Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses: Delay of Compliance Date
Final rule; delay of compliance date.
CFR Part: "29 CFR Part 1904"
RIN Number: "RIN 1218-AD16"
Citation: "82 FR 55761"
Document Number: "Docket No.
Page Number: "55761"
"Rules and Regulations"
SUMMARY: This action delays until
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is effective on
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For press inquiries:
For general and technical information:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
On
On
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,
II. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule
A. Comments Received on the Proposed Delay of Compliance Date
The
OSHA received 72 substantive comments on its proposal to delay the submission deadline for completed 2016 Form 300A data to
Many commenters supported the proposed delay. Several commenters commented that a delay was necessary because employers were not able to meet the
Other commenters mentioned that a delay would give
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
Many commenters also supported the proposed delay as a means to allow
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
In response,
There were also many commenters who opposed the proposed delay of the initial submission deadline to
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
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
In response to all of these comments,
B. The Final Rule
OSHA concludes the appropriate course of action is to delay the compliance date to
OSHA does not agree with commenters who called for a substantially longer delay.
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,
Finally,
OSHA's
III. Final Economic Analysis
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require that
In the Preliminary Economic Analysis,
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
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
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
FOOTNOTE 1 The entire derivation is as follows:
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.
FOOTNOTE 2 Cody Rice,
FOOTNOTE 3
FOOTNOTE 4 For further examples of overhead cost estimates, please see the
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
As noted below,
Table 1 summarizes the annualized and one-time cost savings.
Table 1--Annualized and One-Time Cost Savings(5M) Cost savings method Annualized One time savings cost 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
FOOTNOTE 5 All cost savings are in 2014 dollars. Costs are annualized over ten years. END FOOTNOTE
As categorized in Section II, above,
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,
IV. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
Consistent with E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339,
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
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
Amendments to Standard
For the reasons stated in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION above,
PART 1904--RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES
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,
Subpart E--Reporting Fatality, Injury and Illness Information to the Government
2. Revise
* * * * *
(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):
Submission year Establishments Establishments Submission submitting under submitting under deadline paragraph (a)(1) paragraph (a)(2) of this section of this section must submit the must submit the required required information from information from this form/these this form: forms: 2017 300A 300A December 15, 2017. 2018 300A, 300, 301 300A July 1, 2018.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-25392 Filed 11-22-17;
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
Financial Stability Board Issues Statement on Global Systemically Important Insurers
Exclusions cited as the plane infuriating when it comes to travel insurance
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News