What’s New in OSHA Injury and Illness

Recordkeeping

OSHA Office of Statistical Analysis

CSTE: April, 2013

2

What’s (sort of) New

OSHA Data Initiative NAICS/SIC Coverage Fatality/Catastrophe Reporting Electronic Data Collection National Emphasis Program

ODI

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

3

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recordkeeping NEP Background

Injury and Illness Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (RK NEP) was implemented September 30, 2009

Program was completed in February 2012

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

NEP Procedures

Three main components of inspection Records Review Interviews Limited Walkaround

13

Topics for Analysis

Effectiveness of targeting Prevalence of under-recording Employer policy to discourage reporting

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

Findings

Inspection Results:Not Recorded and/or Underrecorded Cases Found?

All Inspections Low-Rate Targeting (Directive 10-02)*

Mid-Rate Targeting (Directive 10-07)**

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Establishments Where a Not/Underrecorded Case(s) Was Found

165 47.14 85 46.45 80 47.90

Establishments Where No Not/Underrecorded Case(s) Were Found

185 52.86 98 53.55 87 52.10

TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS 350 100 183 100 167 100

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

Findings

Inspection Results: Cases Found

All Inspections Low-Rate Targeting (Directive 10-02)*

Mid-Rate Targeting (Directive 10-07)**

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Not Recorded 632 16.61 366 25.90 266 11.12

DART Case Recorded as Non-DART

241 6.33 155 10.97 86 3.59

Total Cases with the Above Recording Errors

873 22.94 521 36.87 352 14.71

Total Above Cases per Inspection 873 / 303 = 2.88 521 / 166 = 3.14 352 / 137 = 2.57

Total Cases Found without the Above Recording Errors

2,933 77.06 892 63.13 2,041 85.29

Total Cases 3,806 100 1,413 100 2,393 100

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

Findings

Interviewed Employees’ Responses about Effect of Special Programs on Reporting Injuries and Illnesses

Incentive ProgramDisciplinary

ProgramDrug Testing

ProgramAbsenteeism Policy

Employee Incentives Manager Incentives

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Discouraged 113 8.60 13 11.02 44 50.00 432 18.52 57 40.43

Encouraged 298 22.68 22 18.64 22 25.00 258 11.06 15 10.64

Neither 903 68.72 83 70.34 22 25.00 1,642 70.41 69 48.94

TOTAL 1,314 100 118 100 88 100 2,332 100 141 100

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

Findings

Inspection Results: Interviews in Which Employee Specified Experiencing an Injury or Illness

Mid-Rate Targeting (Directive 10-07)

Number Percent

Employee Interviews Conducted 2,274 100

Employee-Specified Injury/Illness 432 19.00

Employee-Specified DART Injury/Illness

243 10.69

OSHA Compliance Officer (CSHO) Determination about Specified DART Injury/Illness

Accurately Recorded DART Case 136 / 243 55.97

Underrecorded DART Case(DART as non-DART)

35 / 243 14.40

Not Recorded DART Case 15 / 243 6.17

Other (e.g., case not recordable or CSHO indicated that no determination was or could be made)

57 / 243 23.46

Number and Percent of Injuries/Illnesses Specified in Employee Interviews

• 20% of not recorded or underrecorded cases were identified through employee interviews

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.

Recent Court Decision

20

United States Court of AppealsFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued January 20, 2012 Decided April 6, 2012No. 11-1106

AKM LLC, DOING BUSINESS AS VOLKS CONSTRUCTORS,PETITIONER

v.SECRETARY OF LABOR, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION,RESPONDENTS