Job13
Sign inCheck a case

OSHA interpretation · 1994-01-06

Proper recording of restricted work activity on the OSHA 200 Log.

← All interpretations§ 1904

OSHA’s standing caveat

Interpretation letters explain existing requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. Enforcement guidance may be affected by later changes to OSHA rules, and a letter addresses the facts it was given — not necessarily yours.

January 6, 1994 Mr. Cois M. Brown Area Director Occupational Safety and Health Administration Suite C-205 2002 Richard Jones Road Nashville, Tennessee 37215 Dear Mr. Brown: Thank you for your letter dated December 17, 1993, requesting an interpretation for the proper recording of restricted work activity on the OSHA 200 Log. The concept of restricted work is based on three criteria as follows: 1. The employee was assigned to another job on a temporary basis, or 2. the employee worked at a permanent job less than full time, or 3. the employee worked at his or her permanently assigned job but could not perform all the duties normally connected with it. Historically, the phrase, "employee's normal job duties" has been interpreted to include any tasks that the employee performs or may be expected to perform throughout the calendar year. As set out in Martin Marietta's December 8 letter, I would think that their interpretation of "job" in terms of the entire MSSO-1 classification, coupled with the sole criteria of a return to "gainful work", would virtually eliminate the recording of restricted work activity for any employee so classified. The carpenter who suffers two broken legs and becomes the company receptionist for a period of time comes to mind. At the same time, their asserted OSHA interpretation of considering the employee's ability to return to the job tasks performed at the time of the injury as being the sole criteria for determining restricted work activity has never been the rule. Such an interpretation has been discussed as a possible future proposal and was included in the 1990 Keystone Report recommendations to be considered for developing proposed changes to the injury and illness recordkeeping system. Thus, both interpretations presented by Martin Marietta are inaccurate, and you are correct in stating that any and all expected job duties should be considered when evaluating restricted work activity. If the occupational classification MSSO-1 accurately reflects the expected job duties of the injured employee, or if Martin Marietta represents that to be the case, then the written classification can be used to determine whether or not the injury involved restricted work activity. As you know, a proposal for revising the entire OSHA recordkeeping system is currently being developed. The revision will propose multiple changes to the recordkeeping system including the concept of restricted work activity. We expect the proposal to be published sometime during the summer of this year for public comment. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions please contact us at Area Code (202) 219-6463. Sincerely, Bob Whitmore Chief Division of Recordkeeping Requirements

Reproduced verbatim from osha.gov. US Government work, public domain (17 U.S.C. § 105).

Other letters on the same sections

Deciding a case of your own?

The free recordability check works through Part 1904 in the order the regulation sets out and quotes the provision behind every step.

Check a case — free

Not legal advice. This page republishes 29 CFR Part 1904 as published by the eCFR and explains it. The recordkeeping duty is the employer’s. Where the rule requires judgement, Job13 says so rather than guessing — run your own case through the free check.