[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 225 (Friday, November 24, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55761-55766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25392]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1904
[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0023]
RIN 1218-AD16
Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses: Delay of
Compliance Date
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of
Labor.
ACTION: Final rule; delay of compliance date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action delays until December 15, 2017, the initial
submission deadline for calendar year 2016 data on Form 300A under the
rule entitled Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses. The
original electronic submission deadline was July 1, 2017. This delay
will allow affected entities sufficient time to familiarize themselves
with the electronic reporting system, which was not made available
until August 1, 2017.
DATES: This regulation is effective on November 24, 2017. The
submission deadline for completed 2016 Form 300A data is delayed to
December 15, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For press inquiries: Frank Meilinger, Director, Office of
Communications, Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1999; email meilinger.francis2@dol.gov.
For general and technical information: Miriam Schoenbaum, OSHA,
Office of Statistical Analysis, Room N-3507, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1841; email: schoenbaum.miriam@dol.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 12, 2016, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) published a final rule (81 FR 29624) with an effective date of
January 1, 2017, for the final rule's electronic reporting
requirements. Under these requirements, certain employers were required
to electronically submit 2016 Form 300A data to OSHA by July 1, 2017.
On June 28, 2017, the Department proposed to delay the initial
deadline for electronic submission of 2016 Form 300A data from July 1,
2017, to December 1, 2017, to provide the new administration the
opportunity to review the new electronic reporting requirements prior
to their implementation and allow affected entities sufficient time to
familiarize themselves with the electronic reporting system, which was
not made available until August 1, 2017 (82 FR 29261).
On August 14, 2017, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) received an alert from the United States Computer
Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) in the Department of Homeland
Security that indicated a potential compromise of
user information for OSHA's Injury Tracking Application (ITA). The ITA
was taken off-line as a precaution. A complete scan was conducted by
the National Information Technology Center (NITC). The NITC confirmed
that there was no breach of the data in the ITA and that no information
in the ITA was compromised. Public access to the ITA was restored on
August 25, 2017.
In establishing the effective date of this action, the Agency
invokes the good cause exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows
the action to be immediately effective for ``good cause'' rather than
subject to the requirement in the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553(d)) that a minimum of 30 days is required before a rule may
become effective. The nature of this action, which is to delay the
submission deadline for completed 2016 Form 300A data that could not
have been complied with as of the submission date in the original rule,
makes it unnecessary and impractical to delay the effectiveness of this
action by 30 days.
In this preamble, OSHA references comments in Docket No. OSHA-2013-
0023, the docket for this rulemaking. References to documents in this
rulemaking are given as "Ex." followed by the document number. The
docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal
eRulemaking Portal.
II. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule
A. Comments Received on the Proposed Delay of Compliance Date
The June 28, 2017, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposed to
delay the initial submission deadline for 2016 Form 300A data to
December 1, 2017. In the NPRM, OSHA also announced its intent to issue
a separate proposal to reconsider, revise, or remove other provisions
of the prior final rule and to seek comment on those provisions in that
separate proposal. This final rule only addresses comments specific to
the delay of the July 1, 2017, compliance date. In the NPRM, OSHA
described its intent to provide employers a four-month window to submit
their Form 300A data between the launch of the ITA on August 1 and the
proposed due date of December 1. In order to remain consistent with the
intent to provide a four-month window, OSHA has added two weeks to the
proposed compliance date of December 1, 2017, to compensate for the
time employers were unable to access the ITA in August. With the launch
of the electronic reporting system on August 1, and the revised
deadline of December 15, employers will still have four months (August,
September, October, November, and part of December) to submit their
data.
OSHA received 72 substantive comments on its proposal to delay the
submission deadline for completed 2016 Form 300A data to December 1,
2017.
Many commenters supported the proposed delay. Several commenters
commented that a delay was necessary because employers were not able to
meet the July 1, 2017, deadline because OSHA's electronic data
collection system was not expected to be operational until August 1,
2017 (Ex. 1842, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1868, 1874, 1876, 1885, 1888, 1889,
1890, 1891, 1894, 1902, 1908). For example, the National Federation of
Independent Business (NFIB) commented that ``NFIB strongly supports a
delay until at least December 1, 2017. Small and independent businesses
should not be required to comply with a rule when compliance is
impossible'' (Ex. 1842). OSHA agrees with these comments. The data
collection system was not made available to the public until August 1,
2017. Because the data collection system was not available until after
the initial July 1, 2017 deadline, it was impossible for employers to
comply with that provision of the regulation.
Other commenters mentioned that a delay would give OSHA more time
to assure that the data collection Web site functions smoothly when it
does go live. The North American Die Casting Association (NADCA)
commented that a delay would give OSHA more time to deal with potential
glitches in the Web site (Ex. 1894). Joseph Xavier commented that a
delay would also give OSHA more time to make sure that the Web site is
easy to use (Ex. 1887). In response, OSHA notes that the Agency
originally planned to launch the electronic reporting system at the end
of February, which would have given employers four months (March,
April, May, June) to submit their data before the original deadline of
July 1. The new reporting deadline of December 15, 2017, maintains the
four-month window (August, September, October, November, and part of
December) for employers to submit the required data.
Several commenters supported the proposed delay on the grounds that
it would be helpful to employers for various reasons. Many commenters
stated that a delay would give employers more time to familiarize
themselves with the electronic reporting system (Ex. 1858, 1876, 1885,
1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1894, 1899, 1902, 1906). For example, the
Edison Electric Institute commented that ``[e]lectronic submission of
OSHA 300A forms will require time for EEI members to become familiar
with the electronic reporting system, determine whether any IT system
or other changes will be necessary to submit OSHA 300A forms
electronically, and train employees in how to use the system (Ex.
1899). As above, OSHA notes that employers will have the same amount of
time between system launch date and deadline (i.e., four months) as
they would originally have had under the May 2016 final rule. Other
commenters mentioned that a delay would give more time for
establishments to be educated about the new requirements (Ex. 1877,
1891). OSHA agrees that delaying the deadline from July 1, 2017, to
December 15, 2017, gives more time for establishments to be educated
about the requirements of the final rule published in May 2016.
Many commenters also supported the proposed delay as a means to
allow OSHA more time to reevaluate the May 2016 final rule (Ex. 1856,
1860, 1872, 1874, 1877, 1885, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1893, 1894, 1902,
1904, 1906, 1907, 1912). For example, the Precision Machined Products
Association (PMPA) commented that a delay until December 1, 2017, would
``allow the Administration an opportunity to review the new electronic
reporting requirements prior to implementation'' (Ex. 1902). Other
commenters supported the proposed delay as a first step, but they more
strongly supported an even longer delay. Several commenters commented
that the proposed five-month delay did not provide OSHA enough time to
reconsider the final rule as mentioned in the NPRM (Ex. 1842, 1886,
1898, 1904, 1911, 1912, 1913). For example, Associated Builders and
Contractors, Inc. (ABC) commented that ``ABC is concerned that the
delay will not be sufficient to allow OSHA to complete its
reconsideration of the numerous challenged aspects of the rule'' (Ex.
1912). This final rule delays the compliance date to submit employers'
2016 Form 300A data because it was infeasible for employers to comply
with the July 1, 2017 deadline. As stated in the proposal, OSHA intends
to issue a separate proposal to reconsider, revise, or remove other
provisions of the prior final rule and to seek comment on those
provisions in that separate proposal. The separate rulemaking will
afford OSHA the time necessary to give full reconsideration to
substantive issues concerning the May 6, 2016, final rule.
Many commenters also indicated that the proposed five-month delay
would be more burdensome for establishments than a longer delay. Some
commenters commented that a five-month delay
would create confusion among the regulated community, given that the
rule could change after the proposed December 1, 2017, submission
deadline or potentially be subject to even more delays in
implementation (Ex. 1877, 1904, 1912, 1913). Several commenters also
stated that a five-month delay could cause establishments to waste
resources in an effort to comply with a regulation that could change
later (Ex. 1905, 1911, 1912, 1913). For example, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce (USCC) commented that ``[m]erely delaying the submission of
these reports suggests OSHA will activate the requirement on December
1. Employers will begin preparing to submit their forms months ahead of
that date. If OSHA then concludes, through the comprehensive
rulemaking, to rescind this requirement, then employers will have spent
their resources for no purpose'' (Ex. 1911). The USCC and the Coalition
for Workplace Safety (CWS) further commented that the four-month period
between when the data collection Web site goes live and the proposed
submission deadline is not long enough to make sure that the digital
recordkeeping systems currently in use would be compatible with OSHA's
Web site (Ex. 1911, 1913). The American Coating Association (ACA)
raised an additional concern about enterprises with many
establishments, commenting that ``corporate headquarters submitting
reports on behalf of establishments within its ownership would face
difficulty in collecting and electronically submitting forms by the
proposed December 1, 2017 deadline'' (Ex. 1905).
In response, OSHA agrees with the comment that a longer compliance
delay could help to prevent further delays in implementation. OSHA has
determined that the additional two-week delay to December 15, 2017 will
help the Agency avoid further delays by ensuring that its electronic
reporting system functions properly. OSHA disagrees that a more
substantial delay is needed. OSHA notes that the collection of 2016
Form 300A is currently underway. As indicated in the May 6, 2016, final
rule, OSHA will use the data collected to more efficiently focus its
outreach and enforcement resources towards establishments that are
experiencing high rates of occupational injuries and illnesses. OSHA
intends to issue a separate proposal to reconsider, revise, or remove
other provisions of the prior final rule and to seek comment on those
provisions in that separate proposal. This final rule only delays the
compliance date to submit employers' 2016 Form 300A data. In addition,
employers were already required to complete, certify, and post the 2016
OSHA Form 300A by February 1, 2017, so OSHA does not expect employers
to face difficulty collecting and electronically submitting the data
from the 2016 OSHA Form 300A by December 15, 2017.
There were also many commenters who opposed the proposed delay of
the initial submission deadline to December 1, 2017. Several commenters
commented that a delay would result in a longer time before various
groups (employers, employees, researchers, labor unions, etc.) could
use the 2016 Form 300A injury and illness data to prevent future
injuries and illnesses in the workplace (Ex. 1846, 1866, 1871, 1873,
1875, 1878, 1879, 1896, 1900, 1901, 1903, 1909, 1910). For example,
Change to Win commented that the current final rule should be
implemented as rapidly as possible to ``aggressively reduce the
nation's unacceptable burden of workplace injury, illness, disability
and death'' (Ex. 1871). In a related concern, the American College of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine commented that the rule should
be enacted without delay because the injury and illness data could be
used to help develop better health care policies and medical treatments
for injured workers (Ex. 1880).
Other commenters commented that a delay would result in a longer
time before employers would have incentives to create safer workplaces
through the benchmarking of injury and illness rates (Ex. 1866, 1873,
1875, 1878, 1884, 1901). For example, Public Citizen commented that it
did not support the proposed delay because the data collected under the
final rule would motivate employers ``to compare their safety records
against other firms in their industry and set goals for improvement''
(Ex. 1866).
Many commenters also opposed the proposed delay because it would
result in a longer time before OSHA could use establishment-level
injury and illness data to identify and target workplace hazards (Ex.
1866, 1871, 1873, 1875, 1878, 1879, 1884, 1896, 1900, 1901, 1903, 1909,
1910). For example, National Nurses United indicated that they were
against the delay because ``OSHA Form 300A data is vital in the
effective targeting of OSHA enforcement and compliance assistance
resources. OSHA uses this information to develop injury and illness
prevention plans and to efficiently direct OSHA's scarce resources to
worksites that pose the most serious hazards for workers'' (Ex. 1900).
The Service Employees International Union expressed a related concern
in its opposition to the delay, commenting that ``workers and employers
will not be able to enjoy the benefits of the regulation during the
five month delay . . . [including] [i]mprovement in the quality of the
information submitted to OSHA'' (Ex. 1884). The Council of State and
Territorial Epidemiologists and the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters provided a similar comment (Ex. 1903, 1909).
In addition to the above concerns related to occupational health
and safety, other commenters indicated that the delay was not necessary
for employers. Several commenters commented that there was no need for
a delay given that the final rule did not impose any new recordkeeping
requirements on employers (Ex. 1866, 1869, 1873, 1878, 1879, 1900,
1901, 1910). Some commenters also stated that a delay was not necessary
because employers have already known about the requirements of the
final rule for an ample amount of time (Ex. 1869, 1879, 1896, 1903).
Other commenters opposed the delay by noting that OSHA has provided
no rationale or justification for the delay (Ex. 1873, 1878, 1900,
1901, 1903, 1909). For example, the Utility Workers Union of America
commented that ``[i]n its proposal, OSHA provides no justification for
the proposed delay from July to December of this year'' (Ex. 1901).
Other commenters also opposed the delay on the ground that the part of
the final rule subject to delay is already in effect and must therefore
be enforced (Ex. 1879, 1900). The National Employment Law Project
further commented that such a ``non-enforcement policy would be, in
effect, an Administrative Stay of this part of the rule, in violation
of the Administrative Procedure Act'' (Ex. 1879). National Nurses
United provided a similar comment (Ex. 1900).
In response to all of these comments, OSHA notes that compliance
with the regulation was impossible, and OSHA must delay the initial
submission deadline because the Agency did not make the electronic
reporting system available before the July 1, 2017, submission deadline
in the May 2016 final rule. OSHA agrees with commenters that the delay
in the compliance date will cause an initial delay in the Agency's
ability to use the data for inspection and outreach purposes, but only
on a temporary basis during this initial collection year. The Agency
will be able to use the submitted
data for inspection and outreach purposes after December 15, 2017.
B. The Final Rule
OSHA concludes the appropriate course of action is to delay the
compliance date to December 15, 2017. OSHA agrees with those commenters
supporting a delay of the initial submission deadline because OSHA did
not make the electronic reporting system available before the July 1,
2017, submission deadline in the May 2016 final rule. OSHA also agrees
with commenters that employers will need sufficient time to learn and
understand the reporting requirements and electronic reporting system,
especially during the initial year of the data collection. OSHA
believes the four-month period between the launch of the data
collection system on August 1, and a compliance date of December 15,
will provide employers sufficient time to provide the required data to
OSHA. As noted above, OSHA has delayed by two weeks the proposed
compliance date of December 1, 2017, to compensate for the time
employers were unable to access the ITA in August. OSHA also has
determined that this two-week delay will allow the Agency to avoid
future delays by ensuring that the electronic reporting system
functions properly.
OSHA does not agree with commenters who called for a substantially
longer delay. OSHA reiterates that it intends to issue a separate
proposal to reconsider, revise, or remove other provisions of the prior
final rule and to seek comment on those provisions in that separate
proposal; this final rule only delays the compliance date to submit
employers' 2016 Form 300A data. The separate rulemaking will afford
OSHA the time necessary to give full reconsideration to substantive
issues concerning the May 6, 2016, final rule.
OSHA also notes, as above, that employers will have the same four
months' worth of time with the delayed date as they would have had with
the original date. In addition, OSHA notes that the original final rule
was published in May 2016 and that file specifications for electronic
submission have been available on the OSHA Web site since February
2017.
Finally, OSHA notes that employers were already required to
complete, certify, and post the 2016 OSHA Form 300A by February 1,
2017, so OSHA does not expect employers to have difficulty collecting
and electronically submitting the data from the 2016 OSHA Form 300A by
December 15, 2017. On August 1, the first day the system launched,
employers created 668 accounts, registered 1,000 establishments, and
completed the submission of calendar year 2016 data from 919 OSHA Form
300As. OSHA believes that the four months from the launch date of
August 1, 2017, to the new delayed deadline of December 15, 2017,
provide ample time for employers to submit their 2016 data and for the
agency to conduct additional outreach to employers to inform them of
their obligations.
OSHA's August 1, 2017, launch of the electronic reporting system
moots the comments calling for an immediate implementation of the
reporting requirements because data collection began on that launch
date. OSHA agrees with commenters that the delay in the compliance date
will cause an initial delay in the Agency's ability to use the data for
inspection and outreach purposes, but only on a temporary basis during
the initial collection year. The Agency will be able to use the
submitted data after December 15, 2017.
III. Final Economic Analysis
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require that OSHA estimate the
benefits, costs, and net benefits of proposed and final regulations.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act also require OSHA to estimate the
costs, assess the benefits, and analyze the impacts of certain rules
that the Agency promulgates. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct
agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts,
and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules,
and promoting flexibility.
In the Preliminary Economic Analysis, OSHA proposed to delay the
deadline for electronic submission of Form 300A data under the
regulation from July 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017.
To calculate the private-sector cost for provisions in the current
regulation impacted by the proposed delay of the first year's
submission date from July 1, 2017 to December 1, 2017, OSHA subtracted
costs not applicable to the proposed delay from the original private-
sector cost of the final rule. The subtracted costs include the costs
of familiarization and checking by unregulated establishments (both of
which would have taken place after the rule was published in May 2016),
the costs of the non-discrimination provision (which became enforceable
in 2016), and the costs of submission of case data (the OSHA Log data)
(which is not required until 2018). This yields a cost of $4,845,365
per year. This cost represents the cost of electronically submitting
the required 2016 information from the OSHA Form 300A in 2017. The
affected employers have already gathered and recorded this information,
as required by various provisions of part 1904.
This delay only affects costs for 2017, because the delay does not
modify the deadlines for electronic submission in subsequent years.
Thus, the only cost savings associated with this change are for
delaying the deadline for the electronic submission of previously-
recorded data by five-and-one-half months, from July 1, 2017 to
December 15, 2017.
The cost savings of the five and one half month delay are estimated
based on the interest that can now be earned on the funds involved
while the report for the first year is delayed.\1\ At a 3-percent
discount rate, this results in a one-time cost savings of $65,201, or
$7,644 per year annualized over 10 years. At a 7-percent discount rate,
this results in a one-time cost savings of $147,950, or $21,065 per
year annualized over 10 years. OSHA requested comments on these cost
savings calculations but did not receive any public comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The entire derivation is as follows: OSHA begins with a
current private sector cost of the original rule of $4,845,365 times
the discount rate value of the delay of (1+d[caret]-((5.5)/12). OSHA
then subtracts this value (which is $4,837,917 at 3 percent) from
the full value of $4,845,365. This results in a difference of $7,644
in annualized costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency notes that it did not include an overhead labor cost in
the Final Economic Analysis (FEA) for this rule, and all costs of this
final rule are labor costs. OSHA did not receive any comments on the
use of overhead costs in the Preliminary Economic Analysis for this
delay. It is important to note that there is not one broadly accepted
overhead rate and that the use of overhead to estimate the marginal
costs of labor raises a number of issues that should be addressed
before applying overhead costs to analyze the costs of any specific
regulation. There are several approaches to look at the cost elements
that fit the definition of overhead, and there are a range of overhead
estimates currently used within the federal government--for example,
the Environmental Protection Agency has used 17 percent,\2\ and
government contractors have been reported to use an average of 77
percent.3 4 Some overhead costs, such as advertising and
marketing, may be more closely correlated with output than with labor.
Other overhead costs vary with the number of new employees. For
example, rent or payroll processing costs may change little with the
addition of 1 employee in a 500-employee firm, but may change
substantially with the addition of 100 employees. If an employer is
able to rearrange current employees' duties to implement a rule, then
the marginal share of overhead costs such as rent, insurance, and major
office equipment (e.g., computers, printers, copiers) would be very
difficult to measure with accuracy (e.g., computer use costs associated
with two hours for rule familiarization by an existing employee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Cody Rice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Wage
Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory
Program,'' June 10, 2002.
\3\ Grant Thornton LLP, 2015 Government Contractor Survey.
(https://www.grantthornton.com/~/media/content-page-files/public-
sector/pdfs/surveys/2015/Gov-Contractor-Survey.ashx).
\4\ For further examples of overhead cost estimates, please see
the Employee Benefits Security Administration's guidance at
https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/
technical-appendices/labor-cost-inputs-used-in-ebsa-opr-ria-and-pra-burden-calculations-august-2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If OSHA had included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal
cost of labor, without further analyzing an appropriate quantitative
adjustment, and adopted for these purposes an overhead rate of 17
percent on base wages, as was done in a sensitivity analysis in the FEA
in support of OSHA's 2016 final rule on Occupational Exposure to
Respirable Crystalline Silica, the base wages would increase annualized
cost savings by approximately $1,299 per year using a 3-percent
discount rate and by $3,581 a year using a 7-percent discount rate.
As noted below, OSHA has stated that the data submission
requirements of the original final rule would lead employers to
increase workplace safety and health; although the costs of the safety-
and health-improving actions have not been quantified, the savings
associated with a delay of such costs would be analogous to those
calculated for quantified costs.
Table 1 summarizes the annualized and one-time cost savings.
Table 1--Annualized and One-Time Cost Savings \5\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One time
Cost savings method Annualized cost
savings savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-Percent Discount Rate.......................... $7,644 $65,201
7-Percent Discount Rate.......................... 21,065 147,950
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA did not quantify the benefits of the May 2016 final rule. In
the economic analysis of the final rule, OSHA stated that the rule
would improve OSHA's ability to identify, target, and remove safety and
health hazards, thereby preventing workplace injuries, illnesses, and
deaths. In addition, OSHA stated that the data submission requirements
of the final rule would improve the quality of the information
submitted and lead employers to increase workplace safety and health.
OSHA also projected benefits associated with making the data publicly
available. OSHA posits that this relatively brief delay in initial
submissions will not have a meaningful effect on these benefits;
however, because of the lack of quantification, there is some
uncertainty as to what the impact will be. Other aspects of the final
rule that OSHA determined would produce benefits, such as the non-
discrimination provision and the collection of case characteristic data
(OSHA Forms 300, 301) from establishments with 250 or more employees,
would not be altered by this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ All cost savings are in 2014 dollars. Costs are annualized
over ten years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As categorized in Section II, above, OSHA received some comments
stating there would be a loss of benefits because of the delay. The
benefits from the rule will still accrue, but with a delay of, at most,
5 months. In any case, OSHA must delay the initial submission deadline,
because OSHA did not make the electronic reporting system available
before the July 1, 2017 submission deadline in the May 2016 final rule.
Establishments are still required to report their 2016 injury summaries
in 2017, and this information will be available to OSHA, just with a
short delay.
OSHA concludes that this delay of five months is both economically
and technologically feasible. The delay meets both criteria of
feasibility because the original rule was economically and
technologically feasible without a five-month delay.
OSHA has considered whether this final rule will have a significant
economic impact on small firms. As a result of these considerations, in
accordance with section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA
certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, OSHA did not
prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis or conduct a SBREFA
Panel.
IV. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
Consistent with E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), OSHA has
estimated the annualized cost savings over 10 years for this final rule
to range from $7,644 to $21,065, depending on the discount rate.
Therefore, this final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this rule can be found
in the rule's economic analysis.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule does not change the information collections already
approved by OMB under control number 1218-0176.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1904
Health statistics, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Signed at Washington, DC, on November 20, 2017.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
Amendments to Standard
For the reasons stated in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION above, OSHA
amends part 1904 of chapter XVII of title 29 as follows:
PART 1904--RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND
ILLNESSES
0
1. The authority citation for part 1904 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 657, 658, 660, 666, 669, 673, Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).
Subpart E--Reporting Fatality, Injury and Illness Information to
the Government
0
2. Revise Sec. 1904.41(c)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 1904.41 Electronic submission of injury and illness records to
OSHA.
* * * * *
(c) Reporting dates. (1) In 2017 and 2018, establishments required
to submit under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section must submit the
required information according to the table in this paragraph (c)(1):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishments Establishments
submitting under submitting under
paragraph (a)(1) of paragraph (a)(2) of
Submission year this section must this section must Submission deadline
submit the required submit the required
information from this information from this
form/these forms: form:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017........................ 300A................. 300A................. December 15, 2017.
2018........................ 300A, 300, 301....... 300A................. July 1, 2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-25392 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
