July 2, 2020

Volume X, Number 184

July 01, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 30, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 29, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

OSHA “Clarifies” Employers’ Injury and Illness Recordkeeping Obligations

In the closing days of the Obama Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued a final rule that “clarifies” employers’ “continuing obligation” to make and maintain an accurate record of each recordable injury and illness beyond the six-month statute of limitations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act). Once it takes effect, the new rule will allow OSHA to issue citations to employers for the failure to record an injury or illness up to six months following the five-year record retention period that would have applied to such record.  The final rule, published December 19, 2016,[1] is available here.  It aims to overturn the majority opinion in a 2012 ruling by the D.C. Circuit that rejected OSHA’s practice of citing employers up to five years after a failure to record a recordable injury or illness.  It is unclear whether the incoming Trump Administration will attempt to rescind this rule.


OSHA has had a longstanding practice of treating an employer’s failure to record an injury or illness as a continuing violation that is ongoing as long as the employer fails to record the injury or illness, and until the end of the five-year record retention period that would have applied to such record.  Consistent with this practice, OSHA brought numerous blockbuster recordkeeping cases in the past that depended on accumulating a large number of unrecorded injury and illness cases, spanning as much as a five-year period, to send a message to employers about the importance of compliance.[2]  This position was upheld by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in cases dating back to 1993.[3]

In 2012, this practice was halted when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held in Volks II that OSHA cannot cite an employer for the failure to record work-related injuries and illnesses more than six months after the initial obligation to record the cases occurred.[4]  In the majority opinion, Judge Brown characterized OSHA’s interpretation of the OSH Act’s recordkeeping requirements and  statute of limitations as a “cloud of dust.”[5] She explained that Section 9(c) clearly requires OSHA to issue citations for recordkeeping violations within six months of the date the employer failed to record an injury or illness.[6]  In a concurring opinion, Judge Garland acknowledged that the OSH Act could allow for continuing violations of recordkeeping requirements, but concluded that the recordkeeping regulations at issue did not impose a continuing obligation to make a record of a work-related injury or illness.[7]

OSHA’s Final Rule

OSHA’s final rule is a direct response to the Volks II decision.  OSHA explained in the preamble that while it “disagrees with the majority’s reading of the law,” it “agrees that its recordkeeping regulations were not clear with respect to the continuing nature of employer’s recordkeeping obligations” and that the “final rule is designed to clarify the regulations. . . .”[8]  In a press release regarding the final rule, Dr. David Michaels, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, added that the rule “simply returns us to the standard practice of the last 40 years.” [9]  OSHA also stated that that “[t]he amendments in the final rule add no new compliance obligations and do not require employers to make records of any injuries or illnesses for which records are not already required.”[10]

Specifically, OSHA has revised 29 C.F.R. § 1904.29(b)(3) to state:

You must enter each and every recordable injury or illness on the OSHA 300 Log and on a 301 Incident Report within seven (7) calendar days of receiving information that the recordable injury or illness occurred. A failure to record within seven days does not extinguish your continuing obligation to make a record of the injury or illness and to maintain accurate records of all recordable injuries and illnesses in accordance with the requirements of this part. This obligation continues throughout the entire record retention period described in § 1904.33.

(emphasis added).

OSHA has also revised headings and text throughout 29 C.F.R. Part 1904 to make them consistent with this requirement. For example, OSHA has revised § 1904.32 and § 1904.33 to “clarify” employers’ obligations with respect to the review, retention, and maintenance of the OSHA 300 Log, OSHA 301 Incident Reports, and annual summary.

The final rule is scheduled to become effective on January 18, 2017, two days before the Presidential Inauguration.


Although OSHA contends that the final rule does not impose new compliance obligations on employers, it may lead to heightened scrutiny of employer injury and illness records and a return to large recordkeeping enforcement cases. Accordingly, employers should be diligent about recording, maintaining, and ensuring the accuracy of their injury and illness records.  

Employers should also monitor potential legal challenges to the rule from industry stakeholders and the Trump Administration. The Volks II decision provides would-be legal challengers with a head start.  Additionally, the Trump Administration could fail to enforce the rule, or the rule could be rolled back by Congress and the President via the Congressional Review Act.  It is worth noting that OSHA continues to issue final rules and enforcement procedures, including enforcement procedures for the anti-retaliation provisions in OSHA’s recently issued electronic reporting rule, despite recent Republican warnings to President Obama that no new final rules should be released in the wake of the election results. [11]  In doing so, these rules and related enforcement initiatives face an uncertain future.

[1] 81 Fed. Reg. 91792 (December 19, 2016).

[2] See, e.g., OSHA News Release, “US Labor Department’s OSHA cites 2 companies, proposes $288,000 in fines for workplace safety and health violations involving foreign students” (Feb. 21, 2012) (9 alleged recordkeeping violations over 4 years); OSHA News Release, “US Department of Labor’s OSHA cites Houston manufacturing company for hiding work-related injuries and illnesses; fines exceed $1.2 million” (Sept. 1, 2010) (proposed penalties of $1,215,000 for 83 alleged recordkeeping violations over 27 months); Saw Pipes USA, Inc., 21 BNA OSHC 1306 (OSHRC Docket No. 91-0422, 2005) (proposed penalties of $472,000 for 59 alleged recordkeeping violations over 36 months); Jindal United Steel Corp., 21 BNA OSHC 1298 (OSHRC Docket No. 00-2231, 2005) (proposed penalties of $990,000 for 110 alleged recordkeeping violations over 2½ years); Hercules, Inc., 20 BNA OSHC 2097 (OSHRC Docket No. 95-1483, 2005) (proposed penalties of $3,140,000 for failure to abate citations based on previous 189 alleged recordkeeping violations over 36 months); Kaspar Wire Works, Inc., 18 BNA OSHC 2178 (OSHRC Docket No. 90-2775, 2000) (proposed penalties of $1,236,000 for 382 alleged recordkeeping violations over 24 months as well as other alleged violations); Pepperidge Farm Inc., 17 BNA OSHC 1993 (OSHRC Docket No. 87-0922, 1997) (proposed penalties of $289,603 for 176 alleged recordkeeping violations over 32 months); Kohler Co., 16 BNA OSHC 1769 (OSHRC Docket No. 88-237, 1994) (proposed penalties of $1,398,000 for 466 alleged recordkeeping violations over 12 months);  Caterpillar Inc., 15 BNA OSHC 2153 (OSHRC Docket  No. 87-0922, 1993) (proposed penalties of $776,000 for 194 alleged recordkeeping violations over 12 months).

[3] See, e.g., General Dynamics, 15 BNA OSHC 2122 (OSHRC Docket No. 87-1195, 1993); Johnson Controls, 15 BNA OSHC 2132 (OSHRC Docket No. 89-2614, 1993).

[4] AKM LLC d/b/a Volks Constructors v. Secretary of Labor, 675 F.3d 752 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

[5] Id. at 755.

[6] Id. at 755-58.

[7] Id. at 760-63.  For additional discussion regarding the Volks II decision, see Beveridge and Diamond, D.,C. Circuit Rejects Longstanding Interpretation of Statute of Limitations for OSHA Recordkeeping Violations in Volks Constructors (April 27, 2012).

[8] 81 Fed. Reg. at 91792.

[9] OSHA Trade Release, OSHA issues final rule clarifying the ongoing obligation to make and maintain accurate records of work-related injuries and illnesses (December 16, 2016).

[10] Id.

[11] See, e.g., OSHA Final Rule on Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment, 81 Fed. Reg. 82494 (Nov. 18, 2016); Interim Enforcement Procedures for New Recordkeeping Requirements Under 20 CFR 1904.25 (November 10, 2016).

© 2020 Beveridge & Diamond PC National Law Review, Volume VI, Number 357


About this Author

Mark N. Duvall Chemicals Regulation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Washington, DC

Mark has over two decades of experience working in-house at large chemical companies. 

His focus is product regulation at the federal, state, and international levels across a wide range of programs, and occupational safety and health.

He leads the firm’s Chemicals group. His experience under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) includes enforcement actions, counseling, rulemaking, advocacy, and legislative actions. Since the enactment of TSCA amendments in 2016, he has been heavily involved in advocacy, compliance activity, and litigation arising from EPA's implementation...

Jayni A. Lanham Environmental, Health, & Safety Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Baltimore, MD

Jayni draws on her experience with environmental, health, and safety (EHS) regimes to help clients assess risk, develop compliance strategies, and build strong legal and technical cases when faced with litigation or enforcement.

Jayni counsels companies in a variety of industries on regulatory compliance and represents them in litigation and enforcement proceedings related to a broad range of federal and state EHS laws. Jayni is a leader of Beveridge & Diamond’s Occupational Safety and Health group and has significant experience advising clients on compliance obligations relating to worker health and safety, providing advice following workplace incidents, helping clients prepare for and respond to government inspections, and defending against enforcement actions and related litigation.

Jayni entered the practice of environmental law because of her intersecting interests in law, policy, science, and technology. Her work involves considering historical factual and technical issues, managing complex parallel proceedings in both the criminal and civil regulatory arenas, and collaborating with subject matter experts to find creative solutions to her clients’ complex EHS issues.

Jayni values learning about her clients' operations and businesses and draws on her experience across many industries to help clients improve overall compliance, develop necessary corrective steps, build strong legal and technical cases to minimize liability, and achieve business goals.

Professional Involvement

Jayni maintains an active pro bono practice and has assisted individuals with civil litigation, immigration, and criminal expungement matters. One of Jayni’s notable pro bono cases involved the representation of a family that was displaced from its home for seven months because of a mercury spill. Jayni’s advocacy on behalf of the family enabled the family to obtain a favorable settlement for the family’s expenses and hardship during the cleanup of its home.

Before joining B&D, Jayni interned with the Maryland Office of the Attorney General at the State Highway Administration and the Maryland Department of the Environment. During law school, Jayni earned a certificate of Concentration in Environmental Law, served on the Maryland Law Review, and represented clients on a variety of environmental matters as a member of the University of Maryland Environmental Law Clinic.

Michael F. Vitris Environmental Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Austin, TX

Michael F. Vitris partners with clients to efficiently resolve complex civil and criminal environmental litigation.

He is an environmental litigator in the Austin office of Beveridge & Diamond, with a national practice defending companies in a wide variety of matters including environmental and mass torts, class actions, and federal citizen suits under the major environmental statutes. 

Mr. Vitris also leverages his past experience as an environmental attorney with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to help clients prevent environmental violations or favorably...