of injuries 
and illnesses that may affect only certain classes of workers at large 
establishments. For example, nursing aides at hospitals may be exposed 
to very different hazards than those facing other hospital staff who do 
not perform the same kind of physical work. Yet, looking at hospital-
wide generalized data will give no hint of the circumstances giving 
rise to particular exposures or which workers are affected.
    By having access to more precise information about the kinds of 
injuries and illnesses affecting workers performing different kinds of 
operations at different kinds of workplaces, OSHA can deploy its 
resources in ways more calculated to address the specific hazards that 
actually exist in specific workplaces. It is obvious that the broad 
categories of ``injury'' and ``illness'' provide little useful 
information about the specific kinds of hazards that exist at a 
workplace. And even a narrower category of illness like ``respiratory 
conditions'' does not indicate whether the respiratory condition is 
related to a chemical exposure, COVID-19, valley fever 
(coccidioidomycosis), hantavirus, Legionnaires' disease 
(Legionellosis), or tuberculosis. In contrast, the collection and 
analysis of case-specific data from the Forms 300 and 301 would allow 
OSHA to determine the prevalence of particular respiratory hazards and 
respond appropriately, whether that response is in the form of targeted 
enforcement efforts or compliance assistance, general guidance 
materials or regulatory solutions, or cooperation with local public 
health authorities.
    Having access to case-specific data will also allow OSHA to 
determine whether workers in particular demographics are being sickened 
or injured disproportionately. These may be younger or older workers, 
temporary workers, or workers new to a particular assignment. If OSHA 
has this information, it will be able to develop strategies to address 
the particular demographic factors that lead to these disproportionate 
outcomes.
    Many of the comments questioning the utility of the data for OSHA 
seemed to be premised on the erroneous belief that OSHA's primary use 
of the data would be to target enforcement efforts at workplaces with 
higher injury and illness rates. But the utility of case-specific data 
is much broader. While the data certainly can be used to help target 
enforcement, as well as compliance assistance efforts, it is also 
valuable to OSHA in that it allows for the types of analyses that can 
make all of OSHA's work more effective.
    As noted above, OSHA can analyze the data to identify the specific 
conditions that are injuring workers as well as the specific classes of 
workers who are being injured. OSHA can identify trends in the types of 
injuries and illnesses that are occurring and, as noted by the AFL-CIO, 
the agency can identify and assess emerging hazards (Docket ID 0061). 
Being able to make these identifications allows OSHA to promote safer 
workplaces in myriad ways. OSHA can disseminate information about 
trends in injuries and illnesses and emerging hazards to the public so 
that both workers and employers can take steps to prevent similar 
injuries and illnesses at their own facilities. For example, the AFL-
CIO noted that the data could have been utilized in the first years of 
the COVID-19 pandemic to identify where effective mitigation measures 
were necessary to reduce exposures, and could have been incorporated 
into agency guidance, enforceable standards, and enforcement 
initiatives, and used to inform employer and union COVID-19 safety 
plans (Docket ID 0061). OSHA can also prioritize use of its own limited 
resources to have the greatest impact. This may mean providing more 
useful compliance assistance or guidance, considering development of 
new standards, or revising enforcement programs to focus on workplaces 
where OSHA has determined that hazards are more likely to be found. As 
noted by the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of North America, this 
also means that OSHA can ``become more data driven in its compliance 
and enforcement efforts'' and, ``[i]n being a more online and easily 
accessible agency, OSHA can push its consulting efforts and services'' 
(Docket ID 0080).
    One example of how OSHA can use the information in Forms 300 and 
301 relates to OSHA's efforts to address indoor and outdoor heat-
related hazards. As climate change has accelerated, heat hazards have 
become

[[Page 47283]]

more prevalent, sickening and killing more workers every year (see 
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/directives/CPL_03-00-024.pdf). OSHA's efforts to address these hazards are multi-pronged, 
with ongoing enforcement, compliance assistance, and guidance efforts, 
as well as a regulatory component. Without case-specific injury and 
illness data, OSHA's understanding of the scope of the problem and its 
ability to identify specific operations and types of establishments 
where workers are most at risk, are limited, impeding its ability to 
intervene at an early enough stage to prevent worker illnesses and 
deaths. Currently, OSHA most often learns of these hazards after an 
employer reports a worker hospitalization or death (pursuant to 29 CFR 
1904.39). The Form 300A listing of the number of illnesses at various 
establishments gives no sense of how many of those illnesses are heat-
related. In contrast, Forms 300 and 301 data will allow OSHA to 
identify patterns and trends in the occurrence of heat-related illness, 
and not only focus its enforcement and compliance assistance resources 
appropriately, but also inform OSHA's efforts to develop a permanent 
standard addressing heat hazards. These types of longer-term strategic 
activities can help make OSHA a more effective agency overall, and in 
doing so, make all workers safer.
c. Beneficial Ways That Employers Can Use the Data From Forms 300 and 
301
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA asked, ``What are some 
ways that employers could use the collected data to improve the safety 
and health of their workplaces?'' Multiple commenters provided comments 
on employers' use of the collected data to improve the safety and 
health of their workplaces, including information about benchmarking 
and incentives. (Docket IDs 0030, 0035, 0046, 0061, 0063, 0093). For 
example, AIHA commented, ``Benchmarking against other employers is an 
important management tool for understanding and improving occupational 
safety and health programs'' (Docket ID 0030). Similarly, the AFL-CIO 
commented that the collected data would provide employers direct access 
to detailed injury and illness information to compare their injury and 
illness records and experience with others in the same industry (Docket 
ID 0061). NIOSH made similar comments and added that, currently, 
employers may compare their injury rates to those of their industry as 
reported in the SOII, but because of the large number of injury and 
illness records that will be collected under this rulemaking, employers 
will be able to compare their injury and illness rates to those of many 
more specific groups of establishments and employers. This commenter 
also stated, ``Benchmarking safety performance to more comparable 
establishments and employers instead of large, anonymous aggregates 
would provide more accurate as well as more compelling metrics for 
guiding and motivating improvement of safety programs'' (Docket ID 
0035).
    More generally, the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning National 
Association (SMACNA) commented, ``SMACNA members believe that any 
additional data that is collected should be used in tandem with Bureau 
of Labor Statistics (BLS) data so our industry can better understand 
loss trends and use the information accordingly. SMACNA members provide 
a unique service and would like the data to be broken down by the 
specific North American Industry Classification System (NACIS) codes. 
Such as detailed OSHA incident rate information for NACIS code 238220--
Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors.'' (Docket ID 
0046).
    Additionally, Worksafe commented that access to more electronic 
data will allow businesses to compare their safety performance to other 
firms and enable competition for improved safety. Also, this commenter 
explained that suppliers, contractors, and purchasers of a firm's goods 
or services could also consider the information in their business 
decisions, such as whether to support a business with a poor safety 
record. In addition, regarding the issue of incentives for employers, 
this commenter stated, ``When employers know that injury or illness 
incidents will be published online, the risk of social stigma will 
encourage them to take appropriate precautions and avoid violations'' 
(Docket ID 0063).
    Similarly, Public Citizen commented, ``Bringing performance 
information out into the open is an effective form of behavioral 
economics impacting employer decision-making. It serves as a strong 
incentive for employers to improve their safety records and support 
their reputations. It would encourage employers to implement systems, 
protocols, education and workplace alterations, resulting in less 
worker injuries and illnesses. Employers can also use establishment-
specific, case-specific injury and illness information to compare their 
safety record to similar establishments and set benchmarks for 
improvement of their own safety and health performance. Negative 
publicity has been shown to improve not just the behavior of the 
highlighted employer, but also other employers. This general deterrence 
effect has been demonstrated by improved compliance with safety 
standards by employers after OSHA issued press releases on OSHA 
violations uncovered during inspections. The impact was so powerful 
that press releases led to 73 percent fewer safety violations 
identified during programmed inspections at neighboring enterprises and 
a drop in injury reports from the same enterprises.'' (Docket ID 0093).
    On the other hand, several commenters stated that employers would 
not be able to use the collected data to improve the safety and health 
of their workplaces (Docket IDs 0086, 0090, 0094). For example, the 
Plastics Industry Association commented, ``The rule will not assist 
employers in managing workplace safety as it does not provide 
information that is not already available to them and their employees. 
When companies publish incident reports internal to all employees, all 
personal information is removed, and no medical information is 
provided.'' This commenter also stated that companies track different 
types of information and that some companies already benchmark with 
others (Docket ID 0086).
    The Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable OSH Forum also commented that 
there is already benchmarking by employers, saying, ``Many employers, 
such as PRR members are part of trade organizations and already 
participate in formal benchmarking on injury and illness data. PRR 
members also review BLS data. Therefore, we believe that OSHA's posting 
of establishment specific data will be of NO additional benefit to the 
resources already available to employers who actively pursue these 
methods.'' (Docket ID 0094).
    In addition, a few commenters stated that the data would harm 
employers. For example, Angela Rodriguez commented, ``There is a 
perceived risk of business competitors using the establishment-level 
data to gain an advantage by comparing/contrasting results in a 
negative context. E.g., `Company X lets their employees get seriously 
injured 3x more than us' '' (Docket ID 0052). Similarly, the National 
Retail Federation commented, ``Given President Biden's expressed desire 
to lead the ``most pro-union Administration in American history,'' it 
is likely that the true motivation of this rulemaking is to weaponize 
injury and illness data for labor union leaders' benefit. Labor unions 
will likely use this data to gain support for their organizing efforts, 
claiming the data proves an

[[Page 47284]]

employer is not protecting its workers.'' (Docket ID 0090). This 
commenter also stated that unions may use the data to pressure 
employers in negotiations over collective bargaining agreements, and 
competitors may use the information for anticompetitive purposes, such 
as poaching top workers or hurting the reporting entity's standing in 
the community (Docket ID 0090). Likewise, the Phylmar Regulatory 
Roundtable OSH forum commented, ``This type of risk profile and data 
tool could also be used by insurance companies when determining 
policies and rates for a company's worker compensation insurance plan. 
In addition, an insurance company could use the risk profile and data 
tool to deny issuance of disability, long-term, and other types of 
insurance.'' (Docket ID 0094).
    In response, OSHA agrees with commenters who stated that employers 
will be able to use the published establishment-specific, case-
specific, injury and illness data to improve their workplace safety and 
health. Specifically, employers will be able to use the data to compare 
case-specific injury and illness data at their establishment with that 
of comparable establishments and set safety and health goals 
benchmarked to the establishments they consider most comparable. OSHA 
also plans to include information regarding establishments' NAICS 
codes. As SMACNA suggests, interested parties can use that information 
to better understand loss trends, which will help them make 
improvements in worker safety and health.
    Since employers will have access to a much larger data set, OSHA 
disagrees with commenters who suggested that employers already have 
access to enough information from trade associations to conduct 
benchmarking with injury and illness data. OSHA notes that employers 
will be able to access data from the entire range of establishments 
covered by the electronic submission requirements in this final rule. 
Thus, employers will have the opportunity to compare and benchmark 
their injury and illness data with not only the safest establishments 
in their industry, but with the safest establishments in all industries 
covered by the final rule. In addition, OSHA anticipates that employers 
will be able to review the establishment-specific injury and illness 
data, identify safer establishments in their industry, and potentially 
develop and establish similarly effective safety and health programs at 
their own facilities.
    OSHA also agrees with commenters who stated that the publication of 
establishment-specific, case-specific, injury and illness data will 
incentivize employers to minimize the number of occupational injuries 
and illnesses at their workplace. For example, the publication of the 
data will encourage potential customers or business partners to 
evaluate the full range of injury and illness cases at a specific 
establishment. In turn, employers will work to improve the occupational 
safety and health at their facility, which will result in reduced work-
related injuries and illnesses, thereby enhancing the employer's 
standing with potential customers and business partners.
    In addition, OSHA disagrees with commenters who stated that the 
collection and publication of establishment-specific, case-specific, 
injury and illness data will harm employers or that labor unions will 
``weaponize'' the data. Again, as noted above, the only purpose for the 
collection and publication of injury and illness data required by this 
final rule is to improve occupational safety and health and to reduce 
injuries and illnesses to workers. At the same time, OSHA considers the 
publication of an establishment's injury and illness data, which can be 
a valid measure of a company's overall safety culture, to be an 
effective incentive for employers to improve occupational safety and 
health. As a result, OSHA concludes that the collection and publication 
of this data will encourage employers with more hazardous workplaces to 
make improvements in safety and health to reduce the number of 
occupational injuries and illnesses at their workplaces. Such changes 
will also be of benefit to employers, in that workplace illnesses and 
injuries impose costs on employers beyond the cost to the injured or 
ill employee.
    In response to the Phylmar Group's comment that insurance companies 
may use the collected data to calculate insurance rates or deny 
insurance coverage to companies based on the data, OSHA notes that 
insurance companies could engage in these practices using the 300A data 
OSHA has been collecting and publishing for several years now if they 
wanted to. The Phylmar Group does not identify any reason why the 
collection of data from Forms 300 and 301 would make these practices 
more likely or widespread, nor does it provide any evidence that 
insurance companies are or are not already doing this. Moreover, the 
possibility that insurance companies may raise rates or deny insurance 
coverage based on an employer's higher-than-average rates of 
occupational injuries and illnesses would provide further incentive for 
employers to improve workplace safety and health at their 
establishments.
    Finally, and as discussed below, access to the collected data will 
improve the workings of the labor market by providing more complete 
information to job seekers. Using data newly accessible under this 
final rule, potential employees will be able to examine case-specific 
information to help them make more informed decisions about future 
employment and, in turn, could encourage employers to make improvements 
in workplace safety and health in order to attract potential employees. 
In addition, this would help address the problem of information 
asymmetry in the labor market, where the businesses with the greatest 
problems have the lowest incentive to self-disclose.
    Accordingly, after consideration of the rulemaking record, OSHA has 
determined that employers will be able to use the collected and 
published data to improve workplace safety and health and reduce 
occupational injuries and illnesses.
d. Beneficial Ways That Employees Can Use the Data From Forms 300 and 
301
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA asked ``What are some 
ways that employees could use the collected data to improve the safety 
and health of their workplaces?'' 87 FR 18547.
    OSHA received many comments on how employees will benefit from 
increased access to information from the 300 and 301 forms and on how 
employees will use the collected data to improve safety and health at 
their workplaces. Several commenters provided information on how 
employees will generally be able to use the collected data from Forms 
300 and 301 (Docket IDs 0035, 0061, 0063, 0065, 0066, 0078). For 
example, AIHA commented, ``Under a Total Worker Health model, injury 
data about specific tasks, operations, job titles, and industries could 
be used for worker training and education'' (Docket ID 0030). 
Similarly, NIOSH commented, ``While the BLS Annual Survey data provide 
good metrics for injury risks by industry, they are not ideal for 
engaging workers and helping them to understand the risks that they may 
face in their own jobs.'' This commenter also explained that the 
narrative case-specific data that would be collected under the rule 
could provide employees with concrete, real-world, accounts on how 
injuries and illnesses occur and instruct them on how they can be 
prevented (Docket ID 0035). The AFL-

[[Page 47285]]

CIO submitted similar comments (Docket ID 0061).
    The National Nurses Union commented, ``Public posting of this data 
would enable workers and their representatives to better understand the 
scope of injuries and illnesses in particular work sites and to do so 
in a more timely and efficient manner. While workers and their 
representatives can access logs at their own workplace, they currently 
cannot compare those logs to other workplaces in the industry. For 
nurses, patterns of injury and illness could be identified, compliance 
with existing standards could be more efficiently examined, and 
emerging occupational risks could be better evaluated. When action to 
correct workplace safety and health hazards is inefficient or delayed, 
workers are unnecessarily exposed to predictable and preventable 
hazards. Delays in correcting a workplace hazard pointlessly cost the 
lives, limbs, and livelihoods of NNU members and other workers.'' 
(Docket ID 0064).
    Additionally, Worksafe commented that unions and worker advocacy 
groups will be able to use case-specific information to seek safety 
improvements, ``Currently, these groups can access Form 300 logs only 
by requesting them from employers, and the information may be provided 
in an inefficient manner such as in PDF files or on paper. As detailed 
below, unions and worker advocacy groups have the expertise to analyze 
this information to identify necessary workplace fixes. Electronic 
publication of more granular data will make it possible for them to 
better identify the cause of worker injuries and illnesses, more 
efficiently analyze large quantities of information, and appropriately 
direct their efforts.'' (Docket ID 0063). Worksafe also provided 
several examples of how establishment-specific, case-specific, injury 
and illness data has been used by employees and their representatives 
to reduce workplace injuries and illnesses. For example, it included a 
narrative from a meatpacking labor organization:, ``In 2008, leaders 
from the UFCW Tyson meatpacking locals union accessed Form 300 logs 
collected from one meatpacking plant for a one-month period. They 
analyzed injuries that could be related to ergonomic hazards and then 
placed red ``sticky dots'' on a hand-drawn map of a human body, 
depicting injury areas. The resulting body map looked as though the 
hands were dripping blood because so many red dots were placed in that 
area. The leaders were able to confirm that, despite known under-
reporting, a lot of hand-specific injuries occurred amongst their 
members. The leaders later presented the body map in a meeting with 
Tyson management, where it became a powerful tool. This meeting 
included an individual who had been in charge of the company's 
ergonomics program some years earlier and who had recently returned as 
a top-level manager. Seeing the map, he agreed with the union to start 
a series of efforts to revitalize the ergonomics program.'' (Docket ID 
0063).
    In contrast, some commenters stated that the collection and 
publication of certain data from Forms 300 and 301 could potentially 
harm employees, including harm to employee privacy and employability. 
For example, R. Savage commented, ``I have concerns with organizations 
uploading their OSHA Forms 300 and 301 because both forms contain 
identifiable personal information. My concern is the privacy of the 
injured employee. Government agencies have accidentally released 
personal information in the past. Removing the employee's name in OSHA 
form 300 and removing sections 1-9 of OSHA form 301 does not guarantee 
that the employee will not be identifiable.'' (Docket ID 0018). Also, 
an anonymous commenter stated, ``This would seem to make employees feel 
like they need to share even more private information to their 
employers than they already do'' (Docket ID 0044). However, this last 
comment seems to be based on a misunderstanding. This rulemaking does 
not amend the type of information that employers must enter on their 
recordkeeping forms, nor does it amend the recordkeeping forms used to 
track injuries and illnesses. Instead, this rulemaking addresses the 
electronic submission to OSHA of certain information on the 
recordkeeping forms that employers are already required to keep.
    In response to the comments above, OSHA agrees that employees will 
be able to use the collected and published data from Forms 300 and 301 
to improve workplace safety and health. The collection and subsequent 
publication of this data will allow employees to analyze injury and 
illness data that is not currently available. The online availability 
of such data will allow employees to compare their own workplaces to 
other workplaces in their industries. Also, with access to 
establishment-specific, case-specific data, employees will be better 
able to identify emerging injury and illness trends in their industries 
and push for changes in safety and health policies to better protect 
workers. In addition, employees and their representatives will be able 
to use the large amount of newly available case-specific information to 
develop effective education and training programs to identify and 
reduce workplace hazards.
    With regard to the comments expressing concern about employee 
privacy, as discussed elsewhere, OSHA is confident that the agency will 
be able to protect information that could reasonably be expected to 
identify individuals directly. The combination of not requiring 
employers to submit certain information, and the improved technology 
used to identify and remove personal information in the collected data, 
greatly reduces the risk that reasonably identifiable employee 
information will be disclosed to the public. Again, OSHA believes the 
significant benefits to improved workplace safety and health outweigh 
the slight risk of information that could reasonably be expected to 
identify individuals directly being disclosed to the public.
    Other commenters stated that, currently, employees and their 
representatives only have online access to general data from the Form 
300A or aggregate data from the BLS SOII (Docket IDs 0063, 0078). 
Worksafe commented, ``electronic publication of case-specific 
information on injuries, illnesses, and even fatalities will allow 
firms' own employees to access timely information that they can use to 
improve their own workplaces'' (Docket ID 0063). Also, Unidos US, 
Farmworker Justice, and Texas RioGrande Legal Aid commented that, using 
currently available BLS data, it is impossible to know how many 
farmworkers specifically suffer from heat-related illnesses. These 
commenters explained that with access to case-specific Forms 300 and 
301 data, employees and their representatives will be able to search 
information online to identify specific workplace hazards and direct 
their resources to those hazards (Docket ID 0078).
    On the other hand, some commenters stated that employees already 
have access to the information they need. The National Propane Gas 
Association commented, ``Potential employees or the general public can 
assess an entire industry through the Bureau of Labor Statistics data 
that OSHA referred to in the proposal'' (Docket ID 0050).
    In response, OSHA disagrees with the National Propane Gas 
Association that potential employees only need access the aggregate 
industry information though the SOII. As discussed above, aggregate 
data from the SOII, as well as the general summary data from the Form 
300A, do not provide employees with access to case-specific information

[[Page 47286]]

at individual establishments. As explained by other commenters, online 
access to the establishment-specific, case-specific, injury and illness 
data will allow employees to search and identify other establishments 
and occupations in their industries and compare the injury and illness 
data at their establishments with the safest workplaces. Also, both 
current and potential employees will have better access to health and 
safety information about specific occupations and workplaces and will 
be able to better identify and understand the specific risks they face 
in their own jobs. Importantly, and as noted by commenters, access to 
Forms 300 and 301 data will enable employees to track specific injuries 
and illnesses, such as heat-related illnesses, throughout their 
industries.
    Some commenters stated that, even though employees have a right of 
access to the OSHA recordkeeping forms under 29 CFR 1904.35, some 
workers may fear retaliation from their employer if they request access 
to information from the 300 and 301 forms at their workplace (e.g., 
Docket IDs 0049, 0061, 0063, 0089, 0093). National COSH commented, 
``Making the case specific data publicly available as proposed in the 
standard will also increase worker safety for the employees in the 
establishments with 100 or more employees. Workers are too often scared 
of retaliation if they request this information, even though employers 
are required to provide access to the full 300 logs to employees upon 
request. This information will allow employees in these establishments 
access to this data without fear of retribution and it will help them 
better identify patterns of injuries and hazards and to take actions to 
have the hazards abated.'' (Docket ID 0048). NELP submitted a similar 
comment (Docket ID 0049). Additionally, Centro del Derecho del Migrante 
commented, ``Public access to these data will also improve worker 
safety by allowing workers and their advocates to better identify 
patterns of injuries and hazards in workplaces and across industries . 
. . Publishing this information will allow employees in these 
establishments access to this data without fear of retribution, and to 
demand abatement of hazards in their own workplaces and industries.'' 
(Docket ID 0089).
    There were also comments stating that, despite the access 
requirements in 29 CFR 1904.35, many employers either deny or delay 
access to case-specific information to employees and their 
representatives. The United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) 
commented, ``The public access provisions of this rule allow workers to 
get important information through the OSHA website, rather than 
navigate these hurdles with employers'' (Docket ID 0066). UCFW added 
that it has had success in monitoring injury and illness data and 
working with employers to apply the data to injury and illness 
prevention efforts, but noted that workers in non-union workplaces do 
not have the same ability to access the data, and that this rule would 
help ``bridge that gap'' by providing all workers with access (Docket 
ID 0066). Another commenter explained that, even when injury and 
illness information is provided to employees, the information is not in 
a usable format. The Strategic Organizing Center commented that, even 
when workers request access to part 1904 information, ``they do not 
have any specific right to receive them in a way which achieves the 
goal of facilitating the analysis. This is especially important for 
workers at the larger employers covered by the proposed reporting 
requirement for the 300/301 data'' (Docket ID 0079).
    In response, and as discussed above, OSHA's recordkeeping 
regulation at 29 CFR 1904.35 already provides employees and their 
representatives with access to the three OSHA recordkeeping forms kept 
by their employers, with some limitations. Under Sec.  1904.35, when an 
employee, former employee, or employee representative requests access 
to certain information on Forms 300 or 301, the employer must provide 
the requester with one free copy of the information by the end of the 
next business day. Any delay or obstruction by an employer in providing 
the required information to employees or their representatives would be 
a violation of the recordkeeping regulation. And, retaliation against 
an employee for requesting this information would violate Section 11(c) 
of the OSH Act.
    OSHA agrees with commenters who stated that making establishment-
specific, case-specific, injury and illness information available 
online will enhance worker safety and health, particularly where 
employees are reluctant to request access to such information. If 
workers fear possible retaliation from their employer, employees will 
easily be able to access the case-specific data for their own workplace 
online, thus avoiding the need to request the information from their 
employer. This uninhibited access will allow employees to better 
identify and address hazards within their own workplaces.
    In addition, since certain case-specific injury and illness data 
will be posted online, employees will easily be able to search the 
collected information to identify specific hazards at their workplaces. 
Online posting also eliminates the problem noted by some commenters 
that, in some cases, when employees request injury and illness 
information from their employer, the information is provided on paper 
or in a format that is not searchable. Also, the online posting of data 
allows employees to conduct searches at any time to identify injury and 
illness trends at their workplaces.
    Public Citizen commented, ``[P]otential employees will benefit from 
the availability of injury and illness data from establishments as they 
make informed decisions about employment. Workers can compare injury 
rates between potential employers and choose to work for the safer 
employer. This puts power in the hands of labor, incentivizing 
employers to improve safety given the competition for workers.'' 
(Docket ID 0093).
    On the other hand, the Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable OSH Forum 
expressed concern that the Form 300 and 301 data could be used to build 
worker profiles that result in hiring decisions based on an employee's 
injury and illness history and a high number of days away from work 
(Docket ID 0094). Similarly, Brian Evans commented, ``Since this data 
is public record, future employers would have access to this 
information and could potentially discriminated against future hires 
based on injured parties being listed in a work place related injury. 
It could also lead to retaliation if the employee who was injured on 
the job choses to stay employed in their current role. Leadership, 
management, administration could view them as unsafe employees and 
limit their growth potential at their organization, or seek ways to 
terminate their employment due to the filing of a work place injury.'' 
(Docket ID 0080).
    In response, OSHA agrees with the comment from Public Citizen that 
the published Form 300 and 301 data will assist potential employees in 
researching establishments where the risk to workers' safety and health 
is low. At this time, potential employees only have access to the 
limited injury and illness data that is currently available to the 
public as discussed above. Access to Form 300 and 301 data not only 
provides job seekers with an opportunity to review information about 
individual workplaces, but also allows them to analyze the injury and 
illness history of specific job titles within a

[[Page 47287]]

given industry or workplace. Potential employees can also identify 
trends among and between occupations, and at specific sites within one 
workplace. Also, as noted by Public Citizen, access to this information 
by potential employees should provide an incentive to employers to 
improve workplace safety and health. Specifically, the publication of 
Form 300 and 301 data will encourage employers with more hazardous 
workplaces in a given industry to make improvements in workplace safety 
and health to prevent injuries and illnesses from occurring, because 
potential employees, especially the ones whose skills are more in 
demand, might be reluctant to work at more hazardous establishments. 
OSHA disagrees that employers will use the published data from this 
final rule to discriminate against current or potential employees. With 
regard to potential employees, and as discussed in more detail in 
Sections III.B.6 and III.D of this Summary and Explanation, because 
OSHA is not requiring the electronic submission of information that 
could reasonably be expected to identify individuals directly (e.g., 
name, contact information), and because the agency is using improved 
technology to identify and redact such information before publication, 
it is extremely unlikely that employers will be able to use the 
published data to identify specific individuals and determine their 
injury and illness history. As for current employees, OSHA notes that 
employers are already required under part 1904 to include certain 
potentially identifiable information about an employee when they 
sustain a work-related injury or illness (e.g., employers must enter 
the injured or ill employee's name on the OSHA 300 log). As a result, 
the publication of case-specific de-identified injury and illness data 
under this final rule will have no impact on an employer's ability to 
identify their own injured or ill employees.
    After consideration of these comments, OSHA has determined that 
employees, potential employees, and employee representatives will be 
able to use the collected data from Forms 300 and 301 to improve 
workplace safety and health, including through better access to the 
data in usable formats and without fear of retaliation. OSHA notes the 
many examples in the rulemaking record provided by commenters on not 
only how employees and their representatives currently use 
establishment-specific, case-specific, injury and illness data, but 
also on how they will be able to use the greater access to such 
information provided by this final rule to reduce occupational injuries 
and illnesses.
e. Beneficial Ways That Federal and State Agencies Can Use the Data 
From Forms 300 and 301
    OSHA received a number of comments in response to the question in 
the NPRM about the ways in which Federal (besides Federal OSHA, which 
is addressed above) and State agencies will be able to use the data 
collected under this final rule to improve workplace safety and health. 
Multiple commenters, including the National Employment Law Project, the 
Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, and Richard Rabin, noted generally 
that the centralized collection of and access to case-specific data 
will benefit the worker safety and health efforts of NIOSH, State 
agencies, and the public health community (e.g., Docket IDs 0040, 0045, 
0048, 0049, 0051, 0064, 0084, 0089). AIHA stated that ``With the 
limited resources available to most federal and state worker health and 
safety programs, targeted programs will provide the most benefit for 
workers and companies. These data will provide information so that 
priorities can be set and outcome trends monitored'' (Docket ID 0030).
    There were also comments from Federal entities about their intended 
uses of the data. For example, NIOSH commented, ``As potential end 
users of the data, NIOSH supports the improvements that are being 
proposed by OSHA. NIOSH believes that the increased coverage of 
employers within identified industries and the collection of the 
additional detailed information that is not currently electronically 
captured will offer greater potential for detailed and comprehensive 
data analyses compared with the current data. NIOSH uses occupational 
injury data to monitor injury trends, identify emerging areas of 
concern, and propose research intervention strategies and programs. 
Current OSHA data reflect a smaller proportion of select industries and 
offer limited details. This new rule would offer greater coverage of 
select industries and more detailed data, which would increase the 
value and utility of these occupational injury data to NIOSH.'' (Docket 
ID 0035, Attachment 2; see also Docket ID 0089).
    In addition, NIOSH's comment listed more specific purposes for 
which it can use the collected data, including:
     Using the narrative data from Forms 300 and 301 for 
learning the particular ways in which injuries occur in specific work 
tasks and industries (citing work NIOSH has done with narrative data 
from individual workers' compensation claims in Ohio).
     Using the coded OSHA Log case data with narratives as a 
very large training data set that could be used to improve the 
autocoding of workers' compensation claims. As NIOSH stated, 
``[a]utocoding workers' compensation claim narratives is critical to 
producing injury rate statistics that can guide prevention efforts by 
identifying high and increasing rates of specific types of injuries in 
specific industries and employers.''
     Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of workplace 
inspections through the evaluation of more complete, detailed data on 
certain types of injuries at specific workplaces. As an example, NIOSH 
noted a series of studies supported by NIOSH where amputation cases at 
specific workplaces were identified based on hospital records and 
workers' compensation claims; the information was then provided to 
Michigan OSHA, which used it to target inspections.
     Linking workers' compensation data to OSHA logs in order 
to provide a more complete set of information than either data set 
provides separately. This effort has the potential to improve 
identification and prevention of injuries, especially among temporary 
employment agency workers, who constitute a vulnerable population of 
workers with a disproportionate burden of workplace injuries.
     Collaborating with National Occupational Research Agenda 
Councils and OSHA to ``improve dissemination and use of the published 
data to improve identification, mitigation, and prevention of workplace 
injuries and illnesses'' (Docket ID 0035, Attachment 2).
    National COSH agreed with NIOSH, noting that making these data 
publicly available will assure that researchers and other agencies, 
like NIOSH, can use the data for surveillance, evaluation, and research 
purposes (Docket ID 0048).
    In addition to the benefits of the data at the Federal level, 
multiple commenters addressed the value of the final rule's data 
collections to the States and to State occupational safety and health 
efforts. In the preamble to the 2019 final rule, OSHA acknowledged 
``that systems to collect this volume of data would be costly for 
States to implement. Centralized collection might be more efficient and 
cost-effective than state-by-state collection . . .'' At that time, 
OSHA stated that it had ``doubts about the usefulness of the data and 
concerns about the costs of collection,'' but reiterated that States 
were nonetheless ``empowered to do as

[[Page 47288]]

OSHA ha[d] and weigh the substantial costs of collection against the 
likely utility of the data'' (84 FR 394). In response to the NPRM in 
the current rulemaking, many commenters made it clear that State 
efforts to improve workplace safety and health will benefit from the 
data that is made available by this rule, and that a national 
collection system is a far more efficient means of achieving these 
benefits than individual State efforts. National COSH noted similar 
benefits at the State level as at the Federal level, stating that State 
and community public health agencies will be able to use the data to 
better understand the hazards in high-risk establishments and then 
target those establishments for assistance and information regarding 
best practices (Docket ID 0048). Likewise, the Council of State and 
Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) commented, ``Access to these data 
would also facilitate public health agency efforts to reduce work-
related injuries and illnesses in the States and significantly increase 
the potential for more timely identification of emerging hazards. 
Electronic collection of existing records is in line with 21st century 
advances in health data collection made possible by advances in 
information technology that involve centralized collection, analysis, 
and dissemination of existing data from multiple entities. These 
include, for example, collection at the State level of data on all 
hospitalizations, all emergency room visits, and all ambulance runs, 
and in over 20 States, data on all public and private insurance claims 
(excluding workers' compensation claim data). . . . Making this 
information broadly available is consistent with the growing 
recognition, predominant in the patient safety field, that 
transparency--sharing of information, including information about 
hazards--is a critical aspect of safety culture.'' (Docket ID 0040).
    In addition, CSTE provided specific examples of ways in which the 
electronic reporting of case-level workplace injury and illness data 
can enhance State health department and others' efforts to reduce work-
related injuries and illnesses and hazards in States and communities. 
These examples included:
     Identification of emerging problems: ``The ability to 
search file level data not only in the establishment where the index 
case is/was employed but also other establishments in the industry to 
identify similar cases has the potential to facilitate timely 
identification of emerging hazards'' that are ``both new and newly 
recognized.'' CSTE discussed an example from Michigan, where a State 
agency identified several deaths associated with bathtub refinishing, 
raising new concerns about the hazards of chemical strippers used in 
this process. Subsequent review of OSHA IMIS data identified 13 deaths 
associated with bathtub refinishing in a 12-year period.\6\ These 
findings from the State and Federal databases together led to the 
development of educational information about the hazards associated 
with tub refinishing and approaches to reducing risks; this material 
was disseminated nationwide to companies and workers in the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The OSHA Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) was 
designed in 1991 as an information resource for in-house use by OSHA 
staff and management, and by State agencies which carry out 
federally approved OSHA programs. It was replaced by the OSHA 
Information System (OIS) as the primary repository of OSHA's data, 
starting in 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Targeting establishments for preventive outreach in our 
communities: ``Public health investigations of work-related incidents 
result not only in prevention recommendations to those involved in the 
incident, but in case studies which allow us to then take lessons 
learned and disseminate these lessons broadly to other stakeholders. 
The availability of information on high-risk establishments will allow 
for more targeted and efficient information dissemination. The ability 
to identify lower risk establishments may also provide new 
opportunities to learn from employers who are implementing best 
practices--and potentially to help identify under-reporters. The 
availability of establishment specific information offers the 
opportunity to incorporate occupational health concerns in community 
health planning, which is increasingly providing the basis for setting 
community health and prevention priorities.''
     Improvement of data quality and use of the data: 
``Observations from interviews with OSHA record-keepers in Washington 
State suggest that incomplete OSHA records arise in part from lack of 
knowledge or confusion on the part of some employers about how to 
accurately and consistently record OSHA reportable cases and from poor 
employer prioritization of this task. . . . Electronic data collection 
and the subsequent public release of the data are means to improve data 
quality, knowledge, and compliance with OSHA recordkeeping 
requirements. Electronic collection of data offers the opportunity to 
provide employers with electronic tools (e.g., prompts, definitions, 
consistency edits, and industry-specific drop-down lists) to improve 
the quality of the data reported. Standardized feedback to 
establishments and potential reports of establishment-specific data 
would promote the use of the data by employers and workers to set 
health and safety priorities and monitor progress in reducing workplace 
risks.''
     Improvements in Medical Care: ``This record keeping rule, 
by facilitating the diagnosis of work-related conditions, will allow 
for better diagnosis and management of workplace illnesses by health 
care providers in the community, thereby contributing to a reduction in 
morbidity, absenteeism, and health care costs.'' CSTE described an 
example from Massachusetts, which has a sharps injury prevention 
control program. This program supplements OSHA's bloodborne pathogens 
standard by requiring hospitals to report select data from the OSHA-
required log of sharps injuries annually to the Massachusetts 
Department of Public Health (MDPH). In recent years, data from all 
hospitals, which range in size from less than 150 to over 20,000 
employees, have been submitted through a secure electronic 
transmission. Annual hospital-specific data and statewide reports 
prepared by MDPH provide information on patterns of sharps injuries and 
sharps injury rates for use by hospitals and hospital workers as well 
as MDPH. As CSTE stated, this experience in Massachusetts ``indicates 
the utility of electronic reporting of person level occupational injury 
data for targeting prevention efforts at multiple levels'' (Docket ID 
0040).
    The International Brotherhood of Teamsters noted that they agreed 
with these comments from CSTE (Docket ID 0083).
    Similarly, the Strategic Organizing Center commented that States 
can use the collected data to compare injury and illness rates at 
specific establishments to the rates for that industry in general. The 
SOC also emphasized that ``OSHA's collection and distribution of . . . 
key metrics will finally provide a measure of transparency to workers, 
OSHA and its state partner agencies, the media and the public about the 
nature of the serious injuries afflicting workers at large employers in 
hazardous industries across the nation'' (Docket ID 0079).
    OSHA also received comments from the States themselves (e.g., 
Docket IDs 0045, 0069, 0084). One comment that was strongly supportive 
of the rule came from the Seventeen AGs. These State officials 
represented nine States with OSHA-approved State Plans that cover both 
private and State and local

[[Page 47289]]

government workers (California, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont), four States that have OSHA-
approved State Plans that cover State and local government workers only 
(Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York) and four States 
without a State Plan (Delaware, the District of Columbia, 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island). Their comment cited increased 
transparency regarding workplace safety, as well as benefits to key 
interested parties (including employees, consumers, employers, 
researchers, and the States themselves) (Docket ID 0045).
    The Seventeen AGs commented that States planned to use the 
collected data for multiple specific purposes, including to: improve 
targeting and outreach (New Jersey); develop the next strategic 
inspection plan (Connecticut); ease administrative burden (Hawaii); 
target recordkeeping inaccuracies (Illinois); prioritize and increase 
efficiency of enforcement efforts (Maryland); improve the ability of a 
State advisory board on occupational safety and health to develop 
effective workplace injury prevention programming (Massachusetts); 
discern patterns in the frequency and severity of injuries (Minnesota); 
and inform future enforcement plans (Nevada). With the data that will 
become available to them, States will also be able to institute or 
improve targeted training and outreach programs, identify and 
investigate incidents in particular categories of concern (such as 
those that lead to ongoing disability and require accommodations under 
the Americans with Disabilities Act), compare the data to other data 
sources (such as workers' compensation data), identify workplace injury 
and illness underreporting, improve their ability to consider 
companies' workplace safety and health records when making contracting 
decisions, and increase the specific workplace injury and illness 
information available to State health agencies (Docket ID 0045). The 
AFL-CIO touted the prevention index created by Washington State, which 
operates both an OSHA State plan and the State workers' compensation 
program. The State ``utilizes the detailed injury and illness data 
collected through its workers' compensation system, similar to the data 
contained in the Form 300 and Form 301, to develop a prevention index. 
The index identifies the most common and costly injuries and illnesses 
and the industry sectors with the greatest potential for prevention'' 
(Docket ID OSHA-2013-0023-2088, Attachment 1).
    In addition, the Seventeen AGs noted, ``[T]hese benefits will only 
accrue if OSHA collects and publishes such data. Not all states have 
the resources to create and manage their own databases, and, in any 
event, it is costlier and more inefficient for individual states to 
create separate databases. Data from a single jurisdiction is also much 
less likely to reveal patterns in workplace health and safety. Uniform 
national data collection efforts, by contrast, will also allow states 
to benchmark their performance--overall or in specific industries--
against peer states in ways that might encourage or promote reforms, 
interventions, or legislation to address workplace safety issues. 
Moreover, even if the [s]tates are not able to engage in targeted 
enforcement now, it is nonetheless important to begin collecting and 
publishing more detailed data now. . . . And when the [s]tates 
implement targeting in the future, having a larger database of historic 
data on which to `train' targeting algorithms will ensure that these 
algorithms are more accurate.''(Docket ID 0045). The International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters commented with support for ``the benefits 
touted by the letter [from the Seventeen AGs] on the need for public 
reporting of detailed injury and illness information to the [s]tates' 
enforcement and regulatory agencies'' (Docket ID 0083).
    The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), Division 
of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), and the Connecticut 
Council on Occupational Safety and Health (ConnectiCOSH) also provided 
separate comments in support of the proposed rule, citing benefits to 
worker safety (Docket IDs 0069, 0084). Cal/OSHA stated that the 
availability of the additional data would aid in ``identifying patterns 
that are currently masked by the aggregation of injury/illness data by 
industry in existing data sources.'' Furthermore: ``[D]etailed case 
level data could be used when proposing new prevention-oriented 
regulations to California's Occupational Safety & Health Standards 
Board (OSHSB), when responding to petitions to OSHSB for new or amended 
standards, and in the creation of specific compliance assistance 
materials oriented to existing or emerging workplace safety problems.'' 
Cal/OSHA also emphasized that centralized data collection by OSHA ``is 
the most efficient and cost-effective way to compile and utilize the 
data for prevention purposes,'' and the cost to States of ``setting up 
parallel systems . . . would be significant'' (Docket ID 0084; see also 
Docket ID OSHA-2013-0023-2088, Attachment 1).
    After consideration of these comments and others in the record, 
OSHA has determined that the expected benefits to Federal and State 
agencies overcome any doubts the agency expressed in the 2019 final 
rule related to the usefulness of the data and the costs of collection. 
OSHA has determined that Federal and State agencies will be able to use 
the collected data to improve workplace safety and health. The agency 
especially notes the benefits for States, which may not have the 
resources to create and manage their own data collections; the 
inefficiency of multiple State-specific databases versus a single 
national database; and the advantages of a uniform national data 
collection requirement. OSHA finds particularly convincing the examples 
of State and Federal entities' past and planned future uses of the data 
to monitor, target, and prevent occupational injuries and illnesses.
f. Beneficial Ways That Researchers Can Use the Data From Forms 300 and 
301
    Multiple commenters provided examples of ways that researchers 
could use the collected data to improve workplace safety and health. 
Most generally, AIHA commented, ``Researchers require a stable data 
source to conduct studies that depend on unbiased, complete data sets. 
By collecting and making the data available to researchers, stratified 
analyses with sufficient power can be conducted that will make the 
results more generalizable to specific workers and industries.'' 
(Docket ID 0030). Similarly, Centro del Derecho del Migrante commented, 
``Public access to these data will better allow organizations like CDM 
to identify patterns of injuries and hazardous conditions in workplaces 
and advance worker safety and health'' (Docket ID 0089).
    Numerous commenters pointed out the limitations of currently 
available data from BLS, and the need for more data to produce 
statistically significant, robust results for more detailed categories 
of injuries, establishments, and employers. NIOSH commented that the 
release of summary injury data for all establishments of 20 or more 
employees in certain industries and of individual injury case data for 
injuries in establishments of 100 or more employees in certain 
industries would produce more accurate and statistically meaningful 
data than the BLS Annual Survey can provide ``because the number of 
included injury records would be much greater than that included in the 
BLS sample of

[[Page 47290]]

establishments of this size in these industries.'' NIOSH stated that 
``the proposed data collection in higher risk industries would enable 
more detailed and accurate statistics on the state as well as the 
national level.'' In addition, the new data collection OSHA plans to 
make available ``would provide establishment-specific, case-specific 
injury and illness data for analyses that are not currently possible.'' 
NIOSH also stated that the release of the data collected by OSHA should 
make it possible to produce meaningful statistics and perform more in-
depth analysis by combining records across several years by industry, 
employer, or establishment, which is not possible with the BLS SOII 
data that is currently available (Docket ID 0035). The International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters concurred with this comment (Docket ID 0083).
    The National Employment Law Project (NELP) commented on the need 
for expanded, more detailed data: ``NELP recently used the currently 
available establishment-level Injury Tracking Application data to 
conduct state-specific analyses on injury and illness rates in the 
warehousing sector. However, with access only to electronically 
submitted data from Form 300A and not from Forms 300 and 301, we were 
limited by an inability to disaggregate by the types of serious 
injuries and serious illnesses. In addition, having access to case-
specific injury and illness data as reported in 300 and 301 forms would 
have allowed NELP to identify specific injury and illness trends, and 
correlate these with job titles, in order to more directly address and 
prevent hazards that put workers at risk.'' (Docket ID 0049).
    The AFL-CIO commented that access to more detailed data would 
provide researchers with an invaluable source of information on 
workplace safety and health hazards (Docket ID 0061). The AFL-CIO also 
pointed to the limitations for researchers of the BLS SOII data: 
``Studies have shown that the SOII data have significant limitations 
and that consistent and representative mandatory reporting would 
provide a more accurate data source for research on causes of injuries 
and illnesses and prevention methods to track improvements and emerging 
issues.'' (Docket ID 0061).
    Commenters also provided examples of how researchers have used data 
to improve workplace safety and health. For example, The Strategic 
Organizing Center described its analysis of ITA data to prepare reports 
on occupational injury rates among warehouse workers. It stated: ``This 
example, we believe, completely vindicates OSHA's original intent in 
establishing the Injury Tracking Application, including the public 
release of the data received from employers. Absent the easy 
availability of these data, it would be difficult if not impossible for 
those outside the management structure of major employers to understand 
the basic details of the worker safety and health situation at these 
companies, much less to force employers with deficient performance to 
change their practices. It is vital that employers who attempt to 
misrepresent the failures of their worker safety and health systems 
understand that they are subject to the independent oversight and 
review that can only be offered by broadly-available distribution of 
key metrics, such as the numbers, rates and characteristics of worker 
injuries and illnesses.'' (Docket ID 0079).
    The Strategic Organizing Center also pointed to injury research in 
the hotel industry as an example of the value of OSHA's providing the 
300 and 301 data for further analysis: ``In the mid-2000's, as the 
hotel industry was rapidly introducing heavier mattresses and increased 
workloads for housekeepers, the hotel union UNITE HERE undertook an 
analysis of the 300 logs and employee personnel demographic data to 
determine injury trends by injury type, job title, gender and race/
ethnicity. We published [a] study by Buchanan et al in 2010, the value 
of which OSHA recognized in the preamble to the 2016 Final Injury 
Tracking Rule (81 FR 29685, Col. 3). It revealed that the rates of 
different injury types varied greatly across the study population of 
55,327 person-years over a 3-year period at 50 hotels in five of the 
largest US hotel chains. We found that MSD's were highest among 
housekeepers, and acute traumatic injuries highest among cooks/kitchen 
workers, and injury rates higher among women than men. Much of the 
various increased risks was driven by the exceptionally high risks 
endured by hotel housekeepers (7.9 injuries/100 person-years).'' 
(Docket ID 0079).
    The Communication Workers of America (CWA) commented on the value 
of access to large datasets of workplace injury and illness 
information. It gave examples of data analyses it has conducted to 
address safety and health issues:
     CWA has analyzed large quantities of OSHA Log data for 
certain regions from some large telecommunications employers. It was 
able to compare aggregate worksite data from two different regions for 
the same employer for the same year. Its comparison of aggregate OSHA 
300 Log data from two different regions for the same employer shows a 
large discrepancy in work-related COVID cases recorded on the OSHA 300 
Logs and also demonstrates the value of the Cal/OSHA COVID standard's 
reporting requirements given the increased reporting for sites in 
California.
     Recent and past analyses by a telecommunications employer 
of its OSHA Log data for work locations in NY has shown the toll of 
injuries and lost work days related to manhole cover lifting. The 
employer, the union and union members worked together to conduct 
ergonomic assessments using biometric sensors to evaluate the strain of 
manhole cover lifting using different designs of manhole cover lifters. 
The biometric assessments combined with worker feedback led to design 
of a new, vehicle mounted manhole lifting device. The employer will 
likely use the newly-approved manhole cover lifters in other areas of 
the country where it operates. Aggregate OSHA 300 Log data will aid in 
evaluating the effectiveness of this intervention in reducing and 
preventing manhole cover lifting injuries.
     An analysis by one employer of OSHA recordable injury/
illness data for the previous year from all worksites on Long Island, 
NY revealed there had been over 11,000 lost work days due to extension 
ladder accidents. After training, the number of extension ladder 
accidents in those work locations dropped significantly, to almost 
none. This initiative looked at aggregate data from one employer's 
multiple worksites. Establishment-specific data, on its own, would not 
have revealed the extent of the problem and the need for interventions, 
nor would it have incentivized the employer to take action and provide 
training.
     Analyses of OSHA 300 Log data has led to multiple safety 
improvements in CWA-represented manufacturing facilities with active 
health and safety committees. At locations where CWA members build 
engines and engine parts, OSHA 300 Log data analyses has resulted in 
ergonomic assessments and training, the provision of better PPE, and 
improved safety protocols.

(Docket ID 0092)

    After consideration of these comments, OSHA has determined that 
researchers will be able to use the collected data to improve workplace 
safety and health. OSHA finds particularly convincing the examples of 
past and planned future uses of the data by researchers to monitor, 
target, and prevent occupational injuries and illnesses.

[[Page 47291]]

g. Beneficial Ways That Workplace Safety Consultants Can Use the Data 
From Forms 300 and 301
    In the proposed rule, OSHA asked, ``What are some ways that 
workplace safety consultants could use the collected data to improve 
workplace safety and health?'' (87 FR 18547). OSHA received several 
comments about ways that workplace safety consultants could use the 
collected data to improve workplace safety and health (Docket IDs 0026, 
0030, 0035). Most generally, AIHA commented that the value that 
workplace safety consultants bring to a company is directly related to 
the availability of high-quality data, and ``[c]ompanies that engage 
consultants depend on the consultant to be fully informed of the 
inherent risks of specific operations, tasks, and industries so that 
the recommendations for improvement and correction are based on 
evidence'' (Docket ID 0030). Justin Hicks commented that the collected 
data would be useful ``[a]s a young safety professional . . . when 
educating my employer on safety culture'' (Docket ID 0026). 
Additionally, NIOSH identified a number of ways in which workplace 
safety consultants might use this data, including ``identifying and 
disseminating useful facts about the comparative safety performance of 
establishments, employers, and employer groups,'' and ``analy[zing] 
patterns of injury causation at their client workplaces and appropriate 
comparisons of workplaces'' (Docket ID 0035, Attachment 2). NIOSH also 
noted that consultants' work with the collected data ``promises to 
assist other stakeholders in identifying patterns of injuries and 
targets for prevention and to complement the research disseminated by 
state and federal agencies'' (Docket ID 0035, Attachment 2).
    OSHA agrees with these commenters that the collected data will help 
workplace safety consultants to be fully informed of the risks of 
specific operations, tasks, and industries and, in turn, will give 
consultants the information necessary to advise their employers on 
safety and health practices. Accordingly, OSHA has determined that 
workplace safety consultants and other workplace safety professionals 
will be able to use the collected data to improve workplace safety and 
health.
h. Beneficial Ways That the Public Can Use the Data From Forms 300 and 
301
    In the proposed rule, OSHA asked, ``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?'' (87 FR 
18547). Several commenters provided insights about how the general 
public, the media, and prospective employees will be able to use the 
collected data to improve workplace safety and health. With respect to 
the general public, Hunter Cisiewski commented that the public 
availability of data would ``allow the public to hold companies 
accountable for creating unsafe workplaces'' and ``make informed 
decisions about . . . what industries they should support,'' as well as 
``incentivize employers to create safe working conditions'' (Docket ID 
0024). The Seventeen AGs commented that the availability of data would 
benefit consumers, ``who can use information about employer safety to 
inform their purchasing and contracting decisions'' (Docket ID 0045). 
In addition, Worksafe commented that the press and advocacy 
organizations could ``monitor and report on the data'' (Docket ID 
0063).
    Commenters also addressed how job seekers could use the collected 
data to improve workplace safety and health (Docket IDs 0020, 0024, 
0030, 0063, 0082). For example, Hunter Cisiewski commented that the 
data would allow prospective employees ``to make informed decisions 
about where they should work'' (Docket ID 0024). AIHA commented that 
access to the collected data would allow job seekers to ``inquire about 
specific health and safety practices or culture during interviews,'' 
help them to be more informed, and encourage prospective employers to 
be more transparent (Docket ID 0030). Similarly, Worksafe commented 
that the availability of injury and illness data would allow job 
seekers ``to better assess the types, severity, and frequency of 
injuries and illnesses in a particular workplace'' and make more 
informed decisions regarding their employment'' (Docket ID 0063). 
Additionally, the Seventeen AGs commented that public access to 
detailed injury and illness data would ``empower'' workers who are most 
impacted by occupational hazards, i.e., low-income workers and workers 
belonging to racial and ethnic minority groups, ``to make informed 
decisions regarding where they choose to work'' (Docket ID 0045).
    On the other hand, multiple commenters asserted that the data would 
not be useful to the public. The overarching concern of these 
commenters was that the public would lack the context necessary for the 
data to provide an accurate picture of an establishment's safety and 
health practices (Docket IDs 0021, 0043, 0050, 0052, 0053, 0062, 0071, 
0075, 0086, 0090). For example, the National Propane Gas Association 
commented that the collected data would ``mislead'' the public because 
it is ``only a fraction of information regarding a workplace'' and, in 
order to provide accurate information about worker safety, OSHA would 
also need to publish information such as ``the number of uninjured or 
healthy individuals working for the establishment; . . . the safety 
procedures or policies implemented, days/weeks/months/years without 
injuries or illnesses; . . . a comparison of the frequency or average 
for the industry versus the specific establishment; . . . actions by 
the employee that caused or contributed to the injury or illness; . . . 
[and] the corrective actions by the establishment'' (Docket ID 0050). 
Similarly, Angela Rodriguez commented that injury and illness data may 
be misleading ``without the explanation of contributing root causes'' 
(Docket ID 0052). Likewise, Representatives Virginia Foxx (R-North 
Carolina) and Fred Keller (R-Pennsylvania) commented that ``an 
employer's injury and illness logs say nothing meaningful about an 
employer's commitment to safety and compliance with OSHA standards,'' 
and ``[m]any factors outside an employer's control may lead to 
workplace injuries and illnesses'' (Docket ID 0062). And, the Plastics 
Industry Association commented that when viewing an employer's injury 
and illness data in isolation, ``[t]here is insufficient context to 
draw conclusions about the employer's safety program or practices'' 
(Docket ID 0086).
    Commenters pointed to a number of reasons for their concern about 
misinterpretation or misleading data. Some commenters expressed concern 
that the collected data may be misleading specifically because it may 
include injuries or illnesses that are not the employer's fault (Docket 
IDs 0021, 0043, 0052, 0075, 0086, 0090). For example, the Motor and 
Equipment Manufacturers Association and the Flexible Packaging 
Association commented that data may be misinterpreted because many 
workplace injuries occur due to circumstances entirely outside of an 
employer's control (Docket ID 0075, 0090). More specifically, AWCI 
commented that some injuries and illnesses are ``due solely to employee 
misconduct,'' or ``the fault of neither the employer nor the employee'' 
(Docket ID 0043). AWCI also commented that ``falsified or 
misrepresented workplace injury or illness claims'' may result in 
inaccurate

[[Page 47292]]

data, as will workplace fatalities that are later determined not to be 
work-related (Docket ID 0043). Similarly, Angela Rodriguez commented 
that under 29 CFR 1904.5(b)(2)(ii), employers are required to record 
injuries and illnesses for which symptoms surface at work but result 
solely from a nonwork-related event or exposure that occurs outside the 
work environment (Docket ID 0052). The Chamber of Commerce claimed that 
injury and illness data are unreliable because workers' compensation 
programs and the presence of collective bargaining agreements affect 
the number of injuries and illnesses reported to OSHA, therefore, 
``[t]wo employers with the same kinds of injuries will be viewed by 
OSHA and the public as differently culpable'' (Docket ID 0088, 
Attachment 2). Finally, the Plastics Industry Association commented 
that ``many injuries that have no bearing on an employer's safety 
program must be recorded,'' and pointed to injuries resulting from 
employee misconduct, substance abuse, and accidents as examples (Docket 
ID 0086).
    Other commenters were concerned that the collected data would lead 
to misinterpretation because the data do not provide an accurate 
picture of what is currently happening or what will happen in the 
future. The Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association commented 
generally that ``injury and illness data would become stale by the time 
it is made public'' (Docket ID 0075). AWCI commented that ``[l]agging 
indicators . . . such as OSHA recordable/reportable injury and illness 
data[ ] have shown to be poor indicators of future safety and health 
performance'' because they ``present information about what has 
occurred in the past with no mechanism for accurately predicting what 
may occur in the future'' (Docket ID 0043).
    Still other commenters said that the public would be even more 
likely to misinterpret data from small businesses. AWCI commented that 
``the formula that OSHA uses [to calculate injury and illness rates] is 
based on 100 full-time workers and the denominator in the equation is 
the total number of hours worked by all employees,'' so ``the resulting 
incidence rates often depict extremely inaccurate perceptions of 
smaller establishments' safety and health cultures and past safety and 
health performances'' (Docket ID 0043). Similarly, the Associated 
Builders and Contractors commented, ``by expanding the mandate to 100 
or more employees from 250, OSHA's proposal puts smaller companies at a 
disadvantage by making them appear to be less safe than larger 
companies by comparison. A smaller company with the same number of 
injuries and illnesses as a larger company is likely to have a higher 
incident rate'' (Docket ID 0071).
    In response, OSHA agrees with those commenters who stated that the 
public will be able to use the published establishment-specific, case-
specific, injury and illness data to improve workplace safety and 
health. The online availability of such data will allow members of the 
public to determine which workplaces in a particular industry are the 
safest, and identify emerging injury and illness trends in particular 
industries. As noted by commenters, the public may use this data to 
make decisions about what companies and industries they support and 
want to work for. The availability of data will also facilitate the 
press's ability to monitor and report on it, which will further ensure 
that members of the public are well-informed and can make decisions 
accordingly. For these reasons, and as explained above, OSHA finds that 
public access to this data will ultimately help to improve workplace 
safety and health.
    Generally, to the extent the commenters suggest that the case-
specific data from Forms 300 and 301 will not be useful information to 
the public, OSHA disagrees, and finds that the benefits of expanded 
public access to this data outweigh commenters' concerns. As OSHA 
explained in the final rule on Occupational Injury and Illness 
Recording and Reporting Requirements (January 19, 2001), injury and 
illness records have long made employers more aware of the injuries and 
illnesses occurring in their workplaces, and are essential in helping 
employers to effectively manage their safety and health programs. 
Additionally, such records ensure employees are better informed about 
hazards they face in the workplace and encourage employees to both 
follow safe work practices and report workplace hazards to employers 
(66 FR 5916-67). For similar reasons, as identified by commenters and 
explained above, the public can use such data to improve workplace 
safety and health.
    However, OSHA acknowledges commenters' concerns about potential 
misinterpretation and recognizes that the public may need more 
assistance in understanding the data than employers, researchers, and 
other similar interested parties. OSHA recognizes the need to provide 
information to the public to aid their understanding of the data. The 
web page for the ITA (https://www.osha.gov/Establishment-Specific-Injury-and-Illness-Data) contains several explanations of the data that 
address commenters' specific concerns, including:
     ``Recording or reporting a work-related injury, illness, 
or fatality does not mean that the employer or employee was at fault, 
that an OSHA rule has been violated, or that the employee is eligible 
for workers' compensation or other benefits.''
     ``While OSHA takes multiple steps to ensure the data 
collected is accurate, problems and errors invariably exist for a small 
percentage of establishments. OSHA does not believe the data for the 
establishments with the highest rates in these files are accurate in 
absolute terms. Efforts are made during the collection cycle to correct 
submission errors; however, some remain unresolved. It would be a 
mistake to say establishments with the highest rates in these files are 
the `most dangerous' or `worst' establishments in the nation.''
    The web page for the data collected through the OSHA Data 
Initiative (https://www.osha.gov/ords/odi/establishment_search.html) 
also includes the second explanatory note.
    OSHA also notes the many examples in the rulemaking record provided 
by commenters on not only how various interested parties currently use 
establishment-specific, case-specific, injury and illness data, but 
also on how they will be able to use the greater access to such 
information provided by this final rule to reduce occupational injuries 
and illnesses. Some commenters' concerns seem to hinge on the 
assumption that the general public lacks the sophistication necessary 
to understand the collected data. However, this section of the preamble 
provides many examples of the ways in which employers, employees, 
government agencies, researchers, and other interested parties will use 
this data to perform more detailed and accurate analyses of workplace 
safety and health practices, create education and training programs to 
reduce workplace hazards, develop resources, and conduct studies. To 
the extent that members of the public require additional context to 
make sense of injury and illness data, other interested parties will 
make that information available through their own use of the data.
    Additionally, as explained in more detail in Section III.B.14 of 
this Summary and Explanation, commenters provided suggestions for ways 
to make published data more useful to interested parties. The Seventeen 
AGs also commented that the public may only benefit from the 
publication of injury and illness data ``if it is aware of its 
existence,'' and suggested that OSHA ``evaluate and choose effective 
avenues

[[Page 47293]]

for publicizing the availability of the data'' (Docket ID 0045). OSHA 
will take these comments into consideration when designing tools and 
applications to make the published data more accessible and useful to 
interested parties.
    After consideration of these comments, OSHA has determined that 
members of the public and other interested parties will be able to use 
the collected data to improve workplace safety and health. OSHA will 
continue to consider additional ways to assist the public in both 
awareness of and understanding the data, including through web-based 
search applications and other products. As explained in the preamble to 
the proposed rule, the agency plans to make the data available and able 
to be queried via a web-based tool. Interested parties 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. In addition, interested parties can use 
the tool to analyze injury and illness data and identify patterns that 
are masked by the aggregation of injury/illness data in existing data 
sources. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, in 
developing a publicly accessible tool for injury and illness data, OSHA 
will 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.
    For the above reasons, and based on the record in this rulemaking, 
OSHA believes that the electronic submission requirements, along with 
the subsequent publication of certain injury and illness data, set 
forth in this final rule will result in significant benefits to 
occupational safety and health. OSHA also concludes that the 
significant benefits to employers, employees, OSHA, and other 
interested parties described in this section outweigh the slight risk 
to employee privacy. Accordingly, OSHA has determined that it is 
necessary and appropriate to require certain establishments to 
electronically submit case-specific, establishment-specific, data from 
their Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA once a year.
5. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
    Many of the comments OSHA received on proposed Sec.  1904.41(a)(2) 
related not to the proposed requirement to submit information from OSHA 
Forms 300 and 301, per se, but rather to OSHA's plan to make some of 
the data which it receives publicly available on its website (as 
detailed above). The agency is doing so for two main reasons. First, 
based on its experience with previous FOIA requests for particular 
establishments' Forms 300A, 300, and 301 (as contained in inspection 
files) and for all Form 300A data submitted electronically, OSHA 
anticipates that it will receive FOIA requests for the Form 300 and 301 
data submitted under the requirements of this final rule. Once the 
agency releases the Form 300 and 301 data submitted under the 
requirements of this final rule (after applying the appropriate FOIA 
exemptions), OSHA anticipates (again based on the previous FOIA 
requests) that it would be required to post the released information 
online under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2)(D), which requires agencies to ``make 
available for public inspection in an electronic format . . . copies of 
all records . . . that because of the nature of their subject matter, 
the agency determines have become or are likely to become the subject 
of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; or . . . 
that have been requested 3 or more times[.]'' OSHA finds that 
proactively releasing the electronically submitted information from 
establishments' Forms 300 and 301 would conserve resources that OSHA 
would otherwise spend responding to such FOIA requests (before the 
information would be posted online after the agency's initial responses 
to such requests).
    Second, and more importantly from a safety and health perspective, 
as explained in detail in Section III.B.4 of this Summary and 
Explanation, above, OSHA believes that the public release of case-
specific data from establishments' Forms 300 and 301 will generate many 
worker safety and health benefits. In short, OSHA anticipates that 
employers, employees, Federal and State agencies, researchers, 
workplace safety consultants, members of the public, and other 
interested parties can use the collected data to improve workplace 
safety and health. (Comments related to benefits are addressed above in 
Section III.B.4 of this Summary and Explanation.)
    OSHA explained both of these reasons in the proposal (see 87 FR 
18535, 18542). OSHA also discussed the similarities between the way it 
intends to treat the data it would collect and publish under this rule 
and the way it responds to requests for the same data under FOIA. OSHA 
explained that it already collects Forms 300 and 301 during many 
inspections, and often receives requests for them under FOIA. As a 
rule, OSHA releases copies of the Forms 300 and 301 for closed cases 
after redacting the same information that will either not be collected 
or not be published under this rule. OSHA explained that it uses FOIA 
Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold from disclosure information in 
personnel and medical files and similar files that ``would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy'' or records or 
information compiled for law enforcement purposes to the extent that 
the production of such law enforcement records or information ``could 
reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy'' (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6), 552(b)(7)(C)). OSHA intended 
this discussion to reassure the regulated community that it has a great 
deal of experience in protecting privacy interests when it releases the 
forms that are at issue in this rule.
    Separately, OSHA also pointed out that in multiple cases where it 
had denied FOIA requests for Form 300A data, which does not include 
personal information about injured employees, courts had ruled that 
OSHA had to release the data (see 87 FR 18531). OSHA believes those 
rulings support its decision here to release non-personal information 
from the Forms 300 and 301. (One commenter said that the name and 
telephone number of the executive certifying the accuracy of Form 300A 
should be considered private information (Docket ID 0086); OSHA agrees; 
in fact, the agency has never even collected this information as part 
of its routine data collection of information from the Form 300A 
through either the ODI or the ITA. Likewise, it will not do so pursuant 
to this rule.)
    A number of commenters reacted to OSHA's discussion of FOIA (e.g., 
Docket IDs 0042, 0050, 0070, 0071, 0072, 0076, 0088, 0090, 0094). For 
example, the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) said that it 
``strongly disagrees'' with OSHA's argument ``that since case-specific, 
establishment-specific information is subject to FOIA requests, the 
information is available to the public inevitably and, thereby, the 
agency's proposal to create a public website merely eliminates the 
procedural step of a stakeholder submitting a FOIA request.'' According 
to NPGA, a ``FOIA request is defined to a specific incident or event, 
date, and establishment and initiated on the basis of a defined 
interest by the submitter'' (Docket ID 0050). OSHA does not agree. FOIA 
requests can be filed by any member of the public, with no requirement 
to show why the requester is seeking the information, and researchers 
and members of the press

[[Page 47294]]

file such requests frequently. These requests are often for large 
quantities of data, not for material related to ``a specific incident 
or event, date, and establishment.''
    The Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable (PRR) also expressed concern with 
OSHA's statements in the preamble about how the agency ``generally 
releases copies of the 300 logs [(i.e., Form 300)] maintained in 
inspection files in response to FOIA requests after redacting employee 
names (column B)'' (see 87 FR 18532) commenting, ``[i]t is not clear 
what is meant by `generally releases' but it can be assumed it is not 
often. Currently, OSHA only has access and, more importantly, the 
ability to release Form 300 Logs that are collected as part of an 
inspection'' (Docket ID 0094). PRR added, '' It is commonly known, and 
stated in the NPRM, that OSHA does not have the resources to conduct a 
fraction of the inspections that collection through the proposed rule 
would produce. In actuality, the previous risk is much lower than what 
OSHA is now proposing. Also, the privacy is no longer central to FOIA 
requests because once the data is posted, anyone will have access, 
without having to make any official requests. Finally, the little 
protection the FOIA process does provide to protect worker 
confidentiality will be gone as well.'' (Docket ID 0094).
    This comment misunderstands OSHA's purpose in discussing its FOIA 
practice. The section of the NPRM preamble in which the OSHA statements 
quoted by PRR appear is an explanation of which data from the OSHA 
Forms 300 and 301 the agency proposed to make available on OSHA's 
website. In the paragraph in which the sentence commented on by PRR 
appears, OSHA explained that it plans to collect all the fields in 
establishments' Form 300 except employee name (column B) and that 
``[a]ll collected data fields on the 300 Log will generally be made 
available on OSHA's website'' (87 FR 18532). At the end of this 
paragraph, OSHA explained that it currently ``generally releases copies 
of the 300 Logs maintained in inspection files in response to FOIA 
requests after redacting employee names'' (87 FR 18532). This 
information was included to explain that releasing information from 
establishments' Forms 300s is not new; OSHA has been releasing 
information from both the 300 and 301 forms for some time.
    When OSHA said it ``generally releases'' data, it meant that the 
default is to release it, unless there is a reason not to do so (i.e., 
one or more FOIA Exemptions). For example, if a Form includes 
information that could reasonably be expected to identify individuals 
directly, the agency would withhold that information from release under 
FOIA Exemption 6 or 7(C). Likewise, and as discussed in more detail 
below, OSHA is utilizing multiple layers of protection to ensure that 
information which could reasonably be expected to identify individuals 
directly is protected from disclosure.
    OSHA also disagrees with PRR's assertion that ``the little 
protection the FOIA process does provide to protect worker 
confidentiality will be gone'' when this rulemaking goes into effect 
and with its claim that the risk of worker identification under OSHA's 
FOIA practice is far lower than that in this rulemaking (Docket ID 
0094). As explained extensively throughout this section, OSHA has 
included multiple layers of protection to protect information that 
could reasonably be expected to identify individuals directly. 
Significantly, this includes not collecting some information that is 
included on the Forms 300 and 301 that OSHA collects during inspections 
(e.g., employee names). Thus, the information obtained in this 
rulemaking is already starting at a less-identifiable point than the 
information obtained during inspections. And OSHA expects that the 
remainder of the process, i.e., system design, only releasing certain 
fields, and using scrubbing technology, will provide comparable 
protection to that provided under the FOIA process.
    OSHA also received comments from a number of interested parties 
expressing concern about the proposed requirement for establishments to 
submit and OSHA's plan to publish particular information that appears 
on establishments' Forms 300 or 301. These commenters alleged that 
their businesses would suffer in various ways if such information was 
collected and released. For example, some of these commenters argued 
that the proposed rule would require employers to submit to OSHA data 
that the commenters consider to be proprietary and confidential to 
their businesses, e.g., the number of employees and the hours worked at 
a particular location are regarded as proprietary information by many 
companies (Docket IDs 0042, 0071, 0072, 0088, 0090). A comment from the 
Louisiana Chemical Association is representative of this argument: 
``The number of employees and the hours worked at a particular location 
[are] regarded as proprietary information by many companies. This 
information if revealed provides details regarding the business 
processes, production volumes, security, and operational status of a 
facility'' (Docket ID 0042). Similar comments were made by the National 
Retail Federation (Docket ID 0090), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
(Docket ID 0088), and the Associated Builders and Contractors (Docket 
ID 0071).
    Similarly, other commenters opposed the publication of an 
establishment's name and address, as well as case-specific injury and 
illness data from the Forms 300 and 301, on the ground that doing so 
would harm a company's overall reputation (e.g., Docket ID 0036, 0043, 
0050, 0068, 0071).\7\ For example, according to NAM, ``This newly 
available data immediately puts employers, manufacturers in particular, 
in a defensive posture whereby compliance with this rule adds 
unintended risks to company reputation. Prematurely publishing 
sensitive establishment data would damage those companies who are 
improving their safety programs, leaving smaller businesses the most 
vulnerable in such a scenario. Manufacturers need to know that their 
good faith compliance will not hurt their business.'' (Docket ID 0068).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ OSHA notes some of the issues noted in this paragraph are 
addressed below in Section III.E of the Summary and Explanation, on 
section 1904.41(b)(10). However, OSHA sees some utility in reviewing 
this issue in this part of the preamble as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When considering whether a particular piece of information OSHA 
proposed to collect and make publicly available in this rulemaking will 
be problematic in any way, including as to a company's competitiveness 
or its reputation, it is important to consider which information is 
currently publicly available and whether posting such data has actually 
resulted in the harm raised by commenters on this rulemaking. OSHA 
began publishing individual establishment 300A annual summary data, 
then submitted through the OSHA Data Initiative (ODI), in 2009, and 
data for calendar years 1996 through 2011 is posted in a searchable 
format at: https://www.osha.gov/ords/odi/establishment_search.html. The 
ODI data files include information on the number of employees and the 
hours worked hours, as well as establishments' names and street 
addresses (see ``DataDictionary1996-2001.txt'', ``DataDictionary2002-
2011.txt'' available at the ODI website cited in the previous 
sentence). Despite the fact that these data have been publicly 
available for more than a decade, OSHA is not aware of, and no 
commenter has provided, any specific examples of reputational harm, of 
firms losing business opportunities or potential

[[Page 47295]]

employees, or any other harm resulting from the public availability of 
these data.
    This point was emphasized in comments submitted by the Strategic 
Organizing Center for this rulemaking (Docket ID 0079), including one 
previously submitted during the proceeding leading the 2016 rule. That 
comment pointed out that none of the employers expressing concern about 
``reputational damage'' during a 2013 public meeting on what became the 
2016 rule ``could point to a single instance of such damage arising 
from the release of workplace injury/illness records.'' The comment 
added that ``the representatives of several large trade associations . 
. . made the same claim, and offered the same paucity of evidence.'' 
SOC further opined that if any of their members had actually suffered 
any reputational damages, then these ``highly sophisticated 
participants . . . would either already know about it or been able to 
find at least a pattern of compelling examples worthy of the 
Secretary's consideration in this rulemaking,'' but they did not offer 
any such examples at the public meeting, ``even in response to repeated 
questions by OSHA.'' Almost a decade has passed since that meeting, 
even more information is available, and OSHA has still seen no evidence 
of reputational or other harm to employers that submitted required 
data.
    Moreover, OSHA has also published data from establishments' Forms 
300A for calendar years 2016 through 2021 in downloadable data files at 
https://www.osha.gov/Establishment-Specific-Injury-and-Illness-Data. 
These published data include, among other things, company name and 
address, annual average number of employees, and total hours worked 
(see Data Dictionary available at the OSHA website cited in the 
previous sentence). Again, OSHA is not aware of, and no commenter has 
provided, any specific examples of reputational harm, of firms losing 
business opportunities or potential employees, or any other harm 
resulting from the public availability of these data. Consequently, 
OSHA is not persuaded that these unsubstantiated concerns regarding 
potential harms that may result from OSHA's posting of information from 
their recordkeeping forms in any way outweigh the worker safety and 
health benefits that will be realized from OSHA's collection and 
posting of certain data from establishments' recordkeeping forms.
    OSHA also received comments arguing that the proposed rule was 
arbitrary and capricious or that OSHA's statements within the proposed 
rule's preamble were otherwise suspect, problematic, or confusing 
because OSHA has taken a different position during past FOIA 
litigation. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce commented that in 
the New York Times Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 340 F. Supp. 2d 394 
(S.D.N.Y. 2004), and in OSHA Data/CIH, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 220 
F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 2000), OSHA took the position that the total number 
of employees and hours worked at a particular establishment was 
``confidential and proprietary business information,'' in contrast to 
its position in the NPRM (Docket ID 0088, Attachment 2).
    The Chamber accurately characterizes OSHA's arguments in the New 
York Times case but fails to mention one key fact: the court found that 
the information was not confidential. Specifically, in its decision, 
the court concluded that basic injury and illness recordkeeping data 
regarding the average number of employees and total number of hours 
worked does not involve confidential commercial information (see 350 F. 
Supp. 2d 394 at 403). It held that competitive harm would not result 
from OSHA's release of lost workday injury and illness rates of 
individual establishments, from which the number of employee hours 
worked could theoretically be derived (id. at 402-403). Additionally, 
the court explained that most employers do not view injury and illness 
data as confidential (id. at 403).
    In the years after the court's decision rejected the Secretary's 
argument that the injury and illness rates requested in the FOIA suit 
could constitute commercial information under Exemption 4 of FOIA, 5 
U.S.C. 552(b)(4), the Secretary reconsidered their position. Beginning 
in 2004, in response to FOIA requests, OSHA's policy has been to 
release information from Form 300A on the annual average number of 
employees and total hours worked by all employees during the past year 
at an establishment. Similarly, OSHA began releasing establishment 
Forms 300 and 301 in response to FOIA requests (after appropriately 
redacting certain personal identifiers under Exemption 7(C)). And, as 
noted above, the agency began posting information from establishments' 
Forms 300A online in 2009 as part of ODI. Thus, OSHA included a 
statement in the 2013 proposed rule and 2016 final rule explaining that 
the Secretary no longer believes that the injury and illness 
information entered on the OSHA recordkeeping forms constitutes 
confidential commercial information.
    OSHA's general practice of releasing recordkeeping forms to FOIA 
requesters (with appropriate redactions largely related to information 
that could identify employees, e.g., employee names) continued in the 
years prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Food Marketing Institute 
v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019) (``Argus Leader''). In 
Argus Leader, the Court held that ``at least where commercial or 
financial information is both customarily and actually treated as 
private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance 
of privacy, the information is `confidential' within the meaning of 
Exemption 4'' (id. at 2366). After the issuance of the Argus Leader 
decision, OSHA changed its practice and began processing requests for 
OSHA Forms 300, 300A, and 301 under Exemption 4, a decision which the 
agency believed was supported by Argus Leader. Then, after several 
courts disagreed with OSHA's interpretation, the agency reverted to its 
previous practice and began releasing the recordkeeping forms as before 
(see 87 FR 18531 (discussing three adverse rulings in which courts 
rejected OSHA's position that electronically submitted 300A injury and 
illness data are covered under the confidentiality exemption in FOIA 
Exemption 4)). In other words, although OSHA has previously argued that 
some of the Form 300, 300A, and 301 information should not be released 
under FOIA, the agency changed its posture to comport with adverse 
court rulings. Consequently, the agency is not persuaded by comments 
reiterating those court-rejected arguments.
    In making this decision, OSHA notes that many employers already 
routinely disclose information about the number of employees at an 
establishment. Since 2001, OSHA's recordkeeping regulation has required 
employers to record information about the average annual number of 
employees and total number of hours worked by all employees on the OSHA 
Form 300A. Section 1904.35 also requires employers to provide to 
employees, former employees, and employee representatives non-redacted 
copies of the OSHA Form 300A. In addition, Sec.  1904.32(a)(4) requires 
employers to publicly disclose information about the number of 
employees and total number of hours worked through the annual posting 
of the 300A in the workplace for three months from February 1 to April 
30.
    OSHA notes that it also received comments from interested parties 
arguing that OSHA should rescind the requirement to submit the 300A 
Summary Form to OSHA because that form contains confidential business

[[Page 47296]]

information (CBI) (e.g., Docket ID 0059). Such comments are reiterating 
legal arguments which courts rejected in the cases discussed above. 
Consequently, OSHA disagrees with the assertion that the 300A forms 
contain CBI and declines to make the requested change.
6. Safeguarding Individual Privacy (Direct Identification)
    As explained above, OSHA's decision to collect certain data from 
establishments' Forms 300 and 301 stems from its determination that 
OSHA will be able to use the data to improve worker safety and health. 
Similarly, the agency's decision to publish some of the Forms 300 and 
301 data it receives pursuant to this rulemaking flows from its 
expectation that it will receive FOIA requests requesting the data and 
its determination that such publication will result in many 
occupational safety and health benefits. Importantly, in the proposal, 
OSHA also preliminarily determined that these benefits would not be at 
the expense of employee privacy. In other words, OSHA preliminarily 
determined that it would be able to adequately protect information that 
could reasonably be expected to identify individuals directly--both in 
the collecting and possession of the data and in its decisions 
surrounding which information will be made publicly available.
    This question, i.e., whether OSHA would be able to adequately 
protect information that could reasonably be expected to identify 
individuals directly, was raised in the rulemaking that culminated in 
the issuance of the 2016 final rule. It was also a major factor in 
OSHA's decision to rescind the requirement for certain employers to 
electronically submit information from Forms 300 and 301. Specifically, 
in the preamble to the 2019 final rule, OSHA stated that it was 
rescinding that requirement ``to protect sensitive worker information 
from potential disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)'' 
and that ``OSHA has always applied a balancing test to weigh the value 
of worker privacy against the usefulness of releasing the data'' (84 FR 
383-384). The preamble to the 2019 final rule also stated the agency's 
belief at the time that OSHA could withhold the data from Forms 300 and 
301 from publication under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C) (84 FR 386), but 
OSHA concluded at that time that the risk of disclosure of case-
specific, establishment-specific, information could not be justified 
``given [the agency's] resource allocation concerns and the uncertain 
incremental benefits to OSHA of collecting the data'' (84 FR 387). 
Moreover, in the preamble to the 2019 final rule, OSHA characterized 
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. It added 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).
    As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule for this rulemaking, 
however, OSHA has determined those bases for the removal of the 300 and 
301 data submission requirement are no longer compelling. As to the 
risk to employee privacy, OSHA preliminarily determined that the 
proposed data collection would adequately protect information that 
could reasonably be expected to identify individuals directly, such as 
name and address, with multiple layers of protection. Of particular 
importance, OSHA explained that improvements in technology have 
decreased the resources needed by the agency to collect, analyze, and 
publish data from Forms 300 and 301 (87 FR 18538). In addition, OSHA 
noted the 2019 final rule took an overly expansive view of the term 
``personally identifiable information'' and preliminarily determined 
that the 2019 final rule's position on such information was at odds 
with the agency's usual practice of regularly releasing such data (87 
FR 18539).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In this preamble, OSHA generally uses the phrases 
``information that could reasonably be expected to identify 
individuals directly'' and ``information that could reasonably be 
expected to identify individuals indirectly,'' rather than the 
broader term ``personally identifiable information'' (PII) to aid 
interested parties in understanding precisely what type of 
information OSHA is referring to in the discussion. The information 
referred to in both phrases can be considered PII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of commenters expressed concern about OSHA's reasoning for 
the collection and publication of Forms 300 and 301 data in the 
preamble to the proposed rule (e.g., Docket ID 0038, 0058, 0059, 0072, 
0088, 0091). For example, NPGA argued that OSHA should evaluate the 
data it already collects from industries listed in appendix A to 
determine whether additional information collection will further 
workplace safety (Docket ID 0050). As discussed extensively above in 
Section III.B.4 of this Summary and Explanation, OSHA has evaluated and 
used the 300A data it collects and anticipates that many workplace 
safety and health benefits will flow from the collection of the case-
specific data that will be submitted by establishments pursuant to 
final 1904.41(a)(2).
    Other commenters focused on whether OSHA had adequately explained 
its change of opinion on whether the risk of collecting and publishing 
Form 300 and 301 data outweighs the benefits to worker safety and 
health. For example, the American Feed Industry Association (AFIA), the 
Coalition for Workplace Safety, and the Flexible Packaging Association 
all expressed disagreement with OSHA's determination that the 
significant benefits of collecting establishment-specific, case-
specific data from the 300 and 301 forms outweigh the slight risk to 
employee privacy (Docket IDs 0038, 0058, 0091). On the other hand, the 
National Council for Occupational Safety and Health noted that OSHA 
needs ``workplace injury and illness information . . . to work 
effectively,'' and that it is ``unlike almost any other government 
agency in charge of protecting public safety'' in not receiving it 
already (Docket ID 0048).
    As discussed above, OSHA believes it has good reasons to collect 
and publish information from the covered establishments' Forms 300 and 
301 (see Section III.B.4 of this Summary and Explanation). And, as to 
the risk to employee privacy, OSHA has determined that it can implement 
multiple layers of protection described above to protect such 
information that could reasonably be expected to identify individuals 
directly, e.g., names and addresses. These protective measures include 
limiting the amount of information submitted by employers, reminding 
employers not to submit information that could reasonably be expected 
to identify individuals directly, withholding information from certain 
fields from publication, and using automated information technology to 
detect and remove any remaining information that could reasonably be 
expected to identify individuals directly. These measures will ensure 
that individual privacy is protected while key information on workplace 
hazards is disseminated to employees, employee representatives, and 
other interested parties. The following discussion explains how each 
layer of protection will help to ensure that individual privacy is 
protected.
    In the proposed rule, OSHA stated that its first measure to prevent 
the release of information that could reasonably be expected to 
identify individuals directly is to not collect most of that 
information in the first

[[Page 47297]]

place. Specifically, as discussed above and detailed in Section III.D 
of this Summary and Explanation, on Sec.  1904.41(b)(9), the proposal 
explained to establishments that employers did not need to submit the 
following information: (1) from the Form 300 Log: the employee name 
column (column B) and (2) from the Form 301 Incident Report: the 
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). OSHA 
explained that, since this information would not be collected, there 
would be no risk of publication disclosure of the data in the fields 
(87 FR 18538).
    Some interested parties submitted comments agreeing with OSHA's 
logic on this point (e.g., Docket IDs 0030, 0063, 0064). For example, 
Worksafe supported the proposed omission of employee name and address, 
physician names, and treatment facilities from collection and 
publication to protect individual privacy (Docket ID 0063). And AIHA 
commented that if PII is not collected by OSHA, there would be no need 
to redact submitted information (Docket ID 0030). Based on this 
feedback, and as discussed further in Section III.D of this Summary and 
Explanation, the final rule, like the proposed rule, does not allow 
employers to submit the above information.
    Again, as discussed in Section III.D of this Summary and 
Explanation, OSHA received comments from interested parties requesting 
that OSHA add other fields from Forms 300 and 301 to the list of fields 
which establishments are not required to submit under the final rule. 
These comments are addressed in detail in Section III.D, but OSHA also 
notes here that these interested parties' true concerns appear to 
relate to whether OSHA can keep the collected data private (e.g., will 
OSHA have to release it in response to a FOIA request or otherwise 
release it accidentally, such as because an employee name or other 
direct employee identifier is contained in a narrative field) or 
whether the fields OSHA intends to release will allow third parties to 
indirectly identify employees. OSHA's plan to mitigate each of these 
concerns is discussed in detail below. Thus, again as stated in the 
summary and explanation for Sec.  1904.41(b)(9), the agency declines to 
add further fields to the list of fields from establishments' Forms 300 
and 301 which will not be collected under this final rule.
    As discussed in the proposal, OSHA's second measure to prevent the 
release of information that could reasonably be expected to identify 
individuals directly relates to system design (87 FR 18538). 
Specifically, the agency explained that it planned to design its data 
collection system to provide extra protections for the personal 
information that establishments would be required to submit under the 
proposal. For example, OSHA stated that although the proposal would 
require employers to submit the employee's date of birth from Form 301 
(Field 3), it planned to design the data collection system to 
immediately calculate the employee's age based on the date of birth 
entered and then store only the employee's age, not the employee's date 
of birth. OSHA also indicated its intent to post reminders to 
establishments to omit from the text fields they submit any information 
that could reasonably be expected to identify individuals directly, 
including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and any other 
identifying information (see 87 FR 18538).
    In addition to these proposed system design solutions, OSHA 
included a question in the proposal asking: ``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?'' (87 FR 18546). OSHA received 
a number of responses to this question. For example, AIHA commented, 
``The electronic forms that OSHA provides should be designed to 
automatically exclude personal identifiers with an option to include 
the fields if required. The import side of the electronic form data 
could also block the importation of these fields'' (Docket ID 0030).
    The Plastics Industry Association (PIA) commented that, although it 
does not believe the reminder would be ``an acceptable remedy for 
inadequate software,'' ``[i]f OSHA were to proceed in this way. . ., 
OSHA should include the warning about not including personal 
identifiers in an online screen and require the submitter to click a 
confirmation that it has not included any personal identifiers before 
allowing the submitter to proceed to the data entry step.'' PIA also 
stated that after the data entry is completed, the system should 
provide the employer with an opportunity to review the complete data 
submission, view how it would be presented to the public, and correct 
any inaccurate data or inadvertently included personal identifiers. 
After completing that step, PIA recommended that the submitter should 
have to click through a second screen that repeats the warning about 
not including personal identifiers and confirm that none were submitted 
before allowing the submitter to click on the final submit button. 
Finally, PIA said that ``[b]efore requiring compliance with the 
contemplated data submission requirements for the OSHA Form 300 or Form 
301 data, OSHA needs to have a qualified, independent body test and 
validate that the software, as integrated into the OSHA ITA, will 
reliably remove any personal identifiers'' (Docket ID 0086).
    OSHA thanks the commenters who responded to the specific question 
on additional instructions to employers on not submitting information 
that identifies individuals. OSHA intends to take commenters' specific 
responses into account when designing the expanded collection system. 
Based on those comments, OSHA will include reminders in the 
instructions for the data collection system for employers not to submit 
information that could reasonably be expected to identify individuals 
directly. OSHA agrees that is an effective way to reduce the amount of 
identifiable information collected by the system. In turn, that will 
decrease the likelihood that such information will be published. OSHA 
has routinely used these types of instructions, such as when it 
requests comments from interested parties in rulemakings such as this 
one (see the section on ``Instructions'' above) and has found them to 
be an effective way to prevent the unintentional submission of 
information that could reasonably be expected to identify individuals 
directly.
    Also, OSHA notes that the current ITA manual data entry option 
already includes a screen that provides establishments with an 
opportunity to review the complete data submission of Form 300A 
information and to make edits or corrections as appropriate. OSHA plans 
to gather additional information from similar data collection systems 
and incorporate best practices in the final design for the collection 
system for data from the Forms 300 and 301. Moreover, the Forms 300 and 
301 themselves already include a box with the warning, ``Attention: 
This form contains information relating to employee health and must be 
used in a manner that protects the confidentiality of employees to the 
extent possible while the information is being used for occupational 
safety and health purposes.'' In addition, the Form 301 includes the 
warning, ``Re [F]ields 14 to 17: Please do not include any personally 
identifiable information (PII) pertaining

[[Page 47298]]

to worker(s) involved in the incident (e.g., no names, phone numbers, 
or Social Security numbers).'' Fields 14-17 do not ask for information 
likely to implicate privacy concerns, rather, they request information 
related to the injury or illness and how it occurred. OSHA believes 
these warnings are adequate and does not believe it is practical to 
develop a system that would remove remaining information between an 
establishment's draft and final electronic submissions. Such systems 
take time to run (see, e.g., Docket ID 0095), which would increase the 
time between employer submission (i.e., when the employer clicks on the 
`submit' or `upload' button) and employer receipt of confirmation of 
successful submission, potentially creating concerns about whether the 
submission system is working. OSHA therefore believes that it is more 
appropriate to identify and remove any information that could 
reasonably be expected to identify individuals directly after 
submission and before publication, rather than during submission. 
Moreover, OSHA thinks its plans to protect such data will adequately 
protect worker privacy without adding this additional, impractical, 
potentially expensive (adding additional functionality to system) step. 
Finally, as to system design, OSHA's system will not allow 
establishments to enter the fields that are excluded from collection 
under Sec.  1904.41(b)(9).
    As discussed in the proposal, OSHA's third measure to prevent the 
release of information that could reasonably be expected to identify 
individuals directly is to withhold certain information that is 
submitted to it from public disclosure. As noted above, OSHA will not 
collect employees' names from either form, and will not collect 
employees' addresses or the names or addresses of healthcare providers 
from Form 301. However, the proposed rule would have required (and the 
final rule actually requires) submission of some fields that contain 
personal information, including date of birth (which will be converted 
to age) (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) (see 87 
FR 18539). OSHA proposed to collect that information, but not to make 
it public, and specifically requested comment on those proposals (see 
87 at FR 18540).
    OSHA received a number of comments, virtually all from employers 
and their representatives, expressing concern over the potential risk 
to employee privacy presented by the proposed collection and potential 
publication of information from Forms 300 and 301 that could reasonably 
be expected to identify individuals directly (e.g., Docket IDs 0055, 
0056, 0057, 0062, 0070, 0075, 0087, 0090, 0094). For example, the 
Precision Machined Parts Association (PMPA) commented, the Form 300 
contains sensitive information that may be released under FOIA or 
``through the inadvertent publication of information due to the 
agency's reliance on automated de-identification systems to remove 
identifying information'' or through the actions of ``future 
administrations'' (Docket ID 0055). The North American Die Casting 
Association (Docket ID 0056) and National Tooling and Machining 
Association and Precision Metalforming Association (Docket ID 0057) 
expressed similar concerns. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-North Carolina) and 
Rep. Fred Keller (R-Pennsylvania) echoed that ``there are no guarantees 
that this data may not be disclosed accidentally'' (Docket ID 0062).
    In contrast, commenters representing the workers whose injuries and 
illnesses are recorded on these forms did not share employers' concerns 
about the potential publication of sensitive worker information. For 
example, the AFL-CIO stated that ``The preamble to the 2016 final rule 
included a comprehensive review of privacy issues raised by interested 
parties in requiring the collection of detailed injury and illness data 
and the final language was crafted to provide safeguards to protect the 
release of personally identifiable information (PII).'' It explained 
the NPRM ``has also considered PII and includes the same safeguards as 
the 2016 final rule and discusses recent technological developments 
that increase the agency's ability to manage information'' (Docket ID 
0061 (citing 87 FR 18538-46)). In addition, AFL-CIO observed that the 
type of information that OSHA proposed to collect in this rulemaking 
``has already been shown by other agencies it can be collected and 
shared without violating confidentiality, such as by Mine Safety and 
Health Administration (MSHA)[, and a]ll data provided under the Freedom 
of Information Act and Form 300 and Form 301 provided to workers and 
their representatives upon request under Sec.  1904.35 provide detailed 
injury and illness information without releasing PII.'' In summary, 
AFL-CIO argued that ``OSHA should maintain the same privacy safeguards 
in the rule it issued in 2016, also proposed in this preamble and used 
by other agencies to protect sensitive information'' (Docket ID 0061).
    Similarly, the National Nurses Union affirmed that the NPRM 
``includes appropriate procedures to allow electronic data reporting 
and publication while protecting worker privacy.'' To support this 
statement, it specifically referenced OSHA's ``plans to instruct 
employers to omit the fields on Form 301 that include personal 
information about the worker'' and the agency's plan to use data 
analysis tools to ensure that published data does not include any 
personal data that employers may accidentally submit. NNU concluded 
that ``[t]he multiple measures to remove identifying information in the 
final rule will ensure that workers' privacy is protected while key 
information on workplace hazards is shared'' (Docket ID 0064).
    OSHA agrees with the latter commenters who stated that there are 
multiple measures in place to protect the privacy of individuals under 
this final rule. As discussed above, OSHA will not collect much of the 
information the commenters opposing this provision expressed concern 
about. In addition, the collection system will provide further 
safeguards and reminders. For example, OSHA will redact any identifying 
material from the portions of the forms it intends to publish (e.g., 
Fields 10 through 18 of Form 301).
    Further, and as discussed in more detail below in Section III.B.7 
of this Summary and Explanation, OSHA will withhold from publication 
all of the collected information on the left side of the Form 301 
(i.e., employee age, calculated from date of birth (Field 3), employee 
date hired (Field 4), and employee gender (Field 5), as well as whether 
the employee was treated in emergency room (Field 8) and whether the 
employee was hospitalized overnight as an in-patient (Field 9)) that 
could indirectly identify injured or ill employees when combined with 
other potentially available information. As noted in the proposal, this 
decision is consistent with OSHA's handling of FOIA requests, in 
response to which the agency does not release data from Fields 1 
through 9.
    It is important to note that these forms have never been private. 
The information that OSHA will publish from the Forms 300 and 301 under 
this final rule is consistent with the information available in the 
agency's longstanding records access provisions. The recordkeeping 
regulation at 29 CFR 1904.35 allows current and former employees and 
their representatives access to the occupational injury and illness 
information kept by their employers, with some limitations. When an 
employee, former employee, personal

[[Page 47299]]

representative, or authorized employee representative asks an employer 
for copies of an employer's current or stored OSHA 300 Log(s), the 
employer must give the requester a copy of the relevant OSHA 300 Log(s) 
by the end of the next business day (see 29 CFR 1904.35(b)(2)(ii)). 
Cases labeled as ``privacy concern cases,'' described below, are 
excluded from this requirement. Finally, an authorized representative 
is entitled, within 7 days of requesting them, to copies of the right-
hand portion of all 301 forms for the establishment(s) where the agent 
represents one or more employees under a collective bargaining 
agreement. As discussed above, the right-hand portion of the 301 form 
contains the heading, ``Tell us about the case,'' and includes 
information about how the injury or illness occurred, including the 
employee's actions just prior to the incident, the materials and tools 
involved, and how the incident occurred, but should not include the 
employee's name. No information other than that included on the right-
hand portion of the Form 301 may be disclosed to the authorized 
employee representative.
    Put more simply, OSHA's decision not to release the collected 
information on the left-hand side of the Form 301 (i.e., age 
(calculated from date of birth), date hired, gender, whether the 
employee was treated in the emergency room, and whether the employee 
was hospitalized overnight as an in-patient) is consistent with records 
access provisions in OSHA's recordkeeping regulation, Sec.  
1904.35(b)(2)(v)(A) and (B), which prohibit the release of information 
in fields 1 through 9 to individuals other than the employee or former 
employee who suffered the injury or illness and their personal 
representatives.
    To protect employee privacy, Sec.  1904.29(b)(7) requires the 
employer to enter the words ``privacy concern case'' on the OSHA 300 
log, in lieu of the employee's name, for certain sensitive injuries and 
illnesses: an injury or illness to an intimate body part or the 
reproductive system; an injury or illness resulting from a sexual 
assault; a mental illness; an illness involving HIV infection, 
hepatitis, or tuberculosis; needlestick injuries and cuts from sharp 
objects that are contaminated with another person's blood or other 
potentially infectious material (see Sec.  1904.8 for definitions); and 
other illnesses, if an employee independently and voluntarily requests 
that their name not be entered on the log. In addition, under Sec.  
1904.29(b)(9), if employers have a reasonable basis to believe that 
information describing a privacy concern case may be personally 
identifiable even though the employee's name has been omitted, they may 
use discretion in describing the injury or illness as long as they 
include enough information to identify the cause of the incident and 
the general severity of the injury or illness. Thus, contrary to the 
arguments of the Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable (PRR) (Docket ID 0094), 
OSHA's recordkeeping rule distinguishes between PII and ``sensitive 
PII,'' which is deserving of even higher protection. OSHA's definition 
of privacy concern cases is very similar to the DHS definition of 
``sensitive PII, which this comment urged OSHA to adopt (see https://www.dhs.gov/publication/handbook-safeguarding-sensitive-personally-identifiable-information, p. 15). Although DHS and OSHA collect and 
maintain information for different purposes, the provisions in 29 CFR 
1904.29 addressing privacy concern cases protect details about injuries 
and illnesses that workers would consider sensitive to the same extent 
that the DHS rule does. Therefore, it is unlikely that information 
describing sensitive body parts will even be recorded by employers, 
much less subsequently submitted to OSHA under the data collection 
requirements of this final rule.
    Section 1904.29(b)(10) also protects employee privacy if an 
employer decides voluntarily to disclose the Forms 300 and 301 to 
persons other than those who have a mandatory right of access, by 
requiring employers to remove or hide employees' names or other 
personally identifiable information before disclosing the forms to 
anyone other than government representatives, employees, former 
employees, or authorized employee representatives, with only a few 
exceptions. The exceptions include disclosure to authorized consultants 
hired by employers to evaluate their safety and health programs; where 
disclosure is necessary to process a claim for workers' compensation or 
other insurance benefits; and disclosure to a public health authority 
or law enforcement entity for uses and disclosures for which consent, 
or authorization, or opportunity to agree or object is not required 
under the HIPAA privacy rule at 45 CFR 164.512. These exceptions are 
not relevant here or are discussed in Section III.B.10 of this Summary 
and Explanation, below.
    OSHA acknowledged the tension between the safety and health 
benefits of disclosing injury and illness records on the one hand, and 
the desire for privacy by the subjects of those records on the other, 
more than two decades ago. In OSHA's 2001 final rule overhauling its 
recordkeeping system, it explained that 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)). Thus, it 
has always been possible for employees and their representatives to 
make the recordkeeping data they have accessed public if they wish to 
do so (see 81 FR 29684). Nonetheless, OSHA also concluded that the 
benefits to employees and their representatives of accessing the health 
and safety information on the recordkeeping forms carry greater weight 
than any particular individual employee's possible right to privacy 
(see 66 FR 6055). Similarly, in the current rulemaking, OSHA continues 
to believe that the benefits of publication of injury and illness data 
at issue in this rule, discussed in detail above, outweigh the slight 
possibility that some employees could be identified from that data. 
There are even more exclusions from the data that will be made public 
under this rule than from the data available to employees and their 
representatives, and OSHA is unaware of any instances where an employee 
took the currently available recordkeeping information and used it to 
publicize the identity of an injured or ill worker.
    Some commenters, however, thought there should be a distinction 
between the information available to workers at an establishment and 
their representatives, and information available to the broader 
community. The U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, the Plastics Industry 
Association, and PRR all acknowledged the value of providing this 
information to those workers but argued that similar value is not 
provided by making the information available to others in the industry 
(Docket IDs 0053, 0086, 0094). OSHA disagrees. As explained in Section 
III.B.4 of this Summary and Explanation, OSHA believes that expanding 
access to such information on a public website will increase 
information about workplace hazards, create awareness of potential 
hazards for other members of an industry, provide useful information 
for potential and current employees, and allow all

[[Page 47300]]

establishments to address hazards more effectively.
    OSHA notes that it also received comments from interested parties 
expressing concern that courts might order the agency to release some 
of the data it collects and does not plan to release in this 
rulemaking, i.e., in a decision in a FOIA lawsuit. Based on its years 
of experience processing FOIA requests to which establishments' Forms 
300 and 301 were responsive and redacting and releasing those forms, 
OSHA believes this outcome is highly unlikely. As noted in the proposal 
and discussed in more detail above, the agency often collects such 
forms during inspections. When releasing the forms to FOIA requesters, 
it has long redacted the information that it will collect as a result 
of this rulemaking but does not intend to publish.
    Specifically, as noted above and explained in the proposal, OSHA 
uses FOIA Exemption 7(C) to withhold from disclosure information that 
reasonably identifies individuals directly included anywhere on the 
three OSHA recordkeeping forms. And OSHA has used FOIA Exemption 6 to 
protect 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)). Together, these Exemptions clearly cover the 
information about which commenters are concerned (i.e., directly 
identifying information--concerns about indirect identifiers are 
discussed below) and OSHA is confident that it will continue to be able 
to withhold such information from public exposure under these 
Exemptions.
    In addition, OSHA notes that its plan to release only certain 
fields will also prevent accidental release of information that could 
reasonably be expected to identify individuals directly. Specifically, 
when OSHA publishes the information collected in this rulemaking, that 
release will by design exclude the fields that OSHA does not intend to 
release. This is similar to OSHA's current practice as to the 
collection of information submitted with establishments' Forms 300 A. 
Specifically, as part of the process for collecting information from 
the Form 300A through the ITA, OSHA collects the name and contact 
information for the person associated with the account that is 
electronically submitting information from the Form 300A for a given 
establishment. OSHA also previously collected this information for 
establishment submissions of information from the Form 300A through the 
ODI. OSHA does not make this information public. Indeed, there is 
little risk that the agency might accidentally do so because the data 
release only includes information from the Form 300A. It plans to 
follow that same practice with the data from establishments' Forms 300 
and 301.
    OSHA's fourth measure to prevent the release of information that 
could reasonably be expected to identify individuals directly is 
through the use of scrubbing technology. In the preamble to the 2019 
final rule, OSHA stated that ``de-identification software cannot fully 
eliminate the risk of disclosure of PII or re-identification of a 
specific individual and manual review of the data would not be 
feasible'' (84 FR 388). However, in the preamble to this proposed rule, 
OSHA preliminarily determined that this reason was no longer 
compelling. The agency explained that recent advancements in technology 
have reduced the risk that information that could reasonably be 
expected to identify individuals directly will be disclosed to the 
public. In addition, OSHA expected the improved technology used to 
protect sensitive employee data to reduce costs and resource-allocation 
issues for OSHA by eliminating the need to manually identify and remove 
information that could reasonably be expected to identify individuals 
directly from submitted data and by decreasing the resources required 
to analyze the data. OSHA added that, because of these improvements in 
automated de-identification systems, OSHA would now be better able to 
collect, analyze, and publish data from the 300 and 301 forms, so the 
anticipated benefits of collecting the data would be more certain. The 
collection of case-specific data would 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, 
OSHA preliminarily believed that the significant benefits of collecting 
establishment-specific, case-specific data from the 300 and 301 forms 
would outweigh the slight risk to employee privacy (87 FR 18538).
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA specifically asked the 
following questions about automated de-identification systems:
     What other agencies and organizations use automated de-
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?
     What other open-source and/or proprietary software is 
available to remove information that reasonably identifies individuals 
directly from text data?
     What methods or systems exist to identify and remove 
information that reasonably identifies individuals directly from text 
data before the data are submitted?
     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?
     What processes could OSHA establish to remove 
inadvertently-published information that reasonably identifies 
individuals directly as soon as OSHA became aware of the information 
that reasonably identifies individuals directly?

(87 FR 18546-47)

    Overall, there were no comments about the technical aspects of 
software to identify and remove information that could reasonably be 
expected to identify individuals directly. However, Worksafe commented, 
``Worksafe encourages OSHA to consult with technical experts. The 
Federal Government has two groups of experts that may be able to help: 
the U.S. Digital Service, a group of technology experts that assist 
agencies with pressing technology modernization, and 18F, a `technology 
and design consultancy' housed within the General Services 
Administration. Technical experts should be able to advise on both the 
capabilities and limits of software to accomplish the sort of filtering 
that OSHA has proposed.'' (Docket ID 0063). In addition, AIHA's comment 
supported use of software to remove the information before submission: 
``If the personally identifiable information (PII) is not submitted, 
there would be no reason to have an automated system capable of 
removing the sensitive portions of the information. A unique identifier 
could be auto-generated by the system instead of utilizing PII'' 
(Docket ID 0030).
    There were also comments that OSHA should select, identify, test, 
and demonstrate the results of de-identification software before 
proceeding with a final rule. For example, the Coalition for Workplace 
Safety commented, ``OSHA has not yet conducted tests of [its privacy

[[Page 47301]]

scrubbing] technology on the Forms 300 or 301,'' and ``OSHA 
acknowledges that the information it will collect and publish can still 
be used to identify individuals indirectly by combining it with other 
publicly available information.'' The commenter also stated that OSHA 
``relies heavily on automated information technology to remove 
information that can directly identify individuals,'' which is ``not 
100 percent accurate so there will still be information made publicly 
available which can be used to directly identify individuals'' (Docket 
ID 0058).
    Similarly, the National Association of Manufacturers commented, 
``The new online requirement places an unintentional burden on the 
agency that it may not be prepared to implement. The agency's pledge to 
design a system that both abides by FOIA protocols and uses scrubbing 
technology to protect PII is problematic because such a system is 
unproven and untested at OSHA. The agency should demonstrate the 
effectiveness and stability of such a system before it proceeds further 
with this rulemaking. (Docket ID 0068).
    The Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association commented, ``OSHA 
says it will also address this risk by using existing privacy scrubbing 
technology that it claims is capable of de-identifying information that 
reasonably identifies individuals directly (such as name, phone number, 
email address, etc.). However, OSHA made this same claim in the 
preamble to the 2016 injury and illness reporting rule, which the 
agency rejected in the preamble to the 2019 rescission rule . . . the 
Proposed Rule provides no details on the systems, software, or 
platforms that are available now but were not available at the time of 
the 2019 rescission rule. In fact, all but one of the data scrubbing 
products identified by OSHA in the Proposed Rule were commercially 
available prior to the issuance of the rescission rule.'' (Docket ID 
0075).
    The Plastics Industry Association commented, ``First, we are 
concerned that OSHA is referring to technically feasible automated 
software that could identify unique personal identifiers, but it is 
unclear whether it currently exists. Second, as the foregoing 
discussion from the January 19, 2001 preamble makes clear, there are 
likely to be many cases in which disclosure of a generic identifier or 
data point becomes a personal identifier in the context of those with 
knowledge of the site (e.g., ``only one woman works at the plant''), a 
situation that we believe is beyond the shield that could be provided 
by any automated software. If OSHA had identified automated software 
capable of scrubbing unique personal identifiers, we would have 
expected OSHA to have provided an appropriate certification from a 
qualified testing organization that the software, after integration 
into the OSHA ITA, will accurately perform that function--possibly with 
some acceptable, minimal error rate. However, the following questions 
OSHA posed in the preamble suggest the necessary software is not yet 
available or, if it is, OSHA has not yet identified it and verified it 
would be adequate and within the agency's budget.'' (Docket ID 0086).
    The Employers E-Recordkeeping Coalition (Coalition) commented, 
``The supposed improved technology to decrease the number of resources 
required to analyze this data has neither been presented to employers 
nor explained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The ``scrubbing 
application'' and automated information technology is neither tested or 
verified, nor is there any reason to consider it trustworthy. In fact, 
the proposed use of automated information technology to detect and 
remove information that reasonably identifies individuals is, OSHA 
admits, a ``preliminary'' finding that has not been vetted. (The point 
is further underscored by the Agency's request for information on what 
proprietary software is out there that is capable of removing 
information that reasonably identifies individuals directly from text 
data).'' (Docket ID 0087).
    The agency disagrees with the comments that it is necessary to 
select, identify, test, and demonstrate the results of de-
identification software before proceeding with a final rule. AI and 
machine learning--technologies that OSHA plans to use to detect, 
redact, and remove information that reasonably identifies individuals 
directly from structured and unstructured data fields--have advanced 
rapidly in recent years. Commercially available products that were 
introduced to the marketplace during the previous rulemaking process 
are now well-established. In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA 
listed and described three packages initially released between November 
2017 and March 2018, as well a fourth package that was released in 
March 2021 (87 FR 18540). There has now been time for these packages to 
go through multiple updates, as well as for studies of comparative 
performance to be performed and published. For example, a study 
entitled ``A Comparative Analysis of Speed and Accuracy for Three Off-
the-Shelf De-Identification Tools'' was published in May 2020 in AMIA 
Summits on Translational Science Proceedings; it compared three text 
de-identification systems that can be run off-the-shelf (Amazon 
Comprehend Medical PHId, Clinacuity's CliniDeID, and the National 
Library of Medicine's Scrubber). This study found that ``No single 
system dominated all the compared metrics. NLM Scrubber was the fastest 
while CliniDeID generally had the highest accuracy'' (Docket ID 0095). 
While the study concluded that ``no perfect solution exists for text 
de-identification,'' the system with the highest accuracy displayed 97% 
or greater precision (positive predicted value) and recall 
(sensitivity) for name, age, and address. The study mentions but does 
not compare two additional commercially available packages, and OSHA is 
aware of at least two more packages that have become commercially 
available since the publication of the proposed rule (see https://atlasti.com/ and https://privacy-analytics.com/health-data-privacy/health-data-software/).\9\ The PRR agreed that available software is 
capable of ``scrap[ing] the data and remov[ing] direct identifiers'' 
and supported the agency's use of this technology (Docket ID 0094).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The inclusion of links to particular items or references to 
particular companies or products is not intended to reflect their 
importance, nor is it intended to endorse any views, or products, or 
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA intends to 
test multiple systems, including systems that are commercially 
available, and analyze the results carefully to select the best option 
to secure and protect information that could reasonably be expected to 
identify individuals directly. No option is expected to be 100% 
effective. Therefore, OSHA will supplement the selected system with 
some manual review of the data, in order to ensure the system 
adequately protects such information.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ OSHA notes that the 2019 final rule contemplated two levels 
of manual case-by-case review of submitted data (84 FR 400). In this 
rulemaking, the agency finds that such review is not necessary. OSHA 
will guard against the publication of information which could 
directly identify or lead to the identification of workers using the 
measures discussed above, including the use of automated de-
identification technology, supplemented with some manual review of 
the data. OSHA finds that these measures appropriately mitigate 
employee-privacy-related concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, OSHA has determined that the agency will be able to 
adequately protect information that could reasonably be expected to 
identify individuals directly using the safeguards in this final rule 
and OSHA's planned data collection system, in combination with warnings 
to

[[Page 47302]]

employers and available automated information technology. OSHA also 
intends to consult with technical experts within the Federal 
Government, and agrees with the commenters who pointed out the 
relevance of MSHA's data collection to OSHA's proposed data collection 
(see Section III.B.8 of this Summary and Explanation). In addition, the 
use of the automated informational technology will significantly 
decrease the need for the type of resource-intensive manual reviews 
that OSHA was concerned about in the 2019 rulemaking. OSHA does 
recognize the possibility that information could be released that could 
be used to identify an employee--this is a risk whenever any 
organization collects information that relates to individuals; however, 
OSHA intends to minimize this risk to the extent possible. The most 
reliable means of protecting individuals' information is by not 
requiring its submission in the first instance; therefore, OSHA has 
determined that it will not collect fields like employee name as part 
of this expanded data collection (see Section III.D of this Summary and 
Explanation). Even if some minimal risk to privacy remains, however, 
OSHA finds that the benefits of collecting and publishing the data for 
improving safety and health outweigh that risk.
7. Indirect Identification of Individuals
    In the proposal, OSHA acknowledged that 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 (87 FR 18538). 
However, because this risk of re-identification already exists (given 
that OSHA has previously released such information in response to FOIA 
requests) and OSHA had not been made aware of widespread issues 
regarding employee reidentification, the agency preliminarily did not 
see any cause for concern.\11\ Nonetheless, some commenters argued that 
OSHA underestimated the possibility that personal information will be 
disclosed under this rule because third parties (such as data miners, 
the media, or even neighbors or acquaintances of an injured or ill 
worker) will be able to determine the identity of that worker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The only report OSHA has received regarding actual 
reidentification of employees from data released by OSHA is 
discussed below. And, as noted in that discussion, it is not clear 
from the report that the information which caused the 
reidentification is comparable to the information that would be 
released pursuant to this rulemaking (e.g., the size of the 
establishment where the identified employees worked, the information 
that caused them to be reidentified). Given that uncertainty and the 
fact that OSHA has been releasing information from establishments' 
Forms 300 and 301 in response to FOIA requests for many years, this 
single report does not persuade the agency that the benefits of this 
rulemaking are outweighed by what OSHA believes is a minimal risk to 
employee privacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of these comments seem to assume that establishments will 
submit all information on the Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA, something that 
has never been under consideration (see, e.g., Docket IDs 0007, 0013, 
0062). Others, however, expressed concern that, even though OSHA 
intends to delete names and other identifiable information from the 
collected 300 and 301 data, enough information will remain in the 
published data for the public to identify injured or ill employees 
(Docket IDs 0053, 0059, 0062, 0081, 0086, 0090). For example, the Motor 
and Equipment Manufacturers Association commented, ``concerns that 
individual data fields could be linked and used to identify injured 
employees--even if the information, standing alone, would not be 
considered traditional PII--were raised in prior rulemakings and were a 
part of OSHA's justification for issuing the 2019 rescission rule'' 
(Docket ID 0075).
    Some such commenters expressed concerns about the publication of 
specific fields. For example, the Plastics Industry Association (PIA) 
expressed concern about the identification of workers through the 
publication of information about job title, department, and gender 
(Docket ID 0086). PIA also noted that ``many employees have established 
social network accounts that list their name and position with their 
employer. Those profiles typically include the month and year the 
employee began working for the employer, a potentially reliable 
personal identifier that corresponds to the date of hire listed in 
field 4. Some unknown number of those profiles include birth dates, a 
potentially reliable personal identifier that corresponds to field 3'' 
(Docket ID 0086). Consequently, PIA argued that OSHA should either 
exclude birth date and hiring date data from the collected information 
or reliably establish certain fields of collected information that are 
available only to OSHA and not the general public (Docket ID 0086).
    An anonymous commenter also stated that ``columns C, D, E, and F of 
the 300 form and [(job title, date of injury of onset of illness, where 
the event occurred, and the description of the injury or illness, parts 
of body affected, and object/substance that directly injured or made 
person ill)] and fields 3, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of the 301 form 
[(date of birth, date of injury or illness, time of event, and 
descriptions of what the employee was doing just before the incident 
occurred, what happened, what the injury or illness was, and what 
object or substance directly harmed the employee)] should be submitted 
but not made accessible by an member of the public on the internet'' 
(Docket ID 0074).
    According to some of the commenters who expressed concern about 
indirect identification, the concern is particularly acute in smaller 
communities where more of the residents know each other. The U.S. 
Poultry and Egg Association commented, ``We emphasize that many of our 
members operate establishments in small, rural locations. People know 
one another. Publishing this information and data will significantly 
impact employee privacy. And simply redacting the names of the persons 
affected will not prevent people--particularly in small towns--from 
knowing exactly who was injured and the extent of the injury.'' (Docket 
ID 0053). The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association and 
National Association of Home Builders made similar comments (Docket IDs 
0081, 0059).
    A related concern involves data companies that have developed tools 
that scrape data and link to relational databases. PRR commented that 
``developers will be able to create tools that scrape [public injury 
and illness data] . . ., including job titles, facility locations, 
company names and facts from open narrative text fields'' and, when 
used in combination with information obtained via other internet 
sources, ``developers will be able to potentially re-identify 
individuals with a high degree of accuracy.'' In addition, this 
commenter stated that developers will be able to use the same tools, 
including artificial intelligence algorithms, for a multitude of 
reasons including to develop targeted sales campaigns and recruitment 
strategies, which would not contribute to workplace safety (Docket ID 
0094).
    As discussed in detail in Section III.B.4.c-h of this Summary and 
Explanation, other commenters supported the publication of the fields 
OSHA proposed to publish. For example, AFL-CIO agreed with the agency's 
determination about what to publish and what to collect but not 
publish, noting that the agency ``carefully considered issues of worker

[[Page 47303]]

privacy'' (Docket ID 0061). Similarly, the National Employment Law 
Project (NELP) stated that ``adopting the proposed standard will not 
put individual privacy at risk'' (Docket ID 0049, Attachment 2). NELP 
cited to OSHA's preliminary decision to withhold certain fields from 
disclosure as one of the reasons it believed that worker privacy was 
not at risk (Docket ID 0049, Attachment 2).
    Still other interested parties argued in favor of publication of 
such information. For example, NIOSH noted that information such as age 
and date of hire could be useful information to publish (Docket ID 
0035, Attachment 2; see also Docket ID 0083 (agreeing with NIOSH's 
comment)). However, NIOSH added that if cannot be released as part of 
the individual injury case records, it is still important for this data 
to be used in aggregate analysis of injuries on the industry and 
occupation levels'' (Docket ID 0035, Attachment 2). NIOSH further 
requested that OSHA facilitate analysis of these data ``under terms of 
data use agreements with other Federal or State government agencies 
(such as NIOSH or State health departments) (Docket ID 0035, Attachment 
2). The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists also generally 
supported the dissemination of collected information from existing 
records, stating that ``[m]aking this information broadly available is 
consistent with the growing recognition, predominant in the patient 
safety field, that transparency--sharing of information, including 
information about hazards--is a critical aspect of safety culture 
(Docket ID 0040). Further, again as discussed in Section III.B.4.c-h of 
this Summary and Explanation, commenters argued that the publication of 
the data OSHA proposed to make public will be beneficial to employers, 
employees, Federal and State agencies, researchers, workplace safety 
consultants, members of the public and other interested parties.
    Having considered the comment on these issues, OSHA recognizes the 
concerns of interested parties who are concerned about publication of 
select information from establishments' Forms 300 and 301, but believes 
these risks are mitigated by decisions OSHA has made with regard to 
which data should be collected and published and other safeguards that 
OSHA will be observing (e.g., only requiring larger establishments to 
submit data). First, as noted above, OSHA has decided to collect but 
not publish five fields from Form 301 that it has decided contain 
information about personal characteristics, employment history, and 
medical treatment: 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). The agency believes it is 
appropriate to refrain from releasing these data because of privacy 
concerns and the potential risk of indirect individual identification 
raised by commenters regarding the publication of this information. As 
noted above, this decision is consistent with the manner in which OSHA 
handles responses to FOIA requests, as well as 29 CFR 
1904.35(b)(2)(v)(A)-(B).
    However, as discussed below in Section III.D of this Summary and 
Explanation, OSHA still finds that there is a significant safety and 
health benefit with the collection and analysis of information about 
these fields. For example, in some cases, young workers lack necessary 
training and experience and may be assigned to more hazardous tasks, 
subjecting them to higher rates of injury or illness in some industries 
and occupations. Likewise, it is important for OSHA to know whether 
older workers are more vulnerable to certain types of injuries and 
illnesses. Also, information about gender is valuable to OSHA in 
determining whether men or women face greater risk to certain workplace 
hazards (e.g., injury victims of intentional attacks in the workplace 
are disproportionately likely to be women). In addition, information 
about visits to emergency rooms and hospitals assists OSHA in tracking 
the type and severity of employee injuries and illnesses in specific 
industries and occupations. Further, OSHA could use these data in 
combination with other available data, such as Severe Injury Reporting 
data, to assess data accuracy and reporting compliance.
    Although OSHA has found that it is not appropriate to publish the 
five fields from Form 301, the agency notes and will consider NIOSH's 
suggestion that those fields could be shared with NIOSH and other 
government agencies outside of this rulemaking utilizing appropriate 
privacy protections, e.g., via a written data sharing agreement with 
robust privacy protections.
    As to the fields that OSHA plans to collect and publish (e.g., job 
title), the agency believes that the final rule appropriately protects 
against re-identification of individuals via the release of this 
information. Specifically, the final rule requires only establishments 
with 100 or more employees, in certain designated, high-hazard 
industries, to electronically submit information from their Forms 300 
and 301. OSHA believes it is less likely that employees in these larger 
establishments would be identified based on the limited recordkeeping 
data posted on the public website, even in small towns. Moreover, in 
the vast majority of cases, at establishments with 100 or more 
employees, OSHA believes it is unlikely that anyone other than 
employees at the workplace would be able to use the collected and 
published data from the Forms 300 and 301 to identify the injured or 
ill employee. For example, if only one individual performs a certain 
job at an establishment with 100 or more employees, OSHA believes that 
it is highly unlikely that anyone other than employees with specific 
knowledge of that workplace would be able to use the remaining 
information from the Forms 300 and 301 to identify that employee. As 
discussed above, employees at the worksite already have access to 
information from the Forms 300 and 301, and thus publication of these 
forms would not add any risk of individual employee identification.
    In fact, even though OSHA has released redacted Forms 300 and 301 
in response to FOIA requests for more than a decade (see the discussion 
of the Freedom of Information Act in Section III.B.5 of this Summary 
and Explanation for more details), only one commenter claimed knowledge 
of any employees being identified through OSHA data. Specifically, the 
Coalition asserted that several members of the Coalition have had third 
parties, including the media, contact their employees about their 
personal and medical information, including information related to 
COVID-19, because their identities were discerned from information 
provided to and released by OSHA (Docket ID 0087).
    The Coalition's comment did not specify the size of the 
establishments at which the employees contacted by the third parties 
worked (i.e., whether the establishments employed fewer than 100 
employees), how the third parties used the information OSHA released to 
identify those employees, or whether there is any reason to believe 
that the employees' identities were not already publicly known. It also 
does not specify whether the employee identities became known through 
the release of the injury and illness data at issue in this rulemaking 
(i.e., Forms 300 and 301), another document in the released portion of 
the inspection files, or a combination of the two. Consequently, based 
on the information submitted by this commenter, it is impossible to 
tell whether the third parties would have been able to identify these 
``several'' employees using the case-specific information OSHA plans to 
collect and

[[Page 47304]]

release in this rulemaking--information that will be submitted by 
relatively large establishments.
    Nevertheless, OSHA takes the issue of employee privacy and the 
possibility of employee re-identification very seriously. As discussed 
in Section III.B.1 of this Summary and Explanation, OSHA chose the 100-
employee threshold for the collection of case-specific data, in part, 
to minimize the burden on small businesses and to protect the identity 
of employees by only requiring relatively large businesses to submit 
their data. It similarly has carefully considered which fields from 
these forms should be collected and released with employee re-
identification in mind. With these safeguards, OSHA believes the risk 
of indirect employee identification is minimal.
    Moreover, as discussed throughout this preamble, OSHA finds that 
the benefits to worker and safety and health that stem from the release 
of this information outweigh any privacy risks. For example, as to job 
title specifically, researchers will be able to use this information to 
analyze and identify specific occupations associated with particular 
types of injuries and illnesses in the workplace. Also, publication of 
such data will allow the public to better understand and evaluate the 
injury and illness rates for certain jobs, tasks, and/or occupations. 
Potential employees will be able to review published data to assess the 
workplace injury/illness experience of a given job at a particular 
facility. In turn, employers will focus their safety and health efforts 
to reduce the number of injuries and illnesses associated with certain 
jobs as a way to attract well-qualified job candidates. Similarly, the 
publication of information about job title will assist researchers in 
analyzing and identifying injury and illness trends for specific jobs, 
tasks, or occupations. Better analysis of these data should result in 
the development of improved mitigation strategies and result in the 
reduction of injuries and illnesses for certain jobs. Similarly, OSHA 
believes that the publication of the other fields it proposed to 
publish will have safety and health benefits that outweigh any small 
risks to worker privacy. For example, time employee began work will 
help OSHA, employers, researchers, and others assess the relationship 
between workplace safety/health and known risks such as shift work and 
fatigue.
8. The Experience of Other Federal Agencies
    As noted above, OSHA's belief that it can collect and publish the 
data at issue without harm to privacy or other interests is supported 
by the experience of its sister agency, the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration (MSHA). Under 30 CFR part 50, MSHA requires mine 
operators to submit an incident report (Mine Accident, Injury and 
Illness Report, MSHA Form 700-1) within ten working days for every 
occupational injury, illness, or near-miss incident occurring at a 
mine. The MSHA Form 700-1 includes 27 mandatory fields, including a 
description of the incident, the nature of the injury or illness, the 
job title of the affected worker, and the employee's work activity at 
the time of the injury or illness. Under this reporting system, mine 
operators use an authentication code and password to securely submit 
establishment-specific, case-specific, injury and illness data online. 
MSHA maintains the injury and illness information on its website and 
the information is made available to the public through downloadable 
format. The submitted information is reviewed by at least three 
approving authorities, and PII is redacted, before it is uploaded to 
the database for public release. This system has been in place since 
1999 with no adverse results.
    Several commenters also suggested that MSHA's experience supports 
OSHA's plan to publish redacted information on occupational injuries 
and illnesses (e.g., Docket IDs 0049, 0061, 0063). The National 
Employment Law Project commented, ``MSHA keeps and has kept for decades 
the PII on the form protected. Clearly, MSHA's system demonstrates that 
the Department of Labor can post case specific data without releasing 
PII'' (Docket ID 0049). The AFL-CIO recommended that OSHA collaborate 
with MSHA, NIOSH and other agencies ``with a demonstrated commitment 
and capability to collect and utilize injury and illness data, while 
protecting employee privacy, and institute similar procedures for the 
collection, sharing and utilization of injury and illness data reported 
on the OSHA Form 300 and Form 301'' (Docket ID 0061). Worksafe 
submitted similar comments and added that OSHA's proposed rule is quite 
modest compared to the reporting requirements for employers in the 
mining industry (Docket ID 0063). OSHA has been and expects to continue 
consulting with MSHA, NIOSH, and other Federal agencies while 
implementing the injury and illness data collection and publication 
requirements of this final rule.
    Finally, on this topic, OSHA notes that MSHA is not alone in its 
release of information that theoretically could identify individuals 
indirectly if released and combined with other information. The Federal 
Railroad Administration (FRA) posts Accident Investigation Reports 
filed by railroad carriers under 49 U.S.C. 20901 or made by the 
Secretary of Transportation under 49 U.S.C. 20902; in the case of 
highway-rail grade crossing incidents, these reports include personally 
identifiable information (age and gender of the person(s) in the struck 
vehicle). In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) posts 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reports about aviation 
accidents. These reports include information about employees, including 
job history and medical information. Again, OSHA is not aware of any 
issues related to the release of such information, a lack that OSHA 
believes supports its decision to release the relevant information 
collected in this rulemaking.
9. Risk of Cyber Attack
    Cyber security is another issue that OSHA has considered in 
thinking through how to protect the Form 300 and 301 information safe. 
OSHA received comments on this issue in the rulemaking that led to the 
2016 final rule and, after considering those comments, the agency 
disagreed with those commenters who suggested that OSHA would not be 
able to protect employee information (81 FR 29633). In so doing, OSHA 
observed that ``[a]ll federal agencies are required to establish 
appropriate administrative and technical safeguards to ensure that the 
security of all media containing confidential information is protected 
against unauthorized disclosures and anticipated threats or hazards to 
their security or integrity'' (81 FR 29633). Similarly, in the 2019 
final rule, OSHA again received and considered comments on the issue of 
cyber security, ultimately finding that ``the ITA data meet the 
security requirements for government data'' (84 FR 388). In addition, 
the agency did ``not find that collecting the data from Forms 300 and 
301 would increase the risk of a successful cyber-attack'' (84 FR 388). 
However, the agency noted that some risk of cyberattack and subsequent 
data risk remained (84 FR 388). And OSHA Stated that it shared concerns 
of some commenters about how having thousands of businesses upload a 
large volume of additional data could

[[Page 47305]]

generally increase risk for cyber-security issues (84 FR 388).
    OSHA received some comments about cyber security in response to the 
NPRM in this rulemaking. For example, the U.S. Poultry & Egg 
Association commented, ``On August 14, 2017, the U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security notified OSHA of a security breach of the recently 
activated online incident reporting page. While the full extent of this 
breach is unknown, it is an unsettling circumstance for employers that 
a security incident occurred and to learn of the occurrence of a 
security breach significant enough to shut down the reporting system.'' 
(Docket ID 0053).
    The Coalition submitted a comment that addressed the same potential 
security breach: ``As OSHA is well aware, industry concerns about 
worker privacy breaches came to fruition shortly after the ITA was 
rolled-out. As determined by the Department of Homeland Security 
(``DHS''), a serious potential breach of the ITA system occurred . . . 
virtually immediately after the ITA system had gone live. Although the 
security issues associated with that breach have since been resolved, 
industry is fearful of submitting hundreds of thousands of pieces of 
personal data with personal identifier information (``PII'') on a 
portal that has already had suspicious activity that warranted DHS 
scrutiny. As OSHA notes, the ITA episode demonstrated that such large 
data collection will inevitably encounter malware and may even 
incentivize cyber-attacks on the Department of Labor's (``DOL'')'s IT 
system. We are aware of OSHA's view that, since 2019, the DOL's 
cybersecurity protective software has improved. However, the cyber 
security risk of employees' highly confidential and personal medical 
information being hacked and published, or used in other even more 
nefarious ways, has become even more serious since the Agency decided 
it was too risky to collect 300 and 301 level data a few years ago. 
Since 2019, the threat and sophistication of cybersecurity attacks has 
also grown immensely, outpacing the development of cybersecurity 
protections. The lack of confidence in protecting data has never been 
greater in this country.'' (Docket ID 0087).
    In response, OSHA notes that an investigation of the 2017 incident 
by the Department of Labor's IT team found there was no breach of data. 
The ITA detected a virus on a user's computer and blocked that user 
from accessing the system, as it was designed to do. In other words, 
the ITA's security system functioned properly and there was no security 
breach. No other cyber-security issues have been reported. In addition, 
as explained above, the agency's decision to change course on 
collecting information from Forms 300 and 301 was not based on cyber-
security concerns.
    This successful performance of the ITA's security system in this 
attempted breach underscores OSHA's finding in 2016: although here is 
some risk cyber attack, the Department of Labor's systems are prepared 
to defend against such attacks. As explained in the 2016 final rule, 
regardless of the category of information, all Department of Labor 
agencies must comply with the Privacy and Security Statement posted on 
DOL's website. As part of its efforts to ensure and maintain the 
integrity of the information disseminated to the public, DOL's IT 
security policy and planning framework is designed to protect 
information from unauthorized access or revision and to ensure that the 
information is not compromised through corruption or falsification. 
Consequently, in this rulemaking, OSHA finds that the data that will be 
collected in compliance with this final rule will be protected from 
cyber attack in accordance with the appropriate government standards.
10. The Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
    OSHA also received comments from some interested parties expressing 
concern about how the proposed rule would relate to the Health 
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public 
Law 101-191 (e.g., Docket IDs 0007, 0013, 0059, 0082). For example, two 
interested parties commented that the OSHA Forms 300 and 301 include 
personal and private information about an employee's health and 
wellness, and that requiring the submission of such information to OSHA 
will place employers in legal liability due to HIPAA restrictions 
(Docket IDs 0007, 0013). But as explained below, HIPAA's implementing 
regulations specifically allow employers to release workplace injury 
and illness data to OSHA.
    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) implements 
HIPAA through regulations at 45 CFR parts 160 and 164, known as the 
HIPAA ``Privacy Rule.'' The Privacy Rule protects the privacy of 
individually identifiable health information (referred to as 
``protected health information'' or ``PHI'') maintained or transmitted 
by HIPAA-covered entities and their business associates. The term 
``covered entity'' includes health plans, health care clearing houses, 
and health care providers who transmit health information in electronic 
form (see 45 CFR 160.104). OSHA is not a covered entity for purposes of 
the Privacy Rule, so the use and disclosure requirements of the Privacy 
Rule do not apply to OSHA.
    The HIPAA Privacy Rule also excludes certain individually 
identifiable health information from the definition of PHI. For 
example, employment records held by a covered entity in its role as an 
employer are not PHI and the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not prohibit the 
disclosure of health information contained in employment records to 
OSHA (see 45 CFR part 160.103). Even for information that qualifies as 
PHI, the Privacy Rule specifically permits disclosures of PHI without 
an individual's authorization for certain purposes, including when they 
are required to do so by another law (see 45 CFR 164.512(a)). HHS has 
made clear that this provision encompasses an array of binding legal 
authorities, including statutes, agency orders, regulations, or other 
Federal, State, or local governmental actions having the effect of law 
(see 65 FR 82668). Similarly, a covered entity may also disclose PHI 
without an individual's authorization to ``public health authorities'' 
and to ``health oversight agencies'' (see 45 CFR parts 164.512(b) and 
(d)). The preamble to the Privacy Rule issued in 2000 specifically 
mentions OSHA as an example of both (see 65 FR 82492, 82526). Finally, 
the Privacy Rule also permits a covered entity who is a member of the 
employer's workforce and provides healthcare at the request of an 
employer, to disclose to employers protected health information 
concerning work-related injuries or illnesses, or work-related medical 
surveillance in situations where the employer has a duty under the OSH 
Act, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, or under similar State law 
to keep records on or act on such information. Accordingly, covered 
entities generally may not restrict or refuse to disclose PII required 
by an OSHA standard or regulation based on the provisions of the 
Privacy Rule.
    OSHA also received comments from interested parties that, while 
recognizing that HIPAA does not apply to the information disclosures at 
issue here, argued that OSHA ``should examine the principles of HIPPA 
in determining how to proceed--or not proceed--with this rule'' (Docket 
ID 0059; see also Docket ID 0082). For example, NAHB asserted ``HIP[A]A 
recognizes the legitimate privacy interests that individuals have with 
respect to their own health information.

[[Page 47306]]

HIP[A]A also recognizes that aspects of a person's health record can 
serve as an identifier of a person under certain circumstances. And 
HIP[A]A recognizes that this is not acceptable'' (Docket ID 0059). NAHB 
further argued that ``[t]he procedure for OSHA reviewing this should 
have been thoroughly considered and addressed in the proposed 
regulation; it was not'' (Docket ID 0059).
    OSHA agrees with commenters who suggested that the agency consider 
applying the principles set forth in the Privacy Rule for the de-
identification of health information. Health information is 
individually identifiable if it does, or potentially could, identify 
the individual. As explained by commenters, once protected health 
information is de-identified, there are no longer privacy concerns 
under HIPAA. Again, it is OSHA's policy under the final rule not to 
release any individually identifiable information. As discussed 
elsewhere in this document, procedures are in place to ensure that 
individually identifiable information, including health information, 
will not be publicly posted on OSHA's website.
    However, OSHA disagrees with NAHB's claim that ``OSHA has provided 
no thought regarding what types of information it will or should redact 
to protect employees, except to mention that it may redact names and 
other information that it would otherwise need to redact under the 
Freedom of Information Act'' or that the agency's procedure was not 
``thoroughly considered and addressed'' in the proposal (Docket ID 
0059). As reiterated above, the proposal specified which fields the 
agency proposed to collect and what subset of that collected 
information it planned to release. It also detailed its plans to ensure 
that it did not collect certain data (e.g., by not requiring the 
submission of certain data fields and designing the system to remind 
establishments not to submit certain data) and ways to protect the data 
it does receive (e.g., carefully choosing which fields would be 
publicly released and using scrubbing technology to ensure that data 
contained in the fields to be released did not unintentionally include 
information which could reasonably be expected to identify individuals 
directly). In sum, contrary to NAHB's assertion, the agency has 
carefully considered how to protect information that could reasonably 
be expected to identify individuals directly and explained its plans 
and thinking in the proposal.
11. The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
    OSHA also received comments related to the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, in their comment, the Seventeen 
AGs noted that ``if a certain type of occupational injury regularly 
leads to ongoing disability in a particular industry or place of 
work,'' the case-specific data that would be collected and published 
under the proposed rule would allow States to ``explore what 
accommodations those employers provide, for example, whether affected 
workers have been placed in appropriate positions with reasonable 
accommodations as required under the [(ADA)] and similar State laws'' 
(Docket ID 0045). OSHA agrees with this commenter that this kind of 
inquiry is one of the many benefits that will stem from this final 
rule.
    The Seventeen AGs' mention of the ADA raises the question of its 
applicability to this final rule, a question that has been raised in 
the rulemakings culminating in the 2016 and 2019 final rules (see 81 FR 
29665-66; 84 FR 387). At various times as OSHA has considered whether 
to collect and publish information from establishments' Forms 300 and 
301 (and 300A, as well), commenters have raised concerns about whether 
the ADA would prohibit establishments from releasing health and 
disability-related information to OSHA. It would not. The ADA would 
permit the collection by employers of such information.
    By its terms, the ADA limits disability-related inquiries and 
medical examinations of job applicants or employees and requires 
confidentiality for medical information obtained from any such 
inquiries or medical examinations. However, the ADA also states that 
``nothing in this Act shall be construed to invalidate or limit the 
remedies, rights, and procedures of any federal law'' (see 29 U.S.C. 
12201(b)). In enacting the ADA, Congress was aware that other Federal 
standards imposed requirements for testing an employee's health, and 
for disseminating information about an employee's medical condition or 
history, determined to be necessary to preserve the health and safety 
of employees and the public (see H.R. Rep. No. 101-485 pt. 2, 101st 
Cong., 2d Sess. 74-75 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 356, 357 
(noting, e.g., medical surveillance requirements of standards 
promulgated under the OSH Act and the Federal Mine Safety and Health 
Act, and stating ``[t]he Committee does not intend for [the ADA] to 
override any medical standard or requirement established by federal . . 
. law . . . that is job-related and consistent with business 
necessity''); see also 29 CFR part 1630 App.). The ADA yields to the 
requirements of other Federal safety and health standards and 
regulations. The implementing regulation, codified at 29 CFR 
1630.15(e), explicitly states that an employer's compliance with 
another Federal law or regulation may be a defense to a charge of 
violating the ADA (see Enforcement Guidance on Disability-Related 
Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees under the ADA [verbar] 
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc.gov) Enforcement 
Guidance on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of 
Employees under the ADA [verbar] U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (eeoc.gov) (available at: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical-examinations-employees), at Question 21). The ADA recognizes the 
primacy of other Federal laws including Federal safety and health 
regulations; therefore, such regulations, including mandatory OSHA 
recordkeeping requirements and disclosure requirements, pose no 
conflict with the ADA (cf. Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 
555, (1999) (``When Congress enacted the ADA, it recognized that 
federal safety and health rules would limit application of the ADA as a 
matter of law.'')).
    It also is worth noting that the information in the OSHA injury and 
illness records is similar to that found in workers' compensation forms 
and may be obtained by employers by the same process used to record 
needed information for workers' compensation and insurance purposes. 
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency 
responsible for administering Title I of the ADA, which addresses 
employment, recognizes a partial exception to the ADA's strict 
confidentiality requirements for medical information regarding an 
employee's occupational injury or workers' compensation claim (see 
generally 29 CFR 1630.15(e) and EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Workers' 
Compensation and the ADA (available at https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-workers-compensation-and-ada), (September 
3, 1996)). For these reasons, OSHA does not believe that the mandatory 
submission and publication requirements in Sec.  1904.41 of this final 
rule conflict with the confidentiality provisions of the ADA.

[[Page 47307]]

12. The Privacy Act
    The Plastics Industry Association commented that a failure by OSHA 
to exclude or reliably redact all personal identifiers and personally 
identifiable medical information would violate the Privacy Act of 1974, 
5 U.S.C. 552a, as well as other privacy laws (Docket ID 0086).
    In response, OSHA notes that the Privacy Act is a Federal statute 
that establishes a code of fair information practices that governs the 
collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal 
identifiable information by Federal agencies. The Privacy Act only 
applies to records that are located in a ``system of records.'' As 
defined in the Privacy Act, a system of records is ``a group of any 
records under the control of any agency from which information is 
retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, 
symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual'' 
(see 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(5)). Because OSHA injury and illness records are 
retrieved neither by the name of an individual, nor by some other 
personal identifier, the Privacy Act does not apply to OSHA injury and 
illness recordkeeping records. As a result, the Privacy Act does not 
prevent OSHA from posting recordkeeping data on a publicly accessible 
website. However, OSHA again wishes to emphasize that, consistent with 
the applicable exemptions under FOIA, the agency does not intend to 
post personally identifiable information on the website.
13. Privacy Impact Assessment
    Section 208 of the E-Government Act requires Federal agencies to 
conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment when developing or procuring new 
information technology involving the collection, maintenance, or 
dissemination of information in identifiable form or when making 
substantial changes to existing information technology that manages 
information in identifiable form. In the preamble to the proposed rule, 
OSHA stated that it expected to complete a Privacy Impact Assessment 
before issuing the final rule (87 FR 18540). Several commenters 
supported this step (Docket IDs 0058, 0068, 0072, 0077, 0094).
    OSHA now has completed a Privacy Impact Assessment for this final 
rule which is available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/ocio/privacy (Docket ID 0107). In the Privacy Impact 
Assessment, OSHA determined that the safeguards and controls described 
in this preamble will adequately protect the collected and published 
data addressed in the final rule.
14. Other Issues Related to OSHA's Proposal To Require the Submission 
of and Then Publish Certain Data From Establishments' Forms 300 and 301
a. Miscellaneous Comments
    OSHA received a variety of other comments related to its proposal 
to require certain establishments to submit certain data from their 
Forms 300 and 301 and its plan to then publish a subset of that data. 
For example, some interested parties expressed concern over repeated 
rulemakings addressing the electronic submission of injury and illness 
data to OSHA (e.g., Docket IDs 0058, 0060, 0071, 0072, 0077). The 
Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) commented, ``we hope that 
OSHA recognizes that the frequent revisions it has made related to the 
requirements surrounding electronic reporting of injury and illness 
data has caused confusion and uncertainty among construction contractor 
employers in respect to what requirements apply to their businesses, 
especially for small businesses'' (Docket ID 0071). Similarly, the 
Window and Door Manufacturers Association commented, ``OSHA must also 
consider the impact that the agency's repeated changes and reversals to 
its recordkeeping policies has had on employers, especially smaller 
entities. This year's proposed rule is now the third such rulemaking by 
OSHA on injury and illness recordkeeping since 2014.'' This commenter 
added that the frequent changes to recordkeeping regulations have 
resulted in confusion among employers regarding what requirements apply 
to their business (Docket ID 0072). The Coalition for Workplace Safety, 
the National Demolition Association, and the National Lumber and 
Building Materials Association submitted similar comments (Docket IDs 
0058, 0060, 0077).
    OSHA acknowledges that some employers may be confused by the 
multiple rulemakings amending the part 1904 requirements for certain 
employers to electronically submit injury and illness data from their 
Forms 300 and 301. However, OSHA believes this rulemaking provided 
potentially affected employers with clear notice of the possibility 
that their obligations might change. And OSHA plans to implement a 
robust roll-out plan to alert employers of the final rule's 
requirements. Moreover, even if some confusion remains, OSHA must place 
primary importance on whether new occupational safety and health 
requirements will help ``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'' (see 29 U.S.C. 651(b)(12)). As discussed above in 
Section II, Legal Authority, Section 8 of the OSH Act provides OSHA 
with broad authority to prescribe regulations as necessary or 
appropriate for the enforcement of the OSH Act and for developing 
information about the causes and prevention of occupational injuries 
and illnesses. Federal agencies, furthermore, are permitted to change 
or reverse prior policies, provided that they provide a reasoned 
explanation for the change. In this rulemaking, OSHA has made every 
effort to balance the benefits of this rule to occupational safety and 
health against any potential burden created for the regulated 
community, and has explained the reasons supporting any changes in 
OSHA's prior policies throughout this preamble.
    As explained in more detail below, based on its experience with the 
collection of injury and illness data through the ITA, and with the 
advancements in technology to protect individual privacy, OSHA has 
determined that it is necessary and appropriate at this time to require 
certain larger establishments in higher hazard industries to 
electronically submit data from their Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA once a 
year. OSHA believes that this requirement to submit case-specific data 
will have significant benefits for occupational safety and health, 
especially since the requirement applies to certain establishments in 
higher hazard industries where such reporting will have the greatest 
impact on reducing injury and illness rates.
b. The Effect of the Rule on the Accuracy of Injury and Illness Records
    OSHA received comments expressing concern that OSHA collection and 
publication of data from Forms 300 and 301 would lead to less accurate 
data, because employers may respond by recording fewer injuries and 
illnesses (i.e., under-recording) (e.g., Docket IDs 0052, 0053, 0088, 
0090). One commenter, Angela Rodriguez, stated that some employers may 
be tempted to avoid logging recordable cases (Docket ID 0052). The U. 
S. Poultry & Egg Association commented that employers might record less 
information because of fears that recording more cases could

[[Page 47308]]

harm recruitment and retention of employees (Docket ID 0053), while the 
National Retail Federation stated that ``fear of developing a negative 
image in their communities, may cause managers to underreport injuries 
and illnesses that occur at the workplace to protect their business 
reputation'' thereby reducing the accuracy of the data OSHA collects 
(Docket ID 0090). NIOSH commented that employers might submit inflated 
employee counts to OSHA in order to reduce their injury and illness 
rates or alter their NAICS code to avoid the rule's requirements 
(Docket ID 0035, Attachment 2).
    In response, OSHA notes that, as discussed above in Section III.B.4 
of this Summary and Explanation, the agency already publishes 
establishment-specific information from the OSHA Form 300A. Because the 
new information employers will be submitting under the final rule 
(i.e., the information from Forms 300 and 301) is simply the more 
specific information underlying the data from the 300A that employers 
are already submitting (and that is already being published online), it 
is not clear to OSHA why publishing the additional information would 
change any existing incentives to under-record or to falsify 
information. Commenters did not provide any examples of increased 
under-recording as a result of the collection and publication of Form 
300A data, nor is OSHA aware of any. While OSHA believes that most 
employers act in good faith when carrying out their recordkeeping 
duties under the OSH Act, failing to record injuries or illnesses, or 
submitting false information to OSHA, could result in a citation for a 
violation of OSHA's recordkeeping regulations. In addition, employers 
that falsify information provided to the government could also be found 
to have violated 18 U.S.C. 1001(a), which prohibits the knowing and 
willful provision of false information regarding material facts on 
matters that are under the jurisdiction of the Executive branch, or 
Section 17(g) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 665(g), which prohibits 
knowingly making any false statement, representation, or certification 
in any application, record, report, plan, or other document filed or 
required to be maintained pursuant to the OSH Act.
    Some commenters raised the possibility that expanded data 
collection and publication could lead some employers to record fewer 
injuries and illnesses for which work-relatedness is unclear (e.g., 
Docket IDs 0042, 0086, 0088). For example, the Chamber of Commerce 
stated that employers ``will reconsider whether to record as many 
injuries or illnesses'' and pointed in particular to cases in which 
work-relatedness is difficult to determine (Docket ID 0088).
    While OSHA recognizes that there are cases in which the analysis of 
work-relatedness may not be straightforward, OSHA also notes that 
employers are required to make good faith efforts to determine whether 
an injury or illness is work-related in order to establish whether the 
case is recordable under part 1904 (see Sec.  1904.4(a)). There is a 
good deal of guidance in OSHA's recordkeeping regulations themselves 
(see Sec.  1904.5) on how to determine if an employee's injury or 
illness is work-related, including: general guidance for when a case is 
considered to be work-related and when work-relatedness is presumed 
(Sec.  1904.5(a)); a list of circumstances in which cases that occur in 
the work environment are not work-related (Sec.  1904.5(b)(2)); and 
instructions for how to determine work relatedness when employees are 
injured or become ill during work travel or while working from home 
(Sec.  1904.5(b)(6), (7)). Further guidance on the work-relatedness 
determination, as well as useful examples, can be found on OSHA's web 
page, Detailed Guidance for OSHA's Injury and Illness Recordkeeping 
Rule (https://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/entry-faq). While OSHA does 
not issue citations for over-recording, to the extent that this rule 
encourages employers to record only cases that they have determined are 
work-related, OSHA would expect the rule to increase the accuracy of 
the data that is recorded and then submitted to OSHA. Indeed, the 
Chamber of Commerce appears to support this as a likely outcome, 
stating that employers ``may look more closely as to whether the injury 
or illness is work related and needs to be recorded'' (Docket ID 0088).
    Some commenters also expressed concern that expanded data 
collection and publication would lead to greater underreporting by 
employees of their workplace injuries and illnesses, thereby reducing 
the data's accuracy (e.g., Docket IDs 0042, 0055, 0056, 0070, 0086, 
0087). The Employers E-Recordkeeping Coalition stated that it ``is very 
concerned that the increased risk of employee personal and medical 
information being collected by a Federal agency and then publicized, 
albeit inadvertently, will create a significant disincentive for 
employees to report workplace injuries that are recordable events'' 
(Docket ID 0087). Worksafe and the Strategic Organizing Center 
suggested that OSHA add a provision to prohibit employer practices that 
discourage the reporting of injuries and illnesses by employers, 
pointing to employer programs that disincentive reporting as well as 
workers' fear of retaliation for reporting an injury or illness to 
their employer (Docket IDs 0063, 0079).
    With respect to the impact of privacy concerns on employee 
reporting, OSHA understands the importance of protecting personally 
identifiable information and notes that there is a very low risk that 
information that could reasonably be expected to identify individuals 
directly will be disclosed as a result of this final rule. OSHA 
acknowledges commenters' concerns about the potential posting of this 
type of information on a publicly accessible website. However, the 
posting or disclosure of information that could reasonably be expected 
to identify an individual directly is not the intent, nor is it a 
likely result, of this rulemaking. As explained in more detail in 
Section III.B.6 of this Summary and Explanation, above, OSHA believes 
it has, and will have, effective safeguards in place to prevent the 
disclosure of that type of information. Further, OSHA hopes that 
employers will educate their employees about the safeguards OSHA is 
putting into place to protect against the disclosure of information 
that could reasonably be expected to identify individuals directly. 
OSHA also intends to include materials for employees in the materials 
that will be created to educate interested parties about the 
requirements of the rule as well as those safeguards.
    In response to Worksafe's comment proposing a new regulatory 
provision prohibiting employer practices that discourage employee 
reporting, OSHA notes that the recordkeeping regulations, at Sec.  
1904.35(b)(1)(i), already require employers to establish reasonable 
procedures for reporting work-related illnesses and injuries that do 
not deter or discourage employees from accurately reporting their 
injuries or illnesses. Furthermore, the regulations explicitly prohibit 
employers from discharging or otherwise discriminating against 
employees for reporting work-related injuries and illnesses (Sec.  
1904.35(b)(1)(iv); see also Sec.  1904.36). And as OSHA clarified in 
the 2016 final rule which contained these recordkeeping provisions, a 
workplace safety incentive program could be found to violate Sec.  
1904.35 if employees are penalized for reporting work-related injuries 
or illnesses as part of the program (81 FR 29673-74). OSHA further 
stated that the changes were designed to ``promote accurate recording 
of work-related injuries and

[[Page 47309]]

illnesses by preventing the under-recording that arises when workers 
are discouraged from reporting these occurrences'' (81 FR 29669). Thus, 
OSHA has addressed this issue in its regulations since 2016. Moreover, 
OSHA has recognized since at least 2012 that incentive programs that 
discourage employees from reporting injuries and illnesses by denying a 
benefit to employees who report an injury or illness may be prohibited 
by Section 11(c) (see https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2012-03-12-0; 81 FR 29673-74).
    In contrast to those who argued that the final rule will lead to 
less accurate data, other commenters argued that the expanded data 
collection and publication will lead to more accurate data, because of 
increased transparency and oversight (e.g., Docket IDs 0049, 0066, 
0084, 0089). For example, the United Food and Commercial Workers 
International Union (UFCW) stated, ``We anticipate that the requirement 
that companies submit data electronically will improve the quantity, 
quality, and accuracy of their records, and increase OSHA's and the 
public's oversight ability, all of which will improve worker health and 
safety also'' (Docket ID 0066). Cal/OSHA noted that the increased 
transparency created by the publication of the data will encourage and 
support accuracy in injury and illness reporting (Docket ID 0084).
    OSHA agrees with commenters who stated that the final rule will 
result in improved accuracy of injury and illness records, due to 
increased transparency and oversight by OSHA, employees, and others, as 
well as awareness by employers that their records could be subject to 
additional scrutiny. Section 1904.32 already requires company 
executives subject to part 1904 requirements to certify the annual 
summary (Form 300A); this process requires them to examine the OSHA 300 
Log and certify that the annual summary is correct and complete based 
on their examination of the OSHA 300 Log and their knowledge of the 
process by which the information was recorded. OSHA recognizes that 
most employers are diligent in complying with this requirement. 
However, a minority of employers is less diligent, leading to 
violations of the recordkeeping regulations. It is OSHA's hope that, if 
these employers know that their data must be submitted to the agency 
and may also be examined by members of the public and their own 
employees, they may pay more attention to the requirements of part 
1904, which could lead both to improvements in the quality and accuracy 
of the information and to better compliance with Sec.  1904.32. 
Increased oversight by labor unions or a company's employees could lead 
to corrections to the data if, for example, a labor union discovers 
that a known workplace injury of a union member is not included in the 
published data and reports the omission to the employer (e.g., Docket 
ID 0049). Finally, OSHA notes the comment from NIOSH suggesting various 
means of investigating the effect of implementation of this final rule 
on compliance with the requirements of part 1904 (Docket ID 0035, 
Attachment 2). While the agency has determined that staggered 
implementation, where industries with the highest injury rates would be 
required to comply first, would be too confusing to implement, OSHA 
encourages future studies to assess the effect of the final rule on 
injury and illness recording, reporting, and data submission, and to 
identify solutions if problems are found.
c. Collecting and Processing the Data From Forms 300 and 301 Will Help 
OSHA Use Its Resources More Effectively
    In the preamble to the 2019 final rule, OSHA stated that collecting 
and processing the Form 300 and 301 data and keeping information 
confidential which could reasonably be expected to identify an employee 
directly would require the agency to divert resources from other 
priorities, including the analysis of Form 300A data (84 FR 392; see 
also 84 FR 387). In particular, OSHA was concerned that collecting and 
processing this data would prevent it from ``fully utilizing the data 
from the Form 300As and severe injury reports it is already collecting 
to improve its enforcement and outreach objectives to ensure compliance 
with the OSH Act'' (84 FR 393). However, in the NPRM, OSHA explained 
that because of improvements in available technology, it would no 
longer need to rely on manual review or analysis for Form 300 and 301 
data and had preliminarily determined that the agency's resource-
related concerns described in the 2019 final rule were no longer 
compelling (87 FR 18541-42). In addition, OSHA explained that the 
proposed rule would increase the agency's ability to focus resources on 
those workplaces where workers are at high risk (87 FR 18533). In other 
words, the proposal would, in some ways, save agency resources by 
helping the agency be more efficient, e.g., ``allow[ing] the agency to 
focus its enforcement and compliance assistance resources based on 
hazard-specific information and trends, and . . . increas[ing] its 
ability to identify emerging hazards, at the establishment level'' (87 
FR 18538).
    A number of interested parties submitted comments on this issue and 
generally agreed that the data collected and published under this final 
rule will actually help OSHA use its limited resources more effectively 
to protect workers. For example, some interested parties, including the 
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, National COSH, the 
Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of North America, Worksafe, the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Centro de los Derechos del 
Migrante, and Public Citizen, commented that requiring regular 
electronic submission of injury and illness data would help OSHA to use 
its limited enforcement and compliance assistance resources more 
effectively (Docket IDs 0040, 0048, 0063, 0080, 0083, 0089, 0093). The 
AFL-CIO agreed that because OSHA's resources are very limited, it 
``must maximize the use of existing tools'' (Docket ID 0061).
    Commenters also provided examples of how this data would help OSHA 
use its resources more effectively. For example, National COSH, the 
National Employment Law Project, and the Centro de los Derechos del 
Migrante commented that ``case-specific data will help the agency 
identify the hazard-specific materials and other compliance assistance 
resources they could direct to employers who report high rates of 
injuries or illnesses related to those hazards,'' and ``to workers in 
those industries'' (Docket IDs 0048, 0049, 0089). These commenters also 
said that the data would ``aid the agency in identifying emerging 
hazards . . . and focus outreach to employers and workers whose 
workplaces might include those hazards.''
    Similarly, Public Citizen commented that the collected data would 
enable OSHA to ``quickly pinpoint workplace hazards . . . and target 
its enforcement efforts'' (Docket ID 0093). The International Union of 
Painters and Allied Trades/AFL-CIO commented that this requirement 
would ``ensure factors responsible for those pronounced illness and 
injuries trends are identified and addressed in a timely manner for the 
well-being of workers'' (Docket ID 0073). Worksafe also noted that 
electronic submission would allow the agency ``to search and analyze 
the data'' and provide ``timely and systematic'' injury and illness 
information that will help OSHA to focus its enforcement efforts on 
``hazards that are affecting workers now'' (Docket ID 0063).
    On the other hand, the Chamber of Commerce questioned whether the 
data

[[Page 47310]]

could actually help OSHA target its enforcement efforts (Docket ID 
0088, Attachment 2). The Chamber stated that injury and illness data 
are complex and ``unavoidably subjective,'' and asserted that because 
the log only includes work-related injuries, it does not show actual 
risks--rather, ``it shows whether the employer believes that there is a 
connection between the working environment and the injuries.'' 
Additionally, several commenters reiterated OSHA's concerns from the 
2019 final rule regarding the diversion of OSHA's resources from other 
important initiatives (e.g., Docket IDs 0058, 0070, 0076). Some such 
commenters argued that any resource diversion would be inappropriate 
because OSHA is incapable of processing and utilizing the Forms 300 and 
301 data that would be received under the proposal. OSHA has addressed 
those comments elsewhere in this preamble, explaining that the agency 
has the capability to collect and use such data (see, e.g., Section 
III.B.14.d of this Summary and Explanation). Other commenters merely 
referenced OSHA's 2019 determination that its resources would be 
diverted without analyzing the reasons OSHA gave for reconsidering its 
previous decision. Still other commenters attacked OSHA's findings that 
improvements in technology will decrease the resources required to 
collect and process the Form 300 and 301 information and ensure that 
information which could reasonably be expected to identify an 
individual directly is not publicly released. OSHA has covered these 
comments elsewhere as well (see, e.g., Section III.B.6 of this Summary 
and Explanation).
    Finally, the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) pointed 
to district court rulings on the 2019 final rule and argued, ``[T]he 
reviewing court agreed with OSHA's determinations 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, finding that the uncertain benefits of collecting the 300 
and 301 data did not justify diverting OSHA's resources from other 
efforts.'' (Docket ID 0076).
    IBWA's comment misconstrues the court's decision. The court did not 
``agree'' with OSHA's determination. Rather, the court found that 
OSHA's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, i.e., that OSHA 
had not ``entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the 
problem, [or] offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter 
to the evidence before the agency'' at the time OSHA made its decision 
(see State of New Jersey et al. v. Pizzella, No. 1:19-cv-00621 (D.D.C. 
Jan. 11, 2021) (citation and internal quotations omitted)). 
Importantly, the court stated that ``the arbitrary and capricious 
standard is narrow, and a court is not to substitute its judgment for 
that of the agency (id. (citation and internal quotations omitted)). 
Rather, reviewing court's decisions are ``based on a consideration of 
the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error in 
judgment'' (id. (citation and internal quotations omitted)). In short, 
the court did not do an independent review of all the record evidence 
and determine that OSHA made the correct decision. Instead, it looked 
to see if OSHA considered all the relevant factors and made a 
reasonable decision. The fact that an agency's decision based on the 
record at the time was reasonable does not prevent the agency from 
subsequently making a different reasonable decision based on new 
information.\12\ That is what OSHA has done here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ It also does not necessarily follow that an agency could 
not have made a different, non-arbitrary-and-capricious decision 
based on the record before the agency at the time it made its 
original decision. This is part of the reason why reviewing courts 
do not substitute their judgment for that of the agency: at times, 
more than one reasonable decision could follow from a given record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After consideration of these comments, OSHA agrees with commenters 
that collection of case-specific information from the Form 300 and 301 
will help the agency use its enforcement and compliance assistance 
resources more effectively by enabling OSHA to identify the workplaces 
where workers are at high risk. As explained in the 2001 final rule, 
and as identified by commenters, establishment-specific injury and 
illness information will help OSHA target its intervention efforts on 
the most dangerous worksites and the worst safety and health hazards, 
and injury and illness data will help OSHA to identify the scope of 
safety and health hazards and decide whether regulatory intervention, 
compliance assistance, or other measures are warranted (see 66 FR 
5917). OSHA disagrees with the Chamber's claim that the case-specific 
data would not help OSHA target its enforcement efforts because it does 
not show actual risks. The Chamber is correct in that a single recorded 
injury or illness, in and of itself, does not necessarily indicate the 
existence of a risk. Similarly, recording a work-related injury, 
illness, or fatality does not mean that the employer or employee was at 
fault, that an OSHA rule has been violated, or that the employee is 
eligible for workers' compensation or other benefits (see Note to Sec.  
1904.0). However, an injury or illness recorded under part 1904 is an 
indicator of a potential risk in the workplace, i.e., the employer has 
determined that a particular injury or illness of an employee meets the 
definition of work-relatedness in 29 CFR 1904.5(a). In other words, 
such data can indicate a failure in an area of an establishment's 
safety and health program or the existence of a hazard. The fact that 
they do not always do so is not persuasive (see Section III.B.4 of this 
Summary and Explanation). Thus, rather than diverting OSHA's resources 
from higher priority issues, OSHA has determined that the data 
collected and published under this rule will help OSHA use its limited 
resources more effectively to protect workers.
d. OSHA's Capacity To Collect and Process the Data From Forms 300 and 
301
    The preamble to the 2019 final rule cited the costs of building the 
data collection system and processing the data from Forms 300 and 301 
as one reason OSHA was rescinding some of the 2016 rule's data 
submission requirements (84 FR 389). As discussed throughout this 
preamble, in the NPRM to this rulemaking, OSHA found 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 (87 FR 
18538).
    As to the collection of the data, OSHA (and more broadly, the 
Department of Labor) has the technical capacity to build the necessary 
data collection system. OSHA's ability is supported by its success in 
building and utilizing the system to collect data from establishments' 
Forms 300A. Since 2017, the ITA has collected submissions of Form 300A 
from roughly 300,000 establishments per year. In addition, OSHA's 
ability to build such a system is supported by the fact that other 
Department of Labor agencies, i.e., BLS and MSHA, successfully built 
and are utilizing similar collection systems (see, e.g., Docket ID 
0079). BLS's system, in particular, is illustrative of the Department's 
ability to create and utilize such systems: each year, the BLS Survey 
of Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) collects the same case-specific 
information, from the same OSHA records, from roughly 200,000 
employers, nearly 150,000 more submitters than will provide data to 
OSHA under this final rule. NIOSH also effectively built and is using a 
similar system (Docket IDs 0035, Attachment 2, 0079). Based upon this 
information, it is

[[Page 47311]]

reasonable to anticipate that OSHA will have the technical capacity to 
collect the case-specific submissions. OSHA discusses the costs to 
build the data collection system in Section IV, Final Economic 
Analysis.
    As to data processing, the preamble to the 2019 rule does not 
specifically explain what is included in the ``processing'' of data; 
however, the discussion included a comment from NIOSH ``offering to 
help with data analysis'' and ``not[ing] that it has already developed 
auto-coding methods for categorizing occupation and industry based on 
free text data and has successfully utilized similar free text data 
collected from workers' compensation claims'' (84 FR 389, referencing 
Document ID 2003-A2). As explained in the NPRM for the current 
rulemaking, the agency preliminarily found that these concerns about 
``processing'' costs were no longer compelling, due to technological 
developments in automated data coding for text-based fields that have 
made it easier and more cost-effective for OSHA to efficiently use 
electronically submitted, establishment-specific, case-specific injury 
and illness data. As discussed below, coding data is helpful for 
characterizing, analyzing, and making use of large amounts of text-
based information.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA declared an intention to 
use automated systems to assign standardized codes based on the 
information contained in the text fields (e.g., type of accident is 
``fall'') to categorize and more efficiently use the data (87 FR 
18540). This standardized, automated coding of information from text 
fields in Forms 300 and 301 is already being done by BLS. As explained 
in the preamble to the proposed rule, in 2018, after the beginning of 
the previous rulemaking process, BLS switched to an autocoding system 
that uses deep neural networks (87 FR 18541). This system 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.\13\ OSHA explained in 
the preamble that, by 2019, according to BLS, ``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.'' \14\ OSHA asked for 
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 and also specifically asked, ``In addition to the automated 
methods for coding text-based data discussed above, what additional 
automated methods exist to code text-based data?'' (87 FR 18547).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See ``Deep neural networks for worker injury autocoding'', 
Alexander Measure, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, draft as of 9/
18/2017 (Ex. 96).
    \14\ See https://www.bls.gov/iif/automated-coding/deep-neural-networks.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, NIOSH commented, that it ``collects occupational 
injury data from a national probability sample of emergency 
departments.'' It further explained: ``These data are collected through 
the occupational supplement to the National Electronic Injury 
Surveillance System (NEISS-Work) [NIOSH 2022a]. Beginning with the 2018 
NEISS-Workdata, injury event or exposure and source codes from the BLS 
Occupational Injury and Illness Classification System (OIICS) Version 
2.01 were assigned through a machine learning algorithm with manual 
quality control efforts.'' (Docket ID 0035).
    NIOSH clarified that the machine learning algorithm ``relies mostly 
on the information in the narrative injury incident description 
field.'' Further, NIOSH explained that it ``has continued to enhance 
[its] machine learning process using more technologically advanced 
approaches, including incorporating additional quantitative variables, 
which has increased the coding accuracy and further reduced the need 
for manual coding.'' It also noted that it recently collaborated with a 
partner university to develop a machine learning algorithm that assigns 
Bureau of Census industry codes based on the narrative fields of 
employer name and business type (Docket ID 0035).
    Similarly, the Strategic Organizing Center (SOC) referenced the 
work that BLS has done, stating that BLS ``faced a problem of similar 
magnitude when constructing the addition to the Annual Survey of 
Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the early 1990's--the Detailed 
Case and Demographic series, based on its sampling of the exact same 
data types from employers Form 301's'' and it ``developed and refined 
the Occupational Injury and Illness Coding System (OIICS).'' SOC 
extolled BLS's system: ``[t]his system is now successfully used 
annually to code all those cases, with extraordinary benefits for all 
parties interested in both the BLS survey and the underlying data from 
the employer sources themselves'' (Docket ID 0079).
    In contrast, AIHA commented, ``Automated methods to analyze text-
based responses are very difficult to develop due to the variation of 
words and writing styles used around the United States. It would be 
more cost effective to expand the use of checkboxes and radio buttons 
to assist in interpreting and extracting data from text responses.'' 
(Docket ID 0030). Similarly, the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association 
commented, ``the idea that OSHA will assess the OSHA 301's is 
unrealistic. The amount of data from the OSHA 301 will be massive and 
the answers for most questions are not standardized'' (Docket ID 0053).
    The Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable also expressed doubts about 
OSHA's ability to process the data it would receive pursuant to the 
proposed rule, commenting that, ``[t]he amount of information and data 
points that this regulation will produce is exponentially larger than 
what OSHA currently collects from Form 300A alone.'' It added that 
``[i]t is also not clear whether, despite the use of technology such as 
AI or deep learning models to process and interpret the data, OSHA has 
the resources in place to constructively utilize the information.'' PRR 
estimated that OSHA would receive ``1,065,363'' documents if the 
proposed rule was promulgated, a number which PRR claimed is ``3 times 
more than the number of documents OSHA has experience working with'' 
(Docket ID 0094).
    The Employers E-Recordkeeping Coalition (Coalition) similarly 
expressed concerns with OSHA's plans, arguing that ``[t]he proposed use 
of an automated system to assign standardized codes based on text 
identified in the 300 and 301 forms is unrealistic.'' Specifically, the 
Coalition doubted that a system which relies on keyword searches would 
be helpful because ``[they] are literal in the sense that computers 
find terms wherever they appear--even if part of a larger phrase or 
used in a different context. Words often have multiple meanings, so 
keyword searches tend to return irrelevant results (false positives), 
failing to disambiguate unstructured text.'' The Coalition added that 
such ``searches also may fail to identify useful information that does 
not use the express search terms (false negatives).'' Further, it 
noted, ``OSHA's proposed use depends on employers typing words without 
spelling errors, abbreviated text, or industry-specific language, 
acronyms or codes that are not encapsulated in a word search. Under 
these conditions, OSHA would miss mountains of pertinent information, 
be flooded by

[[Page 47312]]

irrelevant information, and, in our view, simply would not effectively 
identify workplaces that should be targeted for enforcement.'' The 
Coalition concluded: ``[a]n accurate analysis of employer 300 and 301 
information requires individualized analyses by real people--not IT 
systems using word searches'' (Docket ID 0087; see also Docket ID 
0076).
    In response, OSHA notes that no coding system, including manual 
coding, is 100% accurate. However, as discussed in the preamble to the 
proposed rule, a system to collect and autocode text-based data from 
OSHA Forms 300 and 301 already exists, and BLS is effectively using it 
(see, e.g., Docket ID 0102 \15\). In fact, BLS continues to expand use 
of autocoding, explaining that ``For survey year 2020, all cases 
mentioning `covid' or `corona' were manually coded due to their novel 
nature and prevalence, dropping the percentage of cases autocoded. 
Since then, COVID-19 cases were integrated into the autocoder training 
process, allowing for the automated coding of approximately 92 percent 
of codes for survey year 2021. Starting with survey year 2021, BLS 
expanded collection of case data from all sampled establishments to 
include details for cases involving days of job transfer or restriction 
only. Previously BLS collected complete details only for cases 
involving days away from work. Biennial estimates of detailed case 
circumstances for cases involving days away from work, job transfer, or 
restriction covering survey years 2021-2022 will first be published in 
the fall of 2023.'' \16\ Chart 1, below, illustrates the SOII autocoder 
performance for data collected annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Measure, Alexander. ``Six Years of Machine Learning in the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics.'' Advances in Business Statistics, 
Methods and Data Collection, Jan. 2023, pp. 561-72.
    \16\ https://www.bls.gov/iif/automated-coding.htm.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JY23.000
    
    NIOSH also currently has the capability to accurately autocode 
text-based data related to occupational injuries and illnesses. OSHA is 
continuing discussions with BLS and NIOSH about adopting and/or 
modifying their autocoding source code to create a pilot system where 
the autocoding of OSHA data collected by OSHA could be tested and 
compared to manual coding of the same data. Upon successful testing and 
adoption of the autocoding system, OSHA plans to consult and work with 
BLS, NIOSH, and other agencies with experience autocoding text-based 
occupational safety and health data for long-term system maintenance to 
continuously update the neural network code and refine automation of 
the data. Until the autocoding system has been tested and is in place, 
OSHA intends to only use and publish uncoded data. Both uncoded and 
coded data can be useful for OSHA, as well as researchers, employers, 
and employees.
    Once the data are coded, OSHA expects to use the data similarly to 
how the agency currently uses coded data from the Severe Injury 
Reporting (SIR) program (see Docket ID 0005 for an example of a search 
interface for the data that will be collected under this final rule). 
OSHA also intends to combine the coded data with other data sources 
(e.g., inspection data or SIR data) to increase the utility of the data 
for both the agency as well as other users (e.g., employers, employees, 
researchers, and the public). The specific estimated cost burden on 
OSHA and employers for data collection and processing is discussed in 
Section IV, Final Economic Analysis, below.
e. Data Submission
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA also asked the following 
two questions related to helping employers meet the requirements of the 
proposed rule:
     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

[[Page 47313]]

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?
     What features could OSHA provide to help establishments 
determine which submission requirements apply to their establishment?
    OSHA received a number of comments related to these questions. 
Electric Boat commented that their company currently uses proprietary 
recordkeeping software to compile injury and illness data. Data from 
the Form 300A is then manually entered in order to submit it to OSHA. 
Electric Boat asked how OSHA will require data on the Forms 300 and 301 
to be submitted and noted that manually entering data for each case 
would be difficult, costly, and could result in errors in the submitted 
data. The company asked for ``clarification on the method of submission 
and whether or not scanned versions or PDF uploads of the forms would 
be an acceptable means of submission'' (Docket ID 0028).
    The Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National 
Association expressed concern about being required to use OSHA-provided 
software on their systems, alleging that this would require additional 
resources for familiarization with the software and that it could 
create potential cyberliability claims for their member companies 
(Docket ID 0046). On the other hand, AIHA urged OSHA to ``consider 
providing software with recordkeeping logic to enable the completion of 
data forms and automatic generation of logs for posting and reporting. 
. . . Employers struggle with interpreting recordkeeping requirements, 
and a user interface could include interpretation logic as well as 
assist in paperwork completion'' (Docket ID 0030). The AFL-CIO 
similarly stated that it would be useful for OSHA to provide basic 
software for ``injury and illness recordkeeping from which the data can 
be easily uploaded/reported to OSHA through a secure website as OSHA 
envisions'' (Docket ID OSHA-2013-0023-1350, Attachment 2). And Cal/OSHA 
``encourage[d] the design of a data submission system that is 
compatible with other existing electronic systems used to track and 
report establishment-specific injury and illness data'' (Docket ID 
0084).
    For the expanded data collection under this final rule, OSHA plans 
to continue to enable three methods of data submission: manual data 
entry, batch file, and API. In manual data entry, the user enters the 
data into a web form and then submits the web form. In batch file 
submission, the user uploads a csv file (a delimited text file in which 
commas separate the values). In API (application programming 
interface), the user uses a software program that communicates directly 
with OSHA's data collection program. In response to Cal/OSHA's comment, 
OSHA notes that the API submission method is compatible with other 
existing electronic systems used to track and report injury and illness 
data. In addition, OSHA intends to continue to require electronic 
submission of the recordkeeping data, i.e., OSHA will not permit the 
uploading of scanned documents or pdfs.
    None of the data submission methods described above require 
establishments to use OSHA-provided software on their systems. Indeed, 
OSHA has never provided, and does not intend to require employers to 
use, OSHA-developed software for data submission. OSHA, however, is 
aware that some employers--particularly small employers--might find 
OSHA-provided software useful for data submission, as reflected in the 
comments from the AIHA and the AFL-CIO. OSHA will therefore consider 
developing and providing such software in the future; however, use of 
such software would not be required and the other data submission 
options would remain available. Regardless of whether OSHA decides to 
provide such software, OSHA expects that developers of proprietary 
recordkeeping software will expand their applications that enable 
automated electronic submission of the required information from the 
OSHA Form 300A to also include submission of information from the Forms 
300 and 301; this is further discussed in the Final Economic Analysis, 
below.
    AIHA noted that ``Built-in error checks for key data problems would 
be helpful,'' stating that the usefulness of the online data could be 
affected by errors in submissions: ``For example, the 2020 data for 
NAICS codes in the 331500 industry series contain five entries with 
more than 150,000 hours worked per employee. In one case, an employer 
with 150 employees reported working 24 million hours. On the other 
hand, there were a couple of anomalies in the opposite direction, 
including an employer with 27 employees who reported a total of only 40 
hours worked for the entire year, less than two hours per employee. The 
result of these obvious errors is that the average hours for the 
industry were 3,713 per worker, almost double the expected number. . . 
. OSHA should consider adding some editing features that would 
highlight potential errors.'' (Docket ID 0030).
    In response, OSHA notes that the Injury Tracking Application (ITA) 
already contains built-in edits that warn users of potential data 
errors, including warnings about too many or too few hours worked per 
employee. However, OSHA decided to allow the user to bypass the warning 
in order to avoid discouraging or prohibiting the user from meeting 
their reporting obligations. Each year, OSHA follows up with users who 
submitted questionable data by informing them of the potential errors 
and providing step-by-step guidance on how to correct the error. OSHA 
encourages data corrections, but does not require them. This follow-up 
process is limited to establishments under Federal OSHA jurisdiction. 
OSHA anticipates incorporating similar built-in edits into the expanded 
ITA for collection of Form 300/301 information in order to warn users 
of potential errors in their submissions; the agency, however, does not 
intend to prevent users from submitting their information if they 
bypass the warning.
    On a related topic, the Coalition for Workplace Safety (CWS) 
requested that OSHA ``establish clear procedures for employers to make 
corrections to already-submitted data, and improve internal processes 
to ensure those corrections are reflected in the publicly posted data'' 
because ``[c]urrently, upon notice from an employer of a required 
correction, it takes months for OSHA to make these corrections online'' 
(Docket ID 0058). OSHA notes that these comments seem to reflect a 
misunderstanding of the process for correcting injury and illness 
information that has already been submitted. For changes to data for 
the current collection year, the Injury Tracking Application allows 
respondents to edit their already submitted data, and those changes 
take place immediately within the application. To make the data 
publicly available, OSHA posts each year's data on its public website 
three times: (1) an initial file is posted in April of the collection 
year; (2) an updated file is posted in September of the collection 
year; and (3) a final file is posted in the beginning of the following 
year. Users may also make requests for changes to previous years via 
the Help Request Form on the Frequently Asked Questions page for the 
Injury Tracking Application (https://www.osha.gov/injuryreporting/ita/help-request-form). During the six years OSHA has been collecting 
information from the Form 300A, OSHA is aware of only one request to 
change the data for an establishment in the publicly posted

[[Page 47314]]

file. That change was made within days, and a revised file was posted. 
Because this system has been working so far to incorporate changes made 
to already-submitted data, OSHA intends to continue to follow these 
procedures for correcting and posting updated data.
    More generally, the NSC recommended that OSHA develop tools and 
resources to help employers understand the forms and questions, ``which 
could include a mentoring program allowing for larger, more 
sophisticated employers to assist small and mid-sized businesses with 
reporting'' (Docket ID 0041). While OSHA certainly does intend to 
develop additional tools and resources to enable employers to comply 
with the final rule, it does not currently have plans to develop such a 
mentoring program. However, OSHA encourages collaboration between 
regulated entities, whether as part of industry associations, union 
efforts, or the type of collaboration mentioned by NSC. In addition, 
OSHA notes that the compliance assistance materials the agency will 
offer could be used as part of such collaborative efforts.
    Regarding the means of determining an establishment's NAICS codes 
and number of employees, NIOSH recommended that employers use, as a 
starting point, the NAICS and employee counts that are reported 
quarterly, on a per-establishment basis, to their State workforce 
agencies. NIOSH noted that these reports are submitted as part of their 
unemployment insurance (UI) filings and/or as part of the Quarterly 
Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), a Federal-State partnership 
(Docket ID 0035). In addition, NIOSH suggested that ``a single summary 
`lookup' table be provided to make it easy to simply look up any 
industry and see the requirements for form submission by establishment 
size.'' Furthermore, NIOSH suggested that OSHA could provide a table or 
tables that would include different generations of NAICS codes, to 
account for the fact that different employers will be using NAICS codes 
from different years. (Docket ID 0035, Attachment 2).
    In response, OSHA agrees with NIOSH that it would be appropriate 
for employers to use the reports they make to State workforce agencies 
as a starting point for determining their NAICS and employee numbers. 
OSHA also concurs that a look-up table by industry and establishment 
size could help establishments determine whether and how they are 
affected by the data submission requirements. The agency currently has 
a look-up app at https://www.osha.gov/itareportapp to help employers 
determine if their establishment is required to submit 300A data to 
OSHA, based on State location, peak employment in the previous year, 
whether the establishment is a government facility, and the 
establishment's NAICS code. The agency plans to modify the app to cover 
the new requirements before they become effective.
    Finally, OSHA asked the following question in the proposal about 
requiring versus allowing establishments that already have accounts in 
the ITA to update their accounts to the 2022 NAICS: ``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 . . . 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?'' 
(87 FR 18547).
    In response to this question, NIOSH expressed a preference for all 
users to update their NAICS codes to the 2022 version in the OSHA ITA: 
``As potential end users of the data, NIOSH believes the use of 
multiple NAICS code schemes will require extra work to analyze the data 
and increase the potential for errors during data entry and data 
analysis because the codes often change between versions. . . . For end 
users who are interested in analyzing the submitted data, the first 
step will be to crosswalk the codes across the various coding schemes, 
mapping old codes to new codes so that a single coding scheme can be 
used. Depending on the changes from version to version, crosswalking 
codes is often a tedious, time-consuming task and can potentially 
introduce error when the crosswalked categories are not the same or 
certain codes cannot be easily crosswalked.'' (Docket ID 0035, 
Attachment 2).
    CWS also commented on the issue of updating NAICS codes in the OSHA 
ITA: ``OSHA also states that establishments creating new accounts 
within the Injury Tracking Application (``ITA'') that OSHA uses for 
data submission will be identified using 2022 NAICS codes, while 
establishments with existing ITA accounts will continue to be 
identified by the 2017 NAICS code. These inconsistencies will cause 
confusion for employers, may require employers to keep multiple sets of 
records, and may result in either over- or under-reporting.'' (Docket 
ID 0058).
    OSHA has decided to allow, but not require, employers that already 
have accounts in the ITA to update the NAICS for their establishments 
to the 2022 codes. OSHA understands NIOSH's concern about the time-
consuming and potentially inaccurate process of using crosswalks to 
convert from 2012 NAICS to 2022 NAICS when using the data for research 
purposes. However, the same concern applies to individual 
establishments using a crosswalk to update their NAICS. In fact, end 
users of the data may have more experience with NAICS and crosswalk use 
than those submitting data. OSHA has therefore determined not to burden 
establishments that already have accounts in the ITA with a requirement 
to update their NAICS codes from 2012 NAICS to 2022 NAICS. 
Establishments will have the option to update, but the update will not 
be required. Establishments that want to take advantage of the data-
sharing feature to prefill their BLS SOII submission with data 
submitted to OSHA will, therefore, be able to use that feature if they 
update their NAICS.
    In response to CWS comment, OSHA notes that establishments creating 
new accounts in the ITA choose their NAICS from a pull-down menu of 
NAICS codes; with an update optional but not required, the only 
difference under this final rule will be that the pull-down menu will 
be loaded with 2022 NAICS codes instead of 2012 NAICS codes. (No 
accounts in the ITA use the 2017 codes, as the Coalition mistakenly 
stated in its comment). Establishments that already have accounts in 
the ITA will not have to do anything with respect to their NAICS codes. 
It is not clear to OSHA why this would cause confusion for employers, 
require employers to keep multiple sets of records, or result in over- 
or under-reporting. And, even if it did, an employer could simply 
choose to update their NAICS code in the ITA.

[[Page 47315]]

f. Tools To Make the Collected Data From Forms 300 and 301 More Useful
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA also asked for comment 
about tools that would make the published data more available and 
useful to interested parties (including employers, employees, job-
seekers, customers, researchers, workplace safety consultants, and the 
general public) (87 FR 18543). Several commenters provided suggestions 
for ways to make published data more useful to interested parties. 
NIOSH's primary concern was that ``some data users might draw 
unwarranted conclusions about the overall safety record of 
establishments or employers when the numbers of employees and injuries 
are low.'' To prevent misinterpretation, NIOSH suggested that ``OSHA 
could publish statistical estimates of the extent to which an observed 
injury rate for an individual industry or establishment is predictive 
of future injury rates, or the extent to which any such injury rate 
reflects the underlying risk of injury.'' NIOSH also commented that to 
address potential inaccuracies in OIICS codes and ``increase data 
users' understanding of the degree of reliability of the coding, OSHA 
may consider posting or making available the probabilities of code 
accuracy that are generated by the autocoding system, both on the 
individual injury case level and the aggregate level'' (Docket ID 
0035).
    Additionally, Unidos U.S., Farmworker Justice, and Texas RioGrande 
Legal Aid suggested that OSHA ``publish the data in a way that is 
accessible, searchable, and sortable using a greater level of detail 
than is currently available'' and make the data ``available in a way 
that allows the public to search for injuries and deaths among workers 
in specific industries--including by six-digit NAICS codes'' and to 
``refine that data by type of hazard down to the most detailed 
subcategories of event, exposure, or source, and then to sort by other 
relevant fields such as location, employer, race, and ethnicity'' 
(Docket ID 0078). Additionally, the commenters suggested that OSHA make 
the data available in multiple languages, including Spanish, to 
``ensure that Spanish-speaking Latinos themselves have access to the 
information'' (Docket ID 0078).
    The International Brotherhood of Teamsters suggested that OSHA 
``develop tools and resources within its website, especially where data 
is to be downloaded, that would allow better user interface and help 
users understand what they are looking at and what conclusions to 
draw,'' such as providing more information on Total Case Rate (TCR), 
and Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART) rates (Docket ID 0083).
    OSHA will take these comments into consideration when designing 
tools and applications to make the published data more available and 
useful to interested parties. As discussed above, there are 
considerable potential benefits to occupational safety and health 
resulting from publishing the collected data, and the easier it is for 
all interested parties to access and use the published data, the more 
these benefits will be realized.

C. Section 1904.41(b)(1)

    Section 1904.41(b)(1) of the final rule includes clarifying 
information on the injury and illness record submission requirements 
for establishments of various sizes that are contained in final Sec.  
1904.41(a)(1) and (2). The information, like many of the provisions in 
part 1904, is conveyed in question-and-answer format. The final 
provision addresses the question of whether every employer has to 
routinely make an annual electronic submission of information from part 
1904 injury and illness recordkeeping forms to OSHA. The answer 
clarifies that not every employer has to routinely submit this data, 
and that, in fact, only three categories of employers must routinely 
submit information from these forms. The answer then describes the 
three categories of employers and the information they must submit. The 
first category is establishments that had 20-249 employees at any time 
during the previous calendar year, and are classified in an industry 
listed in appendix A. Establishments in this category must submit the 
required information from Form 300A to OSHA once a year. The second 
category is establishments that had 250 or more employees at any time 
during the previous calendar year, and are required by part 1904 to 
keep records. Establishments in this second category must also submit 
the required information from Form 300A to OSHA once a year. The third 
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. Establishments in this category must submit the 
required information from Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA once a year, in 
addition to the required information from Form 300A.
    The answer in Sec.  1904.41(b)(1) also specifies that employers in 
these three categories have to submit the required information by the 
date listed in Sec.  1904.41(c) of the year after the calendar year 
covered by the form. Since the date in paragraph (c) is March 2, that 
means that, for example, employers must submit the required information 
covering calendar year 2023 by March 2, 2024. Finally, the answer 
clarifies that establishments that are not in any of the three 
categories must submit information to OSHA only if OSHA notifies that 
establishment that it must do so for an individual data collection.
    Proposed Sec.  1904.41(b)(1) would have provided employers with 
further clarity on which employers and establishments needed to submit 
data under proposed Sec.  1904.41(a)(1) and (2) and how the 
requirements of those provisions interacted with each other. These 
proposed provisions, like the final provision, were written in 
question-and-answer format to help employers easily identify the 
information they seek.
    Proposed Sec.  1904.41(b)(1)(i) reiterated the question posed in 
the previous version of Sec.  1904.41(b), which asked whether every 
employer has to routinely make an annual electronic submission of 
information from part 1904 injury and illness recordkeeping forms to 
OSHA. The proposed answer was updated to be consistent with the 
requirements in proposed Sec.  1904.41(a)(1) and (2). Proposed Sec.  
1904.41(b)(1)(ii) would have clarified 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 Sec.  
1904.41(a)(1) and (2).
    OSHA welcomed public comment on proposed Sec.  1904.41(b)(1)(i) and 
(ii), including on whether the proposed provisions appropriately 
clarified the proposed requirements for employers. OSHA did not receive 
any comments specifically related to the text of proposed Sec.  
1904.41(b)(1), and the agency has addressed comments related to the 
substantive submission requirements in Sec.  1904.41(a)(1) and (2), 
above. Therefore, OSHA has decided to finalize Sec.  1904.41(b)(1) with 
changes from the proposal to reflect the revised structure of final 
Sec.  1904.41(a)(1) and (2). Final Sec.  1904.41(b)(1) therefore 
describes three categories of establishments that are required to 
submit information under the final rule, as opposed to the two 
categories described in proposed Sec.  1904.41(b)(1)(i). The three 
categories are: (1) establishments with 20-249 employees in industries 
on appendix A that are required to submit information from their Form 
300A under final Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(i); (2) establishments

[[Page 47316]]

with 250 or more employees that are required to keep records under part 
1904 and are required to submit information from their Form 300A under 
final Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(ii); and (3) establishments with 100 or more 
employees in industries on appendix B that are required to submit 
information from their OSHA Forms 300 and 301.
    Similar to the proposal, the remainder of final Sec.  1904.41(b)(1) 
notes that employers with establishments falling into any of these 
three 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. The example given in the final regulatory 
text--which specifies that submission for 2023 forms must occur in 
2024--has been updated to reflect the first year OSHA anticipates 
employers having to submit information under this final rule. Finally, 
the provision specifies that if an establishment is not in any of the 
three specified categories, the employer must submit information to 
OSHA only if OSHA notifies the employer to do so for an individual data 
collection. OSHA anticipates that final Sec.  1904.41(b)(1), along with 
the additional compliance information the agency intends to issue, will 
assist employers in determining their compliance responsibilities under 
the final rule.
    Proposed Sec.  1904.41(b)(1)(ii) has not been included in the final 
rule; it is no longer necessary due to the restructuring of the final 
regulation. As discussed above, final Sec.  1904.41(a)(1) relates only 
to the OSHA Form 300A, and final Sec.  1904.41(a)(2) relates only to 
the OSHA Forms 300 and 301. This restructuring is expected to eliminate 
any confusion regarding whether an establishment might be required to 
submit information from its Form 300A twice. Therefore, there is only 
one question under final Sec.  1904.41(b)(1), as opposed to the two 
that were proposed.
    One commenter requested additional guidance related to how the 
submission requirements will work. S.W. Anderson Company asked for 
clearer guidance for companies in designated industries that have 100 
employees across multiple sites. The company stated that ``we have just 
reached the 100-employee threshold. We have previously only submitted 
electronically the OSHA 300A for our company headquarters since we have 
more than 20 employees. Our other locations all have less than 20 
employees'' (Docket ID 0008).
    In response, OSHA clarifies that this final rule does not affect 
how employees are counted for recordkeeping or information submission 
purposes under part 1904. As OSHA states in reporting requirement FAQs 
on the agency's Injury Tracking Application website (https://www.osha.gov/injuryreporting), OSHA's electronic reporting requirements 
are based on the size of the establishment, not the firm. An 
establishment is a single physical location where business is conducted 
or where services or industrial operations are performed (see 29 CFR 
1904.46). Therefore, under the facts described by this commenter, if 
the firm has only one establishment (the company's headquarters) with 
more than 20 employees, that is the only establishment for which the 
commenter might need to submit injury and illness information. That 
single establishment would have to submit the required information from 
its Form 300A under final Sec.  1904.41(a)(1)(i) if the establishment 
falls under a NAICS code listed in appendix A. The company would not, 
however, have to submit information from its Form 300 or 301 for that 
establishment, regardless of NAICS, because the establishment does not 
have at least 100 employees. More generally, OSHA plans to revise and 
expand the FAQs on its recordkeeping website as part of its compliance 
efforts related to this final rule.

D. Section 1904.41(b)(9)

    Section 1904.41(b)(9) of the final rule specifies which information 
employers must submit from the OSHA Forms 300 and 301. Final Sec.  
1904.41(b)(9) asks and answers 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? Paragraph 
(a)(2) contains the submission requirements for information from the 
OSHA Forms 300 and 301.
    The answer in the final rule is no, employers who have to submit 
information under paragraph (a)(2) of this section must submit all the 
information from the OSHA Forms 300 and 301 except for the following 
case-specific information:
     Employee name (column B), from the Log of Work-Related 
Injuries and Illnesses (OSHA Form 300).
     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) from the Injury and Illness Incident Report (OSHA Form 301).
    Proposed Sec.  1904.41(b)(9) was the same as final Sec.  
1904.41(b)(9). In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA explained 
that 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 proposed excluding these fields from the 
submittal requirements to minimize any potential release or 
unauthorized access to any PII contained in those fields. Because the 
data collection would not include the information from these fields, 
there would be no risk of public disclosure of the information from 
these fields through the data collection. OSHA requested comment on all 
aspects of proposed Sec.  1904.41(b)(9), including whether the proposed 
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. OSHA also asked more specific questions, 
as addressed below.
1. Collecting Employee Names
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA specifically asked the 
following question about collecting employee names, in the context of 
data-sharing between OSHA and BLS: ``OSHA is proposing not to collect 
employee names under proposed Sec.  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 data-sharing 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 Sec.  1904.41(a)(2), 
unless OSHA requires these establishments to submit the ``employee 
name'' field on the Form 300 and 301. Without the data-sharing feature, 
establishments that submit data to OSHA under proposed Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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.)'' (87 FR 18547).

[[Page 47317]]

    In response, OSHA received multiple comments about the desirability 
of data-sharing between BLS and OSHA, but there were no comments 
supporting the collection of employee names. In fact, as discussed in 
more detail above in this preamble, numerous commenters expressed 
concerns about worker privacy and advocated that employee names be 
excluded from the data submission.
    The Coalition for Workplace Safety commented in support of data-
sharing, ``Employers who submit data to OSHA should not be required to 
separately submit the same data to BLS. These duplicative reporting 
requirements are unacceptable, and OSHA's current proposal only serves 
to exacerbate this existing problem'' (Docket ID 0058). Similarly, the 
National Association of Manufacturers commented that it would be in the 
best interest of OSHA and manufacturers for OSHA to gather detailed 
information about workplace injuries and illnesses ``in conjunction 
with the BLS SOII survey rather than in a separate data collection 
process'' (Docket ID 0068). However, the Coalition for Workplace Safety 
and the National Association of Manufacturers also expressed great 
concern in their comments that collection of case-specific information 
from the Form 300 and Form 301 would risk employee privacy.
    Other commenters also expressed support for data-sharing without 
expressing support for collection of employee names. For example, the 
American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine commented 
in support of avoiding duplicate reporting and encouraged streamlining 
and simplifying the importation of data from OSHA to SOII (Docket ID 
0037). Similarly, the National Safety Council commented, ``OSHA and BLS 
should continue their collaboration to enable more businesses to 
benefit from single reporting and make reporting easier'' (Docket ID 
0041).
    Having reviewed the comments on this issue as well as the comments 
on employee privacy described in more detail elsewhere in this 
preamble, OSHA has decided not to collect employee names under final 
Sec.  1904.41(a)(2) and (b)(9). This decision is consistent with worker 
privacy concerns expressed in a number of public comments during this 
rulemaking and discussed elsewhere in this preamble. Not collecting 
employee names is, of course, the best way to ensure that this 
information does not get released online. The agency also, however, 
recognizes the value in providing ways to reduce the time and burden 
for employers that are required to submit data to both OSHA and BLS. As 
such, the agency will continue to work with BLS to identify and 
implement data-sharing methods that do not require submission of 
employee names to OSHA in order to reduce the burden for the subset of 
establishments that are required to submit their Form 300 and 301 data 
to OSHA and also to submit data to the BLS SOII.
2. Excluding Other Specified Fields
    In addition, in the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA welcomed 
more general public comment on proposed Sec.  1904.41(b)(9), including 
whether the proposed 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 (87 FR 18546). OSHA 
asked that any comments suggesting exclusion of other fields or data 
from the proposed submission requirements 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. Exclusion of employee names is discussed above. Similar to 
employee names, there were no comments arguing that OSHA should collect 
the fields listed in proposed Sec.  1904.41(b)(9) (i.e., from Form 301 
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)).
    However, there were some commenters that wanted additional fields 
to be excluded. For example, the Plastics Industry Association 
commented that OSHA should not collect job title, department, gender, 
birth date, date of hire, and date of death to avoid identifying 
individual employees, and urged excluding job titles in particular 
because there may only be a small number of employees, or a single 
employee, with a job title in a facility (Docket ID 0086). Other 
comments discussed elsewhere in the preamble also expressed concern 
that employees may be identified by the data fields OSHA intends to 
make public, (see, e.g., Docket IDs 0062, 0094). The Plastics Industry 
Association also commented on the possibility that these data fields 
could be cross-referenced with other data available publicly online, 
such as social network accounts like LinkedIn, to identify employees 
(Ex. 86). Similarly, R. Savage commented that ``job title, date of 
hire, date of injury, and social media'' could be used to identify the 
injured employee (Ex. 18). However, other commenters countered that the 
detailed data can be used to improve workplace safety and health, (see, 
e.g., Docket IDs 0030, 0079, 0090). The Plastics Industry Association's 
comments did not address whether the exclusion of these fields from the 
collection would hinder OSHA's ability to use the collection to protect 
employee safety and health.
    In response to these concerns and, as discussed elsewhere in this 
preamble, OSHA has determined that the benefits of collecting the data 
for improving safety and health outweigh potential privacy concerns. 
Each of these data variables included in the data collection gives OSHA 
the ability to identify unique hazards. The age of workers is relevant 
to indicating increased hazards for certain age groups. The date of 
hire demonstrates when injuries disparately impact new employees versus 
more experienced employees. An injury that occurs mostly in recent 
hires may indicate a greater need for training and monitoring new 
employees, while other illnesses or injuries can occur predominantly in 
longer term employees. Gender is similarly helpful to indicate workers 
at higher risk. For example, women are at a higher risk for workplace 
violence. Job titles aid OSHA in indicating specific jobs with higher 
rates of illnesses and injuries. The date of injury and date of death 
are also useful to OSHA for identifying hazards. For example, certain 
illnesses may have a lag time between the date of injury and the date 
of death. Other injuries and illnesses may have a seasonal component, 
such as heat illnesses in the summer.
    Further, as part of OSHA's determination that the benefits of 
collecting and publishing the data outweigh potential privacy concerns, 
the agency emphasizes that it will be able to adequately protect 
workers' information that could reasonably be expected to identify 
individuals directly. OSHA notes that employee birth dates will not be 
made available to OSHA for outreach, enforcement, or research/
analytical purposes.\17\ Instead, establishments will enter the birth 
date, the system will convert the information to age, and OSHA will 
retain the age. The data from the fields for age (calculated from date 
of birth in field 3),

[[Page 47318]]

date hired (field 4), gender (field 5), whether the employee was 
treated in an emergency room (field 8), and whether the employee was 
hospitalized overnight (field 9) will be collected, but these fields 
will not be published. OSHA also notes regarding the date of death 
field that deceased individuals do not have a right to privacy; 
further, since January 1, 2015, Sec.  1904.39(a)(1) has required 
employers to report the death or hospitalization or amputation or lose 
of an eye of any employee as a result of a work-related incident within 
eight hours of the death, and OSHA publishes the reports at https://www.osha.gov/severeinjury, including narrative information. In 
addition, as discussed elsewhere, HIPAA does not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Note that, as explained in the Privacy Impact Assessment 
(Docket ID 0107), establishments that submit their data by uploading 
a csv file (see III.B.14.e Data Submission) will include the Date of 
Birth field in the csv file, and the csv files will be temporarily 
stored in a secure, encrypted folder on the Department's IT network 
(see III.B.9 Risk of cyber attack) for technical support purposes 
only, and purged on a regular basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After consideration of these comments, OSHA has decided to exclude 
the following fields from the data collection, as proposed:
     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).

E. Section 1904.41(b)(10)

    Section 1904.41(b)(10) of the final rule addresses 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. The 
text of final Sec.  1904.41(b)(10) is in question-and-answer format and 
responds to the question of whether a company may use numbers or codes 
as its establishment name when submitting data to OSHA. The answer to 
the question is yes, a company may use numbers or codes as its 
establishment name. However, the submission must also include a legal 
company name, either as part of the establishment name or separately as 
the company name.
    Final Sec.  1904.41(b)(10) is identical to the proposed provision 
except for changing ``company name'' to ``legal company name.'' The 
final version of Sec.  1904.41(b)(10) is intended to address a problem 
OSHA identified with the previous rule, which was that the company name 
was not required. Specifically, as OSHA explained in the preamble of 
the proposed rule, the ITA (the data submission portal) includes two 
text fields which OSHA uses to identify each establishment: Company 
Name and Establishment Name. The Establishment Name field is a 
mandatory field, and users must provide a unique Establishment Name for 
each establishment associated with their user account. In contrast, the 
Company Name field is an optional field. OSHA's review of five years of 
data electronically submitted under Sec.  1904.41 showed that some 
firms submitted data with codes in the required Establishment Name 
field and nothing in the optional 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. The data are 
considerably less useful and more difficult for both OSHA and other 
interested parties 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 by 
company for companies that use codes without including a company name. 
In addition, without the legal company name, OSHA is unable to 
determine whether a particular establishment in that company met the 
reporting requirements.
    To address this problem of missing data under the previous rule, 
OSHA proposed a provision to require employers who use codes for the 
Establishment Name to include a legal company name. The proposed 
provision, Sec.  1904.41(b)(10), provided: ``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 name or separately as 
the company name.''
    The final provision, Sec.  1904.41(b)(10), states: ``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 changed ``company name'' to ``legal company name'' in the 
final regulatory text to clarify that the legal company name should be 
entered as opposed to a more generic company name. For example, 
``Company X, LLC'' would be entered if that is the legal company name 
for the establishment, not ``Company X.'' This clarification is 
consistent with the Summary and Explanation for proposed Sec.  
1904.41(b)(10), which stated ``[t]he submission must include the legal 
company name, either as part of the establishment name or separately as 
the company name'' (87 FR 18523, 18546 (March 30, 2022)). All companies 
must enter a legal company name, either as part of the establishment 
name field or the company name field. Users will be reminded during 
data submission that the information about the establishment must 
include the company's legal name, either in the establishment field or 
in the company name field.
    OSHA welcomed 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 (87 FR 18456). The agency received a number 
of comments in response to the comment solicitation on this topic. For 
example, Worksafe supported the proposed requirement to submit both 
establishment name and company name (Docket ID 0063). Similarly, Cal/
OSHA commented, ``The proposed inclusion of employers' entity names, 
which we support, makes detailed information usable even when employers 
use numbers or codes to identify their facilities'' (Docket ID 0084). 
In their comment, Seventeen AGs also supported the requirement, which 
they described as ``critical[ ]'' (Docket ID 0045). The comment further 
described the proposal as an improvement to existing reporting 
requirements, noting that the requirement to disclose a legal name will 
aid job-seekers in making informed decisions about the injury and 
illness data for a specific employer (Docket ID 0045).
    In contrast, several organizations argued against requiring a 
company name. For example, the National Propane Gas Association argued 
that ``any research to evaluate the general performance or safety of a 
particular industry can be investigated on the basis of industry NAICS 
code; not company name'' (Docket ID 0050). OSHA recognizes the value of 
data that is industry-wide for industry-based research, but there is 
additional value obtained through collecting and

[[Page 47319]]

publishing company names. OSHA intends to use the data to engage in 
company-specific activities to effectively address occupational health 
and safety issues, and such activities require the company name.
    The Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable (PRR) also opposed OSHA's 
proposed requirement to include the legal company name. It explained 
that it is concerned ``about OSHA's, and particularly the public's, 
ability to remain objective. To alleviate this concern, PRR recommends 
OSHA does not publish this information publicly, does not collect the 
company name, and uses this data for statistical purposes only'' 
(Docket ID 0094). In addition, the Association of the Wall and Ceiling 
Industry also expressed strong opposition to including the company's 
name, noting its concern ``about provisions in the proposed rule that 
would unintentionally and unnecessarily harm construction businesses,'' 
such as ``any requirement that would result in public access to any 
affected company's name and address, and/or signatory executive's name 
and telephone number'' (Docket ID 0043). The National Propane Gas 
Association similarly argued that OSHA's assessment of the utility of 
the collected information did ``not include the regulated companies 
because there is no evaluation of the potential damage by 
misunderstanding or misconstruing the information that is proposed for 
the public website'' (Docket ID 0050). It further stated that ``[t]he 
injury and illness reports do not include explanations of employees' 
conduct, variations from company policies, common practices, or 
comparisons to indicate positive safety practices, days without 
injuries or illnesses, or other safeguards companies implement'' 
(Docket ID 0050).
    OSHA understands these commenters' concerns. However, as discussed 
elsewhere, OSHA notes that it has published injury and illness data by 
company name since 2009, and most establishments were already 
submitting company name under the previous requirements. Despite this 
history, opposing commenters did not provide any examples of burden or 
damage resulting from the publication of company names, nor is OSHA 
aware of any. Moreover, as discussed in more detail in Section III.G of 
this Summary and Explanation, OSHA's existing Note to Sec.  1904.0 
makes clear that ``[r]ecording or reporting a work-related injury, 
illness, or fatality does not mean that the employer or employee was at 
fault, that an OSHA rule has been violated, or that the employee is 
eligible for workers' compensation or other benefits.'' Further, OSHA 
notes that the signatory executive's name and telephone number will not 
be collected or published under the final rule, nor were they under the 
previous rule. Consequently, OSHA does not find these comments 
persuasive.
    OSHA agrees with comments that inclusion of the legal company name 
will improve workplace safety and health. The primary purpose of 
collecting the company name is to make the data more useful for OSHA 
for activities at the company level, such as inspection targeting, 
compliance outreach, research, and assessment of company-wide 
compliance with the submission requirement. With the company name 
included, OSHA will, for example, be able to identify company-wide 
trends of occupational illnesses or injuries. Additionally, interested 
parties may also use company name data to improve workplace health and 
safety or to inform themselves about the injury and illness records of 
specific employers.
    One commenter offered an example of how it used company-specific 
information to improve workplace safety. The Strategic Organizing 
Center explained in its comment how it used the release of the 2020 and 
2021 Injury Tracking Application data to publish reports on the rate of 
serious injuries at a particular company, which was much higher than 
the rate at other similar businesses. After the reports were published, 
the company responded by announcing that safety improvements were 
underway. OSHA agrees with this commenter that ``the availability of 
more detailed information, including names and locations of employers, 
allows employers and others to make more meaningful comparisons''--and, 
as a result, can lead to improvements in worker safety and health 
(Docket ID 0079).
    After consideration of these comments, OSHA has decided to require 
establishments to submit company name, as proposed, in order to aid 
both OSHA and other interested parties in using the data more 
effectively. Users will be reminded during data submission that the 
information about the establishment must include the company's legal 
name, either in the establishment field or in the company name field.

F. Section 1904.41(c)

    Section 1904.41(c) of the final rule requires employers to 
electronically submit the required information to OSHA by March 2 of 
each year. The final provision simplifies the regulatory language in 
Sec.  1904.41(c)(1)-(2) of the previous rule concerning the dates by 
which establishments must make their annual submissions. Previously, 
Sec.  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 deadlines for submission during that phase-in period. That 
information is no longer relevant and, thus, OSHA removed it to 
streamline the section. The substantive information already contained 
in the previous Sec.  1904.41(c)(1) was consolidated into Sec.  
1904.41(c) of the final rule. Like previous Sec.  1904.41(c)(2), Sec.  
1904.41(c) of the final rule requires all covered establishments to 
make their electronic submissions by March 2 of the year after the 
calendar year covered by the form(s). Also, Sec.  1904.41(c) of the 
final rule provides an updated example of that requirement, explaining 
that the forms covering calendar year 2023 would be due by March 2, 
2024. As the example indicates, because this final rule becomes 
effective on January 1, 2024, OSHA intends for March 2, 2024 to be the 
first submission deadline for the new information required to be 
submitted under this rule.
    The Coalition for Workplace Safety commented, ``Employers must have 
notice of the exact requirements of any final rule at the beginning of 
the year for which collected data will be submitted.'' Otherwise, they 
argued, employers will not have sufficient notice and time to adjust 
their information collection and review processes (Docket ID 0058). The 
Flexible Packaging Association made a similar comment (Docket ID 0091). 
On the other hand, the AFL-CIO expressed frustration that the date of 
the proposed rule ``already delayed the ability of OSHA to institute 
final reporting requirements . . . until at least 2024'' (Docket ID 
0061).
    OSHA does not agree that employers must have notice of the 
requirements of any final rule at the beginning of the calendar year 
for which the data will be submitted. The commenters who made this 
assertion cite no official rule or other legal authority to support it, 
and OSHA is not aware of any such rule regarding calendar years and 
reporting requirements. It is OSHA's position that it was not necessary 
for the final rule to be published before the end of 2022 in order for 
OSHA to begin collecting 2023 data in 2024. OSHA anticipates that 
employers will have sufficient time between publication of the final 
rule in 2023 and the first submission deadline in 2024 to make any 
changes to their submission systems that they determine should be made. 
Indeed, the final rule

[[Page 47320]]

does not make any changes to the recordkeeping requirements for 2023; 
employers will continue to record the same information as they were 
required to record before this final rule was issued.
    Both the Flexible Packaging Association and the Coalition for 
Workplace Safety commented that the changes in the final rule will 
require technological changes within and outside of OSHA that will 
require testing for accuracy and effectiveness, and that OSHA must 
account for the time it will take to make such adjustments (Docket IDs 
0058, 0091). To the extent that these commenters are concerned about 
changes they plan to make to their own recordkeeping or data submission 
systems, OSHA notes that these types of changes are not a requirement 
of the final rule. The final rule simply requires submission of the 
data. OSHA will continue to provide three options for employers to 
submit the data (manual entry via web form, batch upload via csv file, 
and API), and it will continue to be up to the individual employer to 
decide which option to use. To the extent that these comments focus on 
changes OSHA must make to the ITA to accept the new submissions, OSHA 
has considered this issue and anticipates being prepared to accept 
these submissions beginning in early 2024.
    Some commenters also argued for an annual submission date later 
than March 2 to allow employers more time to collect and submit the 
data from the previous year. For example, the Coalition for Workplace 
Safety commented that ``OSHA should push future deadlines to allow 
companies to submit past March 2; this date is too early in the year 
and does not provide enough time for companies to collect and submit 
this data'' (Docket ID 0058; see also Docket ID 0091). The Employers E-
Recordkeeping Coalition similarly commented: ``For example, one 
national employer with approximately 700 establishments that would be 
covered by the new requirement to submit 300 and 301 level data 
currently takes approximately 3 months to audit and submit its injury 
and illness records to ensure that its 300A data submissions are 
accurate. Manually keying in every line of hundreds of 300 log data, or 
if that is not necessary, at least keying in thousands of 301 Reports 
would be exponentially more burdensome--likely infeasible given the 
annual March 2nd submission deadline.'' (Docket ID 0087).
    In response, OSHA is not persuaded that the March 2 date is too 
early in the year to submit data for the previous year. OSHA notes that 
Sec.  1904.32 already requires employers to review the Form 300 Log 
entries and complete, certify, and post the Form 300A annual summary no 
later than February 1 of the year following the year covered by the 
records. Therefore, employers must already have collected and reviewed 
all of their establishments' 300 Log information for the previous year 
by February 1 of each year. Having completed this review, they will 
then have an additional month to submit the data. The scenario posed by 
the Employers E-Recordkeeping Coalition regarding manually typing in 
hundreds or thousands of lines of data would only arise if a company 
with many establishments chose to enter all the data via webform. There 
are three data submission methods available, as discussed further 
elsewhere in this preamble, and entering data via webform would be the 
least efficient method for a company with many establishments.
    After consideration of these comments, OSHA has decided to retain 
the proposed data submission deadline in the final rule and require 
submission of the previous calendar year's data by March 2 of each 
year.

G. Additional Comments Which Concern More Than One Section of the 
Proposal

1. General Comments
    There were several comments asking OSHA to add data submission 
requirements for other types of establishments. For example, Worksafe 
recommended adding a requirement for companies with five or more 
establishments to collect and submit part 1904 occupational injury and 
illness data for those work locations and establishments (Docket ID 
0063). Similarly, the National Nurses Union recommended adding a 
submission requirement for companies with 500 or more employees across 
multiple establishments (Docket ID 0064). Neither of these 
recommendations is being incorporated into the final rule. Data 
submission requirements for multi-establishment companies, regardless 
of the number of establishments or size of the employer, were not 
included in any proposed regulatory provision or alternative in the 
NPRM; nor was the topic otherwise addressed by OSHA as part of the 
proposed rule. As such, OSHA does not believe that a requirement for 
multi-establishment employers to submit data to OSHA would be a logical 
outgrowth of the proposal. (Although OSHA believes that these 
recommendations are out of the scope of the proposal, the agency notes 
that it proposed similar ideas as Alternative I in the 2016 rulemaking 
and rejected that Alternative, in part, due to practicality concerns. 
OSHA does not believe that those concerns have been obviated in the 
years since the issuance of the 2016 final rule.)
    Similarly, there was a comment expressing concern that the rule 
will not capture data for workers classified as independent 
contractors, and ``encourag[ing] OSHA to study the benefits of data 
collection for all workers, regardless of classification, including 
those who may be improperly designated as independent contractors'' 
(Docket ID 0045). As interested parties are generally aware, the 
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 only applies to 
``employment'' (see 29 U.S.C. 653(a)). Businesses do not meet the 
definition of the term ``employer'' in Section 3(5) of the OSH Act, 29 
U.S.C. 652(5), unless they have employees. Similarly, individuals are 
not considered ``employees'' under the OSH Act unless they are employed 
by an employer (29 U.S.C. 652(6)). Thus, independent contractors are 
not covered under the OSH Act. The agency understands that, at times, 
employees are misclassified as independent contractors and are 
consequently not receiving the protections that they should. OSHA has 
other initiatives to address that important issue. However, the agency 
finds that it is beyond the scope of this rule, which only covers 
employees.
    There were also comments asking OSHA to expand the data requested 
on OSHA's recordkeeping forms. For example, the National Safety Council 
commented that OSHA should collect more demographic data, such as race 
or ethnic origin, and that OSHA should include a method to identify and 
collect basic information on musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) (Docket 
ID 0041). Similarly, Unidos US, Farmworker Justice, and Texas RioGrande 
Legal Aid commented that OSHA should require employers to report race 
and ethnicity data in case-specific reports and publish the data 
alongside the other case-specific information (Docket ID 0078). 
ConnectiCOSH proposed a requirement for employers to document when 
workers have complained about retaliation (Docket ID 0069).
    Also related to expanding the data requested on the OSHA 
recordkeeping forms, the Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable (PRR) commented 
that instead of requesting information from the Forms 300 and 301, OSHA 
should revise the Form 300A to include more useful identifiers. For 
example, including ``heat'' as a type of illness,

[[Page 47321]]

and ``indoor,'' ``outdoor,'' ``office,'' ``distribution facility,'' and 
``off-site'' for a field titled ``location'' would give OSHA more 
information without identifying employees (Docket ID 0094). More 
generally, the Employers E-Recordkeeping Coalition commented that OSHA 
should create a committee or task an existing committee to explore 
changes to injury and illness recordkeeping, including to consider 
adopting ASTM E2920-14 (Standard Guide for Recording Occupational 
Injuries and Illnesses), an international standard that would allow 
data comparisons with other countries (Docket ID 0087).
    These recommendations to expand or change recordkeeping forms, or 
to explore broader changes to injury and illness recordkeeping, such as 
adopting an ASTM standard, were not included in any proposed regulatory 
provision or alternative in the NPRM, nor were these topics otherwise 
addressed by OSHA as part of the proposed rule. As such, these topics 
are not within the scope of this rulemaking. Similarly, comments 
raising issues with OSHA's recording criteria or other parts of part 
1904 that are not at issue in this rulemaking (e.g., Docket ID 0017 
(related to the recordability of COVID-19 cases)) are out of scope of 
this rulemaking.
    The National Safety Council (NSC) provided a comment about OSHA 
enforcement of the reporting requirements: ``First, OSHA must take 
steps to improve reporting compliance. The Department of Labor Office 
of Inspector General report provides some key recommendations for OSHA 
to improve reporting: 1. Develop guidance and train staff on 
identifying underreporting, 2. Issue citations for all late reporters, 
3. Clarify guidance on documenting essential decisions, collecting 
evidence to demonstrate employers corrected all identified hazards, and 
monitoring employer conducted investigations, and 4. Conduct 
inspections on all Category 1 incidents. These are key recommendations 
to improve the original data. Additionally, the National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) produced a 2018 study on OSHA data collections 
acknowledging the limitations of the current data system(s) and made 
several recommendations for improving and supplementing the OSHA data 
that should also guide OSHA actions.'' (Docket ID 0041; see also Docket 
ID 0080 (recommending OSHA evaluate procedures for compliance and 
enforcement)).
    With respect to the Office of the Inspector General's 2018 Report, 
OSHA Needs to Improve the Guidance for its Fatality and Severe Injury 
Reporting Program to Better Protect Workers, OSHA agreed that better 
case documentation can help promote consistency in the issuance of 
citations, as well as the determination of whether to conduct an 
inspection or a rapid response investigation. However, OSHA was 
concerned that the OIG's report suggested that the burden to ensure 
reporting falls on the agency when the OSH Act clearly states that it 
is the employer's responsibility to comply with the standards under 
Section 5(a)(2). The agency encourages employers to comply with illness 
and injury reporting requirements through a variety of enforcement, 
outreach, and compliance assistance tools. OSHA's full response to the 
OIG's report can be found in Appendix B of that report at https://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2018/02-18-203-10-105.pdf.
    With respect to the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and 
Medicine (NAS) report, A Smarter National Surveillance System for 
Occupational Safety and Health in the 21st Century, OSHA concludes the 
final rule is responsive to that report (see OSHA-2021-0006-0097). This 
NAS report was the result of a joint request from NIOSH, BLS, and OSHA 
to NAS, asking NAS to conduct a study in response to the need for a 
more coordinated, cost-effective set of approaches for occupational 
safety and health surveillance in the United States. The NAS report 
suggested that electronic collection of Form 300 and 301 data would 
allow OSHA to focus its interventions and prevention efforts on 
hazardous industries, workplaces, exposures, and high-risk groups. 
Additionally, the NAS report made recommendations on ways the public 
data could be utilized by employers, researchers, government agencies, 
and workers (Docket ID 0061). Further, according to the report, 
collecting Form 300 and 301 data electronically would also allow for 
expanding and targeting outreach to employers to improve hazard 
identification and prevention efforts, and would give OSHA the 
opportunity to advise employers on how their rates of injury and 
illness compare with the rest of their industry. OSHA agrees with these 
assessments regarding the value of electronically collecting Form 300 
and 301 data, as reflected by the final rule.
    PRR commented, ``to ensure the Agency remains fair, balanced, and 
trusted, any targeting for enforcement that results from submission of 
Forms 300, 301 and 300A should be based on a systematic approach that 
is standardized and impacts all industries in [a]ppendix B subpart E, 
equally'' (Docket ID 0094). In response, OSHA agrees that it should 
take a systematic approach to enforcement targeting based on the data 
it collects from these recordkeeping forms. As addressed elsewhere in 
this preamble (e.g., Section III.B.4 of this Summary and Explanation), 
OSHA's systematic approach to enforcement in site-specific targeting 
using data collected from the Form 300A is illustrated by OSHA's 
directive on Site-Specific Targeting (SST) (CPL 02-01-064, issued on 
February 7, 2023, https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/directives/cpl-02-01-064). In this directive, OSHA states that it will generate 
inspection lists of: (1) establishments with elevated Days Away, 
Restricted, or Transferred (DART) rates for CY 2021; (2) establishments 
with upward trending rates for the range of CY 2019-2021; (3) 
establishments that did not provide the required 2021 Form 300A data to 
OSHA; and (4) establishments with low DART rates in CY 2021 to verify 
data accuracy and quality control. OSHA's Office of Statistical 
Analysis provides each Area Office (AO) with access to software and 
databases that include the establishments on the Inspection List. AOs 
must generate inspection cycles using the SST software that randomly 
selects the establishments and shall determine inspection cycle size 
(i.e., 5 to 50 establishments) based on available resources and the 
geographic range of the office. Once initiated, the entire cycle must 
be completed. Within a cycle, the AO may schedule and inspect the 
selected establishments in any order that makes efficient use of 
available resources.
    As indicated by the content of the directive, while OSHA does take 
a systematic approach to enforcement targeting, OSHA does not agree 
that any targeting for enforcement resulting from submission of the 
data from Forms 300, 301, and 300A should necessarily impact all 
industries in appendix B subpart E equally. If reported data were to 
show a particular industry had a very high rate of occupational 
illnesses or injuries, enforcement targeting that particular industry 
would be appropriate. The final rule provides more accurate and 
detailed information that will be used to protect workplace health and 
safety.
    Reps. Foxx and Keller commented, ``DOL further revealed its 
intention to reward Big Labor in its extension of the proposed rule's 
comment period, citing a single request from the AFL-CIO, despite the 
fact that it has routinely denied similar requests from business 
stakeholders and members of Congress''

[[Page 47322]]

(Docket ID 0062). In response, OSHA notes that the agency received two 
requests for extension of the comment period: from the AFL-CIO in a 
letter dated May 5, 2022 (Docket ID 0027), and from the Employers E-
Recordkeeping Coalition in a letter dated May 20, 2022 (Docket ID 
0032). OSHA determined that it would be reasonable to extend the 
comment period and offered the same additional 30 days to everyone (see 
87 FR 31793-4 (May 25, 2022)).
2. Misunderstandings About Scope
    Some commenters expressed concern that the proposal would expand 
the number of employers required to submit data. The Chamber of 
Commerce commented that the lists of designated industries in 
Appendices A and B ``are long and not that limiting,'' and the National 
Propane Gas Association commented, ``[a]ccording to the proposed 
revisions to [a]ppendix A and proposed creation of [a]ppendix B, the 
NPRM would expand reporting requirements to more establishments within 
the propane industry'' (Docket IDs 0050, 0088). The National Propane 
Gas Association also expressed disagreement with ``the proposed 
creation of [a]ppendix B to the extent that it includes all the 
industries already listed in [a]ppendix A'' (Docket ID 0050). In 
response, OSHA notes that appendix B does not include all the 
industries listed in appendix A; rather, appendix B is a subset of 
appendix A. Additionally, as explained in the NPRM and elsewhere in 
this preamble, all of the establishments that will be required to 
submit information to OSHA under the new requirements in this final 
rule were already required to submit information to OSHA under the 
previous requirements, so it is not the case that this rule expands the 
number of establishments required to report.
    The National Propane Gas Association also recommended that ``OSHA 
retain the current scope and applicability of [Sec.  ]1904.41(a)(1) to 
apply to employers with 250 or more employees within the industries 
identified in [a]ppendix A,'' rather than ``expanding'' the requirement 
to ``more employers and more establishments'' (Docket ID 0050). As 
explained in the NPRM and the preamble to this final rule, OSHA did not 
propose to expand the scope of [Sec.  ]1904.41(a)(1). Rather, the 
agency explicitly stated that the proposal ``would not impose any new 
requirements on establishments to electronically submit information 
from their Form 300A,'' however, ``proposed Sec.  1904.41(a) would 
remove the electronic submission requirement for certain establishments 
with 250 or more employees.'' Accordingly, the commenter's concerns are 
misplaced.
    The National Propane Gas Association also stated that OSHA is 
proposing to increase ``the frequency of submissions'' of injury and 
illness reports (Docket ID 0050). OSHA did not propose to increase the 
frequency of submissions of injury and illness data; rather, employers 
required to submit such data will continue to be required to do so once 
a year, as under the current requirements.
3. Diversion of Resources
    In the 2019 final rule, OSHA stated that rescinding the information 
submission requirements would allow employers to devote more of their 
resources towards compliance with safety and health standards (84 FR 
394). Similarly, several commenters to the current NPRM also asserted 
that the proposed rule would be counterproductive to the goal of 
improving safety and health because complying with the rule would 
divert resources that would otherwise be devoted to other worker safety 
and health efforts (e.g., Docket IDs 0060, 0062, 0070, 0088). In most 
cases these assertions were unsupported (e.g., Docket ID 0062 (simply 
asserting that compliance with the rule would divert employer resources 
from workplace safety and health initiatives without further explaining 
how it would do so)).
    A few commenters, however, did make more concrete statements that 
might relate to this issue. For example, the Chamber of Commerce, in 
challenging OSHA's economic analysis, claimed that the proposal would 
require safety department personnel to spend time on preparation of the 
data for submission, presumably at the cost of spending time improving 
safety (Docket ID 0088). But that diversion, if it occurs, would be 
required by the recordkeeping rule itself, not by the requirement to 
submit records. Employers have always been required to keep accurate 
records. To the extent that the argument is that employers will take 
greater care with records to be submitted to OSHA and eventually 
published, that is not a result of the rule so much as it is a result 
of employers not having taken adequate care previously. Similarly, the 
need to ensure that information that could compromise workers' privacy 
is not submitted inappropriately (see, e.g., Docket ID 0081) should be 
obviated by entering the information carefully in the first place (see, 
e.g., the instructions on Form 301: ``Re fields 14 to 17: Please do not 
include any personally identifiable information (PII) pertaining to 
worker(s) involved in the incident (e.g., no names, phone numbers, or 
Social Security numbers'')).
4. Lagging v. Leading Indicators
    OSHA also received several comments which focused on OSHA's 
recordkeeping system's use of lagging, rather than leading indicators. 
Broadly speaking, leading indicators are proactive, preventive, and 
predictive measures that provide information about the effective 
performance of an employer's safety and health activities. They measure 
events leading up to injuries, illnesses, and other incidents and 
reveal potential problems in an employer's safety and health program. 
In contrast, lagging indicators measure the occurrence and frequency of 
events that occurred in the past, such as the number or rate of 
injuries, illnesses, and fatalities (see https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/OSHA_Leading_Indicators.pdf).
    On the issue of lagging versus leading indicators, the American 
Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP) commented, ``ASSP advocates a 
comprehensive risk-based approach that measures leading as well as 
lagging indicators. Leading indicators provide critical information 
about an organization's true commitment to safety and health, at times 
acting as a better gauge of a system's vulnerabilities or effectiveness 
than lagging indicators'' (Docket ID 0031; see also Docket IDs 0041, 
0053). Similarly, PRR commented, ``The safety community has been 
actively moving away from using case rates as indicators of a safety 
program's effectiveness and has been experimenting with various leading 
indicators'' (Docket ID 0094). PRR further commented that the use of 
lagging indicators ``leads the general public, which is uninformed, to 
think that there is direct correlation between injury and illness rates 
and the effectiveness of an employer's worker safety and health 
programs and practices'' (Docket ID 0094; see also Docket IDs 0043, 
0088).
    In addition, ASSP ``recommends that OSHA develop guidance on 
leading indicators and overhaul the current recordkeeping system to use 
both leading and lagging indicators as indicators of the effectiveness 
of a business' safety and health management system'' (Docket ID 0031). 
In its comment, ASSP referred the ANSI/ASSP Z16.1-2022 standard 
(``Safety and Health Metrics and Performance Measures''), which 
contains leading indicators, to OSHA for consideration. (OSHA has 
placed a copy of ANSI/ASSP Z16.1-2022 standard in the docket as a 
copyright protected reference (Docket ID 0101).)

[[Page 47323]]

    In response to ASSP's recommendation that OSHA ``overhaul the 
current recordkeeping system to use both leading and lagging indicators 
as indicators of the effectiveness of a business' safety and health 
management system[,]'' including through a review of the referenced 
ANSI/ASSP standard, OSHA notes that such an overhaul is outside of the 
scope of this rulemaking, which focuses only on the annual electronic 
submission of data which employers are already required to keep. The 
agency did not propose changes to the data which should be kept, e.g., 
whether such data should include leading indicators, and if so, which.
    That said, OSHA agrees with ASSP that leading indicators are an 
important tool to assess the effectiveness of workplace safety and 
health programs. However, as ASSP acknowledges, leading indicators are 
not the only such tool. As OSHA has explained many times before (see, 
e.g., https://www.osha.gov/safety-management/program-evaluation), both 
leading and lagging indicators are valuable performance measures. These 
two measures work together to provide a comprehensive picture of worker 
safety and health in an industry or particular workplace. (For more 
information on the benefits and utility of the lagging indicators that 
will be collected and published in this rulemaking, see Section III.B.4 
of this Summary and Explanation.) This rulemaking and OSHA's 
recordkeeping system in general focuses on lagging indicators. Other 
OSHA programs, such as the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) which 
recognizes employers and workers in the private industry and Federal 
agencies who have implemented effective safety and health management 
systems and maintain injury and illness rates below national Bureau of 
Labor Statistics averages for their respective industries, encourage 
the use of leading indicators. And, as ASSP suggests, OSHA has 
previously published guidance related to leading indicators (see, e.g., 
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/OSHA_Leading_Indicators.pdf; 
https://www.osha.gov/leading-indicators).
    Moreover, OSHA notes that its recordkeeping system is in line with 
Congress' instructions in the OSH Act (see, e.g., Section 8(c)(2) 
(``The Secretary . . . shall 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[;]''); see also Section 8(g)(1) (``The 
Secretary and Secretary of Health and Human Services are authorized to 
compile, analyze, and publish, either in summary or detailed form, all 
reports or information obtained under this section.'')).
    As to the argument that OSHA's planned publication of lagging 
information will mislead the public, OSHA has previously published data 
from establishments' CY 2016-2021 300A forms online and has long given 
out redacted Forms 300 and 301 in response to FOIA requests, and the 
agency has not received reports of widespread public confusion, nor 
have interested parties pointed to such reports of confusion in their 
comments in this rulemaking. Consequently, OSHA is not persuaded that 
these parties' hypothetical concerns should change the course of this 
rulemaking. Nevertheless, to help decrease the risk that members of the 
public might inaccurately assume that an establishment's report of an 
injury or illness always suggests a deficiency in that establishment's 
safety and health system, OSHA will continue to include a reference to 
the Note to 29 CFR 1904.0 in the notes below the links to the website 
on which it publishes the safety and health data submitted pursuant to 
this rulemaking (see Note to Sec.  1904.0 (``Recording or reporting a 
work-related injury, illness, or fatality does not mean that the 
employer or employee was at fault, that an OSHA rule has been violated, 
or that the employee is eligible for workers' compensation or other 
benefits.'')).
    OSHA also received comments arguing that requiring the submission 
of injury and illness data from the recordkeeping forms, and publishing 
data from the submissions, will divert employer focus from leading 
indicators. For example, ASSP commented, ``OSHA's focus on lagging 
injury and illness data has at times created a stumbling block to 
systemic safety program improvements by actively discouraging employers 
from embracing a holistic risk-based approach'' (Docket ID 0031). 
Similarly, the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association commented, ``In this 
proposal, OSHA is myopically focusing on injuries and injury rates . . 
. Despite what OSHA may believe, because employers will know that their 
information will be made available worldwide, they will focus greater 
attention on these issues at the expense of focusing on leading safety 
metrics'' (Docket ID 0053). The North American Meat Institute made a 
similar comment (Docket ID 0076).
    In response, OSHA notes that, as discussed in Section III.G of this 
Summary and Explanation, employers are already required to complete 
these forms, and there is no reason why the new requirement to submit 
information from these forms would prevent employers from additionally 
implementing proactive measures as part of a comprehensive safety and 
health program. The agency is unaware of any resulting increase in 
inappropriate focus by employers on recordable injuries/illnesses vs. 
leading indicators, commenters did not provide any examples, and it is 
not clear why publishing case-specific information from the OSHA Form 
300 and 301 would cause employers to focus inappropriately on 
recordable injuries and illnesses in a way that collecting and 
publishing establishment-specific information from the OSHA Form 300A 
Annual Summary did not. Moreover, as discussed in Section III.B.4 of 
this Summary and Explanation, OSHA's publication of the establishment-
specific, case-specific, injury and illness data will benefit employers 
by giving them access to a larger data set that can be used for 
benchmarking. This increased access to information will enable 
employers to proactively improve their workplace safety and health.
5. Employer Shaming
    The National Propane Gas Association commented: ``It is assumed 
that the agency's ambition is to embarrass, shame, or otherwise damage 
the reputation of employers as a means to induce some undefined 
improvement. Underscoring this ambition is the agency's presumption 
that employers are not invested in employees' safety; that public 
scrutiny is the only enticement to improve the workplace rather than an 
employers' natural concern for employees' safety. We disagree with the 
agency's lack of faith in employers . . . .'' (Docket ID 0050).
    In response, this appears to be a misunderstanding. There is no 
mention in the preamble to the proposed rule of shaming, embarrassing, 
or damaging the reputation of employers; nor is this the agency's 
intent. On the contrary, the preamble specifically stated that 
``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'' (87 FR 18533-4). Those mechanisms include ``enable[ing] 
interested parties to gauge

[[Page 47324]]

the full range of injury and illness case types at the establishment,'' 
allowing employers to ``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,'' and ``allow[ing] 
employees to compare their own workplaces to the safest workplaces in 
their industries'' (id.). OSHA further stated that, ``if employees were 
able to preferentially choose employment at the safest 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'' (id.). As OSHA has discussed 
elsewhere in this preamble, the currently available 300A data has 
already been critical to efforts to improve worker safety and health, 
and publishing the case-specific data required to be submitted under 
this rule will further improve workplace safety and health (see, e.g., 
Section III.B.4 of this Summary and Explanation). The purpose of this 
rule is to improve workers' well-being not by shaming their employers, 
but by providing employers and other interested parties with valuable 
information that can be used to better understand and address 
occupational safety and health hazards.
6. Impact on Employee Recruiting
    The Precision Machined Parts Association commented, ``PMPA believes 
that posting this information on the internet without explanation will 
not improve workplace safety but will make it tougher for manufacturers 
to recruit young people and qualified employees into manufacturing 
careers'' (Docket ID 0055).
    Similarly, the North American Die Casting Association commented, 
``This proposed rulemaking will only serve to hurt the image of the 
industry and discourage individuals from seeking careers in 
manufacturing. In a recent survey, 96 percent of NADCA members report 
they have job openings in their facilities, and OSHA's actions in 
making these reports public will create a false image of the industry 
as dangerous. . . . At a time when businesses are already struggling to 
recruit employees and compete globally, OSHA should not continue to 
erect additional barriers to job growth and drive a wedge between 
employer and employee.'' (Docket ID 0056). The Precision Metalforming 
Association and National Tooling and Machining Association expressed 
similar concerns in their joint comment (Docket ID 0057).
    In response, OSHA notes that supporting and explanatory information 
has always been included on its website for ODI as well as ITA data, 
and the agency plans to continue this practice. For example, the ITA 
website contains several explanations of the data that address 
commenters' specific concerns, including a note that ``[r]ecording or 
reporting a work-related injury, illness, or fatality does not mean 
that the employer or employee was at fault, that an OSHA rule has been 
violated, or that the employee is eligible for workers' compensation or 
other benefits'' (https://www.osha.gov/Establishment-Specific-Injury-and-Illness-Data). The ODI website also includes explanatory notes 
(https://www.osha.gov/ords/odi/establishment_search.html). The agency 
has published establishment-specific information from the Form 300A 
summary since 2009 but is unaware of any resulting detrimental effects 
on the recruitment of young people and qualified employees into 
manufacturing careers; nor did the commenters provide any examples. On 
the other hand, OSHA notes that the data could assist with new employee 
recruitment efforts by providing prospective employees with more 
information about injuries and illnesses occurring at the 
establishment. For example, a prospective employee might be concerned 
by the number of injuries or illnesses listed in the information from 
an establishment's 300A Summary, but the case-specific forms allow 
establishments to provide more information regarding the injuries and 
illnesses summarized in the 300A, allowing prospective employees to 
make more informed decisions.
7. Legal Disputes
    AIHA commented, ``Data related to personal injury can be combined 
with other readily available data from newspapers, community `gossip', 
etc., and then used to identify the affected individuals. Once 
identified, the individuals could be harassed or encouraged to file 
lawsuits or additional claims against employers'' (Docket ID 0030). 
Similarly, the National Propane Gas Association stated that OSHA 
ignored the ``potential for frivolous lawsuits or investigations that 
could be fueled by the incomplete information that the agency intends 
to publish'' (Docket ID 0050).
    The Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association commented, 
``Making such data publicly available would allow third parties to use 
it for reasons wholly unrelated to safety.'' This commenter provided 
the following example: ``plaintiffs' attorneys, labor unions, 
competitors, and special interest groups would be able to use such 
information--selectively or otherwise--as leverage against companies 
during legal disputes, union organizing drives, contract negotiations, 
or as part of an effort to prevent a company from entering a specific 
market'' (Docket ID 0075; see also Docket ID 0088).
    The Chamber of Commerce similarly argued that, ``[M]aking these 
data publicly available would very likely lead to less desirable 
outcomes, such as increased litigation from plaintiffs' attorneys 
looking to assert that the employer was at fault to overcome workers' 
compensation no-fault limitations, as well as unions using these data 
to mischaracterize an employer's safety record during organizing 
campaigns or contract negotiations.'' (Docket ID 0088).
    As discussed above, the agency has published establishment-specific 
information from the Form 300A summary since 2009 but is unaware of any 
resulting increase in legal disputes or unwarranted reputational 
damage; nor did the commenters provide any specific examples. As noted 
above, given that this final rule requires the submission of 
information that can provide details on, and context for, the 
information from the Form 300A that is already being made public, the 
new information may help provide a fuller, more accurate picture of 
worker safety and health at a given establishment. This additional 
context and detail could actually help protect businesses against 
attempts to mischaracterize their safety records, whether in the legal 
context or otherwise. As discussed above, it is also important to note 
that employees and their representatives already have the right to 
request and receive injury and illness records from their employers 
(see 29 CFR 1904.35). While OSHA recognizes that such access is on a 
smaller scale, there is already the potential for the data to be used 
for these purposes, independent of this regulation. Finally, also as 
discussed above, to the extent that the published data serves to 
address the problem of information asymmetry in the labor market, OSHA 
considers that a positive consequence of the final rule.
8. No Fault Recordkeeping
    OSHA also received several comments asserting that the proposed 
rule would be inconsistent with the ``no fault'' nature of the 
recordkeeping system, as set forth in the note to 29 CFR 1904.0: 
``Recording or reporting a work-related injury, illness, or fatality 
does not mean that the employer or employee was at fault, that an OSHA

[[Page 47325]]

rule has been violated, or that the employee is eligible for workers' 
compensation or other benefits'' (e.g., Docket IDs 0053, 0086, 0087, 
0090, 0091). OSHA received similar comments on the 2013 NPRM (the 
rulemaking which culminated in the 2016 final rule) (see 81 FR 29666-
67).
    These comments misconstrue what OSHA means by no fault reporting. 
As OSHA has explained previously, it will not use the mere fact that an 
employer has recorded or reported and injury or illness as evidence 
that the employer violated the OSH Act or an OSHA standard. But that is 
not the same as saying that the data recorded and reported have no 
valid use or effect. OSHA has used employer reports of worker deaths 
and injuries, as well as press reports and referrals from other 
agencies, as a basis for investigating conditions at an affected 
workplace throughout its entire history. For just as long, OSHA's first 
step in all of its workplace inspections has been an examination of the 
establishment's injury and illness records. OSHA's very first 
Compliance Operations Manual, issued in January 1972, states that 
``During the course of a routine inspection, the CSHO shall inspect 
those employer records required to be kept by the Act and by [p]art 
1904'' (Docket ID 0100, p. V-15). And today, the instruction is the 
same: ``At the start of each inspection, the CSHO shall review the 
employer's injury and illness records (including the employer's OSHA 
300 logs, 300A summaries, and 301 incident reports) for three prior 
calendar years'' (see OSHA's Field Operations Manual, CPL 02-00-164, 
Chapter III, Paragraph VI.A.1 (April 14, 2020) available at https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/directives/cpl-02-00-164).
    And OSHA has always used the information in those records to guide 
the nature of its inspections (see, e.g., McLaughlin v. A.B. Chance 
Co., 842 F.2d 724 (4th Cir. 1988) (noting that during a complaint 
inspection about a particular machine, ``it would be reasonable for the 
investigator to determine if there had been injuries from the use of 
said machine'')). Indeed, for many years, OSHA's inspections plans 
explicitly conditioned the scope of inspections on the data found in 
those records (In re Establishment Inspection of Kohler Co., 935 F.2d 
810 (7th Cir. 1991) (``OSHA applied to a federal magistrate for an 
administrative search warrant that would require Kohler to produce the 
records and to submit to a comprehensive inspection of its entire 
facility if those records revealed that Kohler's injury rate exceeded 
the national average for manufacturing concerns.'')). In the last five 
years OSHA has used information from establishments' 300A Forms 
submitted under the 2016 final rule to prioritize which workplaces to 
inspect through OSHA's Site-Specific Targeting program. It does so by 
using a neutral administrative scheme to identify hazards that OSHA 
wants to address through its enforcement resources. However, OSHA will 
not use the case-specific injury and illness information submitted to 
simply choose a particular employer to inspect outside of the neutral 
administrative scheme noted above (see Marshall v. Barlow's Inc., 436 
U.S. 307 (1978)). Thus, the assertion by the Employers E-Recordkeeping 
Coalition, ``that the principal reason that the data collected pursuant 
to this proposed rule is published by OSHA presumes and is based on a 
premise of employer fault,'' is wrong (see Docket ID 0087).
    OSHA continues to recognize that the mere fact of any particular 
injury or illness occurring is not an indication of employer fault. But 
the reports of those injuries and illnesses can provide important 
information about hazards that exist at workplaces, whether or not 
those hazards are addressed by existing OSHA standards. As explained 
elsewhere, this information can be useful not only to OSHA, but also to 
researchers, workers, and even other employers with similar facilities 
(see, e.g., Docket IDs 0030, 0045). For the same reasons, as discussed 
elsewhere in this preamble, publication of the submitted data is not 
intended to ``shame'' employers (see Docket ID 0081); it is merely to 
allow use of the data in ways that will promote occupational safety and 
health.
9. Confidentiality of Business Locations
    One commenter was concerned about the consequences of disclosing 
business locations for certain establishments. Specifically, the 
National Retail Federation commented that some business locations need 
to remain confidential because ``[m]any retailers deal with 
pharmaceuticals, hazardous materials, or other highly sought after and/
or dangerous products,'' and ``[e]xposing the locations of these 
operations could leave them vulnerable to bad actors seeking the 
materials for their own use or sale on the black market'' (Docket ID 
0090).
    In response, OSHA notes that it has long published certain 
information from employers' Form 300A, including business locations. As 
explained elsewhere, the agency began publishing information from 
establishments' electronic submissions of Form 300A annual summary data 
in 2020; in addition, beginning in 2009, OSHA published information 
from the establishments' submissions of the Form 300A to the OSHA Data 
Initiative (ODI), which was replaced by the current data collection. 
The information published from both data collections included 
establishments' addresses. Furthermore, OSHA is not aware of any 
instances of damage from bad actors as a result of data collected 
through the ITA or the ODI and published since 2009, and commenters did 
not provide any examples. Nor is OSHA aware of any law that classifies 
business addresses as confidential business information or personally 
identifiable information, and commenters have provided none.
    Moreover, OSHA notes that the Environmental Protection Agency 
already publishes information about the location of workplaces with 
hazardous materials and chemicals. For example, facilities must inform 
local communities of the presence of hazardous chemicals at specific 
worksites under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. 
Also, EPA maintains hazardous materials information in the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo), which provides a 
searchable public website for the identification of facilities that 
generate, handle, and store hazardous materials (see, e.g., the Toxic 
Release Inventory: https://www.epa.gov/enviro/tri-search and the 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Reporting 
Requirements: https://www.epa.gov/epcra/state-tier-ii-reporting-requirements-and-procedures). Given the availability of such 
information, OSHA does not expect that the minimal amount of 
information regarding hazardous materials that it may publish will lead 
to the problems envisioned by this commenter.
    Finally, OSHA believes that the benefits of publishing this 
information outweigh the purported risks. As discussed in greater 
detail in Section III.B.4 of this Summary and Explanation, OSHA has 
identified a number of ways in which employees, researchers, 
consultants, and the general public may benefit from the publication of 
data from Forms 300 and 301, and if those groups do not have access to 
businesses' addresses, many of those benefits will not be realized. For 
example, injury and illness data may help job seekers make more 
informed decisions regarding their employment, but only if they can 
accurately identify their potential employers. Accordingly, OSHA 
declines to change its

[[Page 47326]]

longstanding practices regarding publication of business locations.
10. Employer-Vaccine-Mandate-Related Concerns
    OSHA also received a comment from an interested party who was 
concerned that non-OSHA actors will mischaracterize the injury and 
illness data which OSHA intends to publish on its websites as 
``vaccine-related,'' especially if those injuries and illnesses occur 
in establishments with known vaccine mandates. Specifically, the 
National Retail Federation (NRF) commented that ``throughout the COVID-
19 pandemic and continuing beyond, various groups have targeted 
employers for implementing vaccine mandates in their workplaces. Such 
employers could face unwarranted attacks or unfair mischaracterizations 
of their workplace safety records due to vaccination policies. Sadly, 
we have already seen anti-vaccine advocates manipulate publicized 
workplace injuries and unjustly characterize them as vaccine-related. 
Employers who implemented vaccine mandates consistent with the 
Administration's wishes, should not be unfairly targeted by those who 
would eagerly mischaracterize the impact of mandates and policies'' 
(Docket ID 0090).
    OSHA understands this commenter's concern. However, OSHA published 
calendar year 2021 data from OSHA Form 300A on its website in April 
2022, September 2022, and January 2023. The information made available 
in that release (like previous releases of the data from Form 300A) 
includes, among other things, company names and data regarding total 
number of deaths; total numbers of cases with days away from work and 
job transfers or restrictions, total number of other restrictions, and 
injury and illness types (e.g., the total number of injuries, skin 
disorders, respiratory conditions, poisonings, and all other 
illnesses). If the groups referenced by NRF were going to use OSHA data 
to target the establishments with vaccine mandates, OSHA believes that 
they already had the opportunity to do so using the published 300A 
data. There is no such evidence of OSHA data being used for these kinds 
of attacks in the record, and NRF did not point to any such evidence. 
Moreover, the publication of case-specific data will provide more 
information about the injuries and illnesses occurring at 
establishments, perhaps making it more obvious that a 
mischaracterization of an injury or illness as vaccine-related is just 
that: a mischaracterization.
    Finally, if NRF is suggesting that the groups referenced in its 
comment could somehow determine that a given employer or establishment 
had a vaccine mandate in place by viewing the Form 300 or 301 data 
which OSHA plans to make publicly available, OSHA thinks such a thing 
is unlikely. This final rule does not include a vaccination mandate for 
employees, nor does it require the collection and publication of 
information about vaccine mandates at a given establishment. Further, 
OSHA is currently not enforcing 29 CFR 1904's recording requirements in 
the case of worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination. Thus, OSHA 
does not expect that any information regarding vaccine side effects 
will appear in establishment's injury and illness data. And NRF has not 
pointed to any other data or evidence that would be submitted and made 
public pursuant to this rulemaking that could alert the groups 
discussed above of an employer or establishment's vaccine mandate. 
Consequently, for the reasons discussed above, OSHA is not persuaded 
that the potential harm referenced by NRF is anything other than purely 
speculative.
11. Constitutional Issues and OSHA's Authority To Publish Information 
From Forms 300 and 301
a. The First Amendment
    OSHA received two comments relating to the First Amendment of the 
U.S. Constitution. On the one hand, a comment from the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce argues that OSHA's proposed rule would violate the First 
Amendment because it would force employers to submit their confidential 
and proprietary information for publication on a publicly available 
government online database (Docket ID 0088, Attachment 2). In its 
comment, the Chamber noted that the First Amendment protects both the 
right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking. The Chamber 
commented: ``While OSHA's stated goal of using the information it 
collects from employers ``to improve workplace safety and health,'' 78 
FR 67254, is unobjectionable, ``significant encroachments on First 
Amendment rights of the sort that compelled disclosure imposes cannot 
be justified by a mere showing of some legitimate governmental 
interest.'' Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 64 (1976) (per curiam). 
Instead, where the government seeks to require companies to engage in 
the type of speech proposed here, the regulation must meet the higher 
standard of strict scrutiny: Meaning that it must be narrowly tailored 
to promote a compelling governmental interest. See United States v. 
Playboy Entm't Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 819 (2000). Once subjected to 
strict scrutiny, the publication provision of this Proposed Rule must 
fail because it is not narrowly tailored towards accomplishing a 
compelling government interest. See Playboy, 529 U.S. at 819. Under the 
narrow tailoring prong of this analysis, the regulation must be 
necessary towards accomplishing the government's interest. See, e.g., 
Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 775 (2002) (``[T]o 
show that the [requirement] is narrowly tailored, [the government] must 
demonstrate that it does not `unnecessarily circumscrib[e] protected 
expression.'' ' (fourth alteration in original) (quoting Brown v. 
Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, 54 (1982))).'' (Docket ID 0088, Attachment 2) 
(footnote omitted).
    In support of these arguments, the Chamber alleged that OSHA's 
proposal would undermine (not improve) workplace safety and health 
because it ``would substantially deplete OSHA's resources.'' In 
addition, the Chamber asserted that ``even if OSHA were able to 
maintain this database and analyze this information in an effective and 
timely manner, there is no evidence that publication of this 
information will have any effect on workplace safety'' (Docket ID 0088, 
Attachment 2).
    On the other hand, Worksafe commented that the rule would merely 
compel employers to submit to OSHA information that they are already 
required to maintain about workplace incidents (Docket ID 0063). It 
further explained that this is a form of commercial speech, in which 
the speaker's constitutional interest in non-disclosure is minimal 
(Docket ID 0063 (citing Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 
U.S. 626, 651 (1985))). Additionally, Worksafe argued that OSHA could 
address First Amendment concerns by identifying the following in the 
final rule (1) OSHA's interest in the case-specific reports and 
publication, (2) how the rule advances that interest, and (3) why the 
rule is not unduly burdensome (Docket ID 0063).
    After considering these comments, OSHA disagrees with the Chamber's 
assertion that this rulemaking violates the First Amendment. OSHA notes 
that, contrary to the Chamber's comment, the decision in Buckley v. 
Valeo only applies to campaign contribution disclosures and does not 
hold that other types of disclosure rules are subject to the strict 
scrutiny standard (see 424 U.S. 1, 64 (reasoning that campaign 
contribution disclosures ``can seriously infringe on privacy of 
association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment'')). Later 
cases also clarify

[[Page 47327]]

that disclosure requirements only trigger strict scrutiny ``in the 
electoral context'' (see John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 196 
(2010)).
    Further, OSHA agrees with WorkSafe that Zauderer is applicable to 
this rulemaking. In Zauderer, the Supreme Court upheld Ohio State rules 
requiring disclosures in attorney advertising relating to client 
liability for court costs (471 U.S. at 653). The Court declined to 
apply the more rigorous strict scrutiny standard, because the 
government was not attempting to ``prescribe what shall be orthodox in 
politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force 
citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein'' (471 U.S. at 
651). Because it concluded the disclosure at issue would convey 
``purely factual and uncontroversial information,'' the rule only 
needed to be ``reasonably related to the State's interest in preventing 
deception of consumers'' (id.). More recently, in American Meat 
Institute v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the D.C. Circuit held that the Zauderer case's ``reasonably related'' 
test is not limited to rules aimed at preventing consumer deception, 
and applies to other disclosure rules dealing with ``purely factual and 
uncontroversial information'' (760 F.3d 18, 22 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en 
banc) (finding that the speakers' interest in non-disclosure of such 
information is ``minimal''); see also NY State Restaurant Ass'n v. NYC 
Bd. Of Health, 556 F.3d 114, 133 (2d Cir. 2009) (accord), 
Pharmaceutical Care Mgmt. Ass'n v. Rowe, 429 F.3d 294, 310 (1st Cir. 
2005) (accord), cert denied, 547 U.S. 1179 (2006)).
    This rule only requires disclosure of purely factual and 
uncontroversial workplace injury and illness records that are already 
kept by employers. The rule does not violate the First Amendment 
because disclosure of workplace injury and illness records is 
reasonably related to the government's interest in assuring ``so far as 
possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful 
working conditions'' (29 U.S.C. 651(b)). Further, as discussed in more 
detail in Section III.B.4 of this Summary and Explanation, OSHA has 
determined that the collection and publication of this information will 
have a positive effect on worker safety and health. In addition, as 
discussed in Section III.B.14 of this Summary and Explanation, OSHA 
does not believe that its decision to devote a portion of its resources 
to collecting the workplace injury and illness data covered by this 
final rule will negatively impact worker safety and health. On the 
contrary, OSHA expects that the data submitted in response to the 
requirements put into place by this final rule will allow OSHA to 
allocate its resources in a more informed fashion. The remainder of the 
Chamber's comment addresses the requirement that the government 
``narrowly tailor'' regulations that deal with essential rights, which, 
as explained above, does not apply to an employer's minimal interest in 
non-disclosure of purely factual and uncontroversial information.
b. The Fourth Amendment
    The Plastics Industry Association (Docket ID 0086), as well as one 
private citizen commenter (Docket ID 0023), generally assert that the 
collection and publication of site- and case-specific data would 
violate employers' Fourth Amendment rights. However, as discussed above 
in Section II, Legal Authority, the Fourth Amendment protects against 
government searches and seizures of private property only when a person 
has a legitimate expectation of privacy related to the thing being 
searched or seized. There is little or no expectation of privacy for 
records of occupational injuries and illnesses kept in compliance with 
OSHA regulations, which employers are legally required to disclose to 
OSHA and others on request. Moreover, even if there were an expectation 
of privacy in these records, the Fourth Amendment prohibits only 
unreasonable incursions by the government. The test for reasonableness 
requires balancing the need to search against the invasion that the 
search entails (see Camara v. Mun. Ct. of City & Cnty. of San 
Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 536-537 (1967)). The information submission 
requirement in this final rule is reasonable. As explained in Section 
II, Legal Authority, the submission requirement serves a substantial 
government interest in protecting the health and safety of workers, has 
a strong statutory basis, and uses reasonable, objective criteria for 
determining which employers must report information to OSHA. In 
addition, again, as noted above and below, the submission requirement 
results in little to no invasion of employer or establishment privacy 
given that employers must already retain these forms and provide them 
to multiple individuals and entities upon request.
    OSHA also received a comment from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the 
Chamber) asserting that OSHA's use of injury and illness data submitted 
under the proposed rule for enforcement purposes would violate 
employers' Fourth Amendment rights. The Chamber argued that OSHA's use 
of the information collected for enforcement purposes will fail to 
constitute a ``neutral administrative scheme'' and will thus violate 
the Supreme Court's holding in Marshall v. Barlow's Inc., 436 U.S. 307 
(1978) (Docket ID 0088, Attachment 2). Additionally, the Chamber 
maintained that the raw data to be collected under the proposed rule 
would fail to provide any defensible neutral predicate for enforcement 
decisions: ``Under this Proposed Rule, OSHA will be able to target any 
employer that submits a reportable injury or illness for any reason the 
agency chooses, or for no reason at all, under this unlimited 
discretion it has sought to grant itself to ``identify workplaces where 
workers are at great risk.'' '' (Docket ID 0088, Attachment 2 (quoting 
78 FR 67256)).
    In response, OSHA notes that Barlow's concerned the question of 
whether OSHA must have a warrant to enter and inspect the nonpublic 
areas of a worksite without the employer's consent. Section 1904.41 of 
this final rule involves electronic submission of injury and illness 
recordkeeping data; no entry of premises or compliance officer 
decision-making is involved. Thus, the Barlow's decision provides very 
little support for the Chamber's sweeping Fourth Amendment objections 
(see Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc., 464 U.S. 408, 414 (1984) 
(reasonableness of a subpoena is not to be determined on the basis of 
physical entry law, because subpoena requests for information involve 
no entry into nonpublic areas)). Moreover, the final rule is limited in 
scope and leaves OSHA with limited discretion. The recordkeeping 
information required to be submitted is highly relevant to 
accomplishing OSHA's statutory mission. The submission of recordkeeping 
data is accomplished through remote electronic transmittal, without any 
intrusion of the employer's premises by OSHA, and is not unduly 
burdensome. Also, as noted above, all of the injury and illness 
information establishments will be required to submit under this final 
rule will be taken from records employers are already required to 
create, maintain, post, and provide to employees, employee 
representatives, and government officials upon request, which means the 
employer has a reduced expectation of privacy in the information.
    With respect to the issue of enforcement, OSHA disagrees with the 
Chamber's Fourth Amendment objection that the agency will target 
employers ``for any reason'' simply because they submit injury and 
illness

[[Page 47328]]

data. Instead, OSHA plans to continue the practice of using a neutral-
based scheme for identifying employers and industries for greater 
enforcement attention. More specifically, the agency will use the data 
submitted by employers under this final rule in essentially the same 
manner in which OSHA has used data from the ODI and the current 
collection of Form 300A data in all of its iterations of the Site-
Specific Targeting (SST) program. The SST includes for selection 
establishments that meet pre-determined injury and illness rate 
thresholds. All establishments at or above the threshold are eligible 
for inspection. Establishments in this pool are then randomly selected 
for inspection. In the future, OSHA plans to analyze the recordkeeping 
data submitted by employers to identify injury and illness trends, 
establish neutral criteria to determine which employers may be 
inspected, and then make appropriate decisions regarding enforcement 
efforts based on those criteria. OSHA also notes that the agency 
currently uses establishment-specific fatality, injury, and illness 
reports submitted by employers under Sec.  1904.39 to target 
enforcement and compliance assistance resources. As with the SST and 
National Emphasis programs, a neutral-based scheme is used to identify 
which establishments are inspected and which fall under a compliance 
assistance program. Accordingly, OSHA's using injury and illness 
recordkeeping data to target employers for inspection will not be 
arbitrary or unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
c. The Fifth Amendment
    One commenter raised concerns that the proposed rule would violate 
the Fifth Amendment's requirement that the Federal Government ensure 
equal protection. Specifically, Hunter Cisiewski commented that the 
proposal to remove the requirement from former Sec.  1904.41(a)(1) for 
certain establishments with 250 or more employees to electronically 
submit Form 300A data, ``would deprive workers in the affected 
industries of holding their employers accountable to produce workplace 
related injury data to OSHA while simultaneously providing this 
protection to workers in similar industries'' and ``presents no reason 
for why employees in these affected industries should no longer have 
the guarantee that their employers will report workplace injury and 
illness data to the governing agency'' (Docket ID 0024).
    As explained in Section III.A of this Summary and Explanation, OSHA 
has decided not to make the proposed change of restricting the universe 
of large establishments that are required to submit data from Form 
300A. Instead, the agency will maintain the requirement for all 
establishments with 250 or more employees that are covered by part 1904 
to submit the information from their OSHA Form 300A to OSHA, or its 
designee, once a year. Therefore, although OSHA disagrees with this 
commenter's assertion that the proposal would have violated the Fifth 
Amendment's guarantee of equal protection had it been finalized, the 
agency finds that this particular comment is moot.
d. OSHA's Authority To Publish Information Submitted Under This Rule
    Several commenters asserted that OSHA lacks the statutory authority 
under the OSH Act to publish a database that makes submitted injury and 
illness recordkeeping data available to the general public (Docket IDs 
0050, 0059, 0071, 0086, 0088, 0090). These commenters acknowledged that 
Sections 8 and 24 of the OSH Act provide the Secretary of Labor with 
authority to issue regulations requiring employers to maintain accurate 
records of work-related injuries and illnesses. However, according to 
these commenters, nothing in the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to publish 
establishment-specific injury and illness records on a public website. 
The National Retail Federation (NRF) stated: ``NRF believes the NPRM 
itself is fundamentally flawed in that the agency does not have the 
statutory authority to publish the data as proposed'' (Docket ID 0090). 
The National Propane Gas Association commented: ``Lastly, the agency 
radically interprets its authority to justify the publicly accessible 
website. In the NPRM, OSHA argues that its general purpose justifies 
any rulemaking that presents the potential to improve safety. The 
general purpose of the agency to improve workplace safety is not 
equivalent to a foregone conclusion that any proposal by the agency 
will result in improvements to workplace safety. The NPRM fails to 
present information to demonstrate that public shaming is an effective 
means to improve workplace safety.'' (Docket ID 0050).
    Similarly, NAHB pointed to other statutes, such as the Federal Coal 
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1969, Public Law 91-173 (December 30, 
1969), which it maintains provided more express authority to publish 
records than the OSH Act (Docket ID 0059). NAHB further argues that the 
language in the OSH Act only authorizes OSHA to publish analysis, not 
``raw data'' (Docket ID 0059).
    As OSHA stated in the 2016 final recordkeeping rule, the OSH Act 
provides ample statutory authority for OSHA to issue this final rule 
and publish the submitted data. As explained in Section II, Legal 
Authority, the following provisions of the OSH Act give the Secretary 
of Labor broad authority to issue regulations that address the 
recording and reporting of occupational injuries and illnesses.
    Section 2(b)(12) of the Act states that one of the purposes of the 
OSH Act is to ensure safe and healthy working conditions through 
appropriate reporting procedures designed to further the objectives of 
the OSH Act and accurately characterize the nature of workplace safety 
and health hazards (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(12)).
    Section 8(c)(1) requires employers to create and retain the records 
that OSHA has specified are necessary and appropriate either for the 
Act's enforcement or to develop information related to the underlying 
reasons for and prevention of work-related illnesses and accidents (29 
U.S.C. 657(c)(1)). Section 8(c)(1) also requires employers to make such 
records available to the Secretary. The authorization to the Secretary 
to prescribe such recordkeeping regulations as he considers ``necessary 
or appropriate'' emphasizes the breadth of the Secretary's discretion 
in implementing the OSH Act. Section 8(c)(2) further tasks the 
Secretary with promulgating regulations which require employers to keep 
accurate records of, and to make periodic reports on, occupational 
illnesses, injuries, and deaths (29 U.S.C. 657(c)(2)).
    The grant of authority in Section 8(g)(1) is particularly pertinent 
to OSHA's stated intention to publish the collected information online. 
Section 8(g)(1) authorizes the Secretary to compile, analyze, and 
publish, either in summary or detailed form, all reports or information 
the Secretary obtains under section 8 of the OSH Act. Section 8(g)(2) 
of the Act generally empowers the Secretary to promulgate any rules and 
regulations that the Secretary determines are necessary to perform the 
Secretary's duties under the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2)).
    Section 24 contains a related grant of regulatory authority. 
Section 24(a) directs the Secretary to create and maintain an effective 
program of collection, compilation and analysis of work-related safety 
and health statistics. In addition, Section 24(a) states that the 
Secretary shall compile accurate

[[Page 47329]]

statistics on occupational illnesses and injuries (29 U.S.C. 673(a)). 
Finally, Section 24(e) provides that, based on the records the 
employers create and retain in accordance with Section 8(c) of the OSH 
Act, employers must file, with the Secretary, the reports prescribed by 
regulation as necessary to carry out the Secretary's functions under 
the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 673(e)). Given the numerous statutory provisions 
authorizing and requiring OSHA to collect information about 
occupational safety and health, along with the provision (Section 
8(g)(1)) specifically addressing the publication of such information, 
it is clear that Congress determined that both collection and 
publication of this information were critical to OSHA's mission of 
protecting the health and safety of the nation's workers.
    In addition, as described in Section III.B of this Summary and 
Explanation, OSHA has made the determination that electronic submission 
and publication of injury and illness recordkeeping data are 
``necessary and appropriate'' for the enforcement of the OSH Act and 
for gathering and sharing information regarding the causes or 
prevention of occupational accidents or illnesses. Where an agency is 
authorized to prescribe regulations ``necessary'' to implement a 
statutory provision or purpose, a regulation promulgated under such 
authority is valid ``so long it is reasonably related to the enabling 
legislation'' (Morning v. Family Publication Service, Inc., 441 U.S. 
356, 359 (1973)).
    OSHA further notes that, contrary to comments made by some 
commenters, and as explained above, the final rule will not result in 
the publication of raw injury and illness recordkeeping data or the 
release of records containing personally identifiable information or 
confidential commercial and/or proprietary information. The release and 
publication of submitted injury and illness recordkeeping data will be 
conducted in accordance with applicable Federal law (see discussion 
above in this preamble). The purpose of increasing access to injury and 
illness report data is not to conduct public shaming, but rather to 
allow employers to compare their safety records to other employers, 
enable employees to gain greater awareness of the hazards and safety 
records in their workplaces without fear of retribution, and pursue the 
numerous other safety and health-related purposes discussed in this 
rulemaking.
    Many commenters stated that collection and publication of detailed 
injury and illness data will support the OSH Act's goals of reducing 
occupational accidents and illnesses through greater understanding, 
prevention, and effective enforcement (e.g., Docket IDs 0010, 0011, 
0012, 0024, 0029, 0030, 0031, 0035, Attachment 2, 0045, Attachment 1, 
0048, 0049, Attachment 1). The Seventeen AGs summarized the ways that 
publication of data will enhance the effectiveness of OSHA's efforts to 
achieve the purposes of the OSH Act: ``Requiring the submission of 
certain data from Forms 300 and 301, in addition to the summary Form 
300A, will provide the public with injury-specific data that is 
critical for helping workers, employers, regulators, researchers, and 
consumers understand and prevent occupational injuries and illnesses. . 
. . These [case-specific] fields paint a far more detailed picture of 
the nature and severity of workplace safety incidents and risks. The 
proposed rule recognizes the importance of this more detailed 
information, which will help OSHA and States better target their 
workplace safety and enforcement programs; encourage employers to abate 
workplace hazards; empower workers to identify risks and demand 
improvements; and provide information to researchers who work on 
occupational safety and health.'' (Docket ID 0045).
    OSHA agrees. In sum, publication of the data required to be 
submitted under this final rule is clearly within the broad authority 
granted the agency by the OSH Act.
    OSHA also received comments arguing that the online posting of 
covered employers' injury and illness recordkeeping data violates the 
Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 
2002 (CIPSEA) (Pub. L. 107-347, December 17, 2002) (Docket ID 0088, 
Attachment 2). For example, the Chamber of Commerce noted that CIPSEA 
prohibits BLS from releasing establishment-specific injury and illness 
data to the general public or to OSHA, and that OSHA has not adequately 
addressed how the release of part 1904 information under this 
rulemaking is consistent with the Congressional mandate expressed in 
the law.
    In response, OSHA notes that CIPSEA provides strong confidentiality 
protections for statistical information collections that are conducted 
or sponsored by Federal agencies. The law prevents the disclosure of 
data or information in identifiable form if the information is acquired 
by an agency under a pledge of confidentiality for exclusively 
statistical purposes (see Section 512(b)(1)). BLS, whose mission is to 
collect, process, analyze, and disseminate statistical information, 
uses a pledge of confidentiality when requesting occupational injury 
and illness information from respondents under the BLS Survey.
    The provisions of CIPSEA apply when a Federal agency both pledges 
to protect the confidentiality of the information it acquires and uses 
the information only for statistical purposes. Conversely, the 
provisions of CIPSEA do not apply if information is collected or used 
by a Federal agency for any non-statistical purpose. As noted elsewhere 
in this document, the information collected and published by OSHA in 
the final rule will be used for several non-statistical purposes, 
including for the targeting of OSHA enforcement activities. Therefore, 
the CIPSEA confidentiality provisions are not applicable to the final 
rule.
12. Administrative Issues
a. Public Hearing
    The Chamber of Commerce recommended that OSHA hold formal public 
hearings throughout the United States for this rulemaking (Docket ID 
0088, Attachment 2). The Chamber felt that, given both the burden on 
employers and the far-reaching implications of publishing confidential 
and proprietary information, formal public hearings were necessary to 
give people outside Washington, DC the opportunity to participate in 
the rulemaking process. Additionally, the National Propane Gas 
Association commented that OSHA should hold ``public listening sessions 
to solicit more concepts from employers, employees, and other 
stakeholders'' (Docket ID 0050).
    OSHA considered these requests and is not persuaded that hearings 
or public listening sessions are required or necessary. First, as to 
whether a hearing is required, because this rulemaking involves a 
regulation rather than a standard, it is governed by the notice and 
comment requirements in the APA (5 U.S.C. 553) rather than Section 6 of 
the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR 1911.11. Section 6 of the OSH 
Act and 29 CFR 1911.11 only apply to promulgating, modifying, or 
revoking occupational safety and health standards. Therefore, the OSH 
Act's 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.
    Similarly, Section 553 of the APA does not require a public 
hearing. Instead, it states that the agency must ``give interested 
persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through 
submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without 
opportunity

[[Page 47330]]

for oral presentation'' (5 U.S.C. 553(c)). In the NPRM, OSHA invited 
the public to submit written comments on all aspects of the proposal 
and received 87 comments in response (see 87 FR 18555). OSHA believes 
that interested parties had a full and fair opportunity to participate 
in the rulemaking and comment on the proposed rule through the 
submission of written comments. This belief is supported by the fact 
that OSHA extended the comment period for an additional thirty days 
based on requests from the public (87 FR 31793). With that extension, 
interested parties were afforded 92 days to review and comment on 
OSHA's proposal. OSHA did not receive any requests to further extend 
the comment period.
    Second, as to the necessity of the hearing to provide interested 
parties outside of Washington, DC an opportunity to participate in the 
rulemaking process, or holding public listening sessions, OSHA does not 
believe it needs to do so for the same reasons it does not find that 
the APA requires a hearing. Specifically, the opportunity for notice 
and comment afforded by the NPRM was sufficient to both allow 
participation by interested parties and fully develop the record.
b. The Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH)
    The National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) commented that OSHA 
must seek input from the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and 
Health (ACCSH) during this rulemaking ``to better understand the 
impacts and consequences of its proposal'' (Docket ID 0059).
    As pointed out by NAHB in their comments, ACCSH is a continuing 
advisory body established under Section 3704(d) of the Contract Work 
Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq., commonly known 
as the Construction Safety Act), to advise the Secretary of Labor and 
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health in the 
formulation of construction safety and health standards and policy 
matters affecting federally financed or assisted construction. In 
addition, OSHA's regulation at 29 CFR 1912.3 provides that OSHA must 
consult with ACCSH regarding the setting of construction standards 
under the OSH Act.
    OSHA notes that both the Construction Safety Act (40 U.S.C. 
3704(a)) and 29 CFR 1912.3 only require OSHA to consult with ACCSH 
regarding the formulation of new construction ``standards.'' As 
discussed above, the requirements in 29 CFR part 1904 are regulations, 
not standards. Therefore, as NAHB itself acknowledged in its comment 
(``the statute and the agency's own regulations only require OSHA to 
consult with the ACCSH regarding the setting of construction standards, 
and not regulations'' (Docket ID 0059)), OSHA was not required to 
consult with ACCSH in formulating this final regulation. In addition, 
as noted in the NPRM, OSHA consulted and received advice from the 
National Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) 
prior to issuing the proposed rule. NACOSH indicated its support for 
OSHA's efforts, in consultation with NIOSH, to modernize the system for 
collection of injury and illness data to assure that the data are 
timely, complete, and accurate, as well as accessible and useful to 
employees, employers, government agencies, and members of the public.
c. Reasonable Alternatives Considered
    Associated Builders and Contractors commented that under the APA, 
OSHA is required ``to consider reasonable alternatives to its proposed 
reversal of the current reporting requirements,'' and asserts that 
``the failure to do so will likely lead to nullification upon judicial 
review'' (Docket ID 0071). In response, OSHA notes that the Supreme 
Court has held that an agency is not required to ``consider all policy 
alternatives in reaching [its] decision,'' but when an agency rescinds 
a prior policy, it must consider the alternatives that are ``within the 
ambit of the existing [policy]'' (Dep't of Homeland Security v. Regents 
of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1913 (2020) (alterations in 
original)).
    The commenter does not point to a particular policy alternative 
that OSHA failed to consider, nor is OSHA required to consider every 
possible policy alternative. To the extent the comment suggests that 
OSHA should have considered, as an alternative, maintaining the 
requirements of the 2019 rule, OSHA has complied with this requirement. 
As explained in the NPRM, OSHA proposed requiring establishments with 
100 or more employees at any time during the previous calendar year, 
and in an industry listed in proposed appendix B to subpart E, to 
electronically submit certain information from OSHA Forms 300, 301, and 
300A (87 FR 18537). This was a change from the 2019 final rule, which 
had removed the requirement for the annual electronic submission of 300 
and 301 data to OSHA because of both the risk of disclosure of 
sensitive worker information and resource concerns. In the NPRM, OSHA 
explained that it had preliminarily determined that the reasons given 
in the preamble to the 2019 rule for the removal of the 300 and 301 
data submission requirement were no longer compelling. The agency 
discussed in detail the ways in which the benefits of collecting data 
from the 300 and 301 forms outweighed the slight risk to employee 
privacy and explained how technological improvements have mitigated 
resource concerns (87 FR 18537-18542). The NPRM also explained the ways 
in which publication of 300 and 301 data may benefit interested parties 
and improve worker safety and health (87 FR 18542-18543). Furthermore, 
in Section III.B of this Summary and Explanation, OSHA has discussed 
these issues in further detail and responded to a number of comments 
opposing the new reporting requirement. By analyzing these issues and 
responding to comments, OSHA has weighed the proposal against 
maintaining the status quo and provided a well-reasoned explanation for 
its decision, which illustrates OSHA's consideration of alternatives to 
its proposal and fulfills its obligations under the APA.
    OSHA also considered alternatives to several aspects of this final 
rule. In the preliminary economic analysis of the NPRM, the agency 
explained that appendix A is based on 2011-2013 injury rates from the 
SOII, and that OSHA was not proposing to modify appendix A because it 
took several years for the regulated community to understand which 
industries were required to submit information and which were not (87 
FR 18552). However, OSHA asked for comment on a possible alternative: 
updating appendix A to reflect 2017-2019 injury rates, which would 
result in the addition of one industry and the removal of 13 (87 FR 
18552-53). Additionally, OSHA explained that the 2016 final rule did 
not include a requirement to regularly update the list of designated 
industries in appendix A because it believed that moving industries in 
and out of the appendix would be confusing (87 FR 18553). The agency 
requested comment on another possible alternative: regularly updating 
the list of designated industries in proposed appendix B (87 FR 18553). 
In Section III.A of this Summary and Explanation, OSHA has responded to 
the comments received in response to the first alternative and provided 
explanations for its decision not to adopt the alternative. Likewise, 
in Section III.B of this Summary and Explanation, OSHA responded to 
comments received in response to the

[[Page 47331]]

second alternative, and its decision not to adopt that alternative.
    OSHA also proposed to change the requirement in Sec.  1904.41(a)(1) 
that required establishments with 250 or more employees, in all 
industries routinely required to keep OSHA injury and illness records, 
to electronically submit information from their 300A to OSHA once a 
year. The proposal would have required this submission only for 
establishments in industries listed in appendix A, thus reducing the 
number of establishments required to electronically submit 300A data 
(see 87 FR 18536). The agency received many comments on the proposal, 
which overwhelmingly opposed it, and urged OSHA to retain the existing 
requirement for establishments with 250 or more employees that are 
normally required to report under part 1904 to submit data from their 
300As. In Section III.A of this Summary and Explanation, these comments 
are discussed in greater detail, as is OSHA's explanation for rejecting 
the proposed change and retaining current reporting requirements for 
Form 300A data.
    OSHA's presentation of proposed alternatives, analysis of comments, 
and ultimate decisions to reject those proposals illustrates OSHA's 
consideration of alternatives within the ambit of its current policy. 
For these reasons, OSHA has met its obligations under the APA to 
consider alternatives to its proposal.

IV. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Certification

A. Introduction

    As described above, OSHA is amending its recordkeeping regulations 
in 29 CFR part 1904 to revise the requirements for the electronic 
submission of information from employers' injury and illness 
recordkeeping forms. Specifically, OSHA is amending its recordkeeping 
regulation at Sec.  1904.41 to require establishments with 100 or more 
employees in certain designated industries (i.e., those on appendix B 
in subpart E of part 1904) to electronically submit information from 
their OSHA Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA once a year. This is the only new 
requirement of the final rule, and therefore the only one that imposes 
new costs on employers. The other main provisions in the final rule, 
which involve submission of data from the Form 300A annual summary, 
represent non-substantive changes to requirements that already exist. 
OSHA intends to post the data from the annual electronic submissions on 
a public website after identifying and removing information that could 
reasonably be expected to identify individuals directly, such as 
individuals' names and contact information.
    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 emphasizes 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.
    As explained in this analysis, OSHA estimates that this rule will 
have economic costs of $7.7 million per year. These costs include $7.1 
million per year to the private sector to become familiar with the 
rule's requirements, update software, and submit forms electronically 
to OSHA, and $0.6 million per year to the government for processing the 
data, updating and maintaining software, and providing additional IT 
support. OSHA estimates average costs of $136 per year for affected 
establishments (those with 100 or more employees in NAICS industries 
listed on appendix B of subpart E of part 1904), annualized over 10 
years with a discount rate of seven percent.
    The final rule is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866 Section 3(f)(1), 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 the Congressional Review Act for an economically 
significant regulatory action or major rule.\18\ This Final Economic 
Analysis (FEA) addresses the costs, benefits, and economic impacts of 
the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Chamber of Commerce objected to the preliminary finding 
that this rule is not an economically significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866 (Ex. 88), arguing that the first-year 
costs of compliance require such a finding. This assertion is based 
on the Chamber of Commerce's own estimates of the costs of 
compliance with this rule, which are significantly higher than 
OSHA's. The Chamber estimates first-year costs of $130 million, 
whereas OSHA's estimated annual costs in the FEA to affected 
employers are just over $7 million. The Chamber of Commerce's more 
specific comments regarding costs are discussed throughout this 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Changes From the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) (Reflecting 
Changes in the Final Rule From the Proposal)

    The final rule makes limited substantive changes to employer 
obligations when compared to the requirements that were costed as part 
of the proposed rule. These changes, as described in more detail below, 
are to the requirement for establishments with 250 or more employees to 
submit data from their 300A annual summaries to OSHA and to the 
industries included on appendix B to subpart E of part 1904.
    More generally, the final rule does not add to or change any 
employer's obligation to complete, retain, and certify injury and 
illness records under OSHA's regulations at 29 CFR part 1904. The final 
rule also does not add to or change the recording criteria or 
definitions for these records. Nor does the final rule change the 
requirement to electronically submit information from the OSHA 300A 
Annual Summary. As discussed in Section III.A of the Summary and 
Explanation, the final rule does not remove the reporting requirement 
from any establishment that is currently required to electronically 
report Form 300A information to OSHA nor impose a new reporting 
requirement on any establishment that is not currently required to 
electronically report Form 300A information to OSHA.
1. Continued Submission of OSHA 300A Annual Summaries by Establishments 
With 250 or More Employees
    In the NPRM, OSHA proposed removing the requirement for 
establishments with 250 or more employees in select industries to 
submit information from their OSHA 300A annual summary forms 
electronically. To reflect this proposed change, OSHA estimated in its 
PEA that the reduction in the number of establishments required to 
submit this information would result in a total annual cost savings of 
$27,077 (87 FR 18549). For this final rule, as explained in Section 
III.A of the Summary and Explanation, OSHA has decided not to make the 
proposed change and to retain the existing requirement. Therefore, 
these cost savings have been removed from the cost analysis.
2. Additional Appendix B Industries
    In the NPRM, the agency proposed a selected list of industries, in 
appendix B, to designate which establishments

[[Page 47332]]

with 100 or more employees would have to submit information from their 
OSHA Form 300 Log and Form 301 Incident Reports electronically. The 
industries on proposed appendix B were based on the average total case 
rate (TCR) of injuries and illnesses in each industry. Because the 
requirement for establishments in industries on appendix B to submit 
data from Forms 300 and 301 is a new requirement, OSHA analyzed the 
costs and impacts to establishments in those industries in the PEA. For 
the final rule, OSHA has decided to add additional industries to the 
list of industries that were on appendix B in the proposed rule; these 
additional industries are listed in Table 1, below. As explained in 
Section III.B.1 of the Summary and Explanation, OSHA has decided to add 
industries from appendix A that meet the criteria of having either a 
high DART rate (defined as 1.5 times the private industry DART rate) or 
a high fatality rate (defined as 1.5 times the private industry 
fatality rate). Employers that have 100 or more employees and are in an 
industry listed on final appendix B must submit information from their 
Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA, electronically, on an annual basis.

                                     Table 1--Industries Added to Appendix B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           High fatality  rate
        2017 NAICS 4-digit                   Industry           High DART rate criteria          criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1133..............................  Logging...................  No.....................  Yes.
1142..............................  Hunting and Trapping......  Yes....................  No.
3379..............................  Other Furniture Related     Yes....................  No.
                                     Product Manufacturing.
4239..............................  Miscellaneous Durable       No.....................  Yes.
                                     Goods Merchant
                                     Wholesalers.
4853..............................  Taxi and Limousine Service  No.....................  Yes.
4889..............................  Other Support Activities    Yes....................  No.
                                     for Transportation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the additions in Table 1, above, the final appendix B to 
subpart E is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            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.
1133.........................  Logging.
1141.........................  Fishing.
1142.........................  Hunting and Trapping.
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 (except Aluminum)
                                Production and Processing.
3315.........................  Foundries.
3321.........................  Forging and Stamping.
3323.........................  Architectural and Structural Metals
                                Manufacturing.
3324.........................  Boiler, Tank, and Shipping Container
                                Manufacturing.

[[Page 47333]]

 
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 (including Fixtures)
                                Manufacturing.
3379.........................  Other Furniture Related Product
                                Manufacturing.
4231.........................  Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Parts and
                                Supplies Merchant Wholesalers.
4233.........................  Lumber and Other Construction Materials
                                Merchant Wholesalers.
4235.........................  Metal and Mineral (except Petroleum)
                                Merchant Wholesalers.
4239.........................  Miscellaneous Durable Goods 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.
4853.........................  Taxi and Limousine Service.
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.
4889.........................  Other Support Activities for
                                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 (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.
6243.........................  Vocational Rehabilitation Services.
7111.........................  Performing Arts Companies.
7112.........................  Spectator Sports.
7131.........................  Amusement Parks and Arcades.
7211.........................  Traveler Accommodation.
7212.........................  RV (Recreational Vehicle) Parks and
                                Recreational Camps.
7223.........................  Special Food Services.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Updated Data
    The FEA has updated data used in the PEA to the most recent data 
available. The data from the PEA and the updated data used for this FEA 
appear in Table 2, below.

[[Page 47334]]

                                                          Table 2--Data in the PEA and the FEA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   PEA estimates                                                                FEA estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Name                       Value                    Source                   Name                Value                    Source
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Wages SOC 19-5011..........  $37.55.............  BLS OEWS 5/2020............  Base Wages SOC 19-  $37.86.............  BLS OEWS 5/2021.\1\
                                                                                     5011 (safety
                                                                                     specialist).
                                                                                    Base Wages 15-1252  $58.17.............  BLS OEWS 5/2021.\1\
                                                                                     (software
                                                                                     developer).
Fringe Benefits Civilian........  0.312..............  BLS ECEC 6/2021............  Fringe Benefits     0.310..............  BLS ECEC 9/2022.\2\
                                                                                     Civilian.
Base Wages GS-13 Step 6.........  $48.78.............  OMB FY 2020................  Base Wages GS-13    $55.06.............  OMB 2023.\3\
                                                                                     Step 6.
Fringe Benefits Government......  0.381..............  BLS ECEC 6/2021............  Fringe Benefits     0.381..............  BLS ECEC 9/2022.\2\
                                                                                     Government.
Appendix B Establishments.......  48,919.............  OSHA/OSA 2021..............  Appendix B          52,092.............  OSHA/OSA 2022.\4\
                                                                                     Establishments.
Total Submissions...............  718,316............  OSHA/OSA 2021..............  Total Submissions.  766,257............  OSHA/OSA 2022.\4\
Manual Submission Time 300/301..  10 minutes.........  PRA 04/22 \5\..............  Manual Submission   15 minutes.........  OSHA/OSA. 2022.\4\
                                                                                     Time 300/301.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BLS May 2021 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics data, released March 31, 2022. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes195011.htm#nat. Accessed
  October 05, 2022.
\2\ BLS September 2022 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, released December 15, 2022. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf. Accessed
  February 20, 2023.
\3\ OMB January 2023 Salary Table 2022-RUS. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2023/RUS_h.pdf.
  Accessed February 22, 2023.
\4\ Docket ID 0103.
\5\ Recordkeeping and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (29 CFR part 1904). OMB Control #1218-0176.

C. Cost

Sec.  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
    OSHA is retaining the same cost methodology in this FEA as in the 
PEA. In the PEA, the agency estimated the cost of electronic data 
submission per establishment by multiplying the hourly compensation (in 
dollars) of the person expected to submit the records electronically by 
the time required for the submission. OSHA then multiplied this cost 
per establishment by the estimated number of Appendix B establishments 
required to submit data, resulting in the total estimated cost of this 
part of the proposed rule.
    OSHA also calculated the estimated cost for establishments to 
become familiar with the process of electronically submitting the 
required information. The total estimated cost of this part of the 
proposed rule was calculated by multiplying the hourly wages (in 
dollars) of the person expected to submit the records electronically by 
the time required to learn how to use OSHA's system. The resulting 
value was then multiplied by the number of establishments in appendix B 
(87 FR 18549-551).
1. Wages
a. Wage Estimates in the PEA
    OSHA has retained the same wage assumptions and methodology from 
the PEA but has updated the figures to include current data. In the 
PEA, the agency estimated the compensation of the person expected to 
perform the task of electronic data submission, assuming that this task 
would be performed by an Occupational Health and Safety Specialist. As 
indicated in Table 2, above, the agency used BLS's Occupational 
Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) data to determine that the mean 
hourly wage for an Occupational Health and Safety Specialist was $37.55 
per hour. Then, OSHA used June 2021 data from the BLS National 
Compensation Survey to derive a mean fringe benefit factor of 1.45 for 
civilian workers in general.\19\ 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] x 
1.45). OSHA next applied a 17 percent overhead rate to the base wage 
([$37.55 per hour] x 0.17), totaling $6.38 per hour.\20\ The $6.38 was 
added to the total compensation ($54.58), yielding a fully loaded wage 
rate of $60.96 [$54.58 + $6.38] per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Fringe benefit factor calculated as [1/(1-0.312)], where 
0.312 is the proportion of the average total benefits constituted by 
fringe benefits among civilian workers in all industries, as 
reported on Table 2 of the BLS's ECEC report, June 2021: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09162021.pdf.
    \20\ Seventeen percent is OSHA's standard estimate for the 
overhead cost incurred by the average employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments on OSHA's Wage Estimates
    Some commenters expressed the opinion that the wage rate estimates 
used in the PEA were too low. For example, the National Federation of 
Independent Business (NFIB) and the Chamber of Commerce commented that 
the potential impacts from OSHA publishing work-related injury and 
illness information would require that companies have senior executives 
and legal counsel review the logs for both employee privacy and 
reputational harm (Docket IDs 0036, 0088). The Chamber estimated that 
involving executives and legal counsel would increase the wage rate 
used for this analysis to $67.01 per hour (Docket ID 0088).
    OSHA concludes that an appropriate wage rate has been used for this 
rule. While some companies may choose to involve executives or lawyers 
in the submission process, others will delegate duties to 
administrative assistants or office managers. OSHA considers the wage 
rate for Occupational Safety and Health Specialists to represent a 
rough average among the wages for various possible job categories that 
might submit the data under this rule.\21\ It should be emphasized, 
however, that this wage is intended to reflect only the cost of 
entering the data to submit it electronically to the agency--the 
employer is already responsible for recording the data correctly. If 
some employers consider it necessary for employees in very high wage 
categories to review the cases that are already required to be 
recorded, that is not an incremental cost of this rule.\22\ In 
addition, the Chamber of Commerce commented that OSHA is using an 
incorrect overhead estimate when calculating the loaded wage of the

[[Page 47335]]

Occupational Health and Safety Specialist (Docket ID 0088). It argued 
that the correct factor for computation of overhead is 0.6949 (rather 
than OSHA's longstanding reliance on the PEA's 0.17 for overhead 
costs), which the commenter sourced from the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis, Table 7 (Relation of Gross Domestic Product, Gross National 
Income, and National Income). The Chamber of Commerce's overhead factor 
estimate would increase the overhead amount from $6.38 per labor hour 
to $26.09 per labor hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This wage category has also been widely used for similar 
administrative purposes for other OSHA rulemakings, without 
controversy (e.g., the 2016 recordkeeping rulemaking--see 81 CFR 
29675).
    \22\ One commenter even suggested the physicians may be needed 
to determine whether injuries were work-related now that the injury 
and illness reports will be made public (Docket ID 0088). However, 
like related discussions elsewhere in this FEA, this obligation 
(i.e., the need to determine work-relatedness of an injury) existed 
prior to this rule. Because it is not an additional cost created by 
this rule, it is not included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency believes the Chamber has incorrectly inflated the 
``overhead'' cost factor by including what it refers to as a ``profit 
opportunity cost element'' (Docket ID 0088). The overhead rate that 
OSHA uses in this cost analysis (17 percent) is based on the EPA's 
``Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory 
Program,'' June 10, 2002. OSHA has used this overhead rate for several 
economic impact analyses previously, and it is a standard estimate for 
this agency, the Employment and Training Administration,\23\ the Wage 
and Hour Division,\24\ and the EPA.\25\ As expressed in a prior OSHA 
rule, OSHA does not believe the inclusion of ``profit opportunity cost 
elements'' in an overhead estimate is appropriate in the context of 
this economic analysis.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See ETA Final Rule, Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology 
for the Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in Non-Range 
Occupations in the United States, 88 FR 12760, 12788 (Feb. 28, 
2023).
    \24\ See Wage and Hour Division Final Rule, Increasing the 
Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors, 86 FR 67126, 67205 (Nov. 24, 
2021).
    \25\ For an example of an earlier OSHA economic analysis that 
used the EPA overhead rate, see OSHA's final rule on Walking-Working 
Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection Systems) 
at 81 FR 82494, 82931 (Nov. 18, 2016).
    \26\ As noted in a previous related Federal Register notice (see 
81 FR 29683), in principal, the labor costs of affected workers 
reflect the opportunity costs of that labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Wage Estimates in the FEA
    For the final rule, OSHA has updated the fully loaded wages to 
$61.31 per hour, using the same calculation method as in the PEA and 
the updated data listed in Table 2, above.\27\ Specifically, OSHA 
multiplied the mean hourly wage ($37.86) by the mean fringe benefit 
factor (1.45) \28\ to obtain an estimated total compensation (wages and 
benefits) for Occupational Health and Safety Specialists of $54.87 per 
hour ([$37.86 per hour] x 1.45). OSHA next applied a 17 percent 
overhead rate to the base wage ([$37.86 per hour] x 0.17), totaling 
$6.44.\29\ The $6.44 was added to the total compensation ($54.87) 
yielding a fully loaded wage rate of $61.31 [$54.87 + $6.44]. In 
response to comments, OSHA has added additional costs to the FEA that 
use loaded wages for a Software Developer at $94.19,\30\ based on an 
hourly base wage of $58.17, in the calculation of those costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Docket ID 0103 for a spreadsheet with the full 
calculations. Slight discrepancies in results are likely due to 
rounding.
    \28\ The fringe benefit factor was calculated as [1/(1-0.310)], 
where 0.310 is the proportion of average total benefits constituted 
by fringe benefits among civilian workers in all industries, as 
reported on Table 2, above.
    \29\ Seventeen percent is OSHA's standard estimate for the 
overhead cost incurred by the average employer.
    \30\ For BLS Occupational Code 15-1252 ``Software Developer,'' 
total compensation is $84.30 ($58.17 mean hourly wage + $26.13 
fringe benefits) plus $9.89 in overhead [$58.17 x 0.17].]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Estimated Case Counts
    In the PEA, based on the 2020 data collection of 2019 OSHA Form 
300A data, OSHA estimated that establishments with 100 or more 
employees, in proposed appendix B industries, reported 718,316 cases to 
OSHA. The Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable (PRR) asserted, without 
pointing to specific support, that ``industries required to submit have 
a history of higher incident rates'' and questioned the average of 14.7 
cases per establishment on this basis (Docket ID 0094). PRR stated that 
``it does not seem plausible that there are enough establishments with 
zero cases to bring the estimates this low.'' In support, PRR described 
several large employers, with up to 12,000 employees each, that 
recorded more than 14.7 cases (up to 155 cases) in certain years. OSHA 
notes that it used the average number of cases submitted by 
establishments with 100 or more employees in NAICS industries on 
appendix B. PRR's limited examples do not disturb the calculated 
averages, which are based on data from affected establishments. OSHA 
used the average number of cases on Form 300A submissions across all 
affected establishments to represent the average number of cases an 
establishment would submit via manual entry. For this final rule, OSHA 
has updated the estimate of total cases reported by establishments with 
100 or more employees in appendix B industries to 766,257 cases,\31\ as 
mentioned in Table 2, above. This estimate has been updated from the 
PEA. OSHA has expanded the number of establishments to include all 
establishments with at least 100 employees in industries that are on 
final appendix B, which includes six industries that were not included 
on proposed appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ OSHA's estimate of injury and illness cases is based on 
calendar year 2019 data submitted to the agency through the Injury 
Tracking Application (ITA) (Docket ID 0106). Establishments with 100 
or more employees in appendix B industries reported a total of 
766,257 recordable fatalities, injuries, and illnesses for that 
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Familiarization
    In the PEA, OSHA estimated that establishments would take 10 
minutes, on average, to familiarize themselves with changes to the 
recordkeeping requirements in the proposed rule. Based on this, the 
agency calculated a one-time cost for familiarization of $497,033 
[(48,919 establishments) x (10 minutes/establishment) x (1 hour/60 
minutes) x ($60.96/hour)]. The number of establishments in the PEA was 
based on submissions in 2019 to the ITA for establishments that were in 
the proposed appendix B in the NPRM.
    The U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, the North American Meat 
Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Phylmar Regulatory 
Roundtable argued that OSHA undercounted the amount of time required to 
complete rule familiarization for the proposed rule (Docket IDs 0054, 
0070, 0088, 0094). The Chamber of Commerce asserted that OSHA's 
estimate ``ignores the familiarization time cost that establishments 
not covered will incur to determine their non-covered status, and it 
suggests an extremely optimistic but empirically baseless view of the 
time that will be required by those covered to read the rule, review 
its requirements relative to their current operations and procedures, 
identify and implement new policies and procedures to comply with the 
new rule, and to train administrative and operational employees in 
their new compliance duties'' (Docket ID 0088). Other commenters 
claimed additional time would be required for processing by a corporate 
safety department subject matter expert (Docket ID 0054) and for 
``legal analysis'' (Docket ID 0070).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ One of those commenters suggested that OSHA include costs 
for creating training materials and conducting training sessions as 
part of familiarization (Docket ID 0054). Another made a more 
general statement that the agency's estimate for rule 
familiarization did not account for the time it will take to prepare 
or implement OSHA's proposed changes or develop processes to comply 
with the new requirements (Docket ID 0094). These elements are 
discussed under Training later in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the establishments that do not need to submit the Form 300 and 
301 data but must determine if they are subject to the requirement, the 
Chamber of Commerce estimated, based on unspecified sources, that the 
1.9 million establishments with 10 to 99 employees will spend 5 minutes 
determining that

[[Page 47336]]

they are not affected. According to the Chamber of Commerce, at $1.65 
per minute, the total cost would be $15.9 million. Additionally, ``for 
the 172,277 establishments with 100 or more employees, on average a 15-
minute review by senior managers or in-house legal counsel may be able 
to answer the basic affected or not affected question for an aggregate 
familiarization cost of $4.3 million.'' (Docket ID 0088).
    Finally, the Chamber of Commerce asserted that rule familiarization 
is more complicated than OSHA estimates. The commenter believed that 
OSHA failed to consider that each establishment that has determined 
that it is subject to the reporting requirement ``must now consider how 
the new requirements impact existing policies and procedures, what are 
the risks of reputational damage or of employee privacy violation 
liability and how can those risks be mitigated by changing policies and 
procedures'' (Docket ID 0088). For the PEA's estimated 48,919 
establishments required to comply with the new reporting requirement, 
the commenter estimates a lower bound estimate of 8 hours of 
professional time, which would result in an aggregate cost of $38.7 
million. OSHA does not, however, require such considerations: the final 
rule has accounted for privacy concerns (comments on costs related to 
privacy are addressed later in this section) and, as discussed later, 
employers should already be familiar with the reporting system because 
they are using it to submit Form 300A data. Furthermore, the 
commenter's recommendation of an average of 8 hours per establishment 
vastly exceeds OSHA's traditional estimates of familiarization time. 
For comparison, in the 2016 final recordkeeping rule, OSHA included 
only 10 minutes for familiarization costs, which included the time for 
establishments to create accounts and enter basic establishment 
information in the ITA (see 81 FR 29680), none of which has to be done 
again for purposes of complying with the final rule at issue here.
    OSHA disagrees that more than 10 minutes will be required for rule 
familiarization in this case. Under the existing recordkeeping rule, 
employers are already required to keep part 1904 injury and illness 
records. In addition, all establishments that will have to submit case-
specific information from their Form 300 Log and 301 Incident Report 
under this rule are already required to submit establishment 
information from their Form 300A Annual Summary, using the same 
interface (the ITA) they will use to submit their case information. 
OSHA intends to notify all establishments required to submit data under 
the new rule of this new obligation. In addition, OSHA will update its 
online ITA application to be consistent with this final rule. Employers 
unsure about whether they are covered by this final rule can use this 
application (at https://www.osha.gov/itareportapp) to immediately 
determine their data submission obligations. Thus, there will be no 
need for establishments to spend time to determine whether they are 
affected by the final rule or not. Altogether, OSHA concludes that 10 
minutes is an appropriate amount of time for employers to become 
familiar with the rule (with assistance from OSHA's application or OSHA 
website materials, if necessary).
    OSHA has decided to retain the assumptions and the methodology from 
the PEA for this final rule. Using the updated numbers reported in 
Table 2, above, OSHA now estimates the one-time cost for 
familiarization as $532,257, calculated as [(52,092 establishments) x 
(0.17 hours/establishment) \33\ x ($61.31/hour)]. Annualizing this rate 
over ten years with a 7 percent discount rate yields an annual cost of 
$75,781 \34\ to the private sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 0.17 hours is a rounded value representing 10 minutes, or 
10/60th of an hour, per establishment.
    \34\ $62,397 annualized over ten years with a 3 percent discount 
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Record Submission
    For the time required for the data submission in the PEA, OSHA used 
the estimated unit time requirements reported in OSHA's paperwork 
burden analysis for 29 CFR part 1904 Recording and Reporting 
Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (OMB Control Number 1218-0176). The 
agency estimated that it would take 10 minutes to submit information 
about each case manually; this estimate does not apply when 
establishments submit the records as batch files, because batch files 
are a means of submitting multiple cases at one time.
    In the PEA, OSHA estimated that there would be 48,919 
establishments reporting 718,386 cases total, or 14.7 cases per 
establishment, on average (87 FR 18549-50). The agency estimated that 
about half of all reporting establishments (24,460) would submit half 
of the total cases (359,193 cases) via one batch file per 
establishment.\35\ This yielded an estimated cost of $248,517 [(24,460 
establishments) x (10 minutes/establishment) x (1 hour/60 minutes) x 
($60.96/hour)]. The average cost per establishment was estimated to be 
$10.16 per establishment for establishments submitting via batch file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Form 300A data submitted to OSHA through the Injury 
Tracking Application (ITA) for 2019 indicated that almost half of 
establishments (47 percent) were already submitting their data by 
batch file at that time (Docket ID 0103).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA then estimated that the other half of establishments (24,460) 
would manually submit each case from their establishment individually. 
Using the mean of 14.7 cases per establishment (718,386 total cases 
divided by 48,919 total establishments) and an estimated time of 10 
minutes per case, OSHA estimated 147 minutes per establishment to 
submit records electronically, on an individual case basis. This 
produced a total cost for manual submission of $3,649,520 [(24,460 
establishments) x (0.17 hours/case) \36\ x (14.7 cases) x ($60.96/
hour)], or $149 per establishment]. Finally, OSHA summed the estimated 
batch-file submissions ($248,517) and manual submission ($3,649,520), 
which resulted in estimated total cost of $3,898,037 to submit the 
718,316 records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 0.17 hours is a rounded value representing 10 minutes, or 
10/60th of an hour, per case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dow, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable 
(PRR) commented that OSHA is underestimating the amount of time 
required for an establishment to submit Form 300A information (Docket 
IDs 0054, 0088, 0094). Dow said that establishments must spend time to 
``locate the website, create an account, retrieve password, read 
instructions, gather, and prepare incident information etc.'' (Docket 
ID 0054). The commenter indicated that it would take more than 10 
minutes per case per establishment. Specifically, it would take 1-2 
hours to prepare the submission, and 15-20 minutes per case to input 
the information because there are more than 25 fields that must be 
filled in. Dow added that when the submission is completed via batch 
file, 1-2 hours is required to generate and review the reports for 
submission, even if it only takes 10 minutes to actually upload the 
300A data. It asserted that this time estimate will only increase with 
additional forms (Docket ID 0054).
    The Chamber of Commerce commented that OSHA's reporting burden 
estimate of 10 minutes per case is not based on empirical data. It 
indicated that this reporting burden should be inclusive of the 
following activities: compiling, analyzing, preparing, reviewing 
internally, and submitting the data electronically. The Chamber's 
estimate was 60 minutes per case using a blended management and 
professional rate. It maintained that its

[[Page 47337]]

higher time estimate accounted for the ``necessity for internal review 
of each case and of the final compiled reports by various levels of 
management and internal legal counsel.'' The Chamber added that its 
``more realistic estimate of aggregate internal labor time for 
preparation and review increases the previous calculation of $11.9 
million to $71.1 million. (718,386 cases x 60 minutes per case x $1.65 
per minute).'' Finally, the Chamber suggested that firms would need to 
hire outside legal counsel to complete their review process which the 
Chamber estimated would increase costs by $4.8 million ($6.67 per 
minute of outside legal counsel time) for the total estimated 718,386 
cases (Docket ID 0088).
    The National Federation of Independent Businesses and the Precision 
Machined Products Association commented on the differences in small and 
medium employers compared to large employers (Docket IDs 0036, 0055). 
These commenters noted that small and medium employers typically cannot 
afford the experts, accountants, and lawyers needed to comply with 
regulations. Additionally, they asserted that small and medium 
employers do not have the resources or technology to submit batch files 
and therefore must manually input each case. The Precision Machined 
Products Association added that the cost per submission for small and 
medium companies is closer to double what OSHA estimated in the PEA 
(Docket ID 0055).
    The North American Meat Institute, the Plastics Industry 
Association, the Employers E-Recordkeeping Coalition, and the Chamber 
of Commerce specifically cited time spent on quality assurance as a 
concern (Docket IDs 0070, 0086, 0087, and 0088). The Plastics Industry 
Association wrote that ``the cost of quality assurance procedures 
necessary to ensure compliance with a proposed rule must be treated as 
a component of the burden hours required by the rule. The audit is, in 
effect, not a voluntary measure, but one that needs to be incurred to 
ensure compliance and avoid over-reporting'' (Docket ID 0086). The 
Chamber of Commerce focused on the risk associated with publicly 
posting these injury and illness records, which in turn would result in 
increased ``pre-submission due diligence'' (Docket ID 0088).
    OSHA concludes that more information must be submitted from the 
Form 300 Log and Form 301 Incident Report than from the Form 300A 
Annual Summary. Therefore, the agency is adjusting the estimated time 
required to manually submit electronic records from 10 minutes per case 
per establishment to 15 minutes per case per establishment. Given the 
additional amount of information required, OSHA believes that a 50 
percent increase in the burden estimate is sufficient. OSHA notes, 
however, that employers are likely to spend less time, because 
employers will likely only copy and paste information from existing 
forms into the fields in OSHA's ITA. Employers for which it takes 
longer per case to submit the information could choose instead to 
transmit all their data in one batch-file submission.
    OSHA disagrees with commenters' assertions that the final rule 
necessitates the use of additional experts, accountants, senior 
managers, physicians, or lawyers beyond those employers currently 
engage to comply with existing recordkeeping and submission 
requirements under part 1904. The final rule does not change employer 
obligations beyond the requirement that establishments electronically 
submit specific illness and injury information that the establishment 
already records. Furthermore, there is a requirement in Sec.  1904.32 
for employers to verify the entries on the Form 300 Log to ensure that 
they are complete and accurate. Section 1904.32 also requires a company 
executive to certify the Form 300A once it is completed, by examining 
the Form 300 Log. Costs to perform these verification and certification 
tasks were accounted for in the previous rule that imposed these 
requirements (see 66 FR 6092-93). Thus, OSHA's expectation is that 
employers have already taken measures to ensure the information 
employers have recorded and will be submitted is accurate. Any due 
diligence or audit measures an establishment chooses to take should 
predate this rule and should not be attributed as an additional cost 
specific to this rule. Finally, OSHA's estimate of an hourly wage for 
the recordkeeper submitting the data is based on the assumption that 
this task is performed by a safety and health specialist who is already 
familiar with the establishment's safety and health records.
    While OSHA is not requiring submission via batch filing, OSHA 
disagrees that smaller companies affected by this rule do not have the 
capability to do batch file submissions. Currently, approximately half 
of all establishments that are required to submit their records 
electronically do so using batch files, and an analysis of that 
information shows that smaller establishments actually use batch file 
submission more frequently than some categories of larger 
establishments.\37\ Further, OSHA believes that the time estimated to 
manually upload the required information is appropriate for small, 
medium, and large employers. It is also worth reiterating that the new 
requirement to submit data from the Form 300 and Form 301 only affects 
establishments with more than 100 employees, so the smallest employers 
are not affected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ For example, 2019 Form 300A data submitted to OSHA through 
the ITA indicate that establishments with 100-199 employees 
submitted 50% of data by batch file, which was higher than the 
percentage submitted by batch file for employers with 500 or more 
employees (Docket ID 0103).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A couple of commenters argued that OSHA should account for 
additional costs for compliance due to the necessity of maintaining two 
sets of records as a result of the final rule's submission requirements 
(Docket IDs 0042, 0058). As the Louisiana Chemical Association said, 
``[b]esides the out-of-pocket expenses associated with compliance, 
there are other administrative burdens, for example, the duplicative 
work of maintaining two sets of 300 and 301 forms (a hard copy and one 
form for electronic submission with redacted information)'' (Docket ID 
0042).
    This rule does not, however, require duplicative recordkeeping. As 
noted in Section III.B of the Summary and Explanation, OSHA cautions 
employers against including personally identifiable information on the 
Forms 300 and 301 when they initially fill out those forms. The forms 
themselves contain language about confidentiality of personal 
information and indicate that PII should not be included. To the extent 
employers choose to include PII on those forms despite these warnings, 
it is per a decision by the employer. Such data can be excluded during 
data submission to the extent it is on the employer's forms. 
Furthermore, as described elsewhere in this preamble, OSHA is taking 
multiple steps to protect against the publication of any information 
that could reasonably be expected to identify individuals directly, 
including not collecting certain information and using de-
identification software to remove any such information that is 
submitted by employers.
    OSHA has decided to retain the methodology from the PEA for 
estimating the cost of data submission but has added an additional 5 
minutes (an increase from 10 to 15) per submitted case for 
establishments that do not submit batch files and has

[[Page 47338]]

updated other data to more recent figures. Using the updated data in 
Table 2, above, OSHA calculated a new average cost per establishment 
for batch file submitters of $10.22 per establishment. Additionally, 
OSHA calculated an updated cost to those submitting manually of $242.41 
per establishment. That yields a total cost for electronic submission 
of OSHA Forms 300 and 301 of $133.46 per establishment on average,\38\ 
or a total of $6.9 million annually, to submit the currently estimated 
766,257 records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The average cost per establishment to submit the Form 300 
and 301 data to OSHA ($133.46) was calculated as [(Cost per 
establishment to submit batch files ($10.22) x establishments 
submitting batch files (24,668)) + (Cost per establishment to submit 
individual files ($242.41) x establishments submitting cases 
manually (27,424,))]/Total establishments (52,092).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The calculations above are based on an estimated 52,092 
establishments reporting 766,257 cases total, or 15.82 cases per 
establishment submitting manually and 13.48 cases per establishment 
reporting with batch-files. An estimated 47 percent of all reporting 
establishments (24,668) submitting via batch file would submit 43 
percent of the total cases (332,498 cases), at an estimated total cost 
of $252,048 [(24,668 establishments) x (0.17 hours/establishment) \39\ 
x ($61.31/hour)], or $10.22 per establishment on average for batch file 
submission. For the other 53 percent of establishments (27,424) that 
OSHA estimates would manually submit each case, using OSHA's assumption 
of a mean of 15.82 cases per establishment and the increased time of 15 
minutes per case, the result is an estimated 237 minutes per 
establishment to submit their information electronically each year. 
This produces a total cost for manual submission of $6,647,982 [(27,424 
establishments) x (0.25 hours/case) \40\ x (15.82 cases) x ($61.31/
hour)], or $242.41 per establishment for manual submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 0.17 hours is a rounded value representing 10 minutes, or 
10/60th of an hour, per establishment.
    \40\ 0.25 hours represents 15 minutes, or 15/60th of an hour, 
per case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As suggested in the PEA, the agency believes that this approach 
likely overestimates costs, because while OSHA's estimates reflect 
manual entry of the data for nearly half of establishments, in the 
agency's experience, as indicated previously, nearly half of the 
covered establishments were already submitting data to the ITA by 
uploading a batch file in 2019. This percentage will likely increase 
over time as a result of this rule. As indicated elsewhere in the FEA, 
OSHA expects more of the cases to be submitted by batch file once this 
rule goes into effect, because OSHA expects companies with many 
establishments and/or many cases will have computer systems that can 
export their part 1904 injury and illness recordkeeping data into an 
easily uploaded file format.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ OSHA's assumption that batch files are submitted on a per 
establishment basis may overestimate the costs of the rule, as batch 
files are typically submitted at the firm level on behalf of 
multiple establishments. As documented in the accompanying 
spreadsheet (Docket ID 0103), if OSHA assumed that batch files are 
submitted by firms rather than establishments, the costs would be a 
fraction of the estimate presented here--approximately $7,316 
annually, as opposed to the estimated $252,048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency notes that some establishments will have no recordable 
injuries or illnesses in a given year; thus, their time and cost burden 
for submission under this rule will be zero. In contrast, 
establishments with many recordable injuries and illnesses could have a 
time burden of significantly more than the average of about four hours 
if they enter the data manually. OSHA believes that establishments with 
many cases are likely to submit a single batch file, while 
establishments that only have a few cases are more likely to submit 
cases manually than by batch file.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ For example, data submitted from 2019 Form 300A to OSHA 
through the ITA shows submissions from 52,092 establishments with 
100+ employees. The information for these establishments was 
submitted by 18,156 users. Of those, 716 users submitted the data 
for 24,668 establishments and 332,498 recordable cases using batch 
files (Docket ID 0103).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Custom Forms
    OSHA received multiple comments regarding the difficulty of 
submitting electronic records when the establishments use custom forms 
for their recordkeeping. The International Bottled Water Association, 
the Plastics Industry Association, the Employers E-Recordkeeping 
Coalition, and the Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable (PRR) explained that 
forms such as California Form 502025 require most, or all of, the same 
information as the OSHA forms (Docket IDs 0076, 0086, 0087, 0094). PRR 
noted that forms such as 502025 contain other information that is PII 
and are organized differently, both of which mean that manual entry 
will take longer than 10 minutes (Docket ID 0094). PRR added that 
significant additional time is required to review and ensure PII and 
sensitive information is not included. The North American Meat 
Institute said that current use of other forms would require 
significant administrative burden to translate the required information 
into the online form (Docket ID 0070).
    OSHA notes that Sec.  1904.29(a) states that employers must use the 
OSHA 300 Log, 301 Incident Report, and 300A Annual Summary--or 
equivalent forms--when recording injuries and illnesses under part 
1904. Section 1904.29(b)(4) further states that an equivalent form is 
one that has the same information, is just as readable and 
understandable, and is completed using the same instructions as the 
OSHA form it replaces. As discussed earlier in the summary and 
explanation of the rule, OSHA acknowledges that while it may be 
possible to avoid duplication in recording by reliance on equivalent 
forms, it will be necessary in some cases for reporting to re-enter 
that information into a system that is compatible with OSHA's system. 
OSHA is aware, for instance, that for reporting, many employers use an 
insurance form instead of the Form 300 or the Form 301 or supplement an 
insurance form by adding any additional information required by OSHA. 
The agency notes, however, that use of a custom form for recordkeeping 
does not change the information the employer copies into the electronic 
system to comply with OSHA data submission requirements, including the 
submission requirements included in this final rule. To the extent that 
an insurance form or other form includes information not relevant to 
OSHA reporting, it would not increase the time and cost for OSHA 
reporting. Where relevant, the employer may just skip inapplicable 
sections of a custom form when submitting their information to OSHA. 
Therefore, the time for transmitting the information from the Forms 300 
and 301 is just the time to manually copy the required information into 
OSHA's system, regardless of which form the information is recorded on 
initially. In addition, the use of custom forms that can capture 
information for multiple purposes does not prevent employers from 
designing those forms so that they can export the appropriate data and 
submit their data to OSHA via batch file.
    While OSHA did not find compelling evidence to increase the 
estimated compliance costs based on potential difficulties companies 
face from using custom forms, the agency has increased, by 50 percent, 
the estimated time it takes to submit records manually in response to 
comments received on other issues. This increased time could be 
considered as accounting for costs associated with using custom forms 
in the event employers face costs due to this issue. Elements of this 
discussion run parallel to and may interface with the discussion of 
potential software upgrades, discussed below.

[[Page 47339]]

6. Batch-File Submissions
    In the PEA, OSHA estimated that half of all respondents would 
upload their logs in one batch-file submission. The Strategic 
Organizing Center (SOC) expressed strong agreement with OSHA's 
assumption that larger, more sophisticated users will use batch file 
submission (Docket ID 0079). It added that OSHA's cost estimates, which 
rely on this assumption, are appropriate and that OSHA is correct to 
not assume widespread use of manual-entry submission. Further, SOC 
agreed that OSHA's assumption that half of employers will submit 
records manually ``may result in an overestimate of the total and per-
establishment costs of this part of the proposed rule'' (Docket ID 
0079).
    The Chamber of Commerce disagreed with OSHA's PEA assumption that 
half of the 48,919 affected establishments will be able to 
``drastically reduce their report submission times and costs by using a 
`batch' process of submitting multiple individual case records through 
an electronic portal that OSHA will provide.'' Specifically, it stated 
that the assumption is not realistic because the portal has not yet 
been built or tested. The Chamber further argued that it would be more 
reasonable to assume, at least for the first year of submission and 
maybe for subsequent years, that ``all 48,919 affected establishments 
will upload the required case information manually or will have to 
delete various fields to accommodate data OSHA does not want to 
collect.'' This would double the cost of data submission (Docket ID 
0088).
    Data from 2019 on usage of batch uploads for OSHA 300A information 
indicates that data for approximately 47 percent of establishments were 
already being submitted via batch files (Docket ID 0103). For the 
purposes of the FEA, OSHA estimates that the usage of batch files 
submissions will at least continue at the same rate as was the case in 
2019 (47 percent). However, as noted above, OSHA believes it is likely 
that batch filing will increase as a result of the requirements 
associated with this rule. As a comment from the Laborers Health Safety 
Fund of North America emphasized, electronic recordkeeping and data 
submission is a more cost-effective way for establishments to meet OSHA 
standards (Docket ID 0080). Additionally, Eastern Research Group (ERG) 
(Docket ID 0105) interviewed a number of commercial aftermarket 
software vendors who remarked that the number of users of their 
software is rapidly growing.
    Notwithstanding the agency's belief that electronic submission will 
become increasingly common, OSHA has decided to adjust its projected 
estimate from the PEA, that 50 percent of establishments would submit 
their Form 300 and Form 301 information via a single batch file, based 
on OSHA's analysis of existing data collected in 2019. These data show 
that approximately 47 percent \43\ of establishments submitted their 
records by batch file in 2019. However, to the extent that more 
employers continue to adopt this time-saving technology, the cost of 
submission will decrease, and the average reporting costs will be below 
OSHA's cost estimate in this FEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ This percent was calculated by dividing the 24,668 
establishments submitting individual 300/301 data manually (i.e., 
not by batch file) by the 52,092 total establishments submitting 
data (Docket ID 0103).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Software/System Upgrades Needed
    The PEA did not include a cost for employers to upgrade their 
systems in order to submit their files electronically or in batch 
files. OSHA received several comments on this topic. Electric Boat, the 
International Bottled Water Association, and the Employers E-
Recordkeeping Coalition indicated that software currently used by 
employers does not easily facilitate transmission of 300 and 301 
information to OSHA (Docket IDs 0028, 0076, 0087). The Employers E-
Recordkeeping Coalition stated that the ``costs to modify the internal 
software, purchase new software, automate injury and illness 
recordkeeping, audit the records, and in many instances, manually key 
in huge volumes of data would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars'' 
(Docket ID 0087). Electric Boat stated that proprietary recordkeeping 
software for OSHA logs is not compatible with requirements to upload to 
OSHA and that large companies may have many cases in their logs. It 
further maintained that a requirement to manually enter data for each 
case would be ``very difficult, costly and potentially inaccurate due 
to transcription errors'' (Docket ID 0028). For employers not currently 
using software, Electric Boat surmised that information for the Form 
301 incident report is often recorded on handwritten forms at 
individual establishments, and thus the time and resources needed to 
transition to a fully automated system would be considerable.
    The U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, the Employers E-Recordkeeping 
Coalition, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation, and 
the Flexible Packaging Association, and Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable 
wrote about increased costs due to either reprogramming recordkeeping 
software to meet OSHA's format or investing in new software altogether 
(Docket IDs 0053, 0087, 0088, 0090, 0091, 0094). The U.S. Poultry and 
Egg Association commented that OSHA's analysis ``does not consider that 
some employers utilize proprietary electronic recordkeeping systems 
that would require program changes, possibly at a high cost, so that 
the information could be electronically submitted to OSHA'' (Docket ID 
0053). The Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable (Docket ID 0094) stated that 
two or three days of labor would be necessary to reconfigure the coding 
and modify programs currently used to electronically upload Form 300A 
to include submission of Forms 300 and 301. The Chamber of Commerce 
addressed the issue of small businesses that do not have electronic 
recordkeeping programs in place and was concerned that small businesses 
would not be able to afford the software (Docket ID 0088).
    OSHA believes that employers who use custom software for their 
recordkeeping will incur some, though limited, additional costs to 
upgrade custom computer systems. OSHA also believes that employers who 
use commercially available software are unlikely to incur any 
costs.\44\ Many establishments required to submit injury and illness 
data from their Form 300A already use software to submit that data.\45\ 
The larger employers that have created their own custom software, 
instead of relying on commercially available software, likely have IT 
employees already on staff that conduct system upgrades as part of 
their daily

[[Page 47340]]

routine. For these companies, existing IT staff can conduct any 
software upgrades needed, and OSHA has included a discussion of these 
costs below. If upgrading systems is cost prohibitive for an 
establishment, the establishment can still submit the required 
information from their part 1904 forms manually, which is accounted for 
in OSHA's estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ OSHA believes employers who already own and use 
commercially available software are unlikely to face any additional 
costs because aftermarket software vendors will need to upgrade 
their software to ensure the software does not become irrelevant to 
the needs of their customers. Research conducted by ERG indicates 
that software vendors plan to upgrade software free of charge 
(Docket ID 0104). The business model selected by the software 
vendors means that they will inherently incur some minor costs as a 
result of providing a service without charge. The record is not 
sufficient for OSHA to provide a quantitative estimate of what those 
costs would be, but the fact that the vendors chose to offer this 
service without charge makes it clear that providing this update 
would not pose any threat to the economic stability of the software 
vendor industry.
    \45\ The use of recordkeeping software provides significant 
advantages in terms of streamlining recordkeeping and data 
submission capabilities. Specifically, software is available that 
produces OSHA-ready reports for work-related injuries and illnesses; 
generates files in the exact format required for the OSHA ITA; and 
offers additional features, including ways to capture near-misses 
and hazards of all types, detailed incident investigations, and the 
root cause of an injury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, after a full consideration of comments, and 
notwithstanding the possibility that switching to commercial 
aftermarket software might be more economical, OSHA recognizes that 
there may be an incremental cost to modifying custom software unique to 
the rule. While comments provided limited guidance on what the cost of 
updating software may be, including how many firms might be affected, 
the agency determined that 20 hours of reprogramming is a reasonable 
time for the task (Docket ID 0104). This estimate also corresponds to 
the estimate submitted in the comment by the Phylmar Regulatory 
Roundtable of 2-3 days (Docket ID 0094).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The agency has also performed a sensitivity analysis to 
recognize that some of the more complex software in the typically 
larger firms, with many establishments, might take as much as 50 
hours to reprogram, depending on the complexity of the software 
(Docket ID 0103). These estimates assume there are not time savings 
from bundling these software updates with others needed to maintain 
and update the software, or efficiencies to be gained from 
incorporating commercial software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA also estimates that the group of firms affected by the custom 
software modification costs is a limited set. OSHA found that 
approximately 40 percent of employers who must report injuries 
currently already use software to report the files,\47\ and the number 
is growing. The agency believes the set of firms using customized 
software to report cases is not a randomly distributed group but sorts 
heavily by the size of the firm. The agency examined the current 
universe of firms currently electronically batch-filing injury reports 
via its ITA system and found that of the 716 firms reporting for 
affected establishments, approximately 36 percent are reporting for 
only one establishment (Docket ID 0106). OSHA believes the cost of 
updating custom software would predominantly affect only the other 64 
percent of firms (456) that represent more than one establishment and 
report data using batch files (ITA cite). Those 456 firms also account 
for a disproportionate number of cases reported to the agency. For 
those 456 firms to upgrade their software, the agency assumes that this 
work would be performed by a software engineer at the wage rate 
($94.19) referenced in Table 2. The FEA therefore calculated the cost 
of custom software as $859,042 [(456 firms) x (20 hours) x ($94.19/
hour)], or $122,308 annualized over 10 years at a 7 percent discount 
rate.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Docket ID 0105.
    \48\ $100,706 annualized over 10 years at a 3 percent discount 
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated previously, employers are not required to modify their 
software to comply with the standard, but for very large employers, 
this might be their least-cost method for compliance. As laid out 
earlier in the analysis, other employers might decide that for purposes 
of OSHA compliance, it makes more sense to employ commercially 
available software, or even manually enter the cases. Therefore, issues 
of software modification do not raise questions of technological 
feasibility, as discussed later in the analysis, nor do they pose 
questions of economic feasibility.
8. Other Costs
    OSHA also received comments on other potential cost items, 
addressed below.
a. Harm to Reputation
    OSHA received multiple comments stating that OSHA should include 
costs to capture the argued negative reputational effects to companies 
after OSHA publishes their illness and injury information. The Plastics 
Industry Association and the Chamber of Commerce commented on the 
potential liabilities associated with publishing these work-related 
injury reports (Docket IDs 0086, 0088). The Plastics Industry 
Association noted the ``unknown consequences of public shaming and 
misuse of the information'' that could lead to reputational damage 
(Docket ID 0086).
    Related comments are covered in Section III.G of the Summary and 
Explanation, but the agency emphasizes here that there is insufficient 
basis for altering the economic analysis to reflect this issue. 
Regarding reputational and civil liability damages, OSHA disagrees that 
the mere posting of injury and illness recordkeeping data on a publicly 
available website will adversely impact an employer's reputation. As 
the Note to Sec.  1904.0 of OSHA's recordkeeping regulation makes 
clear, the recording or reporting of a work-related injury, illness, or 
fatality does not mean that an employer or employee was at fault, that 
an OSHA rule has been violated, or that the employee is eligible for 
workers' compensation or other benefits. In addition, OSHA already 
publishes data from the Form 300A that is collected through the ITA, as 
well as establishment-specific, case-specific information about 
reported work-related fatalities, hospitalizations, amputations, and 
losses of an eye (see https://www.osha.gov/severeinjury and https://www.osha.gov/fatalities). Despite online publication of this 
information for a number of years, commenters did not provide any 
examples of harm to reputation occurring as a result, nor did they 
provide any examples of misuse of the data that has already been 
published.
b. Additional Time Needed To Review for PII
    As an adjunct to the earlier discussion regarding quality assurance 
concerns and the appropriate wage rate for the cost of submitting 
cases, some commenters also suggested that it will take additional time 
to remove PII from case files before they are submitted. As in that 
discussion, OSHA reiterates that this is an action that should already 
be addressed when the cases are recorded under existing practices to 
meet existing recordkeeping requirements at Sec.  1904.4, Sec.  
1904.29, and Sec.  1904.41.\49\ Therefore, this is not a new cost of 
this rule, and the agency is not including cost for privacy checks in 
the Final Economic Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Additionally, OSHA will use software capable of detecting 
and redacting PII not redacted by establishments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Company Name
    One commenter, the National Demolition Association, stated that the 
final rule's new requirement for establishments to submit their company 
name as part of their data submissions would impose an additional 
administrative and financial burden on employers. This commenter argued 
that the requirement, which is in final Sec.  1904.41(b)(10), ``would 
be particularly onerous and complex for employers who have multiple 
establishments and limited staff resources to comply with the 
additional administrative paperwork and reporting requirements'' 
(Docket ID 0060).
    Submission of an establishment's company name is not expected to be 
particularly time consuming. First, most establishments are already 
including their company names as part of their 300A data submissions, 
so this new requirement will only affect

[[Page 47341]]

establishments that are using only codes to identify their 
establishments. Second, establishments that are not already submitting 
their company name only have to input that one additional field, and 
they have to do that only one time if they are doing a batch file 
submission (i.e., once per batch file).\50\ Regardless, the time 
necessary to include the company name is included in the 15 minutes 
OSHA has estimated as the time necessary to complete one 
submission.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ As OSHA said in the NPRM, OSHA's review of five years of 
electronically submitted Form 300A data indicates that many large 
firms with multiple establishments use codes for the Establishment 
Name field in their submission (87 FR 18546). This is the type of 
employer this new requirement will likely apply to and, because they 
are large firms submitting for multiple establishments, they are 
likely submitting via batch file. This means that company name would 
only need to be inputted once.
    \51\ To the extent the commenter is arguing that determining a 
firm's legal name is administratively difficult or would take 
substantial time, OSHA presumes that employers know their company 
names and has included no cost for that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Training Costs
    The U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, Dow, the North American Meat 
Institute, the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association, the 
Chamber of Commerce, and the National Retail Federation commented that 
training costs should be included in the cost analysis (Docket IDs 
0053, 0054, 0070, 0088, 0090). The U.S. Poultry and Egg Association 
wrote that the analysis ``does not consider additional training of 
staff that might be required, nor does the rule consider costs 
associated with training existing and new staff on the variety of state 
and federal privacy laws that could be impacted by employers now 
knowing that the information they submit will necessarily be made 
available worldwide'' (Docket ID 0053). The Chamber of Commerce 
commented on the need for training managers on how to comply with 
reporting formats, schedules, and procedures, as well as training for 
additional staff ``to cover multiple shifts, absences, and internal 
review needs.'' The Chamber further stated that time would be needed to 
``train administrative and operational employees in their new 
compliance duties'' (Docket ID 0088).
    OSHA concludes that additional training should not be necessary 
either to fill in a web form with information that has already been 
recorded, or to transmit records from an existing electronic 
recordkeeping system with which the employee is already familiar. 
Employees have already been trained on how to record injuries and 
illnesses on the Forms 300 and 301, pursuant to other previously 
existing requirements under part 1904. Thus, OSHA has already accounted 
for the time required to learn how to keep the records themselves. Any 
time required to learn how to submit the Form 300 and Form 301 data to 
the ITA (the only new requirement in this rule) is already included in 
OSHA's rule familiarization time estimate, described above.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ This approach is also consistent with that taken in OSHA's 
2016 final recordkeeping rule, which also required electronic 
submission of injury and illness data to OSHA (see 81 FR 29674).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Effect on Prices

    An anonymous commenter commented, ``This is unnecessary overreach 
which is going to cost employers and cost the tax payers additional 
resources to process the collected data . . . It will only cost 
employers more, who will charge the consumer more'' (Docket ID 0025). 
OSHA disagrees. As discussed throughout this section, the costs to 
comply with the final rule for individual employers are expected to be 
about $136 per establishment to submit the Form 300 and 301 data. Costs 
at this level of magnitude are not expected to lead to price increases 
or raise issues of economic feasibility.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ As discussed in the Regulatory Flexibility Certification, 
the costs would be no more than approximately .01% of revenues ($136 
costs/$13,627 being the 1% threshold of revenues), implying a 
negligible price increase, if any, to recoup the increase in costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Budget Costs to the Government

    In the PEA, OSHA included an estimate of the costs of the new 
requirement to the government because these costs represent a 
significant fraction of the total costs of the new requirement. OSHA 
received estimates for the costs from the U.S. Department of Labor 
Office of the Chief Information Officer (DOL OCIO). OSHA estimated that 
modification of the reporting system hardware and software 
infrastructure to accept submissions of Form 300 and 301 data would 
have an initial one-time cost of $1.2 million. If annualized over 10 
years at a 7 percent discount rate, the $1.2 million total cost would 
equal $170,853 per year, or if annualized at 3 percent, it would be 
$140,677 per year. The agency also estimated $201,128 as the annual 
cost of additional IT transactions necessary to implement this rule 
($0.28 per case times 718,316 cases for additional internal IT support 
services). Finally, OSHA estimated that annual help desk support costs 
would increase by $25,000. This estimate was based on the annual help 
desk support costs under the 300A submission provisions. This resulted 
in a total cost to the government, annualized over 10 years at a 7 
percent rate, of $397,001.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ When preparing the final rule, the agency found inadvertent 
discrepancies between the written text of the PEA that was in the 
Federal Register notice for the NPRM (87 FR 18550-51) and the 
spreadsheet (Ex. 2) used to calculate the estimated governmental 
costs in the PEA. The agency describes those discrepancies here for 
the purposes of transparency. The annual cost of IT transactions was 
listed in the spreadsheet as $107,309 rather than $201,128 in the 
Federal Register notice. Annual help desk support costs were listed 
as $50,000 in the spreadsheet and $25,000 in the Federal Register 
notice. And, the cost of an additional IT Specialist was included in 
the spreadsheet (at an estimated $181,162) but omitted from the 
discussion in the Federal Register notice. Whereas the total costs 
to the government reported in the spreadsheet were $509,324, the 
total costs to the government in the Federal Register notice were 
$397,001. Because the costs listed in the spreadsheet are more 
inclusive of the universe of estimated costs, the estimates in the 
FEA are derived from those costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA sought comment on this methodology and cost estimate and 
received no responses. After consideration, OSHA has decided to 
maintain the framework used in the proposal but has updated the 
estimate to account for the current wage rate indicated in Table 2, 
above. Therefore, OSHA retained the estimate of $1.2 million for the 
one-time cost of modifying the reporting system hardware and software 
infrastructure to accept submissions of Form 300 and 301 data. If 
annualized over 10 years at a 7 percent discount rate, the $1.2 million 
total cost would equal $170,853 per year. If annualized at 3 percent, 
it would be $140,677 per year. The agency also estimated $128,716 as 
the annual cost of additional IT transactions necessary to implement 
this rule ($0.28 per case times 459,701 cases for additional internal 
IT support services). Next, the agency estimated $204,485, based on 
2023 wages, for OSHA to hire an additional IT Specialist. Finally, OSHA 
estimated that annual help desk support costs will increase by $50,000. 
Summing these figures, and assuming a seven percent discount rate, 
results in a total annualized cost to the government of $554,054.

F. Total Cost

    Summing the estimated batch-file submission ($252,048) and manual 
submission ($6,647,982) costs results in an estimated total cost of 
$6,900,030 to submit 766,257 records. Combined with the annualized cost 
of $75,781 per year for familiarization, and $122,308 for software 
upgrade cost to employers submitting batch-files using custom computer 
software, estimated above (at 7 percent), the estimated total annual 
private-sector cost of this part of the

[[Page 47342]]

final rule is $7,098,120. To obtain the estimated average cost of 
submission per establishment of $136.26, OSHA divided the total 
estimated cost of submission ($7,098,120) by the estimated number of 
establishments that would be required to submit data (52,092 
establishments). Total costs are detailed in Table 3, 
below.55 56
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ OSHA has determined that the other new regulatory 
provisions in this final rule, such as Sec.  1904.41(b)(1) (which is 
a clarifying provision), Sec.  1904.41(b)(9) (which sets out which 
data should be excluded from submissions), Sec.  1904.41(b)(10) 
(which requires employers to provide their company name as part of 
their submission), and Sec.  1904.41(c) (which sets the submission 
deadline), do not impose costs beyond those accounted for in the 
costs of submission and familiarization discussed in this FEA.
    \56\ One commenter, the US Poultry & Egg Association, objected 
to OSHA's estimate of costs and suggested that OSHA should ``conduct 
a pilot program (preferably on Federal Government agencies) to 
determine the actual cost of compliance'' (Ex. 53). OSHA has a long 
history of estimating costs of its regulations and standards without 
the need for a pilot program. It is confident that the estimates in 
this rulemaking, which carefully consider comments from interested 
parties, are sufficient to accurately characterize the costs of 
compliance for employers.

                       Table 3--Total Cost Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Cost element                Annual cost        One-time cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual electronic submission of   $6,900,030........  $0
 OSHA Form 300 Log and OSHA Form
 301 Incident Report by
 establishments with 100 or more
 employees in designated
 industries.
One-Time Rule Familiarization     NA................  532,257
 Cost.
    Annualized 10 yr at 7%......  75,781............  NA
    Annualized 10 yr at 3%......  62,397............  NA
One-Time Software Upgrade.......  NA................  859,042
    Annualized 10 yr at 7%......  122,308...........  NA
    Annualized 10 yr at 3%......  100,706...........  NA
                                 ---------------------------------------
        Total Private Sector      7,098,120.........  1,391,299
         Costs * **.
Average Cost per 52,092           136...............  NA
 Establishments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processing of annual electronic   128,360...........  0
 submissions of OSHA 300/301.
Annual Contractor Software        50,000............  0
 Support.
Annual Government Software        204,485...........  0
 Support.
One-Time Software Design and      NA................  1,200,000
 Development.
    Annualized 10 yr at 7%......  170,853...........  NA
    Annualized 10 yr at 3%......  140,677...........  NA
                                 ---------------------------------------
        Total Government Costs *  553,698...........  1,200,000
         **.
                                 ---------------------------------------
        Total *.................  7,651,818.........  2,591,299
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* One-time costs are annualized and appear in annual cost column; the
  one-time cost is not an additional cost.
** Annualized over 10 years at 7%.

G. Benefits

    As explained in the PEA and elaborated on elsewhere in this 
preamble, in particular in Section III.B of the Summary and 
Explanation, the main purpose of the final rule is to prevent worker 
injuries and illnesses through the collection and use of timely, 
establishment- and case-specific injury and illness data. With the 
information obtained through this rule, OSHA, employers, employees, 
employee representatives, State and local agencies, consultants, and 
researchers will be better able to identify and mitigate workplace 
hazards and thereby prevent worker injuries and illnesses. The final 
rule will support OSHA's statutory directive to assure safe and 
healthful working conditions for working people by providing for 
appropriate reporting procedures regarding occupational safety and 
health that will help achieve the objectives of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 
651(b); (b)(12)).
    The number of workers in the U.S. who are injured or made ill on 
the job remains unacceptably high, and the importance of this final 
rule lies largely in increasing access to information to better enable 
OSHA and other organizations to prevent workplace injuries and 
illnesses. According to BLS's Survey of Occupational Injuries and 
Illnesses (SOII), in 2021, employees experienced 2.6 million recordable 
nonfatal injuries and illnesses at work.\57\ This number is widely 
recognized to be an undercount of the actual number of occupational 
injuries and illnesses that occur annually.\58\ As described 
extensively above in Section III.B of the Summary and Explanation, the 
final rule will increase the agency's ability to focus resources on 
those workplaces where workers are at greatest risk. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See ``Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and Illnesses--
2021'', news release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics/U.S. 
Department of Labor, November 9, 2022 (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh.pdf).
    \58\ See, 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 
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24507952/); 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 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajim.22382).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in more detail in Section III, Summary and 
Explanation, the final rule will help OSHA 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

[[Page 47343]]

provisions requiring regular electronic submission of case-specific 
injury and illness data will allow OSHA to obtain a much larger data 
set of establishment-specific, case-specific information about injuries 
and illnesses in the workplace. This information will help OSHA use its 
enforcement and compliance assistance resources more effectively by 
enabling OSHA to identify the workplaces where workers are at greatest 
risk. In addition, OSHA will 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.
    In addition to OSHA obtaining better information, this information 
will be available to employers, employees, members of the public, 
employee representatives, trade associations, and workplace safety and 
health professionals, among others. This increased access and 
transparency of information about workplace injuries and illnesses can 
be used by all interested parties to better understand workplace 
hazards and improve occupational safety and health. OSHA also expects 
the information to improve research on the occurrence and prevention of 
workplace hazards, injuries, and illnesses.
    In response to the PEA, the National Propane Gas Association and 
the Chamber of Commerce said that OSHA should quantify benefits for the 
rule (Docket IDs 0050, 0088, Attachments). The National Propane Gas 
Association stated that OSHA ``does not provide any details as to how 
publicly available information could improve workplace safety'' and 
argued that OSHA should ``provide concrete benchmarks to define the 
safety improvements that the agency expects to be met by publicly 
accessible case-specific, establishment-specific information'' (Docket 
ID 0050). The Chamber of Commerce said that OSHA ``makes no attempt to 
estimate or quantify the purported economic benefits of this Proposed 
Rule; instead, it asserts that these benefits will `significantly 
exceed the annual costs,' '' going on to say that OSHA did not 
``explain how electronic quarterly reporting or the creation of a 
public database that will publish the private and confidential 
information of employers and employees will provide any increase in 
workplace safety'' (Docket ID 0088).\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Note that the agency did not propose quarterly reporting; 
the proposed rule envisioned annual reporting, and the final rule 
similarly will require annual reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency respectfully disagrees about quantifying the economic 
benefits. Quantifying benefits is not always feasible in practice. 
However, the infeasibility of quantifying benefits does not demonstrate 
a lack of benefits. In contrast to the occupational safety and health 
standards the agency promulgates, quantifying benefits for a 
recordkeeping regulation is particularly challenging.\60\ OSHA notes 
that the commenters did not attempt to themselves quantify the benefits 
of the proposed rule, nor did commenters propose any approach that 
would allow the agency to effectively quantify those benefits in order 
to compare them against the costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ For the difference between a standard and a regulation, 
please see the discussion in Section II, Legal Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Economic Feasibility

    In the PEA, OSHA preliminarily concluded that the proposed rule 
would be economically feasible and received no comment specifically on 
this conclusion. After further consideration, OSHA has concluded that 
the final rule will be economically feasible. Under the final rule, for 
establishments with 100 or more employees in the industries designated 
in appendix B, the average additional cost of electronically submitting 
information from the OSHA Forms 300 and 301 will be roughly $136 per 
year. These costs will not affect the economic viability of these 
establishments.

I. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    The requirement in the final rule requiring the electronic 
submission of Form 300 and 301 information from establishments with 100 
or more employees in designated industries will affect some small 
entities, as determined by the definitions of small entity used by the 
Small Business Administration (SBA). In some sectors, such as 
construction, where SBA's definition only includes relatively smaller 
firms, there are unlikely to be many entities with establishments with 
100 or more employees that meet SBA small entity definitions. In other 
sectors, such as manufacturing, many SBA-defined small entities will be 
subject to this rule. Thus, this part of the final rule will affect 
only a small percentage of all SBA-defined small entities.\61\ However, 
because some SBA-defined small entities will be affected, especially in 
manufacturing, OSHA has examined the impacts of this final rule on 
small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The portion of the rule that addresses the submission of 
Form 300A information does affect smaller entities, as 
establishments with 20 or more employees are required to 
electronically submit Form 300A information. However, because this 
final rule makes no substantive changes to that submission 
requirement, which was enacted as part of the 2016 final rule, there 
are no new costs for entities with fewer than 100 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA did not convene a Small Business Advocacy Review panel under 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA 
Panel) for this rule. At least one commenter, the Chamber of Commerce, 
argued that OSHA should have convened a SBREFA Panel to further 
evaluate the effect of the proposed rule on small businesses (Docket ID 
0088). The commenter said that the panel was particularly important 
because ``the vast majority of employers and establishments that will 
be affected by this Proposed Rule's electronic-only reporting 
requirements will be small businesses, many of which do not currently 
record injuries electronically.'' This commenter offered no evidence to 
support its assertion that the majority of the employers and 
establishments affected would be small businesses, nor did it offer 
evidence that small businesses do not currently record injuries 
electronically.
    OSHA considers the possibility of disproportionate impacts on small 
businesses when deciding whether a Small Business Advocacy Review 
(SBAR) panel is warranted. Because OSHA preliminarily determined that 
the proposed rule would not result in a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small businesses (see 87 FR 18553), OSHA 
determined that a SBREFA panel was not required for this rule. Nothing 
in the record has disturbed OSHA's preliminary determination that this 
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small businesses. Therefore, OSHA does not believe a SBREFA panel was 
required for this rule.
    OSHA's typical procedure for assessing the significance of final 
rules on small businesses is to first determine if costs are greater 
than one percent of revenues or five percent of profits for the average 
firm. If so, OSHA conducts an additional assessment. To meet this level 
of significance at an estimated annual average cost of $136 per 
affected establishment per year (including annualized familiarization 
costs), annual revenues for an establishment with 100 or more employees 
would have to be less than $13,627 (or less than $136 per employee, 
assuming 100 employees), and annual profits would have to be less than 
$2,725 (or less than $28 per employee, assuming 100 employees). There 
are no impacted industries that have average revenues of

[[Page 47344]]

less than $13,627.\62\ Furthermore, integrating those data with profit 
data from the 2013 Corporation Source Book \63\ indicates there are no 
impacted industries earning less than $2,725 in profit per 
establishment among establishments with 5 or more employees.\64\ These 
are extremely unlikely combinations of revenues and profits for firms 
of this size and would only occur for a very small number of firms in 
severe financial distress. As indicated, OSHA's cost estimates would 
have to be in error by more than an order of magnitude to reach these 
thresholds.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ The average revenue numbers 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. These average revenue figures would include any non-
profits falling within the affected industries.
    \63\ 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; https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-corporation-source-book-publication-1053). 
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.
    \64\ While descriptive of most establishments in these 
industries, this figure would significantly underestimate the 
profits of the average affected establishment covered by this rule, 
which only affects those with 100 or more employees.
    \65\ The lowest potential threshold of impact (for profits) is 
$2,725 per establishment. The agency estimates an average cost per 
establishment of $136. It would need to be approximately 20 times 
higher to reach this threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of these considerations, per Section 605 of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), OSHA certifies that the 
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Thus, OSHA has not prepared a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis.

V. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

A. Overview

    The final ``Improve Tracking Workplace Injury and Illness'' rule 
contains information collection (paperwork) requirements that are 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and 
OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320. The PRA defines a collection of 
information as ``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). The aforementioned regulations mandate that the Department 
consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection 
burdens imposed on the public. Under the PRA, a Federal agency 
generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information and the 
public will generally not be penalized for not responding to an 
information collection, unless it is approved by OMB and the agency 
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. See 44 U.S.C. 3507 and 
3512, 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
    On March 30, 2022, OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) (87 FR 18528) to amend its occupational injury and illness 
recordkeeping regulation to require establishments with 100 or more 
employees in certain designated industries to be able to electronically 
submit information from their OSHA Forms 300, 301, and 300A once a 
year. OSHA prepared and submitted an Information Collection Request 
(ICR) to OMB, proposing to revise certain collection requirements 
currently contained in the package, as required under 44 U.S.C. 
3507(d). The proposed rule invited the public to submit comments to 
OMB, in addition to OSHA, on the proposed collections of information. 
On May 25, 2022, OSHA published a second Federal Register notice (87 FR 
31793), extending the comment period to allow the public an additional 
30 days to comment on the proposed rule and the information collection 
requirements contained in the proposed rule. OSHA received 87 public 
comments.
    In accordance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)), OSHA solicited 
public comments on the collection of information contained in the 2022 
proposed rule. OSHA encouraged commenters to submit their comments on 
the information collection requirements contained in the proposed rule 
under docket number OSHA-2021-0006, along with their comments on other 
parts of the proposed rule. In addition to generally soliciting 
comments on the collection of information requirements, the proposed 
rule indicated that OSHA and OMB were particularly interested in 
comments that addressed the following:
     Whether the collection of information is 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.
    On May 5, 2022, OMB issued a Notice of Action (NOA) assigning the 
proposal's ICR a new control number, 1218-0279, to be used in future 
ICR submissions. OMB noted that this action had no effect on any 
current approvals. OMB also noted that the NOA is not an approval to 
conduct or sponsor the information collection contained in the revision 
proposal. Finally, OMB requested that, ``[p]rior to publication of the 
final rule, [OSHA] should provide a summary of any comments related to 
the information collection and their response, including any changes 
made to the ICR as a result of comments. In addition, the agency must 
enter the correct burden estimates.'' OSHA did not receive any comments 
in response to the proposed ICR submitted to OMB for review. However, 
the agency did receive 87 comments related to the proposed rule.
    Concurrent with publication of this final rule, the Department of 
Labor submitted the final ICR, containing the full analysis and 
description of the burden hours and costs associated with the final 
rule, to OMB for approval. A copy of this ICR is available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAOMBHistory?ombControlNumber=1218-0279 
(this link will become active on the day following publication of the 
final rule). OSHA will publish a separate notice in the Federal 
Register that will announce the results of that review. This notice 
will also include a list of OMB-approved information collection 
requirements and total burden hours and costs imposed by the new 
regulation.

B. Summary of 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 final rule revises the currently 
approved Recordkeeping and Reporting Occupational Injuries and 
Illnesses Information Collection and changes the existing information 
collection requirements currently approved by OMB.

[[Page 47345]]

    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 covered employers to, among other things, record each 
recordable employee injury and illness on an OSHA Form 300, which is 
the ``Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses,'' or equivalent. In 
addition, 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, and, 
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.
    Under 29 CFR 1904.41, certain employers were only required to 
electronically submit injury and illness information from their OSHA 
Forms 300A (the summary) annually. OSHA did not receive establishment-
specific, case-specific, injury and illness data. For the purposes of 
the PRA, the final rule makes two changes to Sec.  1904.41.
    First, OSHA newly requires 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. This change is 
similar to requirements contained in OSHA's Improve Tracking of 
Workplace Injuries and Illnesses final rule, 81 FR 29624 (May 12, 2016) 
which were removed by the Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses 
final rule, 84 FR 380 (January 25, 2019).
    Second, OSHA newly requires 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 case-specific data. Screenshots of 
this interface can also be viewed on OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/proposed_data_form.html.
    4. OMB Control Number: 1218-0279 .
    5. Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    6. Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 52,092.
    7. Frequency of Responses: Annually.
    8. Total Estimated Number of Responses: 475,943.
    9. Average Time per Response: Average time per response varies from 
10 minutes for establishments using batch file submission to 237 
minutes for establishments using manual submission.
    10. Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours): 118,485.
    11. Total Estimated Costs (Capital-Operation and Maintenance): 0.

VI. Unfunded Mandates

    OSHA reviewed this final rule according to the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), as well as Executive 
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999)). As discussed above in Section 
IV, Final Economic Analysis, the agency has determined that this final 
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 $100 million or more in any one 
year. In addition, OSHA's regulations do not apply to State and local 
governments except in States that have elected voluntarily to adopt a 
State Plan approved by OSHA. Consequently, this final rule does not 
meet the definition of a ``federal intergovernmental mandate'' (see 2 
U.S.C. 1502, 658(5)). Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, the 
agency certifies that this final rule does not mandate that State, 
local, or Tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory obligations 
of, or increase expenditures by the private sector by, $100 million or 
more in any year.

VII. Federalism

    OSHA reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 
13132 (64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999)), regarding federalism. E.O. 13132 
requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from 
limiting State policy options, consult with States before taking 
actions that would restrict States' policy options, and take such 
actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem 
is of national scope.
    Section 18(a) of the OSH Act states that nothing in the Act shall 
prevent any State agency or court from asserting jurisdiction under 
State law over an occupational safety or health issue with respect to 
which no standard is in effect under Section 6 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 
667(a)). 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 under 
Section 18(a) (see 29 U.S.C. 667(a)). The effect of the final rule on 
States and territories with OSHA-approved occupational safety and 
health State Plans is discussed in Section VIII, State Plans.

VIII. State Plans

    Pursuant to Section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 667) and the 
requirements of 29 CFR 1904.37, 1902.3(j), 1902.7, 1953.4(b), 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. 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 29 State Plans. The States and territories that cover 
both private sector and public 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, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New 
York, and the Virgin Islands have OSHA-approved State Plans that apply 
to State and local government employees only.

IX. National Environmental Policy Act

    OSHA has reviewed the provisions of this final rule in accordance 
with the requirements of the National

[[Page 47346]]

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 
1500-1508), and the Department of Labor's NEPA Procedures (29 CFR part 
11). As a result of this review, OSHA has determined that the final 
rule will have no significant adverse effect on air, water, or soil 
quality, plant or animal life, use of land, or other aspects of the 
environment.

X. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    OSHA reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 
13175 (65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and determined that it does not have 
``tribal implications'' as defined in that order. The rule does 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.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1904

    Health statistics, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

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. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393 (Sept. 18, 2020)).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 12, 2023.
Douglas L. Parker,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, OSHA amends part 1904 of 
chapter XVII of title 29 as follows:

PART 1904--[AMENDED]

Subpart E--Reporting Fatality, Injury and Illness Information to 
the Government

0
1. The authority citation for part 1904, subpart E, is revised 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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  1904.41 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and (b)(1);
0
b. Add paragraphs (b)(9) and (10); and
0
c. Revise paragraph (c).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  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. (i) If your 
establishment had 20-249 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 Work-
Related 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.
    (ii) If your establishment had 250 or more employees at any time 
during the previous calendar year, and this part requires your 
establishment to keep records, then you must electronically submit 
information from OSHA Form 300A Summary of Work-Related 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 and OSHA Form 301 Injury and 
Illness Incident Report 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 and 301 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) 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 three categories of employers 
must routinely submit information from these forms. The first category 
is establishments that had 20-249 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 250 or more employees at any time 
during the previous calendar year, and are required by this part to 
keep records; establishments in this category must submit the required 
information from Form 300A to OSHA once a year. The third 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 also 
submit the required information from Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA once a 
year, in addition to the required information from Form 300A. Employers 
in these three 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, 2024 for the 2023 
form(s)). If your establishment is not in any of these three 
categories, then you must submit the information to OSHA only if OSHA 
notifies you to do so for an individual data collection.
* * * * *
    (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 a legal company name, either 
as part of the establishment 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

[[Page 47347]]

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, 2024, for the forms covering 2023).
* * * * *

0
3. Revise appendix A to subpart E to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart E of Part 1904--Designated Industries for Sec.  
1904.41(a)(1)(i) Annual Electronic Submission of Information From OSHA 
Form 300A Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses by 
Establishments With 20-249 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.

[[Page 47348]]

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

0
4. Add appendix B to subpart E to read as follows:

Appendix B to Subpart E of Part 1904--Designated Industries for Sec.  
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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           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.
1133.......................  Logging.
1141.......................  Fishing.
1142.......................  Hunting and Trapping.
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 (except Aluminum)
                              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 (including Fixtures)
                              Manufacturing.
3379.......................  Other Furniture Related Product
                              Manufacturing.
4231.......................  Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Parts and
                              Supplies Merchant Wholesalers.

[[Page 47349]]

 
4233.......................  Lumber and Other Construction Materials
                              Merchant Wholesalers.
4235.......................  Metal and Mineral (except Petroleum)
                              Merchant Wholesalers.
4239.......................  Miscellaneous Durable Goods 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.
4853.......................  Taxi and Limousine Service.
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.
4889.......................  Other Support Activities for
                              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 (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.
6243.......................  Vocational Rehabilitation Services.
7111.......................  Performing Arts Companies.
7112.......................  Spectator Sports.
7131.......................  Amusement Parks and Arcades.
7211.......................  Traveler Accommodation.
7212.......................  RV (Recreational Vehicle) Parks and
                              Recreational Camps.
7223.......................  Special Food Services.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-15091 Filed 7-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P