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
Top Related