federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations6439this data in a multi-state, multi-locationoperation. Either of these two options wouldgive more appropriate time for more accurateinformation to be compiled for these types ofemployers.(Ex. 15:127 P. 2)Other comments supported the 21 dayrequirement, but suggested that theSecretary maintain some flexibility anddiscretion to provide more than 21 daysfor a specific request.The American Petroleum Institute(API), for example, observed:Twenty-one days should be the minimumtime allowed for employers to respond tosuch requests.Recommended language: The employershall file the requested reports with theSecretary within 21 calendar days of receiptof the request, unless the Secretary allowsmore than 21 days.(Ex. 15:375 P. b25)In light of these comments, OSHA hasincreased the reporting time to 30calendar days in this final rule. OSHAbelieves that the 21 day time frame maybe too short for some employers tocomply with the request, but believesthat 45 or 60 days is too long a timeframe for a relatively simple request forsummary information contained inexisting records. A longer deadlinewould make it more difficult for OSHAto collect data in a timely fashion, or toconduct quality control measures suchas follow-up mailings and phone calls toverify questionable or erroneous data.Additionally, OSHA agrees that thetime frame in the rule should be aminimum time that can be lengthened atthe discretion of OSHA. In other words,the final rule requires employers to filereports within 30 calendar days ofreceipt of the request, unless the writteninstructions contained in the requestspecifically allow more than 30 calendardays.6. Reporting With ComputersOSHA received several comments onthe potential role of computers inreporting data to OSHA. (Ex. 15: 011,163, 184, 390, 402) The OSHA DataCompany (Ex. 15: 011) suggested thatcomputer reporting should be amandatory feature of the data collectionsystem, remarking: ‘‘We suggest thatrecordkeeping in computer readableformat should be mandatory and datashould be submitted to OSHA in thatformat.’’Other commenters suggested thatcomputer reporting be allowed andencouraged (Ex. 15: 163, 184, 390, 402).The comments of US West Inc. arerepresentative of these comments:US West requests that OSHA move toimplement systems that will allow employersto electronically provide data, such as thedata requested in the BLS Survey ofOccupational Injuries and Illnesses. Such amethod will be more effective, in terms ofreceiving consistently formatted data, andwill be more cost efficient for both employersand the Department of Labor.(Ex. 15–184)OSHA believes that there is enormouspotential for reducing collection burdenon both employers and the government,while improving data quality andconsistency, by allowing employers tosubmit data through computerizedreporting systems. However, OSHA doesnot believe that computerized reportingsystems should be mandatory for allemployers. Mandatory computersystems could actually increase theburden on those employers who do nothave computer systems and on thoseemployers who have computer systemsthat do not provide simple electroniccommunications options.OSHA intends to implement, as soonas possible, options for individual datacollection projects that will allowemployers to submit data eitherelectronically or through paper forms.For those data collections wherecomputerized submission of data is anoption, OSHA will include instructionsfor computerized submissions in theinstructions accompanying the requestfor information.7. Miscellaneous IssuesOSHA also received comments on avariety of issues that the Agencybelieves are worthy of discussion, asfollows.A. The Ability of OSHA To Designate itsCollection Authority to Another Entity.The Proposed Rule Did Not IndicateThat a Designee Could CollectInformation for the AgencyOften, OSHA and the Bureau of LaborStatistics have used grants to the statesand independent governmentcontractors to collect data on behalf ofthe Department of Labor. Thesearrangements allow the Department tocollect information using a variety ofadministrative options that areadvantageous to the Federal governmentand do not increase the burden onrespondents. One commenter suggested:‘‘Data should continue to be collectedthrough state agencies.’’ (Ex. 15: 41)In order to maintain the Agency’sflexibility to collect data via grants tothe states, or to use governmentcontractors, and to be able to collectdata through cooperative interagencyefforts with the Department of Healthand Human Services, OSHA hasmodified the final rule to requireemployers to submit information toeither OSHA or OSHA’s designee.B. Unfair Effect on Specific IndustrySectorsSeveral commenters raised concernsover what they regarded as potentiallyunfair effects of the data collection onsmaller employers, smallestablishments, and employers who relyheavily on part time employees (Ex. 15:304, 384, 424, 449). Another commenterwas concerned that OSHA wouldattempt to compare data from thelongshoring industry to that of otherindustries and argued that suchcomparisons would be invalid becauselongshoring is subject to a differentworkers’ compensation insurancesystem than other industry sectors (Ex.15: 95).Several commenters expressedconcern over a perceived andpotentially unfair effect of datacollections on smaller employers,arguing that the same small number ofcases would result in a higher incidencerate for a smaller employer than for alarger employer, or that a smallemployer may have a high rate for onlyone year and may have had no cases formany years before and after the year forwhich the information is collected. (Ex.15: 304, 384, 449) For example, theAkzo Nobel Corporation observed:We support this concept, but cautionOSHA about using data from only one year,especially for small sites where a singlemedical case in a plant of 20 employees willgive a total recordable rate of about 5. Wewould consider that a ‘‘high’’ rate, possiblytargetable by OSHA, but it might be the firstOSHA recordable incident in 3 or 5 years.Caution is advised.(Ex. 15: 384)United Parcel Service (UPS) (Ex. 15:424, p. 9) expressed a concern about thepossible effect on firms who rely heavilyon part-time labor, stating:The agency’s current practice ofdetermining injury rates as a ratio to hoursworked, rather than to employees, has theconsequence of inflating injury and illnessrates for companies with more workers perhour worked: at least when an outside limitof an 8-hour workday is established, thelikelihood, per hour, of injury decreaseswhen more hours are worked. To put itanother way, the more workers who work per8-hour day, the more likely those hours willgenerate discrete employee complaints.Therefore, OSHA’s current practices alreadydistort the apparent safety of workplacesrelying heavily on part-time labor.The Pacific Maritime Association (Ex.15: 95, p. 10) expressed a concern thatinjury and illness reports would notprovide an accurate comparison withother industries because the longshoringindustry is covered by a separateworkers’ compensation system, stating: