Proposed Rule2025-11624
Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements; Withdrawal
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 1, 2025
Effective
July 1, 2025
Issuing agencies
Labor DepartmentOccupational Safety and Health Administration
Abstract
OSHA is withdrawing the proposal to amend the OSHA 300 Log by adding a column that employers would use to record work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Withdrawal of the proposal does not change any employer's obligation to complete and retain occupational injury and illness records under OSHA's regulations. Withdrawal of the proposal also does not change the recording criteria or definitions used for these records.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28257-28263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11624]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1904
[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0044]
RIN 1218-AC45
Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting
Requirements; Withdrawal
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule; termination of rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA is withdrawing the proposal to amend the OSHA 300 Log by
adding a column that employers would use to record work-related
musculoskeletal disorders. Withdrawal of the proposal does not change
any employer's obligation to complete and retain occupational injury
and illness records under OSHA's regulations. Withdrawal of the
proposal also does not change the recording criteria or definitions
used for these records.
DATES: This withdrawal is effective July 1, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Press Inquiries: Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, telephone: 202-693-1999; email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5538303c393c3b3230277b3327343b363c266715313a397b323a23"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="204d45494c494e4745520e4652414e4349531260444f4c0e474f56">[email protected]</span></a>.
General and technical information: Andrew Levinson, Director,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone: 202-693-1950;
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f59990839c9b869a9bdb949b91879082b5919a99db929a83"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b676e7d6265786465256a656f796e7c4b6f6467256c647d">[email protected]</span></a>.
Citation Method
In the docket for this rulemaking found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>, every submission was assigned a document
identification (ID) number that consists of the docket number (OSHA-
2009-0044) followed by an additional four-digit number. For example,
the document ID number for the proposed rule is OSHA-2009-0044-0001.
Some document ID numbers include one or more attachments, such as one
of the submissions by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations
[[Page 28258]]
(AFL-CIO) (e.g., Document ID OSHA-2009-0044-0074).
When citing exhibits in the docket in this preamble, OSHA includes
the term ``Document ID'' followed by the last four digits of the
document number, and an attachment identifier, if applicable. In a
citation that contains two or more document ID numbers, the document ID
numbers are separated by semi-colons.
The exhibits in the docket, including public comments, supporting
materials, meeting transcripts, and other documents, are listed on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. All exhibits are listed in the docket index
on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>, but some exhibits (e.g., copyrighted
material) are not available to read or download from that website. All
materials in the docket are available for inspection through the OSHA
Docket Office; telephone (202) 693-2350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Overview of OSHA's Recordkeeping Rule and the BLS Survey of
Occupational Injuries and Illnesses
OSHA's regulations at 29 CFR part 1904 require covered employers to
record work-related injuries and illnesses that involve death, days
away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical
treatment beyond first aid, loss of consciousness, or a significant
injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or other licensed health
care professional (29 CFR 1904.7).
Employers covered by these regulations must record each recordable
employee injury and illness using three forms:
<bullet> OSHA Form 300, the ``Log of Work-Related Injuries and
Illnesses,'' or equivalent, which provides basic information about
injuries and illnesses;
<bullet> OSHA Form 301, the supplemental ``Injury and Illness
Incident Report,'' or equivalent, that provides additional details
about each case recorded on the 300 Log; and
<bullet> OSHA Form 300A, the ``Summary of Work-Related Injuries and
Illnesses'' prepared at the end of each calendar year, which indicates
the total number of injuries and illnesses during the year.
These occupational injury and illness records provide information
for employers and employees on the injuries and illnesses occurring in
the workplace and the hazards that cause or contribute to them. The
information assists employers in identifying and correcting hazardous
workplace conditions. The records also inform employees about the
hazards they face.
Occupational injury and illness records also provide information
for OSHA. During the initial stages of an inspection, an OSHA
representative typically reviews the injury and illness data for the
establishment as an aid to focusing the inspection effort on the safety
and health hazards suggested by the injury and illness records. The
recordkeeping regulations also require establishments with 250 or more
employees that are currently required to keep OSHA injury and illness
records, and establishments with 20-249 employees in certain designated
industries, to submit information electronically from the 300A Summary
to OSHA or OSHA's designee on an annual basis (29 CFR 1904.41). OSHA
uses this information to help target enforcement efforts, and to help
the agency identify the scope of occupational safety and health
problems and decide whether regulatory intervention, compliance
assistance, or other measures are warranted.
In addition, records of work-related injuries and illnesses are the
source of information for the national statistics on workplace injuries
and illnesses. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has conducted an
annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) since 1972.
Each year BLS sends the SOII to approximately 230,000 establishments
that represent a statistical sample of employers in most industries and
across all size classes in the country. OSHA's recordkeeping
regulations require employers who receive the SOII to complete and
submit it to BLS (29 CFR 1904.42). The SOII is used to obtain
information from employers' 301 Incident Reports and 300A Summaries.
The data BLS collects from the selected establishments are the primary
source of occupational injury and illness statistics for the nation,
including injury and illness incidences and rates for a variety of case
and worker characteristics.
Using the information from the SOII, BLS produces information on
two basic categories of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses:
(1) counts and rates by detailed industry and case type, and (2) counts
and rates of case circumstances and worker demographics for cases that
result in days away from work (DAFW). Beginning with 2011 data, BLS
began a pilot study for a new data series, which included the details
of case circumstances and worker characteristics on days of job
transfer or work restriction (DJTR) cases (<a href="https://www.bls.gov/iif/days-of-job-transfer-or-restriction.htm">https://www.bls.gov/iif/days-of-job-transfer-or-restriction.htm</a>). DJTR cases are OSHA-
recordable cases which result only in job transfer or restricted work
activity, without any days away from work. This includes instances in
which the injured or ill worker is transferred to another job or
assignment, works less than full time, or is unable to perform all of
their routine job duties. The pilot study includes data for rotating
sets of six selected industry subsectors. BLS publishes occupational
injury and illness data on the BLS web page at <a href="http://www.bls.gov">http://www.bls.gov</a>, and
makes the aggregate and detailed results available for both research
and public information. BLS pledges confidentiality to each employer
selected to complete the SOII (as it does on all BLS surveys);
therefore, BLS does not publish or share the establishment-specific
injury and illness data with the public or government agencies,
including OSHA.
For all occupational injuries and illnesses combined, BLS publishes
aggregate and industry totals for the number and rates of injuries and
illnesses by industry and type of case. For occupational illnesses
(skin diseases or disorders, respiratory conditions, poisonings,
hearing loss, and all other illnesses), BLS also publishes the totals
from the illness columns on the 300A Summary.
For DAFW and for DJTR cases in selected industry subsectors, BLS
publishes more detailed estimates of case circumstances and worker
characteristics. These are derived from information employers provide
from 301 Incident Reports or equivalent forms, or otherwise requested
as part of the SOII, about the specific characteristics of cases. Case
circumstances and worker characteristics include the employee's age,
race, sex, occupation, and length of service; the employer's industry
classification; the part of the body affected; the nature of the injury
or illness; the source of injury or illness (e.g., bodily motion or
position, machinery, fire); and the causal event or exposure leading to
the injury or illness (e.g., overexertion, repetitive motion, fall).
BLS uses the case circumstances and worker characteristics
information from the 301 Incident Reports to develop and publish
information on DAFW and DJTR musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Since
2011, BLS identifies MSD cases as those cases where the nature of the
injury or illness is pinched nerve; herniated disc; meniscus tear;
sprains, strains, tears; hernia (traumatic and nontraumatic); pain,
swelling, and numbness; carpal or tarsal tunnel syndrome; Raynaud's
syndrome or phenomenon; musculoskeletal system
[[Page 28259]]
and connective tissue diseases and disorders, when the event or
exposure leading to the injury or illness is overexertion and bodily
reaction, unspecified; overexertion involving outside sources;
repetitive motion involving microtasks; other and multiple exertions or
bodily reactions; and rubbed, abraded, or jarred by vibration (<a href="http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshdef.htm">http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshdef.htm</a>).
B. Regulatory History of the MSD Column Rulemaking
OSHA's regulations on recording and reporting occupational injuries
and illnesses (29 CFR part 1904) were first issued in 1971 (36 FR 12612
(July 2, 1971)). These regulations require employers with more than 10
employees in most industries to keep records of occupational injuries
and illnesses at their establishments.
In 2001, OSHA issued a final rule amending these regulations, along
with the forms employers use to record injuries and illnesses (66 FR
5916 (January 19, 2001)). Section 1904.12(a) of that rule, which never
became effective, would have created an MSD column on the 300 Log and
required an employer to check that column if an employee experienced a
work-related musculoskeletal disorder meeting the MSD definition
contained in the regulation.
After delaying the effective date of 29 CFR 1904.12 (66 FR 52031
(October 12, 2001); 67 FR 77165 (December 17, 2002)) and requesting
additional comment on issues related to the MSD column and definition
(67 FR 44124 (July 1, 2002)), OSHA subsequently issued a final rule
deleting Sec. 1904.12 after determining that the need for an MSD
column was not supported by the record (68 FR 38601 (June 30, 2003)).
Specifically, OSHA found that the MSD column would not significantly
improve the BLS national statistics on MSDs, would not materially
assist OSHA in enforcement efforts, and would not provide the type of
information that would be useful in addressing MSDs at the
establishment level. The agency concluded that existing MSD data BLS
publishes were adequate to provide information for OSHA and the public
(68 FR 38603-38606).
In 2010, OSHA again proposed to create an MSD column on the 300 Log
(75 FR 4728 (January 29, 2010)). OSHA provided a 45-day period for
public comment on the proposal, and extended the comment period to 60
days in response to stakeholder requests (75 FR 10738 (March 9, 2010)).
The agency received comments on the proposal from individuals,
employers, trade associations, labor organizations, public health
groups, and government agencies (e.g., Document ID 0046; 0057; 0059;
0068; 0074; 0084). OSHA also held a public meeting on the proposal on
March 9, 2010. Interested stakeholders made oral presentations and had
an opportunity to ask OSHA questions about the proposal. OSHA also
asked questions of those individuals making oral presentations. A
transcript of the meeting is included in the docket for the rulemaking
(Document ID 0056).
OSHA partnered with the Small Business Administration's Office of
Advocacy to hold three teleconferences with representatives of small
businesses on April 11-12, 2011. OSHA received information from the
small business community about current recordkeeping practices,
including their experiences recording work-related MSDs, and the impact
they believe the proposed rule would have on them. A summary of
comments from the teleconferences was added to the docket for the
rulemaking (Document ID 0139). OSHA reopened the docket for 30 days to
allow stakeholders to comment on the summary and the issues covered in
the teleconferences (76 FR 28383 (May 17, 2011)).
II. Legal Authority
OSHA's authority to promulgate an MSD column rule stems from
sections 8 and 24 of the OSH Act, which empower the Secretary to issue
regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out his responsibilities
to ensure that employers keep and preserve accurate records of
occupational injuries and illnesses (75 FR 4731). The proposed rule
explains that in promulgating a regulation rather than an occupational
safety and health standard, the agency need only establish that the
rule is reasonably related to the enabling legislation. Id. OSHA
preliminarily found that the MSD column requirement was reasonably
related to sections 8 and 24 of the OSH Act because the column would
improve the completeness and quality of the national injury and illness
statistics, ensure that OSHA has more complete information to target
enforcement and guidance efforts to address MSDs, and provide useful
data at the establishment level for employers and employees. Id.
III. Rationale for Terminating the Rulemaking
The agency's regulatory history on the subject of an MSD column
requirement is of central significance to the disposition of this
rulemaking. In 2003, OSHA determined after review of the extensive
record that adding the MSD column to the 300 Log was not necessary to
improve national statistics, assist OSHA in the enforcement of the Act,
or provide useful data to employers and employees at the establishment
level (68 FR 38603-38606). In 2010, OSHA believed that an updated
rulemaking record would demonstrate the value and usefulness of the
data the MSD column would produce. The 2010 proposal sought a new round
of comment on whether an MSD column is needed to improve the national
statistics, assist OSHA in enforcement, and provide useful
establishment-specific data (75 FR 4731-4732).
After careful review, OSHA concludes that the updated record
provides no basis for reconsideration of the agency's 2003
determination that the MSD column is not necessary. The new round of
comment in response to the proposed rule does not demonstrate that
OSHA's prior assessment of the need for the MSD column was flawed, or
that new or changed circumstances since 2003 now support the column
requirement. Indeed, the comments to the proposed rule, both pro and
con, largely track the comments pro and con submitted in support of the
2001 rule and in response to the 2002 request for additional comment.
As discussed in more detail below, the updated record contains nothing
new or significant on the three central issues resolved in 2003; i.e.,
whether the MSD column is needed to improve the national statistics,
assist OSHA in enforcement, or provide useful establishment-specific
data. OSHA has therefore concluded, based on the evidence in the
record, that an MSD column rule would not be reasonably related to
sections 8 and 24 of the OSH Act and the proposed rule should be
withdrawn.
A. The Record Does Not Demonstrate That an MSD Column Would
Significantly Improve the National Injury and Illness Statistics
As discussed in section I. Background, the BLS national injury and
illness statistics include detailed information on MSDs that result in
days away from work (DAFW). This information includes the specific body
part affected and the activity associated with the disorder; data that
enable OSHA, employers, employees, and researchers to have some
understanding of the nature and significance of the case.
If the MSD column were implemented, employers participating in the
BLS survey could report annually the total number of cases for which
there was a check in the MSD column. This information could enable BLS
to report the total number and incidence
[[Page 28260]]
rate of MSDs of all types, and would provide a basis for estimating the
number of MSDs that do not result in days away from work (see 68 FR
38605). In 2003, OSHA found that these additional data would add only
marginally to the information currently available. OSHA found that a
new statistic on total MSD cases would be difficult to interpret
because it would include a wide variety of physical symptoms with
different causes and outcomes (see 68 FR 38605). OSHA determined that
an MSD column requirement would produce only an aggregate total of
cases that could not be further analyzed for significance, and that
``[n]o such statistic would be useful without a means of understanding
and interpreting it'' (68 FR 38605).
Commenters supporting the addition of the MSD column to the 300 Log
failed to provide new evidence contradicting OSHA's prior finding.
While some asserted that the column would make conducting analyses
easier (e.g., Document ID 0056, p. 40-41; 0074; 0088; 0102; 0112; 0174;
0188) and would allow various entities, including employers, OSHA, BLS,
labor unions, and researchers, to better analyze the patterns and
causes of MSDs, as well as target and evaluate interventions (e.g.,
Document ID 0057; 0059; 0074; 0075; 0083; 0088; 0108; 0112; 0130; 0139;
0149; 0157; 0159; 0164; 0165; 0177; 0187), they apparently assumed that
the new statistic would be meaningful. These commenters failed to
address OSHA's concern that the addition of an aggregate statistic for
all MSDs would not be useful without a means of understanding and
interpreting it. In particular, commenters supporting the column did
not explain how the statistic would be useful in the absence of the
detailed case-characteristic data generated for DAFW cases.
The BLS survey elicits descriptive information only on injuries and
illnesses resulting in DAFW and, for selected industry subsectors for
DJTR.\1\ Accordingly, without similar descriptive information for the
other incidents where the MSD column is checked, BLS cannot analyze the
characteristics of those injuries and illnesses as it can DAFW and DJTR
cases. Thus, adding an MSD column to the 300 Log would not result in
any additional descriptive data on MSD cases beyond what is currently
collected by BLS.\2\ As a result, for MSDs not already analyzed by BLS,
there would be no way to distinguish among different types of
disorders, determine possible causal factors, evaluate demographics, or
perform other analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Like DAFW cases, this DJTR data includes the specific body
part affected and the activity associated with the disorder, giving
interested parties some understanding of the nature and significance
of the case.
\2\ The BLS's DJTR pilot program and its resulting data was not
available when OSHA requested comment on the proposed rule, and OSHA
did not rely on it in any way in determining that an MSD column
would not significantly improve the existing national injury and
illness statistics. However, OSHA notes that this supplemental
information would not alter that conclusion. If anything, it would
appear to lend further support. To the extent that BLS is already
able to collect and analyze more MSD information under current
practices without the addition of the MSD column, there would be
less need for the MSD column.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters pointed to the limited utility of this information
as a significant reason not to add the MSD column to the 300 Log (e.g.,
Document ID 0067; 0073; 0094; 0097; 0113; 0122; 0125; 0136; 0161). For
example, the Independent Electrical Contractors stated that ``[b]ecause
OSHA is not proposing to change the BLS survey system in its 2010
proposed amendments, there would be no value added to the usefulness of
national injury and illness statistics by the addition of an MSD column
. . . .'' (Document ID 0106, p. 4). The Ad Hoc Coalition of Small
Business Refiners further elaborated that ``a `count' of MSDs will
[not] benefit the industry without the ability to analyze the case
characteristics of these injuries. . . . The total number of cases will
not advise employers, OSHA, or other interested parties about the
possible causes and prevention of ergonomic hazards. Simply knowing
that a certain number of MSD cases have occurred does not determine
which jobs or working conditions pose ergonomic hazards and how they
may be abated'' (Document ID 0161, p. 2).
Some commenters indicated that an MSD column would provide data
comparable to that generated from the other illness columns (i.e., skin
disorders, respiratory conditions, poisonings, and hearing loss)
already present on the 300 Log (e.g., Document ID 0069; 0108). However,
given the wide variety of MSD injuries and their potential sources, and
thus the limited information that would be conveyed through an MSD
column alone, other commenters argued that an MSD column would not be
as useful as the other illness columns already present on the 300 Log
(e.g., Document ID 0118; 0125; 0185). For example, the Society of the
Plastics Industry, Inc. explained ``Hearing loss, skin disorders,
respiratory conditions and poisonings do not have the same broad set of
affected body parts and etiology compared to MSDs. Correspondingly, the
range of possible workplace solutions to address MSDs is significantly
broader, rendering a single number in a column of little value when
trying to use the information in a meaningful way to address workplace
injuries and illnesses of this nature by OSHA, employers or employees''
(Document ID 0125, p. 9). In a similar vein, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and 18 other industry associations indicated ``MSDs are not
comparable to skin disorders or respiratory illnesses. One generally
avoids respiratory illnesses by implementing measures that avoid
inhalation of toxic materials and avoids skin disorders by avoiding
dermal contact with toxic materials. In the workplace, these causative
agents can be identified. Because the etiology of MSDs is far more
complex and the causative agents so poorly identified, there are few if
any changes that reliably can be adopted by employers to mitigate the
complaints that the new regulation would require employers to record''
(Document ID 0118, p. 28).
Other commenters raised similar concerns that adding the MSD column
to the 300 Log would not produce useful or more accurate information
(e.g., Document ID 0067; 0073; 0091; 0094; 0095; 0097; 0098; 0099;
0104; 0105; 0106; 0110; 0114; 0115; 0117; 0118; 0122; 0125; 0127; 0129;
0151; 0156; 0161; 0167; 0172; 0175; 0181). Commenters also suggested
that the proposed definition of an MSD does not include conditions with
sufficient commonalities to provide much, if any, utility (e.g.,
Document ID 0064; 0073; 0094; 0097; 0106; 0113; 0114; 0118; 0122; 0161)
and that, as a result, checking a box would provide very little
practical information for either employers or OSHA about the cause or
possible abatement of hazards in the workplace (e.g., Document ID 0064;
0067; 0073; 0094; 0097; 0113; 0122; 0125; 0136; 0161).
Accordingly, the record does not alter OSHA's previous conclusion
about the usefulness of a MSD column for compiling national statistics
on MSDs. It continues to show that a new statistic indicating the total
number of MSDs would be of limited use without information on the
specific characteristics of these cases. As a result, OSHA continues to
believe that the MSD column would not materially improve the
information currently available from national statistics on MSDs (see
68 FR 38604).
Some commenters also argued that the lack of an MSD column results
in an
[[Page 28261]]
underreporting of MSDs. First, some of these commenters claim that the
current BLS statistics on MSDs may mask a problem that employers are
deliberately keeping employees with MSDs at work on light-duty or
treating them with prescription drugs to avoid having to record these
MSDs as DAFW cases (e.g., Document ID 0074; 0183).\3\ Although OSHA
noted in the proposal a potential issue concerning the underreporting
of DAFW MSDs, the updated record does not demonstrate that such a
problem actually exists. Specifically, the record does not support the
notion that employers' medical management practices for MSDs are
influenced by the manner in which MSDs are reflected in the national
statistics.\4\ Moreover, to the extent that employers' medical
management practices for MSDs are alleged to violate the recordkeeping
rule or other OSHA regulation or standard, adequate enforcement
mechanisms are already available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Note, however, that employers would be violating OSHA's
existing recordkeeping rules to the extent that they fail to record
recordable injuries as DAFW when a physician or other licensed
health care professional recommends that the worker stay at home,
even if the worker then returns to work on light duty (29 CFR
1904.7(b)(3)(ii)).
\4\ OSHA does not disagree that BLS DAFW injuries represent only
a portion of all MSD injuries, but the limitation on BLS data does
not evidence employer animus. The commenters appear to assume the
employers' motive based entirely on perceived incentives and a
purported correlation between the number of DAFW and transfers to
``light duty'' in industries that they claim have a high number of
MSD injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of other evidence of employer intent to manipulate
national statistics, these commenters assert that having a statistic on
the aggregate number of MSDs of all types would be useful in
illuminating this alleged problem of employer manipulation because it
would provide a basis for estimating the total number of non-DAFW MSDs
and comparing the rates of DAFW and non-DAFW MSDs over time (see also
75 FR 4733). But even to the extent that such a comparison could be
facilitated through an MSD column,\5\ it would not be logical to
attribute employer motivation based on a correlation between DAFW and
non-DAFW MSDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The report by the Majority staff of the House Committee on
Education and Labor noted that ``a major cause of underreporting,
according to experts, is OSHA's reliance on self-reporting by
employers.'' (Document 003, p. 2). It is unclear how an additional
column to be self-reported by employers could be relied on to
provide evidence of their own intent to obfuscate reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, some commenters argued that MSD injuries are collectively
underreported because of lack of employer knowledge or other reasons,
and that the addition of an MSD column would help raise employer
awareness so that otherwise unreported injuries would be reported
(e.g., Document ID 0003; 0005; 0069; 0075; 0093; 0102; 0103; 0128).
Others, however, questioned whether there is actually any
underreporting of these injuries (e.g., Document ID 0067; 0118). In any
event, the record does not show that the addition of an MSD column
would address this type of underreporting.
Employers have an existing obligation under OSHA's regulations to
complete and retain occupational injury and illness records for
injuries recordable as MSDs, even if they are not required to label
such injuries as an ``MSD.'' For example, if a worker suffers a back
injury that meets the existing recording criteria, the employer is
already required to record that back injury on the 301 Incident Report
and the 300 Log. The employer might label the injury as a ``strained
back'' on the 301 Report and 300 Log. The addition of an MSD column
would not change this legal obligation or the recording criteria or
definitions used for these records. Accordingly, as some commenters
noted, to the extent employers are simply not recording MSD injuries at
all, the addition of an MSD column would not be likely to change this
underreporting behavior (e.g., Document ID 0067; 0115; 0118). Indeed,
under the proposed rule, the MSD column would not be a factor in the
decision-making process at all unless the employer had first recorded
the case on the 300 Log and entered the case characteristic data on the
301 Report. Simply adding the column would not improve the quality of
the national injury and illness statistics.
For these reasons, OSHA concludes that, based on the record, adding
an MSD column is not necessary to improve the national injury and
illness statistics.
B. The Record Does Not Demonstrate That an MSD Column Is Necessary To
Assist OSHA in Enforcement or Outreach
The record also does not demonstrate that the addition of an MSD
column would meaningfully assist in targeting the agency's inspection,
outreach, guidance, and enforcement efforts. In 2003, OSHA found that
the column would not be useful in targeting the agency's resources
because the single aggregate statistic it would produce would add
nothing of significance to the case description data already available
on the OSHA 300 Logs and 301 Incident Reports (68 FR 38604). Although
several commenters generally asserted that information gained from the
addition of an MSD column would enable OSHA to more effectively target
inspection and compliance assistance activities (e.g., Document ID
0149; 0157; 0159; 0164; 0165; 0187; 0188), the record does not support
this assertion. MSDs include health conditions ranging from back
injuries to carpal tunnel syndrome, and those conditions can result
from a myriad of causes. Because the MSD column would only show the
total number of MSDs that occurred in an establishment and nothing
about the nature or cause of these disorders, it would be of little
practical value in identifying hazards in the workplace. A figure
indicating the total number of cases aggregates conditions that may
have little in common. Further, the total number of cases provides no
basis for identifying the causes of these disorders, and thus no basis
for identifying potential hazards and measures that can be taken to
address those hazards.
Commenters also identified concerns that this aggregate number of
MSDs would be misleading and adversely affect policymaking, enforcement
decisions, and resource allocation (e.g., Document ID 0097; 0105; 0114;
0118; 0122; 0161; 0167; 0181). While Dow Chemical generally supported
OSHA's desire to have information about MSDs, they cautioned that it
was inappropriate ``to use the data from the new column on the log to
target inspections and enforcement . . . because the data will not be
sufficiently robust for those purposes'' (Document ID 0064, Attachment
2, ``Comments from The Dow Chemical Company,'' p. 9). OSHA agrees. The
detailed information on case characteristics available from BLS for the
MSD cases involving days away from work, along with information from
the submission of 300A Summaries to OSHA, provides the agency with
adequate information for targeting inspection, outreach, guidance, and
enforcement efforts. The case description data in the 300 Log and 301
Incident Reports is available when more comprehensive information is
needed to assist OSHA in the inspection activities for particular
establishments. Therefore, the record does not indicate that the MSD
column would significantly assist the agency in enforcement and
outreach efforts.
C. The Record Does Not Demonstrate That an MSD Column Would Provide
Useful Information to Employers and Employees at the Establishment
Level
For similar reasons, the record does not demonstrate that addition
of an MSD column would provide information that will be useful to
[[Page 28262]]
employers and employees at the establishment level (e.g., Document ID
0074; 0102; 0130; 0177; 0188). In the 2003 rule deleting the MSD
column, OSHA found that the column would not provide useful
establishment-specific data for two reasons. First, because the column
would show only the total number of MSDs and nothing about the nature
or cause of the disorders, it would be of little practical value in
addressing these disorders. Second, to the extent that knowing the
total number of MSDs that have been recorded at a facility is relevant
as a starting point for further analysis, the number is easily
obtainable without the column requirement (68 FR 38603). Some
commenters agreed that the MSD column would provide very little
practical information beyond what is already gathered (e.g., Document
ID 0094; 0097; 0122; 0125; 0139; 0156). Even those arguing for an MSD
column did not indicate that employers or others could not get the same
information through other means.
In fact, several businesses noted that they already have more
robust information than the MSD column would generate (e.g., Document
ID 0041; 0054; 0058; 0064; 0122). For example, one large chemical
company explained ``Dow utilizes an electronic database which enables
analysis of incident events including all injuries and illnesses (MSD
events included). The data are global, not limited to US specific
events. Our database also has the capability of permitting trend
analysis. Metrics are summarized and used to identify target prevention
strategies. Since 2001, the company's incidence of MSDs has
consistently decreased. . . . Dow also performs a root cause
investigation into each recordable injury, in an effort to find
measures that will prevent recurrence. If the findings have broad
applicability, we communicate broadly within the company in order to
leverage the learnings'' (Document ID 0064, Attachment 1, ``Letter
regarding comments from Seiler, Don; The Dow Chemical Company''). A
different company noted that it already tracks MSDs in its own database
``Domtar maintains a data base of all OSHA reported incidents so that
we can assess and focus on leading injury types within our facilities.
Typically, a statistical analysis, such as a Pareto chart, is used to
determine the comparative rates of certain type incidents, which allows
the company and individual facilities to develop improvement or
corrective plans to address high frequency injury types. MSD type
injuries are included in our analysis. In fact, we assess MSD injuries
to specific body parts, such as back or knee incidents, as an example''
(Document ID 0054). A third company concluded that an MSD column would
be unnecessarily duplicative of its existing practices ``LTC facilities
use their quality assurance teams and accident/incident reports to
record employee injuries, which would include MSDs, regardless of
whether the cases result in days away from work. Employers can
effectively track and analyze MSDs with those reports. Therefore,
adding an MSD column to the OSHA 300 log is unnecessary for the LTC
profession, and would increase operational costs'' (Document ID 0058).
Information gathered during the small business teleconferences also
suggested that an MSD column would provide very little practical
information for a number of reasons ``Most participants . . . said they
do not use the OSHA 301 Report and 300 Log as management tools. They
said they use the OSHA recordkeeping forms strictly to ensure
regulatory compliance. Those participants that said they use injury and
illness records as management tools use workers' compensation forms or
tools that the business has developed that provide more extensive
information than the OSHA forms. Therefore, most participants did not
believe the MSD column data would be helpful specifically to them''
(Document ID 0139, p. 6).
OSHA was explicit in the 2010 preamble that the proposed rule would
not have required any new action on the part of employers beyond
checking the MSD column when appropriate, so employers would not be
required to conduct an analysis of their own establishments. Because
the MSD column determinations would have been drawn from the employer's
own 300 Log and 301 Incident Reports, OSHA concludes that employers,
employees, and their representatives wishing to conduct establishment-
based analysis already have sufficient access to the information to do
so. The absence of a mandatory regulatory requirement to check a column
does not preclude those employers or employee representatives from
tracking this information in whatever manner they choose.
Some commenters claimed that employers, employees, and their
representatives face difficulties when gathering and analyzing
information about MSDs in their workplaces from BLS data (e.g.,
Document ID 0056, p. 125, 129-132; 0076; 0102; 0128, Attachment 1,
``Comments submitted by Frumin, E[r]ic on behalf of the Workers
United''; 0174; 0188). However, they did not indicate how a mandatory
MSD column, which is based on information already accessible to them,
would improve establishment-based analysis. For example, the AFL-CIO
argued that an MSD column would facilitate retrospective analysis ``In
the absence of an MSD column, employers and workers currently have to
search and review each entry on the 300 Log on a case-by-case basis to
determine if a case is an MSD. It is [a] time consuming effort to
conduct a case-by-case analysis after the cases have already been
entered on the Log. Analysis under this approach can occur long after
the case has been entered when facts and circumstances about the cases
may not be readily ascertainable which heightens the likelihood that an
MSD case will be missed. Unions have had a difficult time sorting out
and identifying the MSD cases when done retrospectively after entry. It
would be far simpler, easier, less time consuming, and more accurate to
identify, at the time of entry, those cases that are MSDs and to check
the column if the case meets the definition of an MSD. By making the
identification and checking the MSD column at the time the case is
entered on the Log, employers and unions can quickly and easily see
whether or not a problem exists in their workplace'' (Document ID 0074,
Attachment 1, ``Comments and documentary submissions of the AFL-CIO,''
p. 4). OSHA is unpersuaded that an MSD column will materially
facilitate retrospective analysis. As it found in 2003, MSD cases can
be determined based on the description-of-injury information in the 300
Log and 301 Incident Reports (see 68 FR 38604). Indeed, to ensure the
reliability of the analysis, a researcher would generally want to do
this comparison his or herself rather than rely on the employer's
characterization of the injury through the MSD column. Moreover,
although the AFL-CIO points out that ``[a]nalysis under this approach
can occur long after the case has been entered,'' they do not explain
why this would necessarily be the case, or how it makes identification
of MSD injuries difficult.
In fact, many comments also included examples of analysis that was
able to be completed using existing information from 300 Logs and 301
Incident Reports. Specifically, the United Food and Commercial Workers
(UFCW) presented their analysis of thousands of OSHA 300 Log entries
that were reviewed as part of the organization's development of a
database on injuries and illnesses in the
[[Page 28263]]
meatpacking and poultry industries. Based on the available data from
300 Logs, even without an MSD column, UFCW was able to develop
industry-specific and sufficiently detailed information to understand
the nature of particular MSDs and develop prevention strategies
relevant to those specific injuries (as opposed to all MSDs generally)
(Document ID 0174, p. 2-5).
MSD injuries are somewhat unique because of the breadth of their
conditions and causes, and thus aggregate data about these injuries
will typically be harder to apply than with respect to other types of
injuries and illnesses. Ultimately, to understand and address MSDs that
are occurring in workplaces, employers and others must be able to link
specific types of injuries to job characteristics or working
conditions. This requires evaluation of each individual case to
determine the part of the body affected, the nature of the job
performed by the injured employee, and other relevant data. Such
information is currently available in the case-description section of
the 300 Log and in the 301 Incident Report. OSHA recognizes that such
an evaluation requires time and effort, but the MSD column would not
provide a substitute for a review of the detailed information on the
300 Log and the 301 Incident Report. OSHA acknowledges that many
employers may find their time and effort better spent on examining the
detailed information that they already produce than attempting to
determine whether to place a check mark in a summary column that in the
end would not prove a substitute for analysis of the underlying data.
For these reasons, OSHA is withdrawing the proposal to add an MSD
column on the 300 Log. Withdrawal of the proposal does not change any
employer's obligation to complete and retain injury and illness records
under 29 CFR 1904. Withdrawal of the proposal also does not change the
recording criteria or definitions used for these records.
IV. Legal Determinations
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final action withdraws OSHA's proposal to add an MSD column on
the 300 Log. Therefore this rule continues OSHA's current practices
unaltered, resulting in no changes in actual paperwork burden compared
with current practice. As a result, it is not necessary to estimate
changes in OSHA's paperwork burden because this rule leaves the
paperwork burden unaffected.
B. Economic Analysis
In the 2010 proposal, OSHA estimated that 1,542,000 establishments
were currently required to keep a recordkeeping log and thus would be
affected by the proposed rule. OSHA also estimated that they would
need, in any given year, to record 1,566,000 MSDs. Also in the 2010
proposal, OSHA estimated there would be two kinds of costs if the
proposal was finalized: familiarization costs derived from the time
required to learn what the rule required; and the costs of actually
determining what injuries and illnesses would be MSDs and making the
appropriate marking in the MSD column. Some commenters point to other
possible kinds of costs such as expansion of the number of cases
recorded (e.g., Document ID 0095; 0100; 0116; 0118) and cost for
modifying software (e.g., Document ID 0037; 0063; 0067; 0082; 0094;
0100; 0115; 0121; 0122; 0154; 0161; 0176; 0181; 0185; 0190). All of
these sources of costs disappear with the withdrawal of the proposed
rule.
Based on an estimate that familiarization would require 5 minutes
per establishment, OSHA at that time estimated that this would be a
one-time cost incurred in the first year and would total annualized
costs of $735,000 per year. These familiarization cost estimates did
not appear to account for the time necessary to download new forms.
OSHA estimated that recording and checking the MSD column would require
1 minute per MSD plus 1 minute for additional injuries and illnesses,
that, though not MSDs, would need to be examined. OSHA estimated that
this would result in annualized costs of approximately $1 million per
year.
These unit cost estimates, and the resulting total cost estimates,
received significant comment. Some agreed broadly with OSHA's estimates
(e.g., Document ID 0157; 0159; 0160; 0165; 0166; 0171; 0173; 0174;
0177). However, others argued OSHA's costs were far too low (e.g.,
Document ID 0084; 0091; 0092; 0096; 0097; 0099; 0107; 0109; 0110; 0111;
0114; 0115; 0121; 0124; 0125; 0133; 0148; 0151; 0172). OSHA notes that
since the proposed rule was issued, the estimated number of
establishments required to keep a recordkeeping log has declined (84 FR
405 (January 25, 2019)), and the number of recordable injuries and
illnesses has also declined (<a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/osh_11082018.pdf">https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/osh_11082018.pdf</a>). Since these cost estimates are made irrelevant by
the withdrawal of the proposed rule, there is no need to resolve the
issue of the best cost estimate. OSHA notes only that the withdrawal of
the proposed rule results in avoided costs that were estimated to be
$1,735,000 per year in 2010, at the time the proposal was issued, and
is estimated to be $2,424,100 in 2024 dollars.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601), the
Acting Assistant Secretary certifies that this final action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This final action withdraws a proposal that would have added
requirements on small businesses. The removal of those requirement will
impose no costs on small businesses.
Authority and Signature
Amanda Laihow, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR
58393).
Dated: June 20, 2025.
Amanda Laihow,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2025-11624 Filed 6-30-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 1, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.