federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

6440 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Rules and RegulationsAnother very importantrecommendation concerns theinequities of comparing an industrycovered by the Long Shore and HarborWorkers Act compensation programwith those covered by Workers’Compensation. Compensation providedby the Long shore program is muchmore generous than Workers’Compensation and may encourageindividuals to remain on compensationlonger. This disparity between the twosystems is not often acknowledgedparticularly when injury incident andseverity rates are used to identify highhazard industries. It is recommendedthat OSHA recognize the impact of theLong shore compensation byestablishing a specific category foremployees who are covered by the Longshore Act. For an example, SIC 4491,Long shoring, may be used as a specificcategory where employer incident andseverity rates may be compared.These objections are premature, asthey relate to certain possible uses ofdata, not to usefulness for all purposes,and not to the Agency’s authority tocollect the data in the first instance.Moreover, as the comments themselvesmade clear, when the time comes forusing survey data, it will be possible tofactor in special circumstances forsubgroups of employers. For example,small employer data could be adjustedto omit smaller employers with only oneinjury from any analysis of the data.In regards to the longshoring industry,OSHA has traditionally performedseparate analyses of broader databasesto prepare employer lists specific to thelongshoring industry. OSHA recognizesthe unique qualities of this industry, hasdeveloped separate standards formaritime industries, includinglongshoring, and normally performsspecialized investigations forlongshoring facilities. The problemswith data from the longshoring industrycan be solved by continuing to look atthis industry in a way that does notcompare these employers to employersin other industries.In general, OSHA believes thatdifferent approaches to the use of datacan effectively deal with differencesamong different subpopulations ofemployers, depending on the uniquequalities of those subpopulations.OSHA will continue to tailor its analysisof data when these unique situations areencountered.C. Data Quality IssuesSeveral commenters discussed thepossible adverse impacts on the qualityof the data if reporting is required. (Ex.15: 50, 122, 176, 273, 301, 310, 374, 401,414). Mr. George R. Cook, CCC-A (Ex.15: 50) remarked:If the OSHA Form 300 is to be used toprioritize compliance visits, it is felt thispolicy will add undue pressure forcompanies to keep entries off the Form.The Laborers’ Health & Safety Fund ofNorth America (Ex. 15: 310) observed:The premise of employers self-reportinginjuries and illnesses to an agency whichmay inspect them based on that data is aprescription for mis-reporting.The Chemical ManufacturersAssociation (CMA) remarked:CMA supports targeting of inspections inorder for OSHA to better use its resources,but cautions OSHA to carefully consider itsapproach. CMA is concerned that OSHAcarefully consider the relationship betweentargeting and OSHA’s ability to collectaccurate and credible data. Valid datacollection and analysis are the cornerstone ofeffective targeting.CMA recognizes that currently OSHA isnot collecting adequate data to targeteffectively. It is important that OSHA reviewexisting data sources, examine existingtargeting programs (e.g. Maine 200) andrevise its data collection mechanisms.However, the Administration must carefullyevaluate the context in which that data hasbeen collected, as well as identifycharacteristic flaws in such programs.(Ex. 15: 301, p. 16)The quality of any data collected fromemployers is an ongoing concern for theAgency. OSHA agrees that misreporting,whether intentional or unintentional,can affect the value of the collected dataand any conclusions drawn from thatdata. Misreporting is not, however, aninsoluble problem. Controls areavailable for assuring a reasonablequality of data for use by OSHA, as wellas employers and workers. For example,OSHA is implementing a quality controlinitiative for the current collection ofinjury and illness records data requiredby Part 1904 that will include threecomponents; outreach and training forthe regulated community to reduceunintentional errors, error screening andfollow-back procedures to correct orverify questionable data reported to theagency, and, under certaincircumstances, on-site recordsinspections. OSHA is also planning touse other sources of data, e.g., workers’compensation records and inspectionhistories, when available, forcomparison purposes as an externalcheck on records validity.D. Effect on Existing AuthorityNothing in Section 1904.17 affects theSecretary’s general investigatoryauthority under Section 8 of the Act orhis broad rulemaking authority underSection 8(g)(2).IV. Economic AnalysisSection 1904.17 applies to allemployers within OSHA jurisdiction,including those in general industry,construction, shipyard employment,long shoring, marine terminals, andagriculture. OSHA has determined thatthe Section 1904.17 regulation does notrequire the Agency to develop a FinalEconomic Analysis because it is not a‘‘significant regulatory action’’ asdefined by section 3(f)(1) of ExecutiveOrder (E.O.) 12866. This provision ofthe E.O. covers a regulatory action thatis likely to result in a rule that may:(1) Have an annual effect on theeconomy of $100 million or more oradversely affect in a material way theeconomy, a sector of the economy,productivity, competition, jobs, theenvironment, public health or safety, orState, local, or tribal governments orcommunities.Pursuant to this section 1904.17individual data collections conductedunder this regulation will requireemployers to assemble data and filereports to OSHA. To provide employerswith examples illustrative of the kindsof costs and paperwork burdenspotentially associated with such datacollections, the following paragraphsdescribe the costs and burden hoursassociated with two recent Agency datacollection efforts. The examples choseninclude the two recent data collectioninitiatives undertaken by OSHA in 1995and 1996.The impact analyses developed forthe 1995 and 1996 data collectionsinitiatives were published in theFederal Register (60 FR 35231; 61 FR38227, respectively). OSHA estimatedthat employers responding to those datacollection efforts would be required tospend an estimated $6.95 per response,based on 30 minutes of clerical time at$13.90 per hour. OSHA believes thatmost firms will assign the survey formto a personnel or payroll clerk with anaverage wage of $13.90 per hour. Thisfigure is based on a wage rate withbenefits for a secretary-typist fromEmployment and Earnings, January1996, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureauof Labor Statistics (OSHA has recentlyupdated its wage rate data with morecurrent statistics). The informationcollected from employers in the 1995and 1996 data collection initiatives wassummary information from theestablishment’s OSHA Log and Form200, in addition to information on thenumber of workers employed and thenumber of hours worked by theseemployees in the applicable calendaryear. Approximately 70,000 employerswere targeted in each of these data