1. What’s New in OSHA Injury and Illness Recordkeeping OSHA Office of Statistical Analysis CSTE: April, 2013

2. 2 What’s (sort of) New  OSHA Data Initiative  NAICS/SIC Coverage  Fatality/Catastrophe Reporting  Electronic Data Collection  National Emphasis Program

3. ODI  The ODI has been suspended for FY13 Collection of CY 2012 data will not occur 3

4. 4 Rulemaking  Notice of proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published June 22, 2011 NAICS to SIC Fatality/Catastrophe Reporting Requirements  Approximately 125 sets of comments were received  Publication of the Final Rule is anticipated for the late spring/early summer

5. NAICS/SIC Proposal  OSHA is proposing to update appendix A to subpart B of part 1904. This appendix contains a list of industries that are partially exempt from the requirements to maintain a log of occupational injuries and illnesses, generally due to their relatively low rates of occupational injury and illness.  The current list of industries is based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system.  The proposed rule would update appendix A by replacing it with a list of industries based on the NAICS and based on more recent occupational injury and illness rates.  The proposal uses a formula similar to one used in two previous rulemakings: industries (at the 4-digit NAICS level) in sectors 44 through 81 that have a DART rate less than 75% of the private industry rate are exempted 5

6. FATCAT Proposal  OSHA is proposing to revise the reporting requirements regarding the obligations of employers to report to OSHA the occurrence of fatalities and certain injuries.  The existing regulations require employers to report to OSHA within 8 hours any work-related incident resulting in the death of an employee or the in-patient hospitalization of three or more employees;  The proposed rule would add additional injury incidents to the reporting requirements. Incidents involving a single in-patient hospitalization Incidents involving an amputation 6

7. 7 Electronic Data Collection  “Improving tracking of workplace injuries and illnesses”  “An updated and modernized reporting system would enable a more efficient and timely collection of data and would improve the accuracy and availability of the relevant records and statistics”

8. 8 Electronic Data Collection  Require employers to submit the data recorded under Part 1904 in an electronic format on a timely basis  This data can be used for: Enforcement targeting by OSHA Work place analysis by employers and employee representatives Research by academics Verification by employees

9. 9 Electronic Data Collection  NPRM has been written and is currently under OMB review  Scheduled to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Spring 2013

10. 10 Recordkeeping NEP Background  Injury and Illness Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (RK NEP) was implemented September 30, 2009  Program was completed in February 2012

11. 11 NEP Background (continued)  The purpose of OSHA’s Injury and Illness Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (RK NEP) was to implement enforcement procedures at establishments in selected industries to inspect the accuracy of employer compliance with occupational injury and illness recording and reporting requirements  Two types of targeting OSHA originally targeted low rate establishments operating in historically high rate industries. After a year, the targeting criteria were modified to focus on manufacturing establishments with rates just below the SST primary list targeting criteria (medium rate establishments)

12. 12 NEP Procedures  Three main components of inspection Records Review Interviews Limited Walkaround

13. 13 Topics for Analysis  Effectiveness of targeting  Prevalence of under-recording  Employer policy to discourage reporting

14. 14 Findings Number of inspections – 576 405 federal jurisdiction 171 State jurisdiction Number of Federal inspections with recordkeeping violations – 269 (66%) Number of Federal RK violations – 809 Total penalties for Federal recordkeeping violations - $537,124

15. 15 Findings Inspection Results: Not Recorded and/or Underrecorded Cases Found? All Inspections Low-Rate Targeting (Directive 10-02)* Mid-Rate Targeting (Directive 10-07)** NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent Establishments Where a Not/Underrecorded Case(s) Was Found 16547.148546.458047.90 Establishments Where No Not/Underrecorded Case(s) Were Found 18552.869853.558752.10 TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS 350100183100167100 Number and Percent of Establishments with Not Recorded and/or Underrecorded Cases Inspectors found some type of not recorded or underrecorded case at close to half of the establishments inspected

16. 16 Findings Inspection Results: Cases Found All Inspections Low-Rate Targeting (Directive 10-02)* Mid-Rate Targeting (Directive 10-07)** NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent Not Recorded63216.6136625.9026611.12 DART Case Recorded as Non-DART 2416.3315510.97863.59 Total Cases with the Above Recording Errors 87322.9452136.8735214.71 Total Above Cases per Inspection 873 / 303 = 2.88521 / 166 = 3.14352 / 137 = 2.57 Total Cases Found without the Above Recording Errors 2,93377.0689263.132,04185.29 Total Cases 3,8061001,4131002,393100 Number and Percent of All Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors Greater numbers of not recorded or underrecorded cases were found in the low-rate establishments than the mid-rate establishments

17. 17 Findings Interviewed Employees’ Responses about Effect of Special Programs on Reporting Injuries and Illnesses Incentive Program Disciplinary Program Drug Testing Program Absenteeism Policy Employee IncentivesManager Incentives NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent Discouraged1138.601311.024450.0043218.525740.43 Encouraged29822.682218.642225.0025811.061510.64 Neither90368.728370.342225.001,64270.416948.94 TOTAL1,314100118100881002,332100141100 Counts of Employees by Effect on Injury/Illness Reporting of Employer Special Programs Disciplinary and absentee programs have the greatest negative affect on employee reporting.

18. 18 Findings Inspection Results: Interviews in Which Employee Specified Experiencing an Injury or Illness Mid-Rate Targeting (Directive 10-07) NumberPercent Employee Interviews Conducted2,274100 Employee-Specified Injury/Illness43219.00 Employee-Specified DART Injury/Illness 24310.69 OSHA Compliance Officer (CSHO) Determination about Specified DART Injury/Illness Accurately Recorded DART Case136 / 24355.97 Underrecorded DART Case (DART as non-DART) 35 / 24314.40 Not Recorded DART Case15 / 2436.17 Other (e.g., case not recordable or CSHO indicated that no determination was or could be made) 57 / 24323.46 Number and Percent of Injuries/Illnesses Specified in Employee Interviews 20% of not recorded or underrecorded cases were identified through employee interviews

19. Findings Summary 19 Inspectors found some type of not recorded or underrecorded case at close to half of the establishments inspected Extensive not recording/underrecording of cases was not widely distributed across establishments. For instance, slightly over 50 percent of the not recorded or underrecorded DART cases came from 6.6 of the inspected establishments Greater numbers of not recorded or underrecorded cases were found in the low- rate establishments than the mid-rate establishments (or the sampled establishments from the ODI universe inspected under a previous program) 20% of not recorded or underrecorded cases were identified through employee interviews Disciplinary and absentee programs have a substantial negative affect on employee reporting.

20. Recent Court Decision 20 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued January 20, 2012 Decided April 6, 2012 No. 11-1106 AKM LLC, DOING BUSINESS AS VOLKS CONSTRUCTORS, PETITIONER v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS