household chemical products. Overall, consumers indicated that they
like to have information that clearly connects consequences with
actions, and they prefer to know why they are being instructed to take
a particular precaution. A clear hazard statement provides this
information.
    In some cases, clear and concise precautionary information is
necessary to enable employees to identify appropriate protective
measures. For example, Frantz et al. examined the impact of flame and
poison warning symbols prescribed in certain regulations by the
Canadian government (Frantz et al., 1994, Document ID 0191).
The results suggest that although the generic meanings of these two
symbols are well understood, people may have difficulty inferring the
specific safety precautions necessary for a particular product.
    Other reports indicate that users prefer information that includes
both an indication of the hazard and the recommended action (i.e., the
precautionary statement). Braun et al. examined statements in product
instructions for a pool treatment chemical and a polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) adhesive, asking subjects to rate the injury risk posed by each
product (Braun et al., 1995, Document ID 0246). The
experimenters manipulated the instructions to include either
recommended actions only, actions followed by consequences,
consequences followed by actions, or a simple restatement of the
product label. The authors found that actions paired with consequences
led to significantly higher risk perception than a restatement of the
label or actions alone. Although the preferred wording was longer than
the alternatives, subjects did not feel that the instructions were too
complex, suggesting that they appreciate having actions and
consequences paired together. Freeman echoed these findings in a
discussion on communicating health risks to fishermen and farmers,
noting that to be useful, risk statements should be balanced with
equally strong statements of ways to reduce or avoid the risk (Freeman,
2001, Document ID 0249).
    Explicit precautionary statements make it more likely that
employees will take appropriate precautions. Bowles et al. asked
subjects to review product warnings, then either decide what actions
they should take or evaluate whether someone else's actions were safe,
based on the warning (Bowles et al., 2002, Document ID 0246).
In general, situations that required the user to make inferences about
a hazard--particularly when they had to come up with their own ideas
for protective actions--led to decreased intent to comply. By providing
clear precautionary instructions on the label, the revised rule
eliminates the need for users to infer protective actions.
    Evidence indicates that using key label elements together improves
warning performance, compared with labels that only contain a subset of
these elements. This is the approach taken in the revised rule, which
requires the signal word, pictogram(s), hazard statement(s), and
precautionary statement(s) together on the label. In one study,
Meingast asked students to recall information from two variations of
warning labels: Enhanced warnings with color, signal icons, pictorials,
and organized text (following the ANSI Z535.4 standard, American
National Standard for Product Safety Signs and Labels); and warnings
with text only (Meingast, 2001, Document ID 0246). The authors
reported that the enhanced warnings were more noticeable, led to
significantly greater recall, and made people report a higher
likelihood of compliance.
    Other findings agree that improving all label elements can improve
warning performance. For example, Lehto tested information retrieval
from three chemical label formats and found that subjects generally did
best with an ``extensive'' format that included pictograms, paragraphs,
and horizontal bars indicating the degree of hazard (Lehto, 1998,
Document ID 0258). Subjects were able to answer more questions
correctly when the label included a range of content--particularly
information on first aid and spill procedures.
    Wogalter et al. reported similar results in a test of four
different signs that discouraged people from using an elevator for
short trips (Wogalter et al., 1997a, Document ID 0287). Three
signs were text-only. The fourth sign had a signal word panel, icons, a
pictorial, and more explicit wording indicating the desired behavior
(i.e., ``use the stairs''). Subjects rated the enhanced sign as more
understandable, and a field test found that it significantly increased
compliance over the other options.
    The effectiveness of a combination of elements was also
investigated in a study of warnings on alcoholic beverage containers
(Laughery et al., 1993,

Document ID 0281). Laughery et al. tested warnings to
determine which elements influenced notice ability. The authors
manipulated labels by adding a pictorial, adding an alert symbol with a
signal word, making the text red, and/or adding a border around the
warning. The warning was located fastest when all four of these
modifications were present, suggesting that the best designs include a
combination of enhancements.
    The findings of these reports support OSHA's belief that the
combined label elements, i.e., pictogram, signal word, hazard and
precautionary statements, is more effective in communicating hazard
information than the individual elements would be if presented alone.
Although the warnings examined in these studies are different than
those warnings required in this final rule, they indicate that
enhancements such as color and symbols can increase the effectiveness
of a label, and that presenting hazard information and corresponding
precautions together improves understanding.
    Overall, the record shows that the presentation of information on
labels through standardized signal words, hazard statements,
pictograms, and precautionary statements would provide clearer, more
consistent, and more complete information to chemical users. Comments
received in response to the ANPR support this view (e.g., Document ID
0032, 0054, 0124, and 0158). For example, the Refractory
Ceramic Fibers Coalition (Document ID 0030) pointed to the
benefits of this approach, stating:

    Employers and employees would be given the same information on a
chemical regardless of the supplier. This consistency should improve
communication of the hazards. It may also improve communication for
those who are not functionally literate, or who are not literate in
the language written on the label. In addition, having the core
information developed already, translated into multiple languages,
and readily available to whomever wishes to access it, should
eliminate the burden on manufacturers and users to develop and
maintain their own such systems. Thus the specification approach
should be beneficial both to the producers and the users of
chemicals.

    The majority of comments received in response to the proposal
support the use of hazard and precautionary statements on labels (See,
e.g., Document ID 0313, 0324, 0327, 0328, 0329, 0330, 0335,
0336, 0338, 0339, 0344, 0347, 0349, 0351, 0352, 0353, 0365, 0370, 0372,
0376, 0377, 0379, 0381, 0382, 0383, 0389, 0393, 0399, 0402, 0405, 0408,
0410, 0412, 0453, 0456, and 0461). No comments or testimony were
received that opposed the use of hazard or precautionary statements on
labels or safety data sheets.
    In response to the proposal, stakeholders commented on the
importance of being able to comprehend hazard and precautionary
statements (See, e.g., Document ID 0321, 0339, 0349, 0410, and
0412). Morganite Industries, Inc. and Morgan Technical Ceramics USA
stated: ``Hazard Statements, by and large, convey fact in simple
language'' (Document ID 0321). Commenting on the use of
precautionary statements, the Phylmar Group noted that ``clear, concise
use of key labeling elements can improve warning performance''
(Document ID 0339). The American Industrial Hygiene
Association also supports the use of precautionary statements, stating
that they ``should improve comprehensibility and compliance'' (Document
ID 0410).
    Labels are intended to provide an immediate visual reminder of
chemical hazards. Whereas labels in the past could be presented in a
variety of formats using inconsistent terminology and visual elements,
labels prepared in accordance with the requirements in this final rule
will be consistent. Standardized signal words and hazard statements
attract attention and communicate the degree of hazard. Pictograms
reinforce the message presented in text and enhance communication for
low-literacy populations. Precautionary statements provide useful
instructions for protecting against chemical-source injuries and
illnesses.
    A number of stakeholders submitted comments in support of
standardized labeling for hazardous chemical containers. Several
commenters stated that standardized label elements would better convey
critically important hazard warnings, and provide useful information
regarding precautionary measures that would serve to better protect
employees (Document ID 0313, 0341, 0344, 0365, 0381, 0382,
0402, and 0405). The studies contained in the record reinforce OSHA's
position on the use standardized label elements--including the use of
standardized pictograms, signal words, and hazard and precautionary
statements--to alert and inform chemical users of the hazards posed by
hazardous chemicals in the workplace.
    OSHA concludes, based on the studies discussed above and supported
by the comments submitted to the record that standardizing the labels
for hazardous chemicals is an essential step in harmonizing the HCS
with the GHS. In addition, OSHA concludes that the labeling
requirements in this revised final rule will result in more effective
transmittal of information to employees. Therefore, OSHA has adopted
the labeling requirements set forth in the NPRM in this final rule.

Safety Data Sheets

    The HCS requires chemical manufacturers and importers to develop an
SDS for each hazardous chemical they produce or import. SDSs serve as a
source of detailed information on chemical hazards and protective
measures. Each SDS must indicate the identity of the chemical used on
the label; the chemical and common name(s) of hazardous ingredients;
physical and chemical characteristics; physical and health hazards; the
primary route(s) of entry; exposure limits; generally applicable
precautions for safe handling and use; generally applicable control
measures; emergency and first aid procedures; the date of preparation
of the SDS; and the name, address and telephone number of the party
preparing or distributing the SDS. Prior to this final standard, the
information was not required to be presented in any particular order or
to follow a specific format.
    While the effectiveness of SDSs is evident, there are concerns
regarding the quality of information provided. In particular, concerns
have been raised regarding the accuracy (i.e., the correctness and
completeness of the information provided) and comprehensibility (i.e.,
the ability of users to understand the information presented) of
information provided on SDSs. In the NPRM, OSHA proposed requiring the
information on SDSs to be presented using consistent headings in the
sequence specified in the GHS (See Section XV for a detailed discussion
of the requirements). The Agency has determined that a standardized
order of information will improve the utility of SDSs by making it
easier for users to locate and understand the information they are
seeking. A standardized format is also expected to improve the accuracy
of the information presented on SDSs.
    Since the HCS was promulgated in 1983, access to chemical
information has improved dramatically due to the availability of SDSs.
OSHA believes that adopting a standardized format will build on the
demonstrated benefits that have already clearly been established from
the use of SDSs. As discussed in the proposal, the General Accounting
Office (GAO) issued a report in May 1992 that addressed issues
employers had with complying with the HCS (GAO, 1992, Document ID
0292). The findings were based on the results of a national
survey of construction, manufacturing, and personal services

providers. A total of 1,120 responses were received from employers.
    One very important finding of the GAO survey was that almost 30% of
employers reported that they had replaced a hazardous chemical with a
less hazardous substitute because of information presented on an SDS.
With regard to the HCS as a whole, GAO found that over 56% of employers
reported ``great'' or ``very great'' improvement in the availability of
hazard information in the workplace and in management's awareness of
workplace hazards. Forty-five percent of those in compliance with the
HCS considered the standard to have a positive effect on employees,
compared with only 9% who viewed the effect as negative. The results
indicate that when chemical hazard information is provided, the result
is generally recognized as beneficial to employees. A number of other
studies support this conclusion.
    Conklin demonstrated the utility of SDSs among employees of a
multinational petrochemical company (Conklin, 2003; Document ID
0245). Across three countries (the U.S., Canada, and the
United Kingdom), 98 percent felt that the SDS is a satisfactory
information source (the percentage was similar across all three
countries). Seventy-two percent said they would request an SDS all or
most of the time when introduced to a new chemical, although 46 percent
of workers said that SDSs are too long. The author notes that this
sample did not include any workers with low literacy.
    However, while these studies show a clear benefit related to the
use of SDS in the workplace, a number of investigations raise concerns
that the information on SDSs is not comprehensible to employees. In
1991, OSHA commissioned a study that evaluated the comprehensibility of
SDSs by a group of unionized employees in manufacturing industries
located in the state of Maryland (Kearney/Centaur, 1991a, 1991b,
Document ID 0309 and 0310). The study assessed the ability of
these employees to understand information regarding the route of entry
of the substance, the type of health hazard present, appropriate
protective measures, and sources of additional help.
    Each of the 91 participating workers was provided with and tested
on four different SDSs. The workers answered the test questions based
on information supplied on each of the SDSs. It should be noted that
the employees who volunteered for this study understood that it relied
on reading comprehension. This created a selection bias, as employees
with reading difficulties would not be likely to volunteer for the
study.
    The results of the tests indicated that workers on average
understood about two-thirds of the health and safety information on the
SDSs. The best comprehension was associated with information providing
straightforward procedures to follow (e.g., in furnishing first aid,
dealing with a fire, or in using personal protective equipment) or
descriptions of how a chemical substance can enter the body. Workers
had greater difficulty understanding health information addressing
different target organs, particularly when more technical language was
used. Workers also reportedly had difficulty distinguishing acute from
chronic effects based on information presented in the SDSs.
    Conklin reported a similar result in a study involving employees of
a multinational petrochemical company (Conklin, 2003, Document ID
0245). After viewing information on an unfamiliar chemical in
a variety of SDS formats, a questionnaire was administered to workers
to gauge their comprehension of the material presented. The workers
reportedly answered 65 percent of the questions correctly.
    The Printing Industries of America reported a study that examined
the comprehensibility of SDSs to master printers in 1990 (PIA, 1990,
Document ID 0295). The subjects had an average of 13.9 years
of formal education, or approximately two years beyond high school. In
this study, 27 SDSs were selected and analyzed for reading levels using
a software program, finding an average reading grade level of 14. The
investigators found that employees with 15 years of education or more
understood 66.2% of the information presented.
    Some of the difficulty workers experience in understanding
information presented on SDSs may be due to the vocabulary used in the
document. Information presented at a reading level that exceeds the
capability of the user is unlikely to be well understood. An example of
this situation was reported by Frazier et al. (Frazier et al., 2001,
Document ID 0212). The authors evaluated a sample of SDSs from
30 manufacturers of toluene diisocyanate, a chemical known to cause
asthma. Half of the SDSs indicated that asthma was a potential health
effect. One SDS made no mention of any respiratory effects, while
others used language (e.g., allergic respiratory sensitization) that
the authors believed may not clearly communicate that asthma is a risk.
However, the more technical language meets the requirements of the HCS.
    Other reports substantiate the belief that many SDS users have
difficulty understanding the information on the documents. For example,
in a study evaluating the comprehensibility of SDSs at a large research
laboratory, 39 percent of the workers found SDSs ``difficult to
understand'' (Phillips, 1997, Document ID 0263). The study
also indicated that a third of the information provided on SDSs was not
understood. These results were obtained from a study population of
literate, trained workers who spoke English as their first language.
    Smith-Jackson and Wogalter corroborated this finding in a study
involving 60 undergraduates and community volunteers (Smith-Jackson and
Wogalter, 1998, Document ID 0188). The subjects were asked to
sort SDS data into a logical order. After completing the task, subjects
were asked for their opinions on the difficulty of the content.
Overall, 43 percent found the information easy to understand, 42
percent said it was not easy, and the remaining 15 percent felt that
only scientists, experts, or very experienced workers would be able to
understand the information.
    These studies are consistent in reporting that workers have
difficulty understanding a substantial portion of the information
presented on SDSs. This finding can be explained at least in part by
the fact that not all of the information on SDSs is intended for
workers. SDSs are intended to provide detailed technical information on
a hazardous chemical. While they serve as a reference source for
exposed employees, SDSs are meant for other audiences as well. SDSs
provide information for the benefit of emergency responders, industrial
hygienists, safety professionals, and health care providers. Much of
this information may be of a technical nature and would not be readily
understood by individuals who do not have training or experience in
these areas. For example, language that may be readily understood by a
population of firefighters may be poorly understood by chemical
workers.
    In addition, Title III of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA, also known as the Emergency Response and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986) mandated that SDSs be made
available to state emergency response commissions, local emergency
planning committees, and fire departments in order to assist in
planning and response to emergencies, as well as to provide members of
the

general public with information about chemicals used in their
communities. It is difficult, if not impossible, for a document to meet
the informational needs of all of these audiences while being
comprehensible to all as well.
    Product liability concerns also play a role in the
comprehensibility of SDSs. Producers of chemicals may be subject to
``failure to warn'' lawsuits that can have significant financial
implications. Attempts to protect themselves against lawsuits can
affect the length and complexity of SDSs, as well as the way in which
information is presented. In some cases the length and complexity of
SDSs reportedly make it difficult to locate desired information on the
documents. For example, in testimony before the U.S. Senate
Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training, one hospital safety
director described a situation in which an employee was unable to find
critical information on an SDS in an emergency situation (Hanson, 2004,
Document ID 0200):

    * * * two gallons of the chemical xylene spilled in the lab of
my hospital. By the time an employee had noticed the spill, the
ventilation had already sucked most of the vapors into the HVAC.
This, in turn, became suspended in the ceiling tile over our
radiology department. Twelve employees were sent to the emergency
room. To make the matter worse, the lab employee was frantically
searching through the MSDS binder in her area for the xylene MSDS.
Once she found it, she had difficulty locating the spill response
section. After notifying our engineering department, she began to
clean up the spill with solid waste rags, known for spontaneous
combustion, and placing the rags into a clear plastic bag for
disposal. She did not know that xylene has a flash point of 75
degrees Fahrenheit. She then walked the bag down to our incinerator
room and left it there, basically creating a live bomb. Twelve
people were treated from this exposure. The lab employee was very
upset and concerned about the safety of the affected employees and
visitors, and hysterically kept stating that she could not find the
necessary spill response information.

SDSs at this particular hospital were reported to range from one page
to 65 pages in length.
    To accommodate the needs of the diverse groups who rely on SDSs, a
standardized format has been viewed as a way to make the information on
SDSs easier for users to find, and to segregate technical sections of
the document from more basic elements. A standardized format was also
thought to facilitate computerized information retrieval systems and to
simplify employee training.
    The first attempt to establish a format for SDS was made in 1985,
when OSHA established a voluntary format to assist manufacturers and
importers who desired some guidance in organizing SDS information. This
two-page form (OSHA Form 174) includes spaces for each of the items
included in the SDS requirements of the standard, to be filled in with
the appropriate information as determined by the manufacturer or
importer. However, some members of the regulated community desired a
more comprehensive, structured approach for developing clear, complete,
and consistent SDSs.
    In order to develop this structure, the Chemical Manufacturers
Association (now known as the American Chemistry Council) formed a
committee to establish guidelines for the preparation of SDSs. This
effort resulted in the development of American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) standard Z400.1, a voluntary consensus standard for
the preparation of SDSs. Employers, workers, health care professionals,
emergency responders, and other SDS users participated in the
development process. The standard established a 16-section format for
presenting information as well as standardized headings for sections of
the SDS. In 2004, an updated version of the ANSI standard that was
consistent with the GHS format was published. This ANSI standard has
since been combined with the ANSI Z129 consensus standard on
precautionary labeling preparation. The ANSI Z400.1/Z129.1 standard was
issued in 2010.
    By following the recommended format, the information of greatest
concern to employees is featured at the beginning of the document,
including information on ingredients and first aid measures. More
technical information that addresses topics such as the physical and
chemical properties of the material and toxicological data appears
later in the document. The ANSI standard also includes guidance on the
appearance and reading level of the text in order to provide a document
that can be easily understood by readers.
    OSHA currently allows the ANSI format to be used as long as the SDS
includes all of the information required by the HCS. Because it is a
voluntary standard, however, the ANSI format has not been adopted by
all chemical manufacturers and importers. As a result, different
formats are still used on many SDSs.
    The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has
published its own standard for SDS preparation. This standard, ISO
11014-1, has been revised for consistency with the GHS (new version
issued in 2009). The standard includes the same 16 sections as the GHS,
as well as similar data requirements in each section. These two
consensus standards, ANSI Z400.1-2004 and ISO 11014-1 (2009), have
essentially the same provisions and are consistent with GHS. There are
minor differences, such as units of measure recommended in the national
ANSI standard versus the international ISO standard.
    Another development has been the creation of International Chemical
Safety Cards (ICSCs). The documents, developed by the International
Programme on Chemical Safety, summarize essential health and safety
information on chemicals for use at the ``shop floor'' level by workers
and employers (Niemeier, 1997, Document ID 0191). ICSCs are
intended to present information in a concise and simple manner, and
they follow a standardized format that is shorter (one double-sided
page) and less complex than the ANSI approach. The ICSCs were field
tested in their initial stages of development, and new ICSCs are
verified and peer reviewed by internationally recognized experts (id.).
ICSCs have been developed in English for 1,646 chemicals, and are also
available in 16 other languages. The ICSCs are being updated to be
consistent with the GHS.
    A study by Phillips compared the effectiveness of different SDS
formats as well as ICSCs among workers at a large national laboratory
(Phillips, 1997, Document ID 0191). The employees represented
a variety of trades, including painters, carpenters, truck drivers, and
general laborers. Each worker was tested for knowledge regarding a
hazardous chemical before and after viewing an SDS or ICSC. Three
designs were tested: a 9-section OSHA form, the 16-section ANSI Z400.1
format (an earlier and slightly different version of the current ANSI
Z400.1 format), and the 9-section ICSC. A subsequent paper described
the final results of this study (Phillips, 1999, Document ID
0263). All three formats led to significant improvements in
subjects' knowledge, and there was no statistically significant
difference among the three formats in terms of total test score.
However, there were a few significant differences in how well readers
of each SDS format answered specific types of questions:
    [ssquf] The ICSC performed better than the OSHA form regarding
chronic and immediate health effects.
    [ssquf] The other two formats performed better than the ANSI format
on fire-related questions.
    [ssquf] The OSHA form performed better than the other two formats
on spill response questions.

    [ssquf] The OSHA form performed better than the ANSI format
regarding carcinogenic potential.
    The ANSI Z400.1 template has been used by a wide number of
employers for creating SDSs. By following the recommended format, the
information of greatest concern to employees is featured at the
beginning of the document, including information on ingredients and
first aid measures. More technical information that addresses topics
such as the physical and chemical properties of the material and
toxicological data appears later in the document. The ANSI standard
also includes guidance on the appearance and reading level of the text
in order to provide a document that can be easily understood by
readers.
    The ANSI format is commonly used. However, because it is a
voluntary standard, not all chemical manufacturers and importers have
adopted it. As a result, different formats are still used on many SDSs.
Of the comments received regarding SDS, none were in favor of allowing
voluntary adoption of the SDS format. The California Industrial Hygiene
Council (CIHC) (Document ID 0463) reiterated its support for a
uniform format, and specifically the implementation of the ANSI format
for SDSs. The CIHC also stated that a mandatory format would establish
a harmonized structure for all ``global target audiences'' (Document ID
0463).
    In a separate comparison, Conklin also found similarities in the
overall performance of several standard SDS formats (Conklin, 2003,
Document ID 0245). In this study, employees of a multinational
petrochemical company were given one of three versions of an SDS for an
unfamiliar chemical: A U.S. version (OSHA's required content within an
ANSI Z400.1-1998 16-part structure); a Canadian version following the
9-part structure prescribed by Canada's Workplace Hazardous Materials
Information System (WHMIS); and a version following the European
Union's content and 16-part structure. SDSs were controlled for font,
layout, and reading level. Overall, Conklin found no statistically
significant difference in mean post-test scores using the three
different formats, although there were significant differences on 5 out
of 10 questions (no one format was consistently better).
    OSHA also examined several studies addressing what sequence of
information would prove to be most beneficial for users. Because
extensive searching can be a barrier to SDS use, researchers have
examined whether there is a preferred order of information that more
closely matches users' cognitive expectations. Smith-Jackson and
Wogalter asked 60 undergraduates and community volunteers to arrange
portions of six SDSs in the order they considered most usable (Smith-
Jackson and Wogalter, 1998; Document ID 0188). The authors
found a few consistent results:
    [ssquf] Information about health hazards, protective equipment, and
fire and explosion data tended to be placed toward the beginning.
    [ssquf] Physical and reactivity data tended to be placed near the
end.
    [ssquf] Spill or leak procedures were placed near the beginning or
the middle, depending on the type of chemical.
    A majority of subjects reported that they had attempted to
prioritize the hazard information that needed to be communicated. The
participants' suggested order of information generally did not match
either the original SDS order or the order listed in the HCS--
particularly the subjects' emphasis on health hazard information near
the beginning.
    In the previously discussed 1991 study that evaluated the
comprehensibility of SDSs by a group of 91 unionized workers in
manufacturing industries in the state of Maryland, a subset of the
group (18 workers) was also tested on an ICSC (Kearney/Centaur, 1991a,
1991b, Document ID 0309 and 0310). While the results indicated
that workers on average understood about two-thirds of the health and
safety information on SDSs, ICSCs provided better results. The average
ICSC test score ranged from 6% to 23% higher than the average test
score on the four SDSs evaluated. This finding was considered by the
authors to suggest that an improved format for SDSs may serve to
increase user comprehension of the information presented.
    OSHA believes that a standardized format will improve the
effectiveness of SDSs for the following reasons: A consistent format
makes it easier for users to find information on an SDS. Headings for
SDS sections are standardized, so SDS users know which section to
consult for the information they desire. The sections are presented in
a consistent, logical sequence to further facilitate locating
information of interest. Information commonly desired by exposed
employees and of greatest interest to emergency responders (e.g.,
Hazards Identification; First Aid Measures) is presented in the
beginning of the document for easy reference. More technical
information (e.g., Stability and Reactivity; Toxicological Information)
is presented later.
    Specifically, the revised SDS format now segregate more complex
information from information that is generally easier to understand.
This order of information places basic information in the first
sections, allowing SDS users to find basic information about hazardous
chemicals without having to sift through a great deal of technical
information that may have little meaning to them. In emergency
situations, rapid access to information such as first-aid measures,
fire-fighting measures, and accidental release measures can be
critically important.
    Several stakeholders expressed dissatisfaction with the degree that
current SDSs vary from manufacturer to manufacturer (Document ID
0330 and 0351). The International Brotherhood of Teamsters
stated that the quality and usefulness of SDSs has been grossly
inconsistent in terms of content and format, adding that such
discrepancies ultimately result ``in a failure to achieve the objective
of the standard'' (Document ID 0357). John Schriefer, head of
Local 9477, indicated that workers often didn't bother to request SDSs,
because they are so complicated (Document ID 0494 Tr. 54-55).
He suggested that a simplified, standard format for SDSs would go a
long way toward improving worker safety (Document ID 0494 Tr.
63).
    Commenters supported putting information targeted to the employees
first on the SDS in order to improve how emergency situations are
addressed (Document ID 0332, 0386 and 0414). Stericycle, Inc.
supported placing hazard identification information in one location
rather than ``sprinkling it through the documents, as is sometimes the
case with [SDSs]'' (Document ID 0338). United Steelworkers
stated that the difficulty in locating information on current SDSs ``is
bad enough with routine assessments, but in an emergency situation like
a spill, splash or fire it can be deadly'' (Document ID 0402).
Additionally, the American Wind Energy Association argued that
requiring hazard identification and first aid information to be placed
in the first sections of the SDS would serve to ``better assist
emergency response teams to more efficiently recognize hazards during
incidents'' (Document ID 0386). American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) also supported the adoption of
a standardized SDS, reasoning that it would enable workers to better
understand SDSs, and could ultimately lead to faster responses as well
as a reduction in the number of incidents altogether (Document ID
0386).

    A standardized format does not address all issues affecting SDS
comprehensibility. Reading level and some design elements would
continue to vary. In many respects, this is inevitable given the
different target audiences that SDSs have, and the varying
qualifications of those who prepare SDSs. Nevertheless, OSHA believes
that the revisions will result in a substantial improvement in the
quality and ease of comprehension of information provided on SDSs.
    In addition to the issues regarding comprehensibility, researchers
raised concerns that some SDSs may be incomplete or contain erroneous
information. The magnitude of the problem is unclear, because only very
limited numbers of SDSs have been evaluated in these studies, and in
some cases the investigations were performed so long ago that the
results may not reflect current practices. Nevertheless, the evidence
appears to indicate that a substantial number of SDSs may not contain
complete and correct information.
    An initial examination of the accuracy of SDSs was commissioned by
OSHA shortly after the scope of the rule was expanded to cover all
industries in 1987 (Karstadt, 1988, Document ID 0296). The
report, which analyzed the content of 196 SDSs for products used in
auto repair and body shops, provided a general indication that the
content and presentation of information was inconsistent on the SDSs
examined. In 1991, OSHA commissioned an additional study that examined
the accuracy of SDSs (Kearney/Centaur, 1991a, 1991b, Document ID
0309 and 0310). The study examined information presented in
five areas considered crucial to the health of workers potentially
exposed to hazardous substances. The five areas assessed were: Chemical
identification of ingredients; reported health effects of ingredients;
recommended first aid procedures; use of personal protective equipment;
and exposure level regulations and guidelines. The evaluation indicated
that 37% of the SDSs examined accurately identified health effects
data, 76% provided complete and correct first aid procedures, 47%
accurately identified proper personal protective equipment, and 47%
correctly noted all relevant occupational exposure limits. Only 11% of
the SDSs were accurate in all four information areas, but more (51%)
were judged accurate, or considered to include both accurate and
partially accurate information, than were judged inaccurate (10%). The
study also concluded that the more recent SDSs examined (those prepared
between 1988 and 1990) appeared to be more accurate than those prepared
earlier.
    This belief that some SDSs are not complete and correct was
corroborated by an examination of SDSs for lead and ethylene glycol
ethers (Paul and Kurtz, 1994, Document ID 0302). Although
these substances are known reproductive and developmental toxicants,
researchers found that 421 of 678 SDSs examined (62%) made no mention
of effects on the reproductive system. OSHA also commissioned a study,
completed in 1999, focusing specifically on the accuracy of first aid
information provided on SDSs (Lexington Group, 1999, Document ID
0257). A total of 56 SDSs for seven chemicals were examined.
First aid information on the SDSs was compared with information from
established references. The researchers reported that nearly all of the
SDSs reviewed had at least minor inaccuracies.
    A standardized format does not directly address the concerns that
have been raised regarding the accuracy of information present on SDSs.
However, standardization would improve the accuracy of chemical hazard
information indirectly. With consistent presentation of information,
the task of reviewing SDSs and labels to ensure accuracy will be
simplified. Individuals preparing and reviewing these documents should
find it easier to identify any missing elements and compare information
presented on an SDS to reference sources and other SDSs. OSHA
enforcement personnel will be able to more efficiently examine SDSs
when conducting inspections. The detailed entries for SDSs are
particularly noteworthy in this regard. The sub-headings provide an
organized and detailed list of pertinent information to be included
under the headings on the SDS. For example, while the HCS currently
requires physical and chemical characteristics of a hazardous chemical
to be included on the SDS, the final rule provides a list of 18
properties for Section 9 of the SDS. The party preparing the SDS must
either include the relevant information for these entries, or indicate
that the information is not available or not applicable. This approach
provides both a reminder to the party preparing the SDS regarding the
information required and a convenient means of reviewing the section to
ensure that relevant information is included and is accurate.
    Additionally, several stakeholders agreed that standardization
would result in improved accuracy of the information on SDSs. For
example, Ecolab, Inc. stated that a uniform approach to hazard
classification and labeling would improve the accuracy of the
information presented on labels and SDSs and reduce ``the currently
observed variability among suppliers in chemical classification and
presentation of that information'' (Document ID 0351).
Additionally, American Iron and Steel Works noted that ``standardized
criteria to evaluate and communicate hazards via SDSs * * * should
assure consistent communication and lower the likelihood of
miscommunication and misinterpretation'' (Document ID 0408).
Alliance for Hazardous Materials Professionals also indicated that the
standardization of SDSs is likely to ``resolve language and content
inconsistencies among similar product providers'' (Document ID
0327).
    OSHA concludes that the classification criteria included in the
final rule will also improve the accuracy and precision of information
on SDSs. The detailed criteria provided will direct evaluators to the
appropriate classification for a chemical. For example, while directing
the evaluator to use expert judgment in taking all existing hazard
information into account, the criteria for serious eye damage/eye
irritation is tied to specific results found in animal testing. In
addition, assignment to hazard categories would lead to provision of
detailed information that would be specific to the degree of hazard
presented by the chemical.
    Classification of hazards will play an important role in increasing
the usefulness of SDSs under the final rule. By including the
classification of the substance on the SDS, employers will be in a much
better position to compare the hazards of different chemicals. Hazard
categories generally give an indication of the severity of the hazard
associated with a chemical. For example, all other things being equal,
a chemical classified for skin corrosion/irritation in category 1 as a
skin corrosive would be more hazardous than a chemical classified in
category 2 as a skin irritant. If chemicals are classified into hazard
categories, this information can be used to simplify the process of
comparing chemicals. As noted previously, employers use SDSs as a means
of comparing chemical hazards to select less hazardous alternatives.
Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that this final rule will result in
more effective use of the SDS as an instrument for identifying less
hazardous substitutes for hazardous chemicals.
    Stakeholders have expressed support for a standard SDS format. The
development of an industry consensus standard for preparation of SDSs,
ANSI

Z400.1, in itself, shows a desire on the part of many parties for a
consistent approach to SDSs. The final rule follows the same section
and sequence as the ANSI Z400.1, which was updated in 2004 and combined
with the ANSI 129 standard in 2010.
    A report drafted by the GAO recommended that OSHA clearly specify
the language and presentation of information on SDSs (GAO, 1991,
Document ID 0292). In addition, the report of the National
Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health Review of Hazard
Communication (September 12, 1996) indicated that during the public
presentations and workgroup discussions, there was general agreement
that a uniform format should be encouraged, and most workgroup members
agreed that OSHA should endorse use of the ANSI Z400.1 format (NACOSH,
1996, Document ID 0260).
    Comments received in response to the ANPR indicated widespread
support for a standard format for SDS (See, e.g., Document ID
0030, 0054, 0064, 0124, and 0158). The American Foundry
Society, for example, said that consistent SDSs make it easier for
users to find information and compare products (Document ID
0158). The Jefferson County Local Emergency Planning Committee
maintained that critical information can be missed by first responders
due to the current lack of consistency in presentation of information
on SDSs, stating: ``It is not overreaching for us to say that lives
will be saved through harmonization'' (Document ID 0037).
    Moreover, stakeholder response to the NPRM also overwhelmingly
supported requiring a consistent, standardized format for SDSs
(Document ID 0307, 0313, 0321, 0322, 0328, 0329, 0330, 0335,
0341, 0344, 0349, 0352, 0357, 0365, 0372, 0374, 0381, 0382, 0383, 0386,
0389, 0392, 0393, 0403, 0404, 0405, 0410, 0415, 0456, and 0463).
American Subcontractors of America stated that a standardized format
would make SDSs a more effective resource and better educational tool
(Document ID 0322). Additionally, the Communications Workers
of America asserted that standardizing SDSs would be an invaluable
solution for addressing current inconsistencies and quality issues on
SDSs (Document ID 0349).
    Based on the studies and comments in the record, OSHA has concluded
that not only will the standardized SDS format indirectly improve the
quality of information provided on SDSs, but that it is in the format
that stakeholders already know and overwhelmingly prefer.

Training

    Along with labels on containers and SDSs, employee training is one
of three core components of a comprehensive hazard communication
program. Training is needed to explain and reinforce the information
presented on labels and SDSs, to ensure that employees understand the
chemical hazards in their workplace and are aware of the protective
measures they need to follow. The final rule includes a relatively
minor revision to the existing HCS training requirements for employers
to train employees on the label elements and SDS format. This revision
is intended to ensure that labels and SDSs are adequately explained to
employees (See Section XIII for a detailed discussion of the training
requirements). In light of the evidence discussed and new information
submitted to the record related to label and SDS comprehension, the
importance of training should not be underestimated.
    Training is necessary to ensure that employees understand the
standardized headings and sequence of information on SDSs. Likewise,
employees must be able to understand the meaning of the standardized
label elements in order for them to be effective. In certain instances,
label elements already appear to be fairly well understood. For
example, ``Danger'' appears to be generally recognized to represent a
higher degree of hazard than ``Warning.'' Other label elements,
particularly some pictograms, are less well understood. This finding is
not surprising given the limited amount of exposure that most of the
population has had to some of these pictograms.
    A relatively high level of understanding is generally recommended
for pictograms. For example, ANSI Z535.3, the American National
Standard that addresses criteria for safety symbols (Document ID
0276), contains a test method for determining the
effectiveness of a pictogram. The criterion for a successful, effective
pictogram is 85% correct responses, with no more than 5% critical
confusion. (Critical confusion refers to when the message conveyed is
the opposite of the intended message.) A score below 85% does not mean
the pictogram should not be used, but rather that it should not be used
without some additional element, such as written text. The
International Standards Organization has similar criteria in ISO 9186,
Procedures for the Development and Testing of Public Information
Symbols (Document ID 0255). This standard recommends testing
methodologies to evaluate symbols intended to be used internationally.
It sets a somewhat lower level of acceptability (66%) than the ANSI
standard.
    While initial understanding of some pictograms may not be
satisfactory, research shows that training can improve comprehension.
In one study, Wogalter et al. tested how well undergraduate subjects
comprehended a set of 40 pharmaceutical and industrial safety
pictorials before and after training (Wogalter et al., 1997c, Document
ID 0288). Training led to a significant increase in pictorial
comprehension. The improvement was greatest for the most complex
symbols. Training was equally effective whether the subject was given a
simple printed label (e.g., ``Danger, cancer-causing substance'') or a
label with additional explanatory text.
    Lesch conducted a similar study, testing how well workers
recognized a set of 31 chemical and physical safety symbols before and
after training (Lesch, 2002, Document ID 0246; Lesch, 2003,
Document ID 0282). Training significantly improved
comprehension, which remained higher up to 8 weeks later. As in the
Wogalter et al. study described above, Lesch found little difference in
performance whether training took the form of a written label assigned
to each symbol, a label plus explanatory text, or an accident scenario.
Training also improved response speed.
    In a survey of South African workers, London examined the impact of
brief training on the meaning of symbols and hazard phrases (London,
2003, Document ID 0311). Here, the author found no statistical
difference in comprehensibility of four familiar hazard symbols, but
did find that training improved comprehension of one symbol (the GHS
health hazard symbol), and it also reduced the overall incidence of
critical confusion. This study also found that workers with previous
workplace training were more likely to understand label text and some
pictograms, and were better able to identify the active ingredient.
Banda and Sichilongo reported a similar result in their evaluation of
GHS labels in Zambia. The authors found that ``correct responses to
label elements were not a result of social class and/or age but
appeared to be influenced by extent of duration of exposure either
through specialized training or acquaintance'' (Banda and Sichilongo,
2006, Document ID 0237). Recognizing that symbols are the
items most often recalled from a label, London advised a strong
emphasis on training for GHS symbols, particularly the ``flame over
circle'' and

``flame'' symbols--which were reported to be easily confused--and other
symbols that may generate critical confusion (London, 2003, Document ID
0311).
    NIOSH, in its post-hearing comments, provided the following
additional studies. These studies support OSHA's position that training
ensures the understanding of standardized label elements (pictograms,
signal words, hazard statement, and precautionary statements) and is an
essential part of an effective hazard communication program.
    Burt et al. (1999, Document ID 0480.1) conducted an
ergonomic study of correct lifting posture. The project included three
separate studies: using 135 undergraduate students, Study 1 consisted
of a questionnaire to evaluate nine symbols to select the most
appropriate symbols to encourage correct lifting posture. Four of the
symbols used in Study 1 met the appropriateness criteria and were used
in Study 2 by 21 city council workers to test their understanding of
each symbol. Using 100 random subjects, Study 3 was a field test that
examined the effect of the best performing symbol (from Study 2) on
subjects when asked to lift a box. Burt et al. found that once trained
on the meaning of a label, the presence of a standard recognized label
prompted the test subject to take the proper action. The author also
found significant increases in correct lifting posture when a symbol
was present compared with a control condition in which people were
trained in correct lifting techniques, but did not see the symbol as a
reminder.
    In 2007, Lesch (Document ID 0480.3) conducted a study
looking at different training conditions. During the training, warning
symbols with labels (to better explain the meaning of the symbol) were
paired with accident scenarios. The accident scenarios illustrated the
nature of the hazard, the required or prohibited actions, and the
possible consequences of failing to comply with the warning. The
participants were tested before and following the training (immediately
after and two weeks later). The results showed the benefits of
training--improved comprehension, reduced reaction times, and an
improved confidence in their responses--and illustrated that, by
strengthening the connections between the warning symbol and its
associated meaning, accident scenario training can be used to prevent
accidents and injuries.
    In 2007, Su and Hsu (Document ID 0480.5) tested 1,000
college students on their perception of GHS labels and traffic safety
signs. The study found that students who had taken training did better
in perceiving various traffic safety signs than those who did not. With
regards to chemical labeling, students who had taken hazard
communication training had better perception ratings than those without
training. Analysis showed that 17 out of 27 hazards had perception
ratings lower than 66%, the ISO suggested acceptable rate for a good
sign. The statistical analysis used in the study indicated that
pictograms should not be used alone but accompanied by warning
statements or other kinds of textual materials. The study also
suggested that training on pictograms and warning statements should be
integrated into school curriculum.
    Rother (2008, Document ID 0480.4) conducted a study to
assess how South African farm workers interpret the pictograms used in
the pesticide industry. Administered to 115 farm workers from
commercial vineyards in Western Cape, South Africa, this study used a
questionnaire designed to interpret the workers' understanding of 10
pictograms commonly used in the pesticide industry. Fifty percent or
more of the study participants had misleading, incorrect, or critically
confused interpretations of the label pictograms. The study identified
a response as critically confused when a farm worker incorrectly
interpreted a pictogram to require an action or behavior that would
increase his or her health risks. OSHA agrees with NIOSH's
interpretation that the study ``found that lack of training severely
affected farm worker's abilities to correctly interpret pesticide
pictogram warning labels'' (Document ID 0470).
    These reports reinforce OSHA's longstanding belief that labels,
SDSs, and training are complementary parts of a comprehensive hazard
communication program--each element reinforces the knowledge necessary
for effective protection of employees. The need for training to ensure
comprehension of hazard information is widely recognized. Annex A of
ANSI Z535.2 (the American National Standard for Environmental and
Facility Safety Signs) (Document ID 0277), for example,
recommends training on the meaning of standard safety symbols and
signal words, and ANSI Z535.4 (Document ID 0278) contains
similar guidance.
    OSHA received many comments supporting the importance of training
(See, e.g., Document ID 0329, 0331, 0347, 0370, 0382, 0387,
0412, 0527, 0640, 0644, and 0647). The National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (Document ID 0412)
stated:

    Training is key to ensuring effective hazard communication.
Although written information is important, training is an
opportunity to explain the data and helps to ensure that the
messages are being received accurately so they can be acted on
appropriately.

    The USW stated that ``there is no question good training greatly
improves the ability to understand chemical labeling and safety data
sheets. Unfortunately, the OSHA standard is vague * * *'' (Document ID
0403). Several organizations, including Western Region
Universities Consortium, ORC Worldwide, SOCMA, NIOSH, Building &
Construction Trades Department of AFL-CIO, NIEHS, and USW (e.g.,
Document ID 0331, 0370, 0402, 0412, 0527, 0640, and 0647)
stated that training, though essential, is often not done well, and
urged OSHA to ``strengthen training requirements and worker
protection'' (Document ID 0331).
    Others, such as DuPont, API, Michelle Sullivan, ACC, and American
Iron and Steel Institute/American Coke & Coal Chemicals Institute,
stated that the standardized SDS and label format should facilitate
training efforts and the overall effectiveness of hazard communication
in industry (Document ID 0329, 0376, 0382, 0393, and 0408).
The American Iron and Steel Institute stated: ``Standardized criteria
to evaluate chemicals should facilitate training. With a single
teaching format for SDSs and Labels, understanding, regardless of an
employee's educational background, should be improved'' (Document ID
0408).
    OSHA not only received many comments indicating that the training
requirements in the HCS are not adequate, several organizations
requested that OSHA either add regulatory text or a mandatory appendix
specifying training content, frequency, and methods of evaluation
(Document ID 0331, 0340, 0347, 0349, 0357, 0403, 0414, 0456,
0640, and 0647). For example, the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences Worker Education and Training Program (NIEHS WETP)
(Document ID 0347 and, 0516) provided training information,
including a training program guidance manual, and an outline detailing
specific training topics for the HCS.
    OSHA agrees that training is important for ensuring effective
hazard communication. However, OSHA did not propose to change the
training provisions in the HCS other than initial training on the new
GHS elements.

Similarly, the GHS discusses the importance of training, but does not
contain specific training requirements. Since the purpose of this
rulemaking is to align with the requirements of the GHS, OSHA did not
propose modifications that were outside of those necessary to maintain
alignment with the GHS. OSHA has decided to stay within the scope of
the rulemaking and retain the proposed training provisions in the HCS
final rule. See Section XIII for a more detailed discussion on
training.

Conclusion

    It is a longstanding Agency position that employees have the
``right to know'' and understand the hazards of chemicals they are
exposed to in the workplace (53 FR 29826, Aug. 8, 1988; 59 FR 6126,
Feb. 9, 1994). This knowledge is needed in order to take the
precautions necessary for safe handling and use, to recognize adverse
health effects associated with chemical exposure, and to respond
appropriately in emergency situations.
    Equally important in terms of employee protection is that employers
have access to chemical hazard information as well. Chemical
information is the foundation of workplace chemical safety programs--
without it, sound management of chemicals is impossible. By ensuring
that emergency responders, physicians, nurses, industrial hygienists,
safety engineers and other professionals have the information they
need, the HCS reduces the likelihood of chemical source illnesses and
injuries. Selection of appropriate engineering controls, work
practices, and personal protective equipment is predicated upon knowing
the chemicals that are present, the form they are present in, and their
hazardous properties.
    In his testimony at the informal public hearings, Mr. David Irby, a
union safety representative at the Severstal Steel Plant in Sparrows
Point, Maryland, expressed the importance of the right to understand
SDSs, stating that employees ``need an easy-to read format written in a
clear, precise and understandable manner in our workplace'' (Document
ID 0494 Tr. 55-57). OSHA agrees that employees must be able to
read and comprehend the information presented on both labels and SDSs
so that they can respond accordingly. Therefore, OSHA has determined
that the provisions in this final rule--the standardized label elements
(including pictograms, signal words, and hazard and precautionary
statements), a standardized 16-section SDS, and the requisite training
provisions--provide the necessary conventions to support understanding
the hazards posed by chemicals in the workplace and that this final
rule provides employees not only with the ``right to know'' but also
the ``right to understand.''
    OSHA concludes that aligning the HCS with the GHS will improve the
quality and consistency of the chemical hazard information provided to
employers and employees. A combination of label elements--signal word,
hazard statement(s), pictogram(s), and precautionary statement(s)--is
expected to make label warnings more noticeable and easier to
understand, and will better communicate hazard and precautionary
information. Standardized headings and a consistent order of
information are anticipated to make it easier for users to find
information on SDSs, improve their accuracy, and better enable users to
compare the relative hazards of different substances. Along with
effective training in the context of a comprehensive chemical hazard
communication program, OSHA has determined that these revisions will
more adequately inform employees of chemical hazards, and lead to
better protections in the workplace.

V. Pertinent Legal Authority

    The primary purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the
``OSH Act'' or ``Act'') (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is to assure, so far as
possible, safe and healthful working conditions for every American
employee over the period of his or her working lifetime. One means
prescribed by Congress to achieve this goal is the mandate given to,
and the authority vested in, the Secretary of Labor to ``promulgate,
modify, or revoke'' mandatory occupational safety and health standards.
OSH Act Sec.  6(b), 29 U.S.C. 655(b).
    An occupational safety and health standard is defined under the Act
as:

    [A] standard which requires conditions, or the adoption or use
of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes,
reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful
employment and places of employment.

    OSH Act Sec.  3(8), 29 U.S.C. 652(8). The Supreme Court has
interpreted this provision as requiring OSHA to determine, before
promulgating a permanent standard under section 6(b) of the Act, that
the standard is reasonably necessary and appropriate to remedy a
significant risk of material health impairment. Indus. Union Dep't v.
Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 642 (1980) (``Benzene''). This
``significant risk'' determination constitutes a finding that, absent
the change in practices mandated by the standard, the workplace in
question would be ``unsafe'' in the sense that employees would be
threatened with a significant risk of harm. Id.
    Section 6(b)(5) provides that:

    The Secretary, in promulgating standards dealing with toxic
materials or harmful physical agents under this subsection, shall
set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent
feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no
employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional
capacity even if such employee has regular exposure to the hazard
dealt with by such standard for the period of his working life.
Development of standards under this subsection shall be based upon
research, demonstrations, experiments, and such other information as
may be appropriate. In addition to the attainment of the highest
degree of health and safety protection for the employee, other
considerations shall be the latest available scientific data in the
field, the feasibility of the standards, and experience gained under
this and other health and safety laws. Whenever practicable, the
standard promulgated shall be expressed in terms of objective
criteria and of the performance desired.

29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5).

    Thus, once OSHA determines that a significant risk due to a health
hazard is present and that such risk can be reduced or eliminated by a
proposed standard, section 6(b)(5) requires it to issue the standard,
based on the best available evidence, that ``most adequately assures''
employee protection, subject only to feasibility considerations. As the
Supreme Court has explained, in passing section 6(b)(5) ``Congress * *
* plac[ed] the `benefit' of worker health above all other
considerations save those making attainment of this `benefit'
unachievable.'' Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst. Inc. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490,
509 (1981) (``Cotton Dust''). Where, however, there are two equally
effective methods of reducing significant risk to the most protective
feasible level, OSHA must choose the less costly method. See Cotton
Dust, 452 U.S. 490, 513 n.32; Int'l Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665,
668 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
    In addition, section 6(b)(7) of the Act provides in part that:

    Any standard promulgated under this subsection shall prescribe
the use of labels or other appropriate forms of warning as are
necessary to insure that employees are apprised of all hazards to
which they are exposed, relevant symptoms and appropriate emergency
treatment, and proper conditions and precautions of safe use or
exposure.

29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7). Section 6(b)(7)'s labeling and employee warning

requirements provide basic protections for employees in the absence of
specific permissible exposure limits, particularly by providing
employers and employees with information necessary to design work
processes that protect employees against exposure to hazardous
chemicals in the first instance. The Supreme Court has recognized such
protective measures that may be imposed in workplaces where chemical
exposure levels are below that for which OSHA has found a significant
risk. Benzene, 448 U.S. at 657-58 & n.66. In Benzene, the Court relied
on section 6(b)(7) to sanction OSHA's requirements for monitoring and
medical testing when it sets a permissible exposure limit ``in reliance
on less-than-perfect methods.'' Id. These requirements serve as a
``backstop,'' the Court said, allowing OSHA to check the validity of
its assumptions in developing the PEL, and employers to remove
particularly susceptible workers before they suffered any permanent
damage. Id. at 657-58; See also Nat'l Cottonseed Products Ass'n v.
Brock, 825 F.2d 482, 485-87 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (upholding decision to
retain medical monitoring requirement while revoking PEL to ``provide a
backstop if that judgment is incorrect and this surveillance will
protect the health of the employees'').
    In promulgating a standard under the Act, OSHA's determinations
will be deemed conclusive if they are ``supported by substantial
evidence in the record considered as a whole.'' OSH Act Sec.  6(f), 29
U.S.C. 655(f). When the standard deals with toxic materials or harmful
physical agents, OSHA must use the ``best available evidence.'' Such
evidence includes ``the latest scientific data in the field,''
``research, demonstrations, experiments, and such other information as
may be appropriate,'' and ``experience gained under this and other
health and safety laws.'' OSH Act Sec.  6(b)(5), 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5).
The Supreme Court has held that OSHA is not required to support its
finding of significant risk of material health impairment ``with
anything approaching scientific certainty'' and that the determination
of whether a level of particular risk is ```significant' will be based
largely on policy considerations.'' Benzene, 448 U.S. at 655-56 & n.62.
    The OSH Act allows the Secretary to ``modify'' and ``revoke''
existing occupational safety or health standards. OSH Act Sec.
6(b)(2); 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(2). In passing the Act, Congress recognized
that OSHA should revise and replace its standards as ``new knowledge
and techniques are developed.'' S. Rep. 91-1282 at 6 (1970). The
Supreme Court has observed that administrative agencies ``do not
establish rules of conduct to last forever, and * * * must be given
ample latitude to adapt their rules and policies to the demands of
changing circumstances.'' Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).

A. Legal Authority for the Current HCS

    OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (``HCS'') is a standard
promulgated under the authority of sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(7) of the
Act (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5) and 655(b)(7)). See Associated Builders and
Contractors, Inc. v. Brock, 862 F.2d 63, 67-68 (3rd Cir. 1988); United
Steelworkers of Am. v. Auchter, 763 F.2d 728, 738 (3rd Cir. 1985);
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Auchter, 819 F.2d 1263, 1267 (3rd Cir.
1987). Authority for the HCS may also be found in section 8(c) and 8(g)
of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 657(c) and 657(g). Section 8(c)(1) of the Act
requires employers to make, keep, and preserve records regarding
activities related to the Act and to make such records available to the
Secretary pursuant to regulations that the Secretary may prescribe. 29
U.S.C. 657(c)(1). Section 8(g)(2) of the Act authorizes the Secretary
to ``prescribe such rules and regulations as [she] may deem necessary
to carry out [her] responsibilities under this Act * * *.'' 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2).
    As a 6(b)(5) standard, OSHA was required to establish that the HCS
would substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm. Some
OSHA standards protect employees from exposure to a concentration of a
hazardous substance that OSHA has found to create a significant risk of
material health impairment. Thus, in making the significant risk
determination in these cases, OSHA is concerned with determining the
level at which a significant risk arises.
    OSHA took a different approach to its significant risk
determinations in promulgating the HCS in 1983 and revising it in 1994.
The agency relied on NIOSH data showing that about 25 million, or about
25% of, American employees were potentially exposed to one or more of
8,000 NIOSH-identified chemical hazards and that, for the years 1977
and 1978, more than 174,000 illnesses were likely caused by workplace
exposure to hazardous chemicals. 48 FR 53280, 53282 (Nov. 25, 1983). It
then noted the consensus evident in the record among labor, industry,
health professionals, and government that an ``effective federal
standard requiring employers to identify workplace hazards, communicate
hazard information to employees, and train employees in recognizing and
avoiding those hazards'' was necessary to protect employee health. Id.
at 53283.
    Thus, OSHA found that because:

    * * * inadequate communication about serious chemical hazards
endangers workers and that the practices required by this standard
are necessary or appropriate to the elimination or mitigation of
these hazards, the Secretary is hereby able to make the threshold
``significant risk'' determination that is an essential attribute of
all permanent standards.

Id. at 53321. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed
that ``inadequate communication is itself a hazard, which the standard
can eliminate or mitigate.'' United Steelworkers v. Auchter, 763 F.2d
at 735. The Third Circuit has upheld OSHA's finding of significant risk
as sufficient to justify the HCS on several occasions. See Associated
Builders and Contractors, 862 F.2d at 67 (discussing the history of its
review of the issue). OSHA reaffirmed its finding of significant risk
in adopting revisions to the HCS in 1994. 59 FR 6126, 6136-40 (Feb. 9,
1994).
    A characteristic of hazard communication that OSHA confronted in
adopting the HCS is that information about the hazards associated with
a particular chemical, and the exposures associated with its use, is
not uniformly distributed across industry. That is, chemical
manufacturers and importers tend to have greater knowledge and
scientific expertise with respect to the composition of the chemicals
they make or import than do downstream employers. See 48 FR at 53322
(Nov. 25, 1983). Therefore, manufacturers and importers are usually in
the best position to assess the inherent hazards associated with them.
Id. However, it is the downstream users and their employees who tend to
have the best information about the means and methods of exposure, and
are therefore usually in the best position to determine the risk
arising from the use of the chemical in their workplaces. See 48 FR at
53307 (Nov. 25, 1983); 59 FR at 6132-33 (Feb. 9, 1994).
    OSHA's approach in promulgating the HCS reflects this reality. It
places the duty to ascertain and disclose chemical hazards on
manufacturers and importers, so that downstream users can use this
information to avoid harmful exposures to chemical hazards. But because
manufacturers and importers will often have less information about the
particular exposures of downstream users, their hazard assessment and
communication obligations are imposed only for all normal conditions of
use of

their chemicals and foreseeable emergencies associated with those
chemicals. 29 CFR 1910.1200(b)(2).
    In previous rulemakings, OSHA rejected suggestions that the hazard
assessment and communication obligations should arise only where the
downstream use creates a significant risk because it is difficult, if
not impossible, for OSHA or manufacturers and importers to know where
these risks might occur before the fact. 48 FR at 53295, 53296, 53307
(Nov. 25, 1983; 59 FR at 6132 (Feb. 9, 1994). Further, it is only by
the provision of hazard information that downstream employers and
employees can determine how to use the chemical so that exposure and
risk may be minimized. Id. Thus, the HCS protects employees from
significant risk by requiring communications about all chemicals that
may present a hazard to employees, regardless of the exposure or risk
levels any particular downstream user might actually experience. See
Durez Div. of Occidental Chem. Corp. v. OSHA, 906 F.2d 1, 3-4 (D.C.
Cir. 1990); General Carbon Co. v. OSHRC, 860 F.2d 479, 484-85 (D.C.
Cir. 1988).
    For these reasons, hazard communication--as opposed to risk
communication--``most adequately assures'' employee protection from the
significant risk of material impairment of health arising from the use
of hazardous chemicals in the workplace for purposes of OSHA's
authority under section 6(b)(5) of the Act. In addition, the HCS is
authorized under section 6(b)(7), which requires OSHA to prescribe
``labels or other appropriate forms of warning as are necessary to
insure that employees are apprised of all hazards to which they are
exposed, relevant symptoms and appropriate emergency treatment, and
proper conditions and precautions of safe use or exposure.'' 29 U.S.C.
655(b)(7). As noted above, the Benzene case recognizes that the
``backstop'' provisions of section 6(b)(7) allow OSHA to impose
information requirements even before the employee is exposed to the
significant risk. In this way, the HCS ensures that employers and
employees have the information they need to avoid situations of
exposure in the workplace even before the employee is exposed to a
hazardous chemical. As OSHA explained in the preamble to the 1994 HCS
amendments: ``OSHA has concluded that imposing informational
requirements is necessary and appropriate to protect workers even when
OSHA has not determined that the level of risk at a particular worksite
warrants a substance-specific standard that would employ more elaborate
types of controls.'' 59 FR at 6132 (Feb. 9, 1994).

B. Authority for the Final Rule

    1. Section 6(b)(7) Authority. OSHA has authority to adopt the
revisions to the HCS made in the final rule under the last sentence of
section 6(b)(7) of the Act, which provides that:

    The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, may by rule promulgated pursuant to section 553 of
title 5, United States Code, make appropriate modifications in the
foregoing requirements relating to the use of labels or other forms
of warning, monitoring or measuring, and medical examinations as may
be warranted by experience, information, or medical or technological
developments acquired subsequent to the promulgation of the relevant
standard.

29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7).
    This provision exempts modifications to hazard communication,
monitoring, and medical examination requirements from the standard-
setting requirements of section 6(b), and so evidences Congress's
intent to provide OSHA with an expedited procedure to update these
requirements. OSHA believes that exercise of this authority does not
require a new finding of significant risk. As noted above, the
``backstop'' 6(b)(7) requirements of hazard communication, exposure
monitoring, and medical surveillance may be imposed even in the absence
of a significant risk finding. See Benzene, 448 U.S. at 657-58; Nat'l
Cottonseed Products Ass'n, 825 F.2d at 485-87. The last sentence of
section 6(b)(7) merely allows these requirements to be updated to
reflect the latest knowledge available. The authorization to use
Administrative Procedure Act notice and comment procedures rather than
the more elaborate framework established by section 6(b) demonstrates
congressional intent to treat such modifications differently from
rulemakings to adopt standards. Congress envisaged a simple, expedited
process that is inconsistent with the idea that OSHA must undertake
additional significant risk analyses before exercising this authority.
    Rather than requiring a finding of significant risk, the last
sentence of section 6(b)(7) provides other assurances that OSHA is
exercising its authority appropriately: by requiring the involvement of
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and by limiting the
authority only to modifications that are based on ``experience,
information, or medical or technological developments'' acquired since
the promulgation of the standard in the limited areas of hazard
communication, monitoring, and medical examinations. Therefore, OSHA
need not make any new significant risk findings; rather, the final rule
is supported by the significant risk findings that OSHA made when it
adopted the current HCS.
    OSHA has used the authority of section 6(b)(7) in the past to
revise its standards. See, e.g., Standards Improvement Project-Phase
II, 70 FR 1112 (Jan. 5, 2005); Standards Improvement (Miscellaneous
Changes) for General Industry and Construction Standards, 63 FR 33450,
33458 (June 18, 1998). For example, it used this authority to revise
the inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions standards to eliminate
the requirement of sputum cytology testing and to reduce the required
frequency of mandatory chest x-rays from semi-annual to annual. 63 FR
at 33458 (June 18, 1998). OSHA justified these changes on the grounds
that studies reported after the promulgation of the relevant standards
showed that sputum cytology did not improve employee survival rates and
that the survival rates when semi-annual x-rays were used were not
higher than when annual exams were administered. 63 FR at 33458-59
(June 18, 1998). In addition, OSHA has used its section 6(b)(7)
authority to authorize new respirator fit protocols under its
respiratory protection standard. 69 FR 46986 (Aug. 4, 2004); See
generally 29 CFR 1910.134 App. A, Pt. II. On neither occasion has OSHA
made new findings about significant risk.
    The final rule fits well within the authority granted by the last
sentence of section 6(b)(7). Adoption of GHS provisions constitutes a
``modification[]'' of the HCS regarding ``the use of labels or other
forms of employee warning.'' For the reasons summarized above and
explained more fully elsewhere in this preamble, OSHA believes that the
adoption of GHS is ``appropriate'' based on ``experience, information,
or medical or technological developments acquired subsequent to the
promulgation of the relevant standard.'' The formulation of GHS may
also be considered a ``technological development'' that has occurred
since the promulgation of the original standard in 1983. GHS was
negotiated and drafted through the involvement of labor, industry, and
governmental agencies, and thus represents the collective experience
and information on hazard communication gathered by the participants in
these sectors over the last several decades. See Parts III and XIII of
this preamble; 74 FR 50280, 2085-86 (Sept. 30, 2009); 71 FR 53617,
53618-19 (Sept. 12, 2006). Indeed, OSHA noted the possibility of a
future

internationally harmonized standard in the preamble accompanying the
original HCS rule. See 48 FR at 53287 (Nov. 25, 1983).
    The last sentence of section 6(b)(7) also requires consultation
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. As detailed in the
NPRM, NIOSH was involved in the development of the proposal through
briefings and review of the proposed rule before publication. See 74 FR
at 50306 (Sept. 30, 2009). NIOSH strongly supported the proposal in
comments and hearing testimony (Document ID 0412, 0470, 0472,
and 0497) and has actively supported the development of the GHS. See 74
FR at 50306 (Sept. 30, 2009).
    Paul A. Shulte, Ph.D., testified on behalf of NIOSH that:

    [A] significant advantage of the proposed standard is the
detailed technically sound criteria for classification that will
improve accuracy and consistency in the information provided to
employers and employees on chemical hazards and protective measures
* * *. In summary, the proposed standard will serve as a powerful
tool for the protection of working people.

(Document ID 0497 Tr. 36-37). OSHA has consulted with HHS in
accordance with section 6(b)(7). For all the reasons set forth above,
revision of the HCS through adoption of the GHS as proposed by OSHA is
authorized by section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7).
    2. Section 6(b)(5) Authority. OSHA also has authority to adopt the
proposal under section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5). As
noted above, section 6(b) explicitly allows OSHA to ``modify''
standards, and adoption of the GHS is justified because it ``most
adequately assures'' employee protection for purposes of section
6(b)(5) for the reasons detailed in parts IV and XIII of this preamble.
    HCS is a 6(b)(5) standard since it acts to mitigate the significant
health risk of using dangerous chemicals without adequate hazard
communication. See Int'l Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310, 1313 (D.C.
Cir. 1991). The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (SPI), however,
argues that because the rule also addresses physical hazards, ``the
agency must comply with the more demanding burden of proof at least
with respect to the safety hazards,'' and that some form of cost-
benefit analysis is required (Document ID 0392). OSHA
disagrees. Safety standards must be ``highly protective,'' which means
OSHA may ``deviate only slightly from the stringency required by
section 6(b)(5).'' Int'l Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 669 (D.C.
Cir. 1994). The burden of proof for safety standards is therefore not
more demanding than that required for 6(b)(5) standards, as SPI argues.
Nor does OSHA believe that the OSH Act requires a cost-benefit analysis
in setting safety standards. See Control of Hazardous Energy Sources,
Supplemental Statement of Reasons, 58 FR 16612, 16621-23 (Mar. 30,
1993). However, as discussed in Section VI, Final Economic Analysis,
OSHA has examined the costs and benefits of the final rule, and found
that the benefits exceed costs by a large margin. In any event, OSHA
believes that the more protective requirements of section 6(b)(5) apply
to this standard because the standard addresses health hazards.
    Standards adopted under the authority of section 6(b)(5) must be
supported by a finding of significant risk. However, as explained
elsewhere, the GHS is an improved method of communicating chemical
hazards to employers and employees over the current standard, and
therefore the final rule, which incorporates the GHS, is now the
``standard that most adequately assures'' worker protection. OSH Act
Sec.  6(b)(5); 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5). Adoption of GHS will substantially
reduce the significant risk of inadequate communication workers face.
As discussed above, OSHA supported the current rule with a finding,
affirmed by the Third Circuit, that ``inadequate communication about
serious chemical hazards endangers workers'' and that the HCS will
mitigate this risk. 48 FR 53321 (Nov. 25, 1983); United Steelworkers v.
Auchter, 763 F.2d at 735; See also 59 FR 6126, 6127, 6129, 6132-38
(Feb. 9, 1994). The record shows that this significant risk of
inadequate communication was not eliminated by the current standard.
    As discussed in Section IV, several studies show that employees do
not understand approximately one-third of the safety and health
information listed on SDSs prepared in accordance with the current
standard (Document ID 0245, 0263, 0295, 0309, and 0310).
Studies also report that roughly 40% of persons reviewing SDSs found
them difficult to understand (Document ID 0188 and 0262). The
results from these studies probably overstate the level of
comprehension in the workforce, because the studies had a selection
bias towards employees who have stronger English reading skills. These
findings are corroborated by worker testimony stating that they and
their coworkers find SDSs ``difficult and confusing,'' ``inadequate and
incomprehensible,'' and a ``nightmare.'' One witness stated that
employees he works with would not ask to see SDSs because they were too
complicated, and as a result, the employees unwittingly expose
themselves to chemical hazards (Document ID 0494 Tr. 50, 54-
55; and 0499 Tr. 134, 147-48, 151, 162, 165-66, and 167).
    Moreover, the evidence in the record shows workers who read SDSs
prepared in a standardized format have substantially improved
comprehension of the information they present (Document ID
0191, 0263, 0309, and 0310). Indeed, standards specifying
uniform formats for SDSs have been adopted by ANSI and other standards
bodies, indicating a consensus that standardized SDSs will more
effectively communicate chemical hazards to workers and employers.
Moreover, commenters overwhelmingly agreed that standardizing SDSs
would improve hazard communication. (See, e.g., Document ID
0330, 0335, 0336, 0341, 0344, 0348, 0357, 0370, 0372, 0376,
0381, 0410, 0414, and 0415).
    Likewise, the record shows that the current HCS's performance-
oriented labeling requirements result in inadequate communication.
Research conducted over the last twenty years and summarized in section
IV of this preamble shows that use of the signal words ``Danger'' and
``Warning,'' pictograms, red borders, and standardized hazard warnings
and precautionary statements better convey information about chemical
hazards. Studies show that the information conveyed by these techniques
is better understood, especially among low literacy populations, better
remembered, and more likely to be acted upon. Again, commenters agreed
that the current performance-oriented labeling requirement leads to
worker confusion, and that the standardized GHS labeling requirements
would minimize that confusion. (See, e.g., Document ID 0313,
0327, 0335, 0336, 0341, 0344, 0348, 0351, 0365, 0370, 0410, 0412, and
0644.)
    Finally, employees still continue to suffer chemical-related
injuries, illnesses and deaths. As discussed in more detail in Section
VI, Final Economic Analysis, of the preamble, OSHA estimates that over
40 million employees are potentially exposed to hazardous chemicals.
BLS data show that in 2007, there were approximately 55,400 illnesses
related to hazardous chemical exposures and 125 chemical-related
fatalities. These statistics probably represent only a small portion of
the illnesses experienced by exposed employees; most occupational
illnesses are not reported because they are not recognized as being
related to workplace exposures and are subject to long

latency periods between exposure and the manifestation of disease. The
most recent nationwide study of chronic illness estimated that in 1992,
there were between 46,900 to 73,700 fatalities from chronic illnesses
related to occupational exposures to chemicals (Document ID
0274). In addition, a 2004 study of chronic occupational
illness in California reported that more than 200,000 workers were
diagnosed with serious chronic diseases attributable to chemical
exposures in the workplace, and that an additional 4,400 workers in
California died during that year from chemical exposures in the
workplace (Document ID 0269).
    These data corroborate the idea that currently there is inadequate
communication of chemical hazards in the workplace. Further, they show
that the use of chemical hazards in the workplace creates a significant
risk to employees. For the reasons explained above and in sections IV
and XIII of the preamble, OSHA believes that the final rule will reduce
the risk to employees by providing better and more easily understood
information to employees and employers about the hazards of the
chemicals they use, which in turn will allow precautionary measures to
be taken.
    In its post-hearing comment, the Styrene Information and Research
Council (SIRC) argued that OSHA should also have examined injury and
illness rates in the EU. It states that ``the GHS is substantially the
system that has been in place in the EU for the last 40 years'' for
substances covered by the EU Dangerous Substances Directive and for the
10 years for mixtures covered by the EU Dangerous Preparations
Directive (Document ID 0642). OSHA disagrees with SIRC's
premise. There are significant differences between the GHS and the
relevant EU directives. These differences include the criteria for
classifying hazards, as well as the label elements used to communicate
the hazardous effects. In addition, even if the EU's hazard
communications obligations were substantially similar to the GHS, there
are technical hurdles that would have to be overcome before such a
study could yield useful information. There are significant differences
in the way that statistics for occupational illness and injuries
collected by the US and the EU (and its members) that make direct
comparisons difficult. Furthermore, the regulatory structure for
mitigating the hazards identified and communicated in varying systems
also differ significantly, and this would confound any effort to
compare illness and injury rates in the two jurisdictions. In any
event, OSHA need not wait for scientific certainty to update its
regulations, but rather it must rely on the best available evidence,
and may use conservative assumptions in interpreting the evidence. OSH
Act Sec.  6(b)(5), 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5); Benzene, 448 U.S. at 655-56 &
n.62. As discussed above and in Sections IV and XIII, the best
available evidence indicates that a significant risk continues to exist
under the current standard and that the final rule will improve
chemical hazard communications, thereby reducing the risk of injury,
illness or death associated with the use of hazardous chemicals in the
workplace.

C. Feasibility

    OSHA standards must be feasible, which means ``capable of being
done, executed or effected.'' Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 508-09.
Feasibility has two aspects, economic and technological. United
Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
(``Lead I''). A standard is technologically feasible if the protective
measures it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with
available technology, or can be created with technology that can
reasonably be expected to be developed. Id. at 1272. A standard is
economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass on the cost of
compliance without threatening its longer term profitability or
competitive structure. (See Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 530 n.55; Lead I,
647 F.2d at 1265.)
    In addressing feasibility in the 1994 HCS revisions, OSHA found
that:

    The feasibility question raised by the HCS is not difficult to
resolve. This standard does not relate to activities on the
frontiers of scientific knowledge; the requirements are not the
sorts of obligations that approach the limits of feasibility.
Associated Builders & Contractors, 862 F.2d at 68. The record on
which the original and expanded HCS's were based did not contain
credible evidence that the HCS would be technologically or
economically infeasible for any industrial sector, id., and there
was substantial evidence of feasibility, 52 FR 31855-58.

59 FR at 6133 (Feb. 9, 1994). OSHA has repeatedly found that the
requirements of the HCS are technologically feasible. See 52 FR at
31855-57 (Aug. 24, 1987); 59 FR at 6133 (Feb. 9, 1994). While the GHS
modifications to HCS impose more specific requirements for hazard
classification, labeling, and safety data sheets, employers may use the
same expertise and methods to meet these requirements as they are
already utilizing to comply with the requirements of HCS.
    As discussed below and in section VI.E of this preamble, OSHA
believes the final rule poses no technological feasibility issues. The
most important resource employers will need in order to comply with the
GHS modifications to HCS is technical expertise in hazard
classification and the communication of those hazards. OSHA found that
such expertise was already available in promulgating the initial HCS
rule in 1983. 48 FR at 53296-99 (Nov. 25, 1983). OSHA believes that the
availability of professionals with this expertise has only increased in
the intervening time. The GHS has already been implemented, in whole or
in part, by a number of major U.S. trading partners, including Japan
and the EU. Companies that export to these jurisdictions should already
have developed expertise in the GHS, and there are a number of GHS
training resources developed on the international level (Document ID
0405, 0410, and 0514). At least one professional organization
currently provides GHS training in hazard communication to
professionals and businesses in the United States (Document ID
0021 and 0145). Through OSHA's Alliance with the Society for
Chemical Hazard Communication, training to small businesses in the
requirements of hazard communication and information about the GHS
modifications has been made available. See http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/alliances/schc/schc.html. NIOSH is preparing a program for employers to
use in training their employees in the new labeling scheme (Document ID
0412). OSHA received numerous comments discussing the
professionals and tools (both manual and electronic) that employers
have available to comply with current hazard communication
requirements. (See, e.g., Document ID 0015, 0024, 0026, 0036,
0038, 0042, 0046, 0050, 0053, 0072, 0077, 0107, 0108, 0116, 0123, 0128,
0141, 0144, 0145, 0154, 0155, 0163, 0330, 0352, and 0389.) The Agency
has been engaged on several fronts to facilitate the transition from
the current standard to the GHS modifications. For instance, the United
Nations Institute for Training and Research is developing basic and
more advanced training courses for the GHS, and OSHA has been involved
with and committed resources to this effort. As discussed in more
detail below in the Summary and Explanation, OSHA plans to issue a
number of outreach and compliance assistance materials. Additionally,
NIOSH testified that the World Health Organization has started the
process to convert International Safety Cards to GHS and as of March
2010; approximately 249 (15%) have

already been converted (Document ID 0497 Tr. 46). OSHA
believes that adopting the GHS modifications poses no technological
feasibility issues.
    Likewise, for the reasons more fully discussed in Section VI, Final
Economic Analysis, OSHA believes that the adoption of GHS will not pose
economic feasibility issues. Again, OSHA previously found that the
implementation of HCS would have no such effect. See 52 FR at 31855-57
(Aug. 24, 1987); 59 FR at 6133 (Feb. 9, 1994). As discussed in Section
VI, OSHA has found that, once conversion to the new system is
completed, compliance with the GHS-modified HCS will not be more
expensive than compliance with the current HCS and will result in
savings for employers. While industry will incur the cost of converting
to the new system, OSHA does not believe that this cost is so
substantial as to threaten long term profitability or the competitive
structure of any industry.

VI. Final Economic Analysis and Voluntary Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis

A. Introduction and Summary

Introduction
    OSHA is required by the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of
1970 to ensure and demonstrate that standards promulgated under the Act
are reasonably necessary and appropriate, as well as technologically
and economically feasible. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act also
require OSHA to estimate the costs, assess the benefits, and analyze
the impacts of certain rules that the Agency promulgates. Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary,
to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects,
distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs,
of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. OSHA has determined
that this action is ``economically significant'' within the meaning of
3(f)(1) of the executive order because it is likely to have an effect
on the economy of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly,
the rule has been reviewed by OMB.
    Accordingly, OSHA has prepared this Final Economic Analysis (FEA),
including a Final Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis (FRFSA),
for the modifications to the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). The
OSHA FEA is based largely on research conducted for the Preliminary
Economic Analysis (PEA) by Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Inc.
(PP&E), as presented in its revised final report, ``Data and Analysis
in Support of an Economic Analysis of Proposed Changes to the OSHA
Hazard Communication Standard,'' prepared under contract to OSHA, and
on research conducted for purposes of completing this FEA by Eastern
Research Group (ERG). ERG and OSHA analyses updated both costs and
benefits. The materials prepared by PP&E, 2009 (Document ID
0273) and ERG (2010, 2011, and 2012) \1\ are available in the
public docket for this rulemaking, OSHA-H022K-2006-0062, through
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Eastern Research Group (ERG, 2010). Harmonization of Hazard
Communication: Labeling Costs. Final Report. Submitted to
Occupational Safety And Health Administration, Directorate of
Evaluation and Analysis, Office of Regulatory Analysis, Contract No.
GS-10-F-0125P. April 28, 2010. Eastern Research Group (ERG, 2011).
Harmonization of Hazard Communication: Summary of Labeling Costs.
Final Report. Submitted to Occupational Safety And Health
Administration, Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, Office of
Regulatory Analysis, Contract No. GS-10-F-0125P. March 23, 2011.
    Eastern Research Group (ERG, 2012). Excel Spreadsheets in
Support of OSHA Final Economic Analysis for GHS Rule. Submitted to
Occupational Safety And Health Administration, Directorate of
Evaluation and Analysis, Office of Regulatory Analysis, Contract No.
GS-10-F-0125P. January 20, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Need for Regulation
    Employees in work environments covered by the HCS are exposed to a
variety of significant hazards that can and do cause serious injury and
death. The HCS serves to ensure that both employers and employees are
provided needed information about chemical hazards that was not
provided by markets in the absence of such a standard. The HCS also
facilitates interstate commerce by promoting consistency among federal
and individual state requirements.
    The changes to the HCS will create a uniformity standard for the
presentation of hazard information and, as such, will serve to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing hazard communication
system in the U.S., and to reduce unnecessary barriers to trade. Hazard
communication is currently addressed by many different international,
national, and State authorities. As described in Section IV of this
preamble, these existing requirements are not always consistent and
often contain different definitions of hazards and varying provisions
for what information is required on labels and safety data sheets.
Complying with these different rules results in increased costs for
employers with hazardous chemicals in their workplace and for chemical
manufacturers, distributors, and transporters involved in international
trade. In addition to these effects on businesses, the different
existing requirements result in workplaces receiving chemicals with
varying information, with potential adverse impacts on the safety and
health of employees. The revisions to the OSHA HCS will standardize the
hazard communication requirements for products used in U.S. workplaces,
and thus provide employees with uniform and consistent hazard
communication information. Secondarily, because these revisions will
harmonize the U.S. system with international norms, they will
facilitate international trade.
Affected Industries
    The revisions would affect employers and employees in many
different industries across the economy. Based on ERG (2012), OSHA
estimates that the HCS covers over five million workplaces in which
employees are potentially exposed to hazardous chemicals (see Table VI-
3).
    For establishments with employees whose only exposures to hazardous
chemicals result from their use of the chemical products, the revisions
to the HCS would generally involve minor effects, such as
familiarization with new warning labels. For establishments producing
hazardous chemicals, which are generally part of the chemical
manufacturing industry, the revisions to the standard would involve
reclassifying chemicals in accordance with the new classification
system and revising safety data sheets (SDSs) and labels associated
with hazardous chemicals. OSHA has judged that SDSs for imported
chemicals would normally be produced in the country of origin, and thus
would not represent expenses for importers. OSHA solicited comment on
this judgment in the PEA and did not receive any contrary testimony or
evidence.
Benefits
    There is ample evidence of the substantial risks of chemical
exposure in the workplace. In 2007, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, employees suffered an estimated 55,400 illnesses
attributable to chemical exposures (BLS, 2008), and some 17,340
chemical-source injuries and illnesses involved days away from work
(BLS, 2009). However, as noted in the preamble to the HCS in 1983, BLS

estimates probably only reflect a small percentage of occupational
illnesses (48 FR 53284, Nov. 25, 1983) because most occupational
illnesses are not reported. The principal reasons are that they are not
recognized as being related to workplace exposures and are subject to
long latency periods between exposure and the manifestation of disease.
The key study of the issue of the number of fatalities from chronic
illnesses, not recorded in any way by BLS, is Leigh et al., 1997
(Document ID0274). That study found that in 1992, there were
from 46,900 to 73,700 fatalities from chronic illnesses related to
occupational exposures to chemicals. This critical category dwarfs all
acute injuries and illnesses due to chemicals recorded by BLS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A more recent study prepared by the University of California
Centers for Occupational and Environmental Health, and commissioned
by the California Environmental Protection Agency, suggests that
fatalities from chronic illnesses remain an important problem
(University of California COEH, 2008 p. 18). That study estimated
that, in 2004, more than 200,000 workers, in California alone, were
diagnosed with serious chronic diseases (encompassing cancer, COPD,
asthma, pneumoconiosis, chronic renal failure, and Parkinson's
disease) attributable to chemical exposures in the workplace, and
that an additional 4,400 workers in California died during that year
from chemical exposures in the workplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section IV of this preamble describes some of the incidents that
may have been related to the non-standardized approach to SDSs in the
current HCS, including xylene exposure at a hospital when an employee
was unable to find critical information on an SDS in an emergency spill
situation (Document ID 0251). As a result, twelve employees
required emergency room treatment. Were the information on SDSs more
uniformly formatted and comprehensible, as required under the
modifications to HCS, incidents such as this would be less likely to
occur.
    In general, the modifications to the HCS are expected to result in
increased safety and health for the affected employees and to reduce
the numbers of accidents, fatalities, injuries, and illnesses
associated with exposures to hazardous chemicals.
    It is difficult to quantify precisely how many injuries, illnesses,
and fatalities would be prevented due to the revisions to the HCS.\3\
The benefits associated with the current HCS may indirectly help
provide a general sense of the potential magnitude of the benefits of
the revisions to the HCS. OSHA estimates that if the rule could capture
one percent of the benefits estimated for the original 1983 and 1987
HCS rules, the revisions would result in the prevention of 318 non-
lost-workday injuries and illnesses, 203 lost-workday injuries and
illnesses, 64 chronic illnesses, and 43 fatalities annually. The
monetized value of the corresponding reduction in occupational risks
among the affected employees is an estimated $250 million on an
annualized basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While comments in the record did not attempt to estimate the
magnitude of these safety and health benefits, they largely
supported the conclusion that these revisions would yield increased
protection for workers. For additional discussion of the comments
regarding OSHA's estimate of benefits, see Section VI:D Benefits in
this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The harmonization of hazard classifications, safety data sheet
formats, and warning labels for affected chemicals and products would
also yield substantial savings to businesses. Fewer different SDSs
would have to be produced for affected chemicals, and many SDSs would
be able to be produced at lower cost due to harmonization and
standardization. The benefits represented by these cost reductions
would primarily affect businesses involved in chemical manufacturing.
In addition, businesses that purchase or use hazardous chemicals can
expect reductions in operating costs as a result of the promulgation
and implementation of the modifications to the HCS due the
standardization of SDSs, which will make it easier to locate
information and determine handling requirements, and other factors
related to simplification and uniformity which will improve workplace
efficiency.
    In 2008, in preparation for OSHA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
PP&E conducted extensive research on the processes that companies use
to classify chemical hazards, to develop SDSs and labels, and to
handle, store, and use hazardous chemicals. PP&E evaluated how these
processes would be affected by the revisions to the HCS and analyzed
the potential savings that would be realized as a result of adopting
these revisions. Using the parameters estimated by PP&E through its
research and employing updated data on wages and the number of affected
establishments and employees, OSHA has concluded that the annual cost
savings for these companies would be an estimated $507.4 million.
    OSHA also expects the revised HCS will reduce the costs of
providing hazard communication training to employees in future periods.
Stakeholders largely corroborated that expectation. Standardized SDS
and label formats will reduce the amount of time needed to familiarize
employees with the HCS, which will reduce the training time for all
employees once the final rule is fully implemented. OSHA did not
monetize these estimated cost savings, but anticipates that they will
be substantial.
    As an additional benefit, the modification of the HCS by the
inclusion of the globally harmonized system (GHS) of classification and
labeling of chemicals would be expected to facilitate international
trade, increasing competition, increasing export opportunities for U.S.
businesses, reducing costs for imported products, and generally
expanding the selection of chemicals and products available to U.S.
businesses and consumers. As a result of both the direct savings
resulting from harmonization and the increased competitiveness, prices
for the affected chemicals and products, and the corresponding goods
and services using them, would be lowered.
    Finally, the GHS modifications to the OSHA HCS would meet the
international goals for adoption and implementation of the GHS that
have been supported by the U.S. government. Implementing GHS in U.S.
federal laws and policies through appropriate legislative and
regulatory action was anticipated by the U.S. support of international
mandates regarding the GHS in the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical
Safety, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, and the United
Nations. It is also consistent with the established goals of the
Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management, a policy
framework that the U.S. helped to craft (See http://www.chem.unep.ch/saicm/).
Compliance Costs
    The estimated compliance costs for the revisions to the HCS
represent the additional costs necessary for employers to achieve full
compliance. They do not include costs associated with current
compliance that has already been achieved; nor do they include costs
necessary to achieve compliance with existing requirements, to the
extent that some employers may currently not be fully complying with
applicable regulatory requirements.
    The majority of the costs associated with compliance with the
revisions to the HCS would generally be incurred by the affected
industries as one-time transitional costs over the phase-in period of
four years including the costs to reclassify chemical hazards and
revise SDSs and labels, to train workers, and for management to
familiarize itself with the requirements of the final rule. There will
be additional ongoing annual compliance costs associated with the
revisions to the HCS due to the cost to purchase and maintain color
printing ink or cartridges or to purchase pre-printed color labels in
order to comply

with the requirement that the GHS hazard warning pictogram be presented
with a red border. However, OSHA's analysis has found that these costs
will not be substantial relative to the other costs of the rule.
    The compliance costs are expressed as an annualized cost for
purposes of assessing the cost-effectiveness of the revisions, in order
to be able to compare the economic impact of the rulemaking with other
regulatory actions, and to be able to add and track federal regulatory
compliance costs and economic impacts in a consistent manner.
Annualized costs also represent a better measure for assessing the
longer-term potential impacts of the rulemaking. A seven percent
discount rate was applied to costs incurred in future years to
calculate the present value of these costs for the base year in which
the standard becomes effective, and the same discount rate was then
applied to the total present value costs, over a 20-year period,\4\ to
calculate the annualized cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OSHA annualized costs for this rule over a 20-year period in
accordance with Executive Order 13563, which directs agencies ``to
use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present
and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' In
addition, OMB Circular A-4 states that analysis should include all
future costs and benefits using a ``rule of reason'' to consider for
how long it can reasonably predict the future and should limit its
analysis to this time period. The choice of a 20-year period is
designed to capture out-year benefits given a 4-year phase-in
period. A shorter period would place too much emphasis on the phase-
in period, where benefits would not be accruing. A longer discount
period might over-emphasize the long-term benefits since net
benefits increase with the length of the annualization period. As a
comparison, the life of OSHA's original hazard communication rule
was 1987 to 2011, a 24-year period, suggesting that 20 years is a
reasonable estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total annualized cost of compliance with the final rule is
estimated to be about $201 million. The major cost elements associated
with the revisions to the standard include the classification of
chemical hazards in accordance with the GHS criteria and the
corresponding revision of safety data sheets and labels to meet new
format and content requirements ($22.5 million); training for employees
to become familiar with new warning symbols and the revised safety data
sheet format ($95.4 million); management familiarization and other
management-related costs as may be necessary ($59.0 million); and costs
to purchase upgraded label printing equipment and supplies or to
purchase pre-printed color labels in order to include the hazard
warning pictogram enclosed in a red-bordered diamond on the product
label ($24.1 million).
Net Benefits, Cost-Effectiveness, and Regulatory Alternatives
    Table VI-1 provides a summary of the costs and benefits of the
modifications to the OSHA HCS, and it shows the net benefits of the
modifications to the standard are estimated to be $556 million
annually, using a discount rate of 7 percent to annualize costs and
benefits. (Using a 3 percent discount rate instead would have the
effect of lowering the costs to $161 million per year and increasing
the gross benefits to $839 million per year. The result would be to
increase net benefits from $556 million to $674 million per year.)
Because compliance with the standard would result in cost savings that
exceed costs, OSHA has not provided estimates of costs per life saved
or other metrics of cost-effectiveness. However, it should be noted
that the estimated benefits exceed costs by more than a factor of
three.
    In response to comments on the proposed rule, OSHA has made the
following changes to the economic analysis from the PEA to the FEA:
    (1) Increased by 100 percent the amount of training time necessary
to train employees on the revised HCS during the transition period--
from 30 minutes to 60 minutes;
    (2) Increased by over 60 percent the number of SDSs (with
corresponding labels) covered by the rule--from approximately 0.9
million to over 1.4 million;
    (3) Added annualized costs of $24.1 million to print product labels
in color; and
    (4) Incorporated updated economic data on the number of
establishments, number of employees, annual revenues, annual profits,
etc. and adjusted estimates from 2007 dollars to 2010 dollars.
    The change from 2007 to 2010 dollars using the GDP deflator (for
non-wage-related costs and benefits) increased affected costs and
benefits by about 4 percent. The rule changes that increased the phase-
in period reduced the annualization factors and the associated costs
and benefits by about 9.6 percent. All other changes to costs and
benefits were the result of updated economic data, including wages, and
revised cost factors (e.g., number of SDSs, number of affected
employees) in response to comments on the proposed rule.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26MR12.001

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

    As discussed in Section III of this preamble, the available
alternatives to the final rule are somewhat limited since this final
rule modifies the current HCS in order to align with the provisions of
the UN's GHS. In Section III, the Agency qualitatively discussed the
two major alternatives presented during this rulemaking process--(1)
voluntary adoption of GHS within the existing HCS framework and (2) a
limited adoption of specific GHS components and a variation on (1) that
would require compliance with GHS but allow an exemption for small
businesses to comply with either the current HCS or with the GHS-
compliant HCS. All of these alternatives were soundly rejected by
stakeholders. To allow certain parties to follow an alternative system
or to allow voluntary adoption of the elements of a uniformity standard
does nothing to reduce confusion, improve efficiency, or simplify
processes. In order for those benefits to be realized, all elements
must apply to all affected parties. OSHA has determined that both of
the alternatives presented above would eliminate significant portions
of the benefits of the rule.
    OSHA did not attempt to evaluate the costs and benefits for the
regulatory alternatives that involved partial or voluntary adoption of
the GHS. The Agency did evaluate two alternatives where the effective
dates were altered. In the first alternative considered, all elements
of the revised HCS would be required to be implemented within two
years. Under this alternative, all transitional costs would be incurred
in two years and benefits would be realized beginning in the third
year. The second alternative that OSHA evaluated extended the timeline
for training to be completed. For this alternative, all elements of the
revised HCS (including training) would be required to be implemented by
June 1, 2016. Under this alternative, training costs would not be
realized for four and a half years (as opposed to the two year
requirement for training in the final version of this rule) while
benefits would not be realized for five years (unchanged from the final
rule). The results of these evaluations are presented in Table VI-2
below and are discussed in further detail, including significant
qualifications, in Section VI:G Net Benefits, Cost Effectiveness, and
Regulatory Alternatives in this preamble. Although both alternatives
show greater net benefits, the Agency concludes that the timing of the
final rule is preferable because of additional (but unquantified)
compliance costs and reduced (but unquantified) benefits under the
first alternative and because of reduced (but unquantified) worker
health and safety benefits under the second alternative. In addition,
OSHA expects that the final rule offers coordination benefits in that
its requirements will fully take effect at the same time as the EU
completes its transition.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26MR12.002

Economic Impacts
    To assess the nature and magnitude of the economic impacts
associated with compliance with the final rule, OSHA developed
quantitative estimates of the potential economic impact of the new
requirements on entities in each of the affected industry sectors. The
estimated compliance costs were compared with industry revenues and
profits to provide an assessment of the economic feasibility of
complying with the final rule and an evaluation of the potential
economic impacts.
    Only the compliance costs were considered for purposes of assessing
the potential economic impacts and economic feasibility of the
revisions. As described in Section VI.G: Net Benefits, Cost-
effectiveness, and Regulatory Alternatives, in this preamble, the
overall economic impacts associated with this rulemaking are expected
to result in significant net benefits to employers, employees, and the
economy generally.
    As described in greater detail in Section VI.F: Costs of Compliance
in this preamble, the costs of compliance with the rulemaking are not
large in relation to the corresponding annual financial flows
associated with each of the affected industry sectors. The estimated
costs of compliance represent about 0.001 percent of revenues and about
0.011 percent of profits, on average, across all entities; compliance
costs represent less than 0.09 percent of revenues or, with the
exception of three chemical manufacturing industries, less than 0.9
percent of profits in any individual industry sector. These three
chemical manufacturing industries are NAICS 325181 Alkalies & chlorine
manufacturing, NAICS 325191 Gum & wood chemical manufacturing, and
NAICS 325992 Photographic film, paper, plate, & chemical manufacturing,
and their compliance costs as a percentage of profits are 4.3 percent,
2.1 percent, and 2.4 percent, respectively. The higher percentage of
profits for these three industries are mainly the result of low profit
margins, low baseline estimates of the number of color printers
currently employed in these industries (causing higher costs of
compliance with the color printing requirements), and a large estimated
number of labels produced by these industries.
    The economic impact of achieving compliance with the final rule,
without considering the associated benefits, is most likely to consist
of an extremely small increase in prices of about 0.001 percent, on
average, for affected hazardous chemicals. It is highly unlikely that a
price increase of this magnitude would significantly alter the types or
amounts of goods and services demanded by the public or any other
affected customers or intermediaries. If the compliance costs of the
final rule can be substantially recouped with a minimal increase in
prices, there may be little or no effect on profits.
    In general, for most establishments, it would be very unlikely that
none of the compliance costs could be passed along in the form of
increased prices. In the event that a price increase of 0.001 percent
were not possible, profits in the affected industries would be reduced
by an average of about 0.011 percent.
    Given the minimal potential impact on prices or profits in the
affected industries, OSHA has concluded that compliance with the
requirements of the rulemaking would be economically feasible in every
affected industry sector.
    In addition, based on an analysis of the costs and economic impacts
associated with this rulemaking, OSHA concludes that the effect of the
final rule on employment, wages, and economic growth for the United
States would be negligible. The effect on international trade is likely
to be beneficial and similar to the effect of a small reduction in non-
tariff trade barriers.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis
    OSHA has analyzed the potential impact of the final rule on small
entities, and has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Screening
Analysis (FRFSA) in conjunction with this rulemaking to describe the
potential effects on small entities. The FRFSA is included as a part of
this preamble in Section VI:I.
    As a result of the analysis of the potential impact on small
entities, OSHA concludes and certifies that the rulemaking would not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) is not
required for this rulemaking. Nevertheless, OSHA has voluntarily
provided the elements of the FRFA as part of the FRFSA presented in
Section VI:I: Final Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis in this
preamble. As part of this rulemaking, OSHA has fulfilled its
requirements under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and under the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, as applicable, to ensure
that no unnecessary burdens are imposed on small businesses.
    The remainder of this FEA includes the following sections:

    B. Need for Regulation
    C. Profile of Affected Industries
    D. Benefits
    E. Technological Feasibility
    F. Costs of Compliance
    G. Net Benefits, Cost-Effectiveness, and Regulatory Alternatives
    H. Economic Feasibility and Impacts
    I. Final Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis
    J. Environmental Impacts
    K. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis
    L. Sensitivity Analysis

B. Market Failure and the Need for Regulation

    Employees in work environments addressed by OSHA's hazard
communication standard (HCS) are exposed to a variety of significant
hazards associated with chemicals used in the workplace that can and do
cause serious injury and death. OSHA's HCS was designed to ensure that
employers and employees are provided the information they need about
the hazards in chemical products both to make informed purchases and to
provide for safe use. The current HCS contains a set of requirements
for chemical products, including mandatory hazard determination,
labeling, and detailed information (in safety data sheets). Based on
evidence presented in the record,\5\ OSHA determined that the revisions
to the HCS will make employers' hazard communication programs more
worker-protective, efficient, and effective. In addition, the revisions
will have the effect of harmonizing hazard communication to facilitate
international trade by replacing a plethora of national rules with a
single international system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Document ID 0303, 0313, 0322, 0324, 0327, 0328,
0329, 0330, 0331, 0334, 0335, 0336, 0339, 0340, 0341, 0344, 0345,
0346, 0347, 0349, 0350, 0351, 0352, 0353, 0354, 0356, 0357, 0359,
0363, 0365, 0367, 0369, 0370, 0371, 0372, 0374, 0375, 0376, 0377,
0378, 0379, 0381, 0382, 0383, 0385, 0386, 0387, 0388, 0389, 0390,
0392, 0393, 0396, 0397, 0399, 0400, 0402, 0403, 0404, 0405, 0407,
0408, 0409, 0410, 0411, 0412, 0414, 0417, 0453, 0456, 0461, and 0463
and additional discussion in Section III of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The standard, through conformance with GHS (as explained in Section
IV and XIII of this preamble), contains a number of changes to improve
the performance of the U.S. hazard communication system:
     Revised criteria for more consistent classification of
chemical hazards;
     Standardized signal words, pictograms, hazard statements,
and precautionary statements on labels; and
     A standardized format for SDSs.
    In short, GHS is a ``uniformity standard'' for the presentation of
hazard information (Hemenway, 1975, Document ID 0293, Tr. 8).
And much

like other uniformity standards, such as driving on the right side of