Alert: Due to routine maintenance on the OSHA website, some pages may be temporarily unavailable.
To report an emergency, file a complaint with OSHA or ask a safety and health question, call 1-800-321-6742 (OSHA).

  • Publication Date:
  • Publication Type:
    Final Rule
  • Fed Register #:
    82:55761-55766
  • Standard Number:
  • Title:
    Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses: Delay of Compliance Date
[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