requirements. Thus little time should be necessary to complete this
part of the work.
    Final paragraph (j)(2) requires compliance with all of the
provisions for preparation of new labels and safety data sheets by June
1, 2015. This compliance date is consistent with the EU requirements
for classification of mixtures. It also provides almost a year more
time for compliance than was proposed. Thus it addresses a number of
the suggestions received, but is still a reasonable time frame in terms
of employee protections. There are two exceptions to this date. First,
final paragraph (j)(2)(i) gives distributors an additional six months
to distribute containers received from chemical manufacturers and
importers with the new labels and SDSs in order to accommodate those
they receive very close to the compliance date. Accordingly, by
December 1, 2015, all their distributed containers must be
appropriately labeled, and have the new SDS. Second, final paragraph
(j)(2)(ii) gives employers until June 1, 2016, to make sure that their
workplace labels and training programs reflect any new information
received as a result of the final rule.
    As was proposed, final paragraph (j)(3) states that employers will
be considered to be in compliance with the HCS during the transition
period as long as they are complying with either the existing HCS as of
October 1, 2011, or this revised HCS.
    Employers are encouraged to work with their suppliers to ensure
they get the information they need by the dates they need it. While the
final rule gives distributors and employers extra time to ensure they
have the information before they have to be in compliance with all
requirements, coordination will still be key to ensure everything is
done on time. For example, mixture formulators need to make sure their
suppliers are aware of their need to receive substance classifications
as soon as possible. Employers would be best served to start evaluating
their workplaces long before the year after suppliers must be in
compliance to assess what they will need to do to bring their programs
in line with the new requirements. As with the original rule, OSHA will
handle individual problems through enforcement policies that recognize
difficult issues or situations that impede compliance. Nevertheless,
given the long time frame involved, and recognition of different
players in the supply chain of the needs of others, OSHA expects that
these situations will be minimal.

Summary and Explanation of Requirements in OSHA Standards Affected by
the GHS Modifications to HCS

General Explanation
    In this final standard, OSHA has modified its current standards in
General Industry (29 CFR Part 1910), Construction (29 CFR Part 1926),
and Maritime (Shipyards, Marine Terminals, and Longshoring (29 CFR
Parts 1915, 1917, and 1918, respectively)) that contain hazard
classification and communication provisions so that they will be
internally consistent and aligned with the GHS modifications to the
HCS. OSHA proposed to do so on the basis of the strong support in the
record of comments on the ANPR. The majority of commenters who
addressed the impact of the GHS on other OSHA standards recommended the
Agency review all its standards and update them for consistency with
GHS (71 FR 53617, Sept. 12, 2006) (Document ID 0031, 0038,
0046, 0050, 0054, 0072, 0077, 0107, 0116, 0145, 0147, 0154, 0155, 0163,
0165, 0171, and 0179). OSHA did so, and this rule contains the updates
to the requirements in OSHA standards affected by the GHS modifications
to HCS. Commenters also urged OSHA to complete these revisions in one
rulemaking (Document ID 0079, 0123, 0137, 0154, and 0157). The
comments on the proposed standard and testimony at the hearing also
strongly supported modifying these standards for consistency with the
GHS (Document ID 0313, 0327, 0328, 0329, 0336, 0338, 0352,
0359, 0365, 0370, 0372, 0405, 0408, 0410, 0412, and 494 Tr. 91, 162).
Of the commenters who specifically addressed adopting GHS provisions on
physical hazards, many urged the

Agency to conform the OSHA standards to the GHS in order to minimize
discrepancies and ensure consistency (Document ID 0012, 0018,
0050, 0072, 0104, 0105, 0139, 0140, and 0144). One commenter, 3M, noted
that adoption of the GHS physical hazard criteria (without changing
OSHA standards) would ``create unacceptable inconsistencies between
OSHA standards'' (Document ID 0128).
    Several other commenters to the ANPR pointed out some of the
difficulties with adoption of the GHS physical hazards criteria in OSHA
standards (Document ID 0031, 0034, 0038, 0077, 0145, and
0166). BASF was concerned that modifying OSHA standards to conform to
the GHS will cause them to deviate from the national consensus
standards they were based on (Document ID 077). In addition,
some ANPR commenters recommended that OSHA limit changes only to
standards that directly refer to the HCS (Document ID 0047,
0064, 0077, 0104, and 0115). OSHA acknowledged these concerns when
developing the NPRM.
    OSHA's NPRM reflected the advantages of harmonizing OSHA's
standards, but also took into account the places where harmonization
might be too difficult at this time because it would substantially
change the scope of coverage of a current standard or make OSHA's
standards incompatible with other widely accepted standards (74 FR
50280, Sept. 30, 2009). OSHA proposed modifying requirements in
primarily the substance-specific health standards and in physical
hazards definitions and terminology for the purposes of internal
consistency and compatibility with the GHS-modified Hazard
Communication Standard (HCS).
    Building and Trades Construction Department of AFL-CIO (BTCD) and
Northrup Grumman Shipbuilding, in response to the NPRM, requested that
OSHA again review the standards, and the Agency has done so (Document
ID 0359 and 0395). OSHA reviewed all its standards, the
comments, and the entire record and has decided to maintain the
modifications to the substance-specific standards as proposed, except
for some minor changes that are explained below.
Substance-Specific Health Standards
    In the NPRM, OSHA updated the substance-specific health standards
in General Industry, Construction, and Maritime, whether they
specifically referenced HCS or contained their own hazard communication
requirements. OSHA proposed to modify these standards as follows:
    [ssquf] Revise the provisions covering workplace signs to require
warning statements that are consistent with the GHS modifications to
HCS;
    [ssquf] Revise all standards to reference the modified HCS for
labels, safety data sheets, and training, and identify the hazards that
need to be addressed;
    [ssquf] Maintain the requirement to avoid creating dust currently
in some substance-specific health standards for which GHS modifications
contain no equivalent statements at this time;
    [ssquf] Maintain or specify language for contaminated clothing and
debris;
    [ssquf] Update definitions in Sec.  1910.1450, Occupational
Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories, to maintain
compatibility with the modified HCS; and
    [ssquf] Change the name Material Safety Data Sheets to Safety Data
Sheets and require information on them to be compliant with GHS in
content, format, and order.
Workplace Warning Language on Signs and Labels
    OSHA proposed to update the language for workplace signs and labels
to incorporate the GHS hazard statement and the applicable
precautionary statement(s), where required. Most OSHA substance-
specific heath standards require hazard warning signs, usually for
regulated areas, and the language required on the signs varies greatly
(e.g., Asbestos, 4-Nitrobiphenyl, 13 Carcinogens, Vinyl Chloride,
Inorganic Arsenic, Cadmium, Benzene, Coke Oven Emissions, Cotton Dust,
DBCP, Acrylonitrile, Formaldehyde, Methylenedianiline, 1,3-Butadiene,
Methylene Chloride, and Lead). With the GHS revision, these standards
retain the requirements for specific warning language for specific
signs; however, OSHA proposed to modify the language to be compatible
with GHS and consistent throughout the OSHA standards. Labels for
products, mixtures, and raw materials are included in the GHS-modified
HCS and are required to be compliant with it. Labels required by the
current standards for contaminated clothing, PPE, and waste and debris,
which are not addressed in the GHS, are retained, but their language
has been changed to be as reflective of GHS terminology as possible.
    The vast majority of persons and entities who commented on the
issue in response to the NPRM supported OSHA's harmonization of the
signage and labeling currently required in its substance-specific
standards with the modifications to HCS (Document ID 0313,
0315, 0327, 0328, 0329, 0330, 0336, 0338, 0344, 0365, 0370, 0372, 0376,
0381, 0382, 0383, 0405, 0408, and 0410). NIOSH pointed out that the
consistent language on signs, labels, and SDSs would avoid confusion
and allow for easy translation into other languages (Document ID
0414). AIHA, in supporting the modification of language for
signs and labels, noted that the action was consistent with GHS and the
goal of harmonization. They envisioned clearer warnings, improved
comprehension, and better self-protection by workers (Document ID
0365). Companies such as Ecolab, Product Safety Solutions,
DuPont Company, Phylmar Group, Stericycle, Procter & Gamble, Clariant
Corporation, 3M, Industrial Health and Safety Consultants, and Wacker
Chemical specifically addressed the issue of affected standards and
stressed that aligning the standards with GHS would bring needed
consistency and aid employee understanding (Document ID 0313,
0329, 0335, 0338, 0339, 0351, 0381, 0383, 0405, and 0410). Lawrence R.
Klein of DuPont (Document ID 0329) commented that:

    * * * hazard communication regardless of whether * * * general
chemicals or substance specific chemicals regulated under other OSHA
standards, will prove to be beneficial for industry. Through
adequate training * * * and consistent, easily comprehensible hazard
and precautionary statements, via workplace signs or chemical
labels, the safety and protection of employees will be enhanced.

    Ameren added that the language proposed for the substance-specific
standards accurately conveyed the hazards (Document ID 0330).
Associations that addressed this issue also provided strong support.
ORC, ASSE, NAHB, API, Alliance of Hazardous Materials Professionals,
National Paint and Coatings Association, Soap and Detergent
Association, ACC, and AISI agreed with OSHA that modifying the
standards will provide consistency and aid in employee understanding
(Document ID 0327, 0328, 0336, 0344, 0370, 0376, 0393, and
0408). Many commenters followed up with testimony at the informal
public hearings. NIOSH testified that there would be better
identification of what was a hazard and the nature of the hazard
(Document ID 0494 Tr. 50). BCTD AFL-CIO testified that the
specific format and vocabulary for labels would facilitate hazard
communication across a range of English literacy, as one in four
construction workers speaks a language other than English, and two in
three entering workers speak Spanish. They said that the signs,
symbols, and phrases will make it easier for employees to work safely
with hazardous products

(Document ID 0497 Tr. 7, 16, 33-34, 62, 66). ORC Worldwide
testified their companies have significant global operations and so
support concurrent harmonization of hazardous communication components
(Document ID 0497 Tr. 88, 91, 99). SIRC generally supported
the principles of the GHS update (Document ID 0494 Tr. 118).
ASSE agreed that it is important for consistency to have the same
language on the label, SDS, and regulated area sign (Document ID
0496 Tr. p. 362). In speaking about all labeling requirements,
USSW (Document ID 0499 Tr. 136-37) testified:

    It's imperative that the information on the labels is consistent
from product to product. Incorporating the GHS labeling system with
pictograms and single-word hazard statements will assist workers to
quickly recognize hazards.

AIHA summed up the support from commenters and testifiers by declaring
that the GHS modifications will improve quality and consistency of
hazard communication information (Document ID 0496 Tr. 415).
    Several commenters to the NPRM, while supporting the modifications,
raised potential problems with warnings for substance-specific health
standards' labels and regulated area signs. Northrop Grumman agreed
with the wording of the regulated area signs and that it would enhance
employee information, although there was concern that this was a change
in OSHA's policy of allowing supplemental language on labels and signs
that would enhance the information (Document ID 0395). OSHA
has not changed its policy on regulated area signs with this rulemaking
and will continue to allow supplemental language on labels and signs.
ASSE suggested that, under the proposal, the term ``Cancer Agent''
would be retained in the thirteen identified carcinogens standard,
though the ASSE did not believe the problems caused by this
inconsistency would be significant (Document ID 0336). OSHA
notes that all cancer warnings, including ``Cancer Agent'' and ``Cancer
Suspect Agent,'' have been changed to ``May Cause Cancer,'' so there is
no inconsistency. NAHB addressed the issue of the cancer warning in a
comment to the ANPR, positing that the different signal words
(``Danger'' versus ``Warning'') and different hazard statements (``May
Cause Cancer'' versus ``Suspected of Causing Cancer'') may create
confusion (Document ID 0065). Like other commenters, NIEHS
supported consistency, but thought ``May Cause Cancer'' may not be
strong enough, and recommended ``Causes Cancer'' be retained. The
International Chemical Workers Union Council agreed that ``May Cause
Cancer'' was not strong enough; they preferred ``Causes Cancer''
because it was a more definite statement about the health hazard. They
were concerned that some workers might not see the warning as a clear
indication of the material causing cancer and act accordingly (Document
ID 0456). Dr. Michelle Sullivan also supported consistency
among SDSs, labels, and in-plant warning signs, but cautioned that
training would be needed especially on ``May Cause Cancer'' (Document
ID 0382). OSHA agrees that training will be needed and that
appropriately trained workers who see the phrase ``May Cause Cancer''
will be well warned and benefit from the use of a consistent hazard
statement for all carcinogens.
    The current substance-specific health standards that are regulated
as carcinogens have varying hazard statements on signs and labels, as,
for example, from ``Cancer Hazard'' for inorganic arsenic (29 CFR
1910.1018) to ``Cancer-Suspect Agent'' for vinyl chloride (29 CFR
1910.1017) to ``May Cause Cancer'' for methylenedianiline (MDA) (29 CFR
1910.1050). As stated in the preamble to the proposed standard, these
warnings appeared to suggest gradations of cancer hazards, but they
were not intended that way. The standards were promulgated over many
years, and the differences in the warning language reflect the language
widely used for each cancer warning at the time of promulgation, not
the degree of hazard (74 FR 50405, Sept. 30, 2009). This inconsistency
has long been a problem, especially in workplaces where two or more
OSHA-regulated carcinogens are used. The final rule's revision to the
substance-specific health standards will solve the problem of different
warning statements by standardizing the carcinogen warning language to
``May Cause Cancer'' for each standard. This will lead to clearer and
more timely recognition of the hazard and, with training, better
understanding of the potential for developing cancer.
    OSHA understands the points made by commenters who argued for
another warning for cancer that might appear stronger, but any other
warning would not be consistent with GHS and thus workers would not
benefit from the global consistency of a single hazard statement for
carcinogenicity. Moreover, OSHA believes that, with training, workers
will understand the seriousness of the warning and benefit from seeing
only one warning on carcinogens in the workplace. OSHA has concluded
that the signal words and hazard statements, including ``May Cause
Cancer,'' in its substance-specific health standards will provide
better hazard information to employers, and has carried through the
changes proposed in the NPRM to the final rule.
    See Table XIII-4 for a comparison of the signs' final language to
that currently required.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26MR12.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26MR12.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26MR12.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26MR12.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26MR12.053

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

    OSHA's proposal to change the signage requirements in the
substance-specific standards was nearly universally supported by
commenters. Product Safety Solutions, AHMP, National Paint and Coatings
Association, Ameren, Wacker Chemical Corp, ASSE, Stericycle, Phylmar
Regulatory Roundtable, Soap and Detergent Association/Consumer
Specialty Products Association, Ecolab, Inc., AIHA, ORC Worldwide,
National Association of Homebuilders, API, Procter & Gamble Company,
Dr. Michelle Sullivan, Clariant Corporation, American Chemical Council,
3M, AISI (American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute), Industrial
Health and Safety Consultants, and NIOSH, in their comments to the
NPRM, specifically supported the harmonization of signage required in
the substance-specific standards (Document ID 0313, 0327,
0328, 0330, 0335, 0336, 0338, 0339, 0344, 0351, 0365, 0370, 0372, 0376,
0381, 0382, 0383, 0393, 0405, 0408, 0410, and 0412). USSE, agreeing
with the commenters above, testified that having the same wording on
regulated-areas signs would be helpful to workers as they move around
and it is better for them to see the same information they have been
trained on (Document ID 0499 Tr. 165).
    Commenters raised several signage issues. Dow Chemical advocated
the elimination of signs in substance-specific health standards,
arguing that there was no need for signs since the chemical will be
labeled and workers can also refer to an SDS (Document ID
0353). OSHA disagrees. The substance-specific standards' sign
requirements cover regulated areas of facilities that are by definition
high-exposure or potentially high-exposure areas. They are among the
most dangerous areas in a facility, which is why OSHA requires signs.
Moreover, contrary to what Dow assumes, product labels may not always
be available in these circumstances. Thus, OSHA disagrees with Dow
Chemical and believes the signs convey crucial information about the
chemical hazard in a regulated area and that the signs benefit not only
the well-trained worker but also other workers who might be near, or
inadvertently enter, the regulated area.
    The Battery Council International (Document ID 0390) had
suggestions for language on regulated area signs for the lead standard,
29 CFR 1910.1025. First, they requested that OSHA change the language
from ``Causes Damage to the Central Nervous System'' to ``May Cause
Damage to the Central Nervous System,'' since nerve damage may or may
not occur depending on whether or not the facility has taken proper
precautions. However, as discussed above, OSHA has updated the signs to
be consistent with GHS labeling to ensure that the worker is receiving
the same message and this would provide better identification of the
hazard. Therefore, OSHA has retained the proposed language for lead
regulated area signs in the final.
    The Battery Council International also requested that OSHA retain
the original language Sec.  1910.1025(m)(2) so that it would be clear
that other signage may also be used in places where required (Document
ID 0390). For example, it reported that California has such a
signage requirement under Proposition 65. OSHA agrees that, in some
very specific cases, other warnings may be necessary for lead. Thus,
the current requirement that, ``The employer may use signs required by
other statutes, regulations or ordinances in addition to, or in
combination with, signs required by this paragraph,'' has been retained
in the final rule for the lead standard at Sec.  1910.1025(m)(2)(iv).
    OSHA concludes that the proposed changes, which are as close as
possible to the GHS terminology, are essential in order to make the
warnings on signs consistent with each other, as well as labels, to the
extent possible. These consistent warning signs will provide the best
hazard communication in the relevant workplace regulated areas. The
proposed changes to the signage requirements of the substance-specific
standards have been carried through to the final rule.
Hazard Communication, Classification and Labels
    OSHA's current substance-specific standards are inconsistent in
that some have their own communication of hazards requirements, while
other standards reference the HCS, and still other standards have no
requirements for labels and safety data sheets in their sections.
Although these latter standards are missing requirements, they still
are covered by HCS. Similarly for labels, while most substance-specific
standards require labels on containers of raw materials, mixtures, and
products, some specify specific language while others reference the
HCS. As proposed, and as carried forward in this final rule, OSHA has
standardized the language for hazard communication and has removed the
requirements for specific language labels from the ``Communications of
hazards'' paragraphs of the substance-specific standards. The new
paragraph in each substance-specific standard uses the following model
format:

    Hazard Communication--General.
    (i) Chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors and
employers shall comply with all requirements of the Hazard
Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200) for [chemical name].
    (ii) In classifying the hazards of [chemical name] at least the
following hazards are to be addressed: [hazard information].
    (iii) Employers shall include [chemical name] in the hazard
communication program established to comply with the HCS. Employers
shall ensure that each employee has access to labels on containers
of [chemical name] and to safety data sheets, and is trained in
accordance with the requirements of HCS and paragraph [Training
paragraph] of this section.

    By adding this paragraph in each substance-specific health
standard, OSHA achieves consistency across standards and with GHS
principles. Some commenters indicated that the chemicals covered by the
substance-specific standards should not be classified any differently
than any other chemical in regard to the health hazards included on a
label or SDS (See, e.g., Document ID 0365). That was OSHA's
intent. OSHA has clarified the regulatory language to minimize
confusion. The final rule, like the proposal, requires compliance with
the HCS in each substance-specific standard.
    OSHA believes that requiring standards to reference HCS will ensure
consistency with the GHS revisions and across the standards and
consistency when the specific chemical is part of a mixture. Removal of
the current specific warning language was essential for adoption of the
GHS language. Retention of these provisions in the standards would
result in the untenable situation of two potentially conflicting
requirements, only one of which (the reference to HCS) would be in
accord with the GHS-modified HCS. Moreover, as OSHA noted in the
preamble to the proposed standard, the hazard statements specified for
the chemical in the standard might not be correct when the chemical is
part of a mixture. As for the current standards that simply referenced
HCS, employers could choose any language and format that conveyed the
necessary information. This approach is no longer allowed because, as
OSHA has found in adopting the GHS approach, consistency in labeling is
key to effective communication of hazards. The vast majority of
commenters agreed. For example, AHMP noted that eliminating language
inconsistent with established hazard statements will facilitate hazard
communication and should not result in lower protection (Document ID
0327). Others, including NIOSH, DuPont,

Ameren, ASSE, Ecolab, Inc., AIHA, ORC Worldwide, NAHB, API, Procter &
Gamble, Dr. Michelle Sullivan, ACC, 3M, AISI, Industrial Health and
Safety Consultants, and American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute,
agreed (Document ID 0329, 0330, 0336, 0351, 0365, 0370, 0372,
0376, 0381, 0382, 0393, 0405, 0408, 0410, and 0412). Commenters noted
that for the benefits of consistency to accrue, harmonization is
essential (Document ID 0313, 0315, 0327, 0328, 0329, 0330,
0335, 0336, 0338, 0344, 0365, 0370, 0372, 0376, 0381, 0382, 0383, 0393,
0405, 0408, and 0410). NIEHS Worker Education and Training Program
agreed, testifying that consistency of labels and safety data sheets is
important to help employees recognize hazards and be able to deal with
them effectively (Document ID 0497 Tr. 104). Phylmar
Regulatory said that standardized label elements will be more effective
in communicating hazard information (Document ID 0497 Tr. 108-
109). AIHA testified that standardized labels will make hazard
identification easier and the pictograms will be useful in workplaces
where English language reading is limited (Document ID 0496
Tr. 415). USSW affirmed that one hazard communication system would be
best (Document ID 0499 Tr. 178). OSHA believes all these
commenters provide important and compelling reasons for the labels
required by the substance-specific standards to be consistent with the
GHS modifications to HCS.
    For classification purposes, OSHA proposed to provide guidance on
the potential health outcomes that must be addressed when classifying a
substance by setting forth the health end-points (outcomes) for each
substance-specific health standard. The Agency did not attempt to
formally classify each substance; rather, OSHA provided a proposed list
of health effects to assist the classifier in determining what must be
considered for inclusion on the new labels. The GHS classification
process for a specific substance dictates the actual hazard warnings
and precautionary statements that are required on the new GHS-compliant
labels and SDSs. In determining the hazards to include for each
substance-specific health standard, the Agency's primary sources on
health effects were the information gained in its own rulemakings and
subsequent experience, the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards
(2005), and the International Chemical Safety Cards (ICSCs). The ICSCs
are an undertaking of the International Programme on Chemical Safety
(IPCS) (a joint activity of three cooperating International
Organizations, namely, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
the International Labour Office (ILO), and the World Health
Organization (WHO)) and are peer reviewed by a group of internationally
recognized experts (Document ID 0412.2). As a secondary
source, OSHA also considered the European Union's (EU) ``Proposal for a
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on
Classification, Labeling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures, and
amending Directive 67/548/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.'' From
these sources, OSHA developed hazard endpoints to be considered for
hazard classification in the substance-specific health standards based
on either of two criteria: (1) The health hazard was the basis for the
original rulemaking; or (2) the health hazard was asserted by OSHA,
NIOSH, or IPCS, and confirmed by a second source. For example,
acrylonitrile (AN) (Sec.  1910.1045) was regulated by OSHA based on its
carcinogenicity. Skin sensitization was acknowledged by OSHA, IPCS, and
EU; skin irritation by OSHA, NIOSH, and EU; respiratory tract
irritation by IPCS and EU; eye irritation by OSHA, NIOSH, and IPCS;
liver effects and central nervous system effects by IPCS and NIOSH;
acute toxicity by OSHA, IPCS, and EU; and flammability by IPCS, NIOSH,
and EU. Because all these effects met the criteria for inclusion, skin
sensitization, skin irritation, respiratory irritation, eye irritation,
liver effects, central nervous system effects, acute toxicity, and
flammability were listed as potential hazards in the acrylonitrile
standard.
    OSHA's approach, including its choice of sources for health
effects, was generally supported by many commenters to the proposal
(Document ID 0329, 0339, 0351, 0370, and 0376). However, some,
including NIOSH, AIHA, ASSE, Ameren, Stericycle, Wacker Chemical
Corporation, and 3M Corporation, wanted OSHA to add other sources
(Document ID 0233, 0330, 0338, 0365, 0405, and 0412). NIOSH
suggested OSHA look at OECD SIDS, ESIS, NOAA, NLM, NLM-TOXSEEK, NLM-
TOXNET, IPCS, CCOHS, and GESTIS (Document ID 0412). AIHA
commented that substance-specific health standards should be classified
the same as other chemicals and that other references such as ATSDR
Toxicological Profiles, IRIS Toxicological Reviews, WHC Monographs,
CICADS, OECD SIDS, and Patty's Toxicology should be used (Document ID
0365). Wacker Chemical Corporation recommended IARC be
included and that one recognized body's determination of a hazard
should be sufficient (Document ID 0335). ASSE urged inclusion
of ACGIH documentation of TLVs and RELs and precautions developed by
manufacturers from testing and epidemiological studies. ASSE submitted
a long list of sources including NSC's Fundamentals of Industrial
Hygiene, The Industrial Environment--Its Evaluation and Control,
Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, Casarett & Doull's
Toxicology, The Dose Makes the Poison, Quick Selection Guide to
Chemical Protective Clothing, U.S. DHHS Seventh Annual Report on
Carcinogens, AIHA Engineering Field Reference Manual, and 17 others
(Document ID 0336). AIHA urged OSHA to have the hazards for
the substance-specific standards considered, but not be mandatory. It
recommended additional references such as ATSDR Toxicological Profiles,
IRIS Toxicological Reviews, EHC Monographs, CICADS, OECD SIDS, and
Patty's Toxicology (Document ID 0365). Ameren would have OSHA
add ACHIS and AIHA sources (Document ID 0330). Stericycle
advocated adding Industrial Chemical Safety Cards, European Commission,
and ACGIH as secondary sources (Document ID 0338). Still
others, such as ASSE, API, AHMP, Product Safety Solutions, National
Paint and Coatings Association, and Industrial Minerals Association--
North America, deemed OSHA's choice of sources inadequate (Document ID
0313, 0327, 0328, 0338, 0376, and 0379). USSW (Document ID
0403) found lists such as IARC's and NTP's useful, but wanted
OSHA to state in the regulatory text that a chemical on one or more of
these lists was sufficient to classify it as hazardous (although the
absence of a chemical on a list does not mean it is not hazardous). It
also wanted OSHA to use lists in enforcement.
    Commenters also raised other issues in this regard. API believed
OSHA should just reference the GHS criteria, while ASSE wanted OSHA to
use other authoritative references (Document ID 0336 and
0376). Both AHMP and Product Safety Solutions were concerned the NIOSH
Pocket Guide and International Chemical Safety Cards had not been
subject to rulemaking and could be overly conservative, even though
they felt these sources could be used as information, but not as
precedent if significant contradictory information is presented
(Document ID 0313 and 0327). National Paint and Coatings
Association commented that the substance-specific standards' health

hazards should remain as published and only new information should be
subject to the two-reference rule (Document ID 0328). Still
other commenters, including DuPont Company, Soap and Detergent
Association and Consumer Specialty Products Association, Procter &
Gamble, and Dr. Michelle Sullivan, expressed concern about whether the
sources OSHA was using were to be current or updated, as newer editions
become available (Document ID 0329, 0344, 0381, and 0382).
    OSHA believes these comments reflect a misunderstanding of what
OSHA proposed for its substance-specific health standards and how the
sources were used to yield health effects to be considered in
classifying all health hazards but not to perform a formal
classification. (See 74 FR at 50411, Sept. 30, 2009, for the preamble
explanation). The substance-specific health standards are unique in
that they were all the subject of rulemaking, enabling the Agency to
collect extensive information on sources and on health effects. That
collection of information, coupled with the Agency's own expertise,
enabled the Agency to confidently select sources for these regulated
chemicals that would provide adequate information to classifiers. OSHA
disagrees with commenters who suggested its chosen sources were
inadequate. Some commenters recommended other sources. OSHA believes
that these other sources can be useful in classifying hazards, and can
certainly be used by classifiers in evaluating the hazards related to
chemicals regulated by the substance-specific standards. At issue here,
though, is the method OSHA has determined to use for selecting a list
of hazard endpoints that, at a minimum, must be considered to provide
accurate warnings on labels for its substance-specific standards. OSHA
has concluded that the method it used in the proposal is scientifically
sound and appropriate.
    In complying with the HCS, as discussed above, classifiers must
take into account available scientific information about the hazards of
the chemical being classified, which could include information found in
the other sources noted by the commenters. The manufacturer,
distributor, or importer must still classify and categorize each
regulated chemical (in the substance-specific health standards) in
compliance with the GHS-modified HCS and its appendices. The lists of
endpoints for each substance-specific standard are the minimum that
must be considered. The manufacturer or importer has leeway to use
additional primary studies and sources to evaluate the substance-
specific chemical and is free to add health effects' endpoints as
appropriate according to the studies or sources. As discussed
previously in this section, the HCS generally uses a weight-of-evidence
approach in classifying health hazards. Therefore, a superior source or
significant and compelling contradictory information to a particular
source usually must be weighed with the total body of evidence.
    IMA-NA suggested that OSHA's methodology for determining the list
of health effects to be considered by classifiers does not meet the
requirements of the Information Quality Act (Document ID
0233). OSHA disagrees. That statute, and the guidelines
published under it (discussed in more detail above), require that
agencies take steps to ensure the ``quality, objectivity, utility, and
integrity'' of information they disseminate. Similar to its response to
the concern regarding TLVs, discussed above, OSHA does not believe that
it is disseminating information for purposes of the IQA when it merely
requires that manufacturers and importers consider specific health
effects listed for each substance-specific standard in classifying the
chemical under the HCS. However, even if it were disseminating
information in the final rule, OSHA believes that it has complied with
the applicable requirements of the IQA. OSHA has fully described the
methods by which it determined the listed health effects for each
substance, relied only on respected health compilations prepared by
governmental agencies or subject to peer review, and subjected its
analysis to notice and comment in this rulemaking. This adequately
assures the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of any
dissemination of information involved in these provisions of the final
rule.
    OSHA received no comments on the particular hazards proposed for
each substance-specific health standard, and retained them in the final
rule. The endpoints for each substance-specific standard are listed in
Table XIII-5, ``Health Effects Determined for the Substance-Specific
Standards.''

   Table XIII-5--Health Effects Determined for the Substance-Specific
                                Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Standard No.                Substance          Health effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1910.1001, 1915.1001,         Asbestos............  Cancer and lung
 1926.1101.                                          effects.
1910.1003...................  4-Nitrobiphenyl.....  Cancer.
1910.1003...................  Alpha-Naphthylamine.  Cancer; skin
                                                     irritation; and
                                                     acute toxicity
                                                     effects.
1910.1003...................  Methyl chloromethyl   Cancer; skin, eye,
                               ether.                and respiratory
                                                     effects; acute
                                                     toxicity effects;
                                                     and flammability.
1910.1003...................  3,3'-                 Cancer and skin
                               Dichlorobenzidine     sensitization.
                               (and its salts).
1910.1003...................  Bis-Chloromethyl      Cancer; skin, eye,
                               ether.                and respiratory
                                                     tract effects;
                                                     acute toxicity
                                                     effects; and
                                                     flammability.
1910.1003...................  Beta-Naphthylamine..  Cancer and acute
                                                     toxicity effects.
1910.1003...................  Benzidine...........  Cancer and acute
                                                     toxicity effects.
1910.1003...................  4-Aminodiphenyl.....  Cancer.
1910.1003...................  Ethyleneimine.......  Cancer;
                                                     mutagenicity; skin
                                                     and eye effects;
                                                     liver effects;
                                                     kidney effects;
                                                     acute toxicity
                                                     effects; and
                                                     flammability.
1910.1003...................  Beta-Propiolactone..  Cancer; skin
                                                     irritation; eye
                                                     effects; and acute
                                                     toxicity effects.
1910.1003...................  2-                    Cancer.
                               Acetylaminofluorene.
1910.1003...................  4-Dimethylaminoazo-   Cancer; skin
                               benzene.              effects; and
                                                     respiratory tract
                                                     irritation.
1910.1003...................  N-                    Cancer; liver
                               Nitrosodimethylamin   effects; and acute
                               e.                    toxicity effects.
1910.1017...................  Vinyl chloride......  Cancer; central
                                                     nervous system
                                                     effects; liver
                                                     effects; blood
                                                     effects; and
                                                     flammability.
1910.1018...................  Inorganic arsenic...  Cancer; liver
                                                     effects; skin
                                                     effects;
                                                     respiratory
                                                     irritation; nervous
                                                     system effects; and
                                                     acute toxicity
                                                     effects.

1910.1025, 1926.62..........  Lead................  Reproductive/
                                                     developmental
                                                     toxicity; central
                                                     nervous system
                                                     effects; kidney
                                                     effects; blood
                                                     effects; and acute
                                                     toxicity effects.
1910.1026, 1915.1026,         Chromium VI.........  Cancer; skin
 1926.1126.                                          sensitization; and
                                                     eye irritation.
1910.1027, 1926.1127........  Cadmium.............  Cancer; lung
                                                     effects; kidney
                                                     effects; and acute
                                                     toxicity effects.
1910.1028...................  Benzene.............  Cancer; central
                                                     nervous system
                                                     effects; blood
                                                     effects;
                                                     aspiration; skin,
                                                     eye, and
                                                     respiratory tract
                                                     irritation; and
                                                     flammability.
1910.1029...................  Coke oven emissions.  Cancer.
1910.1043...................  Cotton Dust.........  Lung effects.
1910.1044...................  1,2-dibromo-3-        Cancer; reproductive
                               chloropropane         effects; liver
                               (DBCP).               effects; kidney
                                                     effects; central
                                                     nervous system
                                                     effects; skin, eye,
                                                     and respiratory
                                                     tract irritation;
                                                     and acute toxicity
                                                     effects.
1910.1045...................  Acrylonitrile (AN)..  Cancer; central
                                                     nervous system
                                                     effects; liver
                                                     effects; skin
                                                     sensitization;
                                                     skin, respiratory,
                                                     and eye irritation;
                                                     acute toxicity
                                                     effects; and
                                                     flammability.
1910.1047...................  Ethylene oxide (EtO)  Cancer; reproductive
                                                     effects;
                                                     mutagenicity;
                                                     central nervous
                                                     system; skin
                                                     sensitization;
                                                     skin, eye, and
                                                     respiratory tract
                                                     irritation; acute
                                                     toxicity effects;
                                                     and flammability.
1910.1048...................  Formaldehyde........  Cancer; skin and
                                                     respiratory
                                                     sensitization; eye,
                                                     skin, and
                                                     respiratory track
                                                     irritation; acute
                                                     toxicity effects;
                                                     and flammability.
1910.1050, 1926.62..........  Methylenedianiline    Cancer; liver
                               (MDA).                effects; and skin
                                                     sensitization.
1910.1051...................  1,3 Butadiene (BD)..  Cancer; eye and
                                                     respiratory tract
                                                     irritation; center
                                                     nervous system
                                                     effects; and
                                                     flammability.
1910.1052...................  Methylene chloride..  Cancer; cardiac
                                                     effects; central
                                                     nervous system
                                                     effects; liver
                                                     effects; and skin
                                                     and eye irritation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM retained specific language for labels in the substance-
specific health standards for containers of contaminated clothing or
waste and debris to ensure that protection gained from communicating
these hazards to the downstream recipients of the materials would not
be lessened. The proposal, however, updated the language to be
consistent with the GHS. The labeling requirements in these standards
are part of broad protections, resulting from PELs and ancillary
provisions such as exposure monitoring, personal protective equipment,
and medical surveillance. These requirements for labeling containers of
contaminated clothing, PPE, and waste and debris have been an integral
part of the standards since their promulgation. To simply conform the
labeling requirements for these kinds of containers to the GHS-modified
HCS rule would not offer the extra protection currently provided in
these standards; because of the variation in the quantity of chemicals
in the containers of contaminated clothing, PPE, and waste and debris,
the chemical concentration may be lower than the specified cut-off
values/concentration limits. In such a case, if OSHA only relied on the
GHS-modified HCS labeling requirement, labeling for these containers
may not be triggered and protections would be lessened.
    Commenters agreed that specific language for labels on containers
of contaminated clothing and waste and debris should be maintained. For
example, Ameren and 3M Corporation commented that maintaining specific
language for labels on contaminated clothing and waste/debris
containers for the substance-specific health standards will provide
adequate warnings to all (Document ID 0330 and 0405). AIHA, in
supporting the specific labels, noted that the workplace-contaminated
materials are not hazardous chemicals in commerce; thus, these special
labels are not inconsistent with GHS. Further, AIHA said that because
recipients of these containers are accustomed to specific warnings, a
change, such as elimination of the specific warning language because it
might not be required by GHS, might be perceived as a change in hazard
(Document ID 0365). The Battery Council International urged
OSHA not to eliminate the label language requiring the disposal of
lead-contaminated waste water in accordance with applicable local,
state, or federal regulations in Sec.  1910.1025(m)(2) for contaminated
clothing. OSHA agrees that this information is important and is not
inconsistent with GHS labeling. Therefore, OSHA has retained this
language for the labels for contaminated clothing and equipment in the
final rule. AISI and Industrial Health and Safety Consultants urged
OSHA to require that the language on containers of contaminated
clothing and waste/debris be in accord with the GHS guidelines. Such
harmonization would maintain consistency with other labeling and
minimize confusion of downstream handlers (Document ID 0408).
In addition, Industrial Health and Safety Consultants felt that
containers of contaminated clothing and waste/debris should be
classified according to the HCS and the specific language on the label
should be eliminated (Document ID 0410). As discussed below,
OSHA does not agree. Industrial Health and Safety Consultants also
suggested that OSHA require HCS classification and labeling of
contaminated waste clothing and waste for all chemicals (Document ID
0410). OSHA did not propose such extensive new requirements
for containers of chemically contaminated clothing and waste and
debris. These requirements were not part of HCS and would be a
significant addition to the final rule.
    OSHA agrees with the commenters who advocate retaining the warnings
and harmonizing these labels for contaminated clothing and waste and

debris containers, and did so to the extent possible. (See 74 FR 50434-
50439, Sept. 30, 2009). However, classifying containers of chemically
contaminated clothing and waste and debris consistent with GHS would be
an impossible task, as substances found on contaminated clothing and
waste and debris often occur in unknown, varying, and frequently small
quantities. In order to ensure and maintain protection for employees in
workplaces that receive these containers, labeling of the hazards with
specific language is essential. The warnings, like all other warnings,
are most effective when they are consistent with each other and, to the
extent possible, with the GHS language. This consistency was achieved
with the proposed language. Therefore, the proposed language for the
substance-specific standards remains unchanged and is finalized in this
rulemaking.
    OSHA is adding two warnings to the Cadmium standard, which were
left out of one paragraph of the proposal, through an error. In the
NPRM, OSHA proposed that the warning labels for waste, scrap, or debris
be required to include ``Danger''; ``Contains Cadmium''; and ``May
Cause Cancer'' in paragraph 1910.1027(m)(3)(ii). The warnings ``Causes
Damage to Lungs and Kidneys'' and ``Avoid Creating Dust'' were
inadvertently left out of this paragraph. (The NPRM properly included
these two warnings in paragraph 1910.1027(i)(2)(iv) for bags and
containers of contaminated protective clothing and equipment.) OSHA is
correcting this error by adding these warnings in this final standard,
making the Cadmium standard consistent with the other substance-
specific standards and, to the extent possible, with GHS.
    In addition, for labels of bags or containers of contaminated
clothing and equipment, OSHA has determined precautionary statements
that address creating dust in the current substance-specific health
standards must be retained even though there is no GHS equivalent. At
this time, a work group formed under the UN Sub-Committee of Experts
for the GHS (UN Sub-committee) is working to finalize issues related to
hazard and precautionary statements. OSHA has recommended to the UN
Sub-committee to adopt the phrase ``avoid creating dust'' as a
precautionary statement, if this statement is adopted as a
precautionary statement, then this statement will be consistent with
the GHS. However, if the UN Sub-committee does not adopt such a
statement, OSHA intends to continue to require the dust statements in
those paragraphs for labels of bags and containers of contaminated
clothing and equipment since OSHA has concluded that removing these
statements would be a lessening of protection. An example of
requirements for those statements can be found in OSHA's Cadmium
standard, Sec.  1910.1027(i), (k), and (m). OSHA also inadvertently
removed the term ``Avoid Creating Dust'' from the Asbestos labeling
requirements in Sec.  1910.1001(j) and Sec.  1926.1101(l) of the
proposal. As discussed above, OSHA believes that this is a unique
statement and should be retained. OSHA is correcting this error by
reinstating this phrase in the asbestos labeling requirements in Sec.
1910.1001(j) and Sec.  1926.1101(l).
Occupational Exposure To Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories:
Definitions
    OSHA proposed to modify most of paragraph (b), Definitions, in
Sec.  1910.1450, Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in
Laboratories (the laboratory standard), in order to maintain
compatibility with HCS. In particular, OSHA removed the definitions of
Combustible liquid, Compressed gas, Explosive, Flammable, Flashpoint,
Organic peroxide, Oxidizer, Unstable (reactive), and Water-reactive
from paragraph (b). In addition, in the NPRM, OSHA revised the
definitions of Hazardous chemical, Physical hazard, and Reproductive
toxins in paragraph (b) and added definitions for Health hazard and
Mutagen in paragraph (b). By these modifications to Sec.  1910.1450,
the proposal sought to ensure that the definitions to the GHS-modified
HCS also apply to the laboratory standard (Sec.  1910.1450). The
modification is consistent with the goal of this rulemaking and the
original intent of the laboratory standard. OSHA explained in the
preamble to the laboratory standard the importance of having the HCS
and the laboratory standard both use the same definitions for hazardous
chemicals:

    The term ``hazardous chemical'' used in this final rule relies
on the definition of ``health hazard'' found in the OSHA Hazard
Communication Standard. As discussed in the scope and application
section above, commenters urged OSHA to maintain consistency in
terms between the Hazard Communication Standard and this final
standard since laboratories are subject to both regulations.

(55 FR 3315, Jan. 31, 1990).

    Ameren agreed with OSHA that ``combustible liquid'' should be
removed from paragraph (b) (Document ID 0330). However, the
company recommended that OSHA replace the term with specific flashpoint
criteria. OSHA disagrees that a definition for combustible liquid with
specific flashpoint criteria differing from GHS-modified HCS should be
contained in the laboratory standard. OSHA's intention is to harmonize
the laboratory standard with the GHS-modified HCS. The final HCS rule
contains definitions of flammable liquids with flashpoint criteria in
Appendix B, and these flashpoint criteria include what are currently
the combustible liquid classes. The laboratory standard does not
contain specific requirements for physical hazards, including flammable
or combustible liquids. Rather, this program standard contains
requirements for such things as a chemical hygiene plan, employee
exposure determination, training, medical consultation and
examinations, and recordkeeping. Thus, OSHA does not see a need for
including separate flashpoint criteria for flammable or combustible
liquids and believes that reference to the flammable liquid categories
in HCS is appropriate for Sec.  1910.1450.
    OSHA proposed to maintain the current definition of ``select
carcinogens'' in the laboratory standard since the original purpose of
the standard was to deviate from the HCS definition and narrow the
scope of the standard. As noted in the preamble to the final rule for
the laboratory standard, the scope was set for ``select carcinogens''
based on the small, often minute, quantities of substances handled.
OSHA stated its reasons for this deviation in that preamble, and those
reasons remain persuasive:

    This final rule, however, modifies the carcinogen definition and
the obligatory action so that special provisions must be explicitly
considered by the employer, but need only be implemented when the
employer deems them appropriate on the basis of the specific
conditions existing in his/her laboratory. Moreover, the term,
``carcinogen'' has been replaced by ``select carcinogen'' which
covers a narrower range of substances * * *

(55 FR 3315, Jan. 31, 1990).

    OSHA has thus incorporated in the final rule its proposed changes
to the definitions in the laboratory standard.
Appendices
    OSHA reviewed the appendices to each of its substance-specific
health standards and made the following minor changes necessary to
align the appendices with their GHS-harmonized standards.
    The language in Appendix B, ``Employee Standard Summary,'' chapter
XI, ``Signs,'' in both the general industry and the construction
standards for lead (Sec.  1910.1025 and Sec.  1926.62, respectively)
has been made consistent

with the language in their regulatory texts.
    In Asbestos Sec.  1910.1001, Appendix F, ``Work Practices and
Engineering Controls for Automotive Brake and Clutch Inspection,
Disassembly, Repair and Assembly (Mandatory),'' a reference to
paragraph (j)(4) of the standard has been redesignated as paragraph
(j)(5) to be consistent with the changes in the regulatory text for
Sec.  1910.1001. No changes were made to the construction Asbestos
standard Sec.  1926.1101, as none were needed.
Safety Data Sheets
    OSHA has changed the term ``material safety data sheets'' when it
appears to ``safety data sheets'' in both the substance-specific health
standards and their appendices. As discussed above, this change
reflects the GHS terminology.
Compliance Dates for Substance-Specific Health Standards
    OSHA proposed to require implementation of all but one of the
revisions to the HCS in three years following completion or
promulgation of the final rule. Training was proposed to be required in
two years. OSHA noted that during the transition period, an employer
could be in compliance with either the current HCS or the revised HCS
(the final rule), but there could not be a lapse in compliance. For the
final standard, OSHA has decided to align implementation of GHS with
the final implementation of GHS in the EU for labeling and SDSs. A full
explanation of the information and comments and the Agency's reasoning
is set out above in this section.
    The proposed changes to the substance-specific health standards
required compliance with the HCS, thus incorporating the proposed
compliance dates for the revised HCS. One commenter suggested that the
proposed sign and label updates be done in accordance with the
facility's normal replacement schedule (Document ID 0376).
OSHA finds that this is too indefinite a period, because it essentially
leaves the compliance date in the hands of each employer. OSHA has
concluded that the administration of HCS programs by employers and the
communication and comprehension of the hazards by employees will be
most effective if the requirement for completion of changes for the
substance-specific health standards is the same as for all other
chemicals. In a sense, this is just another example of the consistency
that was approved by so many of the commenters and hearing witnesses.
    Thus, the final rule keeps the compliance dates for the new
substance-specific health standard requirements in line with those for
the revisions to the HCS. Employers must be using new labels for
contaminated clothing and waste and debris by June 1, 2015, the date by
which manufacturers and importers must comply with the labeling and SDS
requirements of the revised HCS. Employers must post the new signs by
June 1, 2016, the same date by which employers must also update their
hazard communication plans for any new hazard information they receive
as a result of the final rule. In the meantime, as with the revised
HCS, employers must comply with either the old or new labeling and
signage requirements. Provisions to this effect are inserted for each
substance-specific standard in this final rule.
Safety Standards
    OSHA proposed modifying safety standards that either directly
reference the HCS or provide information pertinent to the SDSs, in
particular regarding the storage and handling of chemicals. As noted
above, many commenters supported standardizing physical hazard criteria
across all applicable OSHA standards (Document ID 0034, 0104,
0105, 0155, 0170, 0171, 0313, 0324, 0327, 0328, 0329, 0336, 0338, 0359,
0365, 0376, 0382, 0395, 0405, 0408, 0410, and 0494 Tr. 91, 162). For
example, the Compressed Gas Association (CGA) (Document ID
0324) stated:

    CGA agrees with the harmonization to GHS to align the
definitions of the physical hazards to the requirements of the GHS
categories in safety standards for general industry, construction,
and maritime standards, which either directly reference the Hazard
Communication Standard * * * or provide information pertinent to the
SDS.

    However, some other commenters, and even some who supported
applying physical hazard criteria across all standards, raised concerns
about storage and handling requirements; degree of impact; potential
effects on the scope of the Process Safety Management of Highly
Hazardous Chemicals (PSM) standard; and potential conflicts with widely
accepted consensus standards (Document ID 0038, 0077, 0104,
0163, 0329, 0335, 0336, 0339, 0366, 0370, 0381, 0383, 0393, 0399, 0414,
0500, 0514, 0530, 0643, 0494 Tr. 91, 162, and 0497 Tr. 81-84).
    OSHA agrees with the commenters who supported standardizing
physical hazard criteria and is doing so except in some standards, such
as OSHA's electrical standards, where conflicts with referenced
consensus standards make harmonization inappropriate at this time. OSHA
proposed to:
     Incorporate the current HCS definitions of flammable
liquid and gas into PSM and health hazard into Hazardous Waste
Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standards;
     Modify the Welding standard (Sec.  1910.252) requirements
on labeling welding consumables to be consistent with GHS modifications
to HCS;
     Amend paragraphs on flammable and combustible liquids to
conform categories, terminology, flashpoints (FP), and boiling points
to the GHS modifications to HCS;
     Incorporate the modified-HCS definition of flammable
aerosols into the Flammable and Combustible Liquids standard, Sec.
1910.106. (In Sec.  1910.106, OSHA is also correcting a rounding error
in the conversion from 12 feet to meters. The change is from 3.648
meters to 3.658 meters); and
     Update the acceptable methods for determining flashpoints;
but
     Leave unchanged electrical standards in Subpart S for
general industry and Subpart K for construction, and explosive
standards for general industry (Sec.  1910.109) and for construction
(Sec.  1926.914).
    Commenters overwhelmingly supported ensuring consistency in OSHA
standards, while maintaining scope of coverage. (Document ID
0049, 0050, 0077, 0105, 0123, 0145, 0163, 0170, 0313, 0324, 0327, 0328,
0351, 0359, 0365, 0376, and 0494 Tr. 91, 162). Organization Resource
Counselors (ORC) (Document ID  0494 Tr. 91) testified:

    ORC supports concurrent harmonization of hazard definitions in
most OSHA standards. ORC agrees with OSHA's proposal to harmonize
hazardous communication components across most other OSHA standards
in this rulemaking. ORC believes this is the most efficient way to
address this necessary step in ensuring consistent hazard
information and eliminating conflicting requirements.

    Many comments to the ANPR and the NPRM supported OSHA exempting
certain standards such as electrical and explosive standards from
harmonization at this time (Document ID  0047, 0075, 0076,
0104, 0113, 0145, 0163, 0328, 0330, 0336, 0370, 0393, and 0408). For
example, the standards in Subpart S contain requirements such as
internal design criteria that, if changed, would impact their scope.
OSHA's reasons for excluding these standards are explained below. In
testimony at the hearing, the ACC (Document ID  0494 Tr. 162)
agreed, stating:

    We agree with this approach and therefore would expect that
there would be no impact on electrical area classification, facility
[s]iting, mechanical integrity, electrical classification, storage
quantities, unloading and storage location, ventilation
requirements, spill protection, grounding and bonding, tank and
vessel design, interlocks and safety devices and process hazard
analysis.

    As discussed in detail below, in the final rule PSM retains its
current scope; HAZWOPER's definition of ``health hazard'' is modified;
the definitions in the Flammable and Combustible Liquids standards are
aligned with the GHS modifications to HCS; Welding, Cutting and Brazing
labeling requirements were also modified to be consistent with HCS; and
a few technical amendments have been made to other safety standards
that currently use the term ``combustible'' in order to keep their
scope the same. Also, no changes were made to standards that OSHA
proposed to exclude from this rulemaking.
PSM
    PSM standards for general industry and construction reference the
HCS for their scopes, which are currently set forth in Sec.
1910.119(a)(1)(ii) and Sec.  1926.64(a)(1)(ii) as covering a process
which involves a flammable liquid or gas (as defined in Sec.
1910.1200(c) [Sec.  1926.59(c)] on site in one location, in a quantity
of 10,000 pounds (4535.9 kg) or more, followed by the listed exceptions
in the paragraph.
    If OSHA did not modify this provision in this rulemaking, the scope
of PSM would expand since the HCS's definition of flammable liquid
changes from liquids with a flashpoint below 100 [deg]F (37.8 [deg]C)
to the new GHS definition of liquids with a flashpoint at or below
199.4 [deg]F (93 [deg]C) (though, as discussed above, the scope of the
HCS is unaffected). Keeping the reference to the HCS definition would
mean that many more processes would have been covered by the PSM
standards than when those standards were promulgated. OSHA does not
intend to expand the scope of the PSM standards. Therefore, to maintain
the scope of those standards, OSHA proposed to modify the language in
the scope paragraphs Sec.  1910.119(a)(1)(ii) and Sec.
1926.64(a)(1)(ii) to read:

    A process which involves a Category 1 flammable gas (as defined
in Sec.  1910.1200(c)) or flammable liquid with a flashpoint below
100 [deg]F (37.8 [deg]C) on site in one location, in a quantity of
10,000 pounds (4535.9 kg) or more * * *

    In other words, for PSM, ``flammable gas'' includes Category 1
flammable gases and liquids only if they have flashpoints below 100
[deg]F (37.8 [deg]C) to be consistent with the criteria specified in
the current HCS.
    Commenters who considered the issue differed on what should be done
(Document ID 0324, and 0402). For example, ACC, in responding
the NPRM, supported OSHA's approach (Document ID  0393). ACC
noted that OSHA's proposed regulatory language for Sec.  1910.119, the
general industry PSM, appropriately reflected the new cut-off without
changing the scope of the regulation (Document ID 0393).
However, CGA requested that OSHA update paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of Sec.
1910.119 to use GHS Category 1 flammable liquids as a cutoff for PSM
coverage, stating, ``This would maintain consistency throughout the
OSHA standards and harmonization with the GHS'' (Document ID
0324). The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates
(SOCMA) (Document ID 0402) was concerned that the change in
the flashpoint trigger for flammable liquids from ``the current 100
[deg]F to the new 140 [deg]F * * * would significantly expand the
number of products subject to OSHA 1910.106 (flammable liquids), and
OSHA 1910.119 (Process Safety Standards).''
    While OSHA agrees with CGA that using GHS Category 1 flammable
liquids would maintain consistency throughout the OSHA standards, to do
so would change the scope of the PSM standard by making it applicable
only to flammable liquids with flashpoints below 73 [deg]F (23 [deg]C).
This would significantly narrow the scope of PSM and lessen worker
protection by eliminating from coverage flammable liquids with
flashpoints from 73 [deg]F to below 100 [deg]F. However, to set the
coverage of PSM to 140 [deg]F (flammable liquid categories 1, 2 and 3
which require the hazard warning ``flammable'' to appear on labels), as
SOCMA noted, would expand the coverage beyond the scope of the original
standard.
    OSHA has concluded that setting the flashpoint below 100 [deg]F
(37.8 [deg]C), the previous HCS level, properly maintains the scope of
the PSM standards as they were promulgated. As explained in the
proposal, OSHA's approach to the other affected standards is to
``modify provisions of the standards that reference the HCS definitions
to maintain coverage or consistency with the modified HCS'' (74 FR
50404, Sept. 30, 2009). It is beyond the scope of this rulemaking to
consider whether, as a substantive matter, the scope of the PSM
standards should be changed. Thus, OSHA is neither increasing nor
decreasing the scope of the PSM standard; consequently, the same
products in the same quantities will be covered. The final rule adopts
the proposed changes to the PSM standards noted above.
HAZWOPER
    In the NPRM, OSHA updated the definition of health hazard in its
HAZWOPER standards, Sec.  1910.120(a)(3) for general industry and Sec.
1926.65(a)(3) for construction, so that the terminology is aligned with
the GHS health hazards in Sec.  1910.1200, Appendix A. The final rule
retains the proposed definition.
    In proposing this change, OSHA was concerned that some of the
terminology in HAZWOPER, such as neurotoxin and nephrotoxin, which were
partly defined by reference to the HCS, would no longer be consistent
with the GHS-modified HCS. For consistency, the proposal removed such
terms from HAZWOPER and are now subsumed within the HCS specific target
organ toxicity category, thus maintaining the same hazard communication
requirements in both HAZWOPER and HCS. By updating the definition of
``health hazard'' in the HAZWOPER standards to clearly reference HCS,
employers will have the proper reference to HCS and, in there, the
proper guidance on how to classify the health hazards. OSHA received no
contrary comment, and the final rule adopts the definition of health
hazard as proposed.
    The ACC requested that OSHA clarify how the HAZWOPER standards
would be affected by OSHA's adoption of the GHS flammable and
combustible liquid classifications in Sec.  1910.106, Sec.  1926.152,
and Sec.  1926.155 (Document ID  0393 and 0530). ACC seems to
be asking why OSHA did not reference the new definitions (GHS
categories) of flammable liquids in HAZWOPER. OSHA believes the
HAZWOPER standards would not be directly affected by the GHS-harmonized
categories of flammable liquids, and therefore ACC's concern is
misplaced. The HAZWOPER standards are program standards, and they do
not contain any specific references to flammable or combustible
liquids. It is true that the HAZWOPER standards state that all
requirements of Parts 1910 and 1926 of CFR title 29 apply to hazardous
waste and emergency response (Sec.  1910.120(a)(2) and Sec.
1926.65(a)(2)). Thus, where HAZWOPER-covered employees are responding
to an emergency situation where flammable liquids have been stored or
need to be temporarily stored during clean-up, the flammable liquid
standards might apply. OSHA believes that even in those situations, GHS
harmonization of flammable liquids will

have little or no effect on the HAZWOPER standards, because the
substantive requirements of these standards have not significantly
changed.
Welding, Cutting and Brazing--General Requirements
    OSHA is harmonizing the requirements in the Welding, Cutting and
Brazing standard, Sec.  1910.252, by adding a Hazard Communication
paragraph and bringing in line with the GHS and OSHA's substance-
specific health standards the terminology in the labeling requirements
for filler metals and fusible granular materials, filler metals
containing cadmium, and fluxes containing fluorine compounds.
    The final rule retains the proposed text of the Hazard
Communication paragraph at Sec.  1910.252(c)(1)(iv). Similar to the
substance-specific standards, the welding standard's hazard
communication paragraph requires employers to include welding
contaminants in a program established to comply with the HCS (Sec.
1910.1200). Also, similar to the substance-specific standards, OSHA has
added a date paragraph requiring employers to be using new labels by
June 1, 2015, the date by which manufacturers and importers must comply
with the labeling and SDS requirements of the revised HCS.
    In addition to adding the general Hazard Communication paragraph,
OSHA reorganized some of the paragraphs in Sec.  1910.252 so as to
place the general reference to HCS in the correct position in the
standard, Sec.  1910.252(c)(1)(iv). To accomplish this, OSHA moved the
``Additional considerations for hazard communication in welding,
cutting, and brazing,'' including filler and fusible granular
materials, materials containing cadmium, and materials containing
fluorine compounds, from paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)(A) through (C) to new
paragraphs (c)(1)(v)(A) through (D).
    The proposal inserted a cross reference to Sec.  1910.1200 in the
welding standards hazard determination section. In addition, as with
the substance-specific standards, the proposal deleted specific label
language requirements for welding materials containing cadmium and
fluorine and instead listed specific health endpoints to be considered
in the classification.
    OSHA received one comment on the proposed changes from the Gases
and Welding Distributors Association, Inc. (GAWDA). While GAWDA
generally supported OSHA's rulemaking effort, GAWDA requested that OSHA
change ``suppliers'' of welding materials to ``manufacturers'' in Sec.
1910.252(c)(1)(v)(A) of the proposal (Document ID  0388).
GAWDA stated the term ``supplier'' is undefined and might include
different entities in the supply chain; furthermore, elsewhere OSHA
places the responsibility of hazard determination on manufacturers,
importers, and distributors. However, OSHA would like to point out that
the term ``supplier'' is used in the current standard, which requires
suppliers to determine the hazards in Sec.  1910.252(1)(c)(iv): ``The
suppliers of welding materials shall determine the hazard, if any,
associated with the use of their materials in welding, cutting, etc.''
OSHA assumes that ``suppliers'' will continue to use the same method
that they are currently using to determine the hazards of their
materials. To change this term could result in a substantive change in
the scope of this standard and would be beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. Therefore OSHA will retain the word ``suppliers'' as
proposed.
    In addition, as discussed in the preamble to the proposal, See 74
FR 50417 (Sept. 30, 2009), current Sec.  1910.252(c)(iv) does not
merely require suppliers to determine the hazards of their products,
but also to ensure that labels properly convey those hazards. A
requirement that a supplier only determine the hazard of its products
is of little value if they do not also convey information about those
hazards on to the persons who use it. The final rule provides
additional clarity that suppliers of welding products covered by the
standard label as well as determine the hazard.
    The changes to this standard were predicated on achieving
consistency with the GHS modifications to HCS and other OSHA substance-
specific standards, and OSHA has concluded that the modifications as
proposed and as explained in the previous paragraphs will effectuate
harmonizing the standard's terminology with HCS. In addition, this
action also contributes to internal consistency by making the Welding,
Cutting, and Brazing standard similar to the substance-specific health
standards.
Flammable and Combustible Liquids
    OSHA proposed to align the definitions of flammable and combustible
liquids in both the general industry and construction standards to
conform to the GHS modifications to the HCS. In particular, the
proposal changed the definitions of flammable liquid categories and
deleted the term and definition of combustible liquids (See Table XIII-
6 for comparison of the GHS-modified HCS definitions and the current
flammable and combustible definitions that were contained in 29 CFR
1910.106 and 29 CFR 1926.155). OSHA has concluded that the proposed
changes to the Sec.  1910.106 and Sec.  1926.155 definitions are
reasonably necessary and appropriate and carried them forward into the
final rule. In addition, to essentially maintain the scope of the
standards, OSHA proposed, and is maintaining in the final rule, the
addition of the flashpoint cut-off value where the GHS flammable liquid
categories overlapped with the current HCS classes. The Alliance of
Hazardous Materials Professionals and David Levine of Product Safety
Solutions agreed, stating: ``The elimination of the term `combustible'
and substitution of actual flash point data provide a more meaningful
definition in the affected standards'' (Document ID  0313 and
0327).
    OSHA proposed to drop the current rules' classifications of
flammable and combustible liquids in favor of the GHS flammable liquid
classifications. This meant that all liquids under the proposal would
fall into GHS flammable liquid Categories 1 through 4, and that the
term ``Combustible Liquids'' in Sec. Sec.  1910.106, 1910.107,
1910.123, 1910.125, 1926.152, and 1926.155 was proposed to be deleted
since the GHS does not have a hazard class titled ``Combustible
liquids.'' However, the GHS does require the hazard statement
``combustible liquid'' on the label for Category 4 Flammable liquids
(flashpoint greater than 60 [deg]C (140 [deg]F) but not greater than 93
[deg]C (199.4[deg]F)).
    In addition, the current general industry Spray Finishing standard,
Sec.  1910.107, relies on the current Sec.  1910.106 definition of
Class IIIB liquids (liquids with a flashpoint over 93 [deg]C).
Therefore the proposal amends Sec.  1910.107 to replace its use of the
term ``combustible liquids,'' which has no corresponding GHS category,
with the phrase ``Liquids with a Flashpoint Greater than 93 [deg]C
(199.4 [deg]F).'' With the new terminology, the protection provided by
the original standards remains the same.
    OSHA believed that most of the proposed changes in the definitions
were not significant. The move to GHS categories entails nominal
changes to the flashpoint values for flammable and combustible liquids
from 22.8 [deg]C (73 [deg]F) (current Class IA/B cut-off) to 23 [deg]C
(73.4 [deg]F) (GHS Category 1/2 cut-off) and from 93.3 [deg]C (200
[deg]F) (current Class IIIB cut-off) to 93 [deg]C (199.4 [deg]F) (GHS
Category 4). OSHA believes these changes in flash point represent
simple rounding to the closest significant value

and that they would have no significant effect on the scope of its
standards or on employee safety. ACC agreed with OSHA, stating that
``the elimination of the term `combustible liquid' in Sec.  1910.107
does not significantly change the requirements of the standards and
should not adversely affect industry's ability to comply with the
standard'' (Document ID 0393). OSHA has concluded these new
whole numbers are minute changes and that the rounded numbers coincide
with GHS, are easier to understand and remember, and therefore will
improve communication of hazards.
    However, OSHA requested comment in the proposal on one change that
was potentially significant. Under the proposal, the boiling points
used to define the threshold for the current Flammable Class IA in
Sec.  1910.106 shifted from the cut-off value of 37.8 [deg]C (100
[deg]F) to a cut-off value of 35 [deg]C (95 [deg]F) for GHS Category 1.
Likewise, the boiling points in the proposed definition of Flammable
Class IB (Sec.  1910.106) shift from equal to or greater than (>=) 37.8
[deg]C (100 [deg]F) to greater than (>=) 35 [deg]C (95 [deg]F) in GHS
Category 2 (See Table XIII-6). The Agency believed the changes would be
necessary to make OSHA standards internally consistent and consistent
with the GHS modifications to HCS. However, as discussed in the NPRM,
OSHA was concerned that changing the boiling point cut-off for the
highly flammable liquids classified as Flammable IA could, under the
GHS modifications to HCS, lead to a subset of these chemicals being
classified as GHS Category 2 Flammable Liquids. Since some of the
storage and handling requirements are based on the hazard category, the
proposal would allow a facility to use larger tanks to store liquids
with boiling points between 37.8 [deg]C (100 [deg]F) and 35 [deg]C (95
[deg]F). OSHA was concerned that this practice could decrease safety.
OSHA reviewed the properties related to the flammability of
approximately 900 chemical substances (754 liquids) listed in the CRC
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics [85th edition]. Approximately 1
percent of this list of flammable liquids would result in a
reclassification from the current Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Standard Class IA to GHS Category 2. While this is a small percentage
of the total flammable liquids, it represents approximately 15 percent
of the Flammable and Combustible Liquids Standard Class IA liquids on
this list. OSHA was concerned that this was an instance where the
benefits of harmonization could have been in conflict with the measure
of safety currently provided and therefore requested comments on this
issue.
    Most agreed with OSHA that resulting reclassifications of liquids
with borderline flashpoints from the old Class IA to the GHS Category 2
was not significant (Document ID 0313, 0324, 0327, 0328, 0338,
0352, 0365, 0366, 0370, 0376, 0382, 0383, 0393, 0405, 0408, 0410, and
0494 Tr. 56). National Association of Chemical Distributers (NACD)
stated that ``Several NACD members handle flammable liquids under
Category 1 and 2. However, the proposed changes would result in few
operational changes'' (Document ID  0341). Several commenters
pointed out that aligning the definitions for flammable liquids is
consistent with the single worldwide definition for these hazards
(Document ID 0313 and 0327). ORC (Document ID 0370)
stated:

ORC agrees that the methods OSHA proposes to classify flammable
liquids Category 1and 2 and flammable aerosols are similar enough to
the current definitions that substances that are currently regulated
by OSHA would continue to be regulated and that few, if any, changes
would result in a shift in regulatory coverage.

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) (Document ID
0366 and 0497 Tr. 56) stated:

NFPA agrees with OSHA's assessment regarding the slight adjustment
resulting from the change in criteria for flash point and boiling
point for flammable liquid categories when applying the GHS
criteria. NFPA believes the overall impact of the changed flash
point and boiling point will be negligible.

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) urged OSHA to be consistent
across all standards (Document ID 0376). Further, the ACC
commented that in reference to the boiling point cut-off for Category 1
and 2 flammable liquids, they believe the language (in the NPRM) is
sufficient to reflect the cut-off without changing the scope of the
regulation (Document ID 0393).
    However, some commenters expressed concern that the shift in
flammability criteria would require facilities to modify their storage
facilities to maintain compliance with Sec.  1910.106, and consequently
storage receptacles would have to be smaller, leading to less storage
and greater costs (ISSA, Document ID  0399). That concern is
misplaced because the change from OSHA's old flammable and combustible
classes to GHS categories involves a lowering of the boiling point cut-
offs by 2.8 [deg]C (5.04 [deg]F), so that employers will still be able
to use current handling and storage practices affected by the change.
Likewise, current storage and handling practices for chemicals whose
boiling points fall between 37.8 [deg]C and 35 [deg]C would still be
allowed under the proposal. SOCMA commented that changing the
definition would expand the number of products subject to Sec.
1910.106 (Document ID 0402). That is also not correct. Due to
the rounding of GHS flashpoints, cut-offs are slightly less stringent
(See Table XIII-6) and no new chemicals would be regulated.

                                   Table XIII-6--Flammable Liquid Definitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              GHS                                Flammable and combustible liquids standard (29
---------------------------------------------------------------                   CFR 1910.106)
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                  Flashpoint     Boiling point                      Flashpoint     Boiling point
           Category                 [deg]C          [deg]C           Class            [deg]C          [deg]C
                                   ([deg]F)        ([deg]F)                          ([deg]F)        ([deg]F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flammable 1..................  <23 (73.4).....       <=35 (95)  Flammable Class  <22.8 (73).....     <37.8 (100)
                                                                 IA.
Flammable 2..................  <23 (73.4).....        >35 (95)  Flammable Class  <22.8 (73).....    >=37.8 (100)
                                                                 IB.
Flammable 3..................  >=23 (73.4) and  ..............  Flammable Class  >=22.8 (73) and  ..............
                                <=60 (140).                      IC Combustible   <37.8 (100).    ..............
                                                                 Class II.       >=37.8 (100)
                                                                                and <60 (140).
Flammable 4..................  >60 (140) and    ..............  Combustible      >=60 (140) and   ..............
                                <=93 (199.4).                    Class IIIA.      <93.3 (200).
None.........................  ...............  ..............  Combustible      >=93.3 (200)...  ..............
                                                                 Class IIIB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) agreed with OSHA's
assessment of the storage issue. ASSE noted that the differences in
boiling points from the original Sec.  1910.106 to the GHS Categories
could increase the number of gallons allowed to be stored in rooms and
cabinets as well as the size of containers for certain liquids.
However, in its opinion, the ``slightly'' increased boiling point would
be of ``little significance'' (Document ID 0336). Therefore,
based on the analysis discussed above and the comments received, OSHA
has concluded that the shift in boiling point and the minor changes in
temperatures and the re-categorizing of flammable liquids are
insignificant and will have a negligible impact on the protection
provided by the standards that use these terms.
    Most commenters supported OSHA's proposal to incorporate the GHS
definitions for flammable liquids into its safety standards (Document
ID 0313, 0327, 0328, 0338, 0365, 0376, 0405, 0408, and 0410).
Some stressed the ``consistency'' benefits from harmonization (Document
ID 0338, 0405, and 0408). ASSE (Document ID 0336)
said:

In response to OSHA's proposal to eliminate the term ``combustible
liquid'' in 29 CFR 1910.106, 1910.107, 1910.123, 1910.124, 1910.125,
and 1926.155 for liquids with a flashpoint above 100 degrees F.,
ASSE believes this list of standards is appropriate. * * * However,
ASSE urges OSHA to remove the term ``combustible liquid'' for all
liquids and use the GHS criteria for all flammable liquids.

The National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA), in supporting the
removal of the term ``combustible liquid,'' noted that it was
consistent with DOT (Document ID 0328).
    Although there was considerable support for the changes OSHA made
in the proposal to the flammable and combustible liquid categories,
OSHA also received comments suggesting that the deletion of the
``combustible'' designation and the combining of NFPA Class 1C
flammable and Class II combustible liquids into new Category Flammable
3, would lead to confusion among engineers, employers, and employees,
which could result in potential accidents (Document ID 0344,
0366, 0381, 0399, 0402, 0498, 0500, 0514, and 0643). In addition, some
commenters questioned whether the OSHA standards that address flammable
liquids that are not covered by GHS (Combustible Class IIIB) are best
handled by replacing the term ``combustible'' with a quantitative
definition so as to maintain their coverage (Document ID 0336,
0366, and 0497 Tr. 56-58 and 68).
    Some organizations, though they supported the proposed changes in
general, had some specific concerns, particularly with how the OSHA GHS
harmonization works with other national standards, including consensus
standards. Clariant Corporation opined that eliminating the term
``combustible liquid'' will likely cause some confusion since it is
still used by NFPA and DOT but urged OSHA to adopt the GHS criteria to
maintain global consistency (Document ID 0383). However, OSHA
points out that, as mentioned above by NPCA, the GHS criteria are
consistent with DOT. The American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME) favored OSHA's GHS harmonization, but
sought clarification or additional guidance on how secondary labeling
systems such as NFPA's 704 Diamond or the Hazardous Materials
Information System (HMIS) would be used once GHS was in effect
(Document ID 0414).
    NFPA testified that the GHS categories would conflict with NFPA's
established hazard ratings in NFPA 704, which has been in effect since
the 1950s. NFPA recommended that the term ``combustible liquid'' not be
deleted (Document ID 0497 Tr. 59-64). In addition, NFPA
expressed concern that there may be additional confusion since the
rating system in NFPA 704 expresses the most hazardous as a ``4'' while
the GHS classification criteria expresses the most hazardous as
Category ``1''. The International Fire Marshals Association (IFMA),
echoing the sentiments of the NFPA, agreed that users have been relying
on the NFPA 704 Hazard Rating and the Hazardous Material Information
System (HMIS) systems for a long time and would be confused by the
change (Document ID 0497 Tr. 80-84).
    These commenters were concerned that the proposed realignment of
the flammable liquid categories would result in confusion among
employees, emergency responders, authorities having jurisdiction, and
others who have been used to the distinction between flammable and
combustible liquids (Document ID 0344, 0366, 0381, 0399, 0402,
0498, 0500, 0514, 0643, and 0497 Tr. 56-58). NFPA (Document ID
0366) stated:

NFPA is also concerned with the elimination of the ``combustible
liquids'' classification that will occur with the adoption of GHS as
we believe there will be considerable confusion among the workers
who have been instructed to take specific precautions for various
liquids based on whether they were identified as ``flammable or
combustible.'' Further, we believe that the elimination of the
``combustible liquid'' classification may cause confusion among
emergency responders and authorities having jurisdiction, who have
until now understood that ``flammable liquids'' can be expected to
be ignitable at ambient temperatures, while ``combustible liquids''
typically require some degree of heating to reach their flash point
temperatures. This lack of definition may also be an issue, albeit
to a lesser extent, among designers who have been trained to apply
certain fire protection measures to ``flammable liquids'', but not
to ``combustible liquids.'' The immediate recognition that has
existed in the workplace for decades may be removed by the proposed
rule; NFPA cautions OSHA that confusion among workers has the
potential to be more significant than OSHA has acknowledged.

See also Document ID 0497 Tr. 56-58.

    As an initial matter, OSHA notes liquids with a flashpoint greater
than or equal to 60 [deg]C (140 [deg]F) and less than 93.3 [deg]C (200
[deg]F), which are currently classified as ``combustible,'' will be
labeled as ``combustible liquids'' under the final rule. Thus this
minimizes the potential for the confusion that NFPA suggests for these
chemicals.
    In any event, OSHA believes that there is currently confusion and
inconsistency in this area. For example, OSHA standards have several
cutoff values for flammable and combustible liquids. In OSHA's general
industry standard at Sec.  1910.106, 100 [deg]F is the cut-off between
flammable liquids and combustible liquids, but in construction, Sec.
1926.155, 140 [deg]F is the cut-off between flammable and combustible.
Even the NFPA's standards are confusing. In NFPA 30, the hazard levels
are structured from Ia/b/c to III b, with Ia being the highest, while
in NFPA 704 the hazard levels range from 1 to 4, where the highest
hazard category is 4 and the lowest is 1. NFPA classification and
rating systems have been in existence since the 1950s and while the
NFPA rating system is widely used, it is still not universally used or
understood. Testimony from Mr. Frederick of the United Steelworkers
indicated that NFPA is a good quick reference although (he believed) it
does not cover all hazards, but it is used to alert workers that they
must look elsewhere for additional information (Document ID
0499 Tr. 155-169).
    In addition, OSHA reviewed randomly chosen SDSs for liquids
classified under the current standard to determine how NFPA ratings
correlated to hazard warnings. As shown in Table XIII-7, the hazard
warnings were inconsistent, while the MSDSs were all technically
correct for physical properties. For example, the hazard warning for
flammable liquids with a

NFPA rating of 3 ranges from ``Flammable Liquid'' to ``Extremely
Flammable'' to ``Severe.'' Notably, cyclohexanone, currently classified
as a combustible liquid under Sec.  1910.106, bears the hazard
statement ``Flammable.''

                      Table XIII-7--MSDS Communications of Flammable Liquid Hazard Warnings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Docket             Chemical name         Flashpoint      NFPA rating listed    Hazard warning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0565...........................  Toluene............  40.7 [deg]F.......  3.................  Flammable Liquid
0566...........................  Turpentine.........  95 [deg]F.........  3.................  Flammable Liquid
0570...........................  Aliphatic            120 [deg]F........  None listed.......  Flammable Liquid
                                  Hydrocarbons.
0571...........................  Reagent N Hexane...  -22 [deg]F........  3.................  Extremely
                                                                                Flammable
0567...........................  Paint Thinner......  104 [deg]F........  2.................  Combustible
0557...........................  Reagent Alcohol....  55 [deg]F.........  3.................  Severe (flammable)
0599...........................  Cyclohexane........  0 [deg]F..........  3.................  Extremely
                                                                                Flammable
0560...........................  Cyclohexanone......  111 [deg]F........  2.................  Flammable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA believes that this rulemaking will promote greater
harmonization of hazard warnings in the future. Now, when a chemical
falls in a particular flammable liquid hazard category, the HCS
requirements will dictate the appropriate hazard warning. At least one
comment alleges this has already happened in the United States. Dr.
Michele Sullivan pointed out that the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) is already aligned with the GHS physical hazard criteria (the GHS
criteria for physical hazard was based on the DOT physical hazard
criteria); thus is already aligned with GHS flammable liquid criteria.
Therefore, OSHA is aligning with DOT with this rulemaking (49 CFR
173.120 and Document ID 0382).
    Neither the proposal nor final rule prohibits the use of NFPA or
HMIS rating systems. They do not prohibit the use of NFPA definitions
for employers taking preventive measures in designing facilities or
implementing fire protection systems such as automatic sprinklers to
ensure a safer situation. OSHA's requirements, even with the
substitution of the term ``flammable'' for ``combustible,'' do not
prohibit safer workplace designs or installations. Furthermore, OSHA
expects that engineers and other professionals will use the actual
flashpoints and other properties of the liquids themselves in design
and installation of controls rather than a designation of a liquid as
``flammable'' or ``combustible.'' IFMA agreed with this premise
(Document ID 0497 Tr. 84-85). In any event, even if the
engineer, facility designer, or employer is somehow misled by Sec.
1910.106's use of the term ``flammable,'' which has traditionally
connoted a higher level of hazard, the result should be an error on the
side of safety, rather than of less protection.
    During the public hearings, ORC Worldwide commented on OSHA's
review of the standards affected by this rulemaking, stating support
for the ``concurrent harmonization of hazard definitions in most OSHA
standards.'' However, ORC also ``agrees with member concern that
changes to definitions in Sec.  1910.106, Flammable and Combustible
Liquids, while not increasing the scope of the standard, may cause
confusion to workers who are familiar with NFPA nomenclature for these
materials'' (Document ID 0494 Tr. 91-92). OSHA asked ORC to
elaborate on this concern and provide support for their testimony. In
response, ORC (Document ID 0643) provided two hypothetical
situations it believes show that confusion over the realignment of
flammable and combustible liquid categories could be significant:

Consider an engineer who is designing a new warehouse. (New)
Category 3 liquids are to be stored therein, and these are liquids
which were previously called ``combustible.'' Engineer does not
design an electrical classification for the area. He does not
realize that the new category may also include some liquids which
are flammable. Because of this design outage, an electrical issue
causes a fire and the warehouse burns down.
Consider a dry cleaning business that is using a (new) Category 3
solvent and does not include automatic sprinklers because the team
is familiar with this solvent as being ``combustible'' under the
previous NFPA definitions. A different, more effective solvent is
proposed, also (new) Category 3, and is accepted as being
``similar''--the manufacturer reassures them that the new solvent is
in the same flammability category as the previous one. But this one
is indeed flammable and would require automatic sprinkler protection
under NFPA rules. A fire starts with the new solvent, and because no
automatic sprinklers exist onsite, the dry cleaner burns down.

    OSHA thanks ORC Worldwide for their testimony and for providing
examples of where revisions to standards affected by this rulemaking
might cause confusion. With regard to the situations presented by ORC,
OSHA understands that the engineer designing the sprinkler system would
be required to follow local and state building codes, along with NFPA
codes or other building codes, such as NFPA 1 (Fire Code), NFPA 13
(Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems), NFPA 30
(Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code), NFPA 32 (Standard for Dry
Cleaning Plants), NFPA 5000 (Building Construction and Safety Code),
and the International Building Code (published by the International
Code Council) as well as any OSHA standards that would apply.
    The design of a system is not predicated on one physical property,
and a prudent engineer or sprinkler designer should be aware that there
are special requirements for the storage of combustible and flammable
liquids. The codes and standards mentioned above all refer to NFPA 30
for requirements related to the storage and use of flammable and
combustible liquids. There are restrictions on maximum container size,
maximum storage height, and maximum total quantity stored based on
flashpoint.
    With regard to the change in solvent used at a dry cleaning
facility, the argument remains the same as for the design engineer
mentioned above. The flashpoint determines the classification of the
chemical. The automatic sprinkler system design would be based on the
flashpoint and not the class of chemical being used. OSHA concludes
that commenters' concerns about confusion are not well founded and has
decided to retain the GHS definition for flammable liquids as proposed
in the final rule.
    Two commenters, Procter & Gamble and ISSA, believed OSHA was
adopting the 140 [deg]F flashpoint cut-off as the definition of a
flammable liquid and that this would conflict with the current
flashpoint cut-off of 100 [deg]F in Sec.  1910.106 (Document ID
0381 and 0399). Procter & Gamble, arguing that the GHS was
designed for hazard communications and not intended to regulate design
criteria and that aligning

the GHS criteria for flammable liquids in OSHA's safety standards would
have unintended consequences (Document ID 0381), offered OSHA
two options:

Option 1: Leave the current OSHA definition of flammable liquids
unchanged. This is easy, clear, and no-cost to U.S. industry.
Option 2: In principle, GHS is a labeling and hazard communication
system, and was not intended to regulate the design and operation of
facilities. OSHA 1910.106, by comparison, is a risk management
regulation used in such design and operation. If OSHA adopts the GHS
Building Block of 140 [deg]F, leave the parallel definition of 100
[deg]F intact in 1910.106. This dual system will create some
confusion, but will minimize the negative effects listed above.

    As an initial matter, Procter & Gamble misunderstood how OSHA
incorporated the GHS flammable liquid definitions into the safety
standards. This change was made only to align terminology. In fact,
OSHA agrees that the GHS was not intended to regulate design criteria.
Therefore, OSHA proposed to leave the standard's design criteria intact
by using the actual measurable flashpoint as the defining criterion.
The proposal, adopted by the final rule, is similar to Procter &
Gamble's Option 2 and accomplishes both harmonization with GHS and
retention of OSHA's long-established and effective risk management
practice.
    Finally, there were concerns that realigning the flammability
criteria could affect contracts. Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable (PRR),
which did not oppose OSHA's alignment of definitions of flammable and
combustible liquids with the GHS categories, was concerned the
reclassification of chemicals may cause conflicts in contracts with
customers. PRR stated that the contracts require specifications in
products manufactured, engineering controls, personal protective
equipment, and specified instructions. PRR claimed that in such a
situation the manufacturer by contract is permitted no deviation from
the contract or process standards (Document ID 0514). However,
as stated above, OSHA has not changed the scope or the requirements of
its standards. Therefore, OSHA has concluded there is unlikely to be
any interference with contracts. Moreover, where distinctions must be
made in the OSHA requirements between the former Class 1C flammable
liquids and Class II combustible liquids, the OSHA requirements have
specified such distinctions with specific flashpoints. The contents and
scopes of the regulatory paragraphs are not affected by GHS
reclassifications or terminology changes, nor are OSHA's ventilation,
respiratory protection, and personal protective equipment standards. In
addition, OSHA did not change standards, like its electrical standards,
that address internal design criteria.
    OSHA has decided to remain consistent with GHS and not create
additional flammable liquid categories. However, Sec.
1910.106(18)(ii)(b) defines Combustible Class IIIB liquids as liquids
with flashpoints at or above 200 [deg]F (93.3 [deg]C). While Class IIIB
liquids are not included in the scope of Sec.  1910.106, there is no
such exemption in the Spray Finishing standard, Sec.  1910.107 (OSHA
letter of interpretation, Aug. 15, 2006). In order to preserve coverage
in standards such as Spray Finishing, these liquids are now called
``Liquids with a Flashpoint of >93 [deg]C (199.4 [deg]F).'' Similar to
Sec.  1910.106, the use of the flashpoint cut-off is the best way to
stay as close to the GHS and maintain scope and consistency within the
standards. The Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) and the Consumer
Specialty Products Association (CSPA) in a joint comment stated that
OSHA should ``correct'' Sec.  1910.107(e) and (e)(4) and Sec.
1910.124(c)(2) to read ``Liquids with a Flashpoint at or below 199.4
[deg]F'' to be consistent with the GHS criteria (Document ID
0344). However, if OSHA were to adhere strictly to GHS in this
instance and drop the higher flashpoint category, protection from this
hazard would be lost and safety compromised.
    Several commenters addressed this issue. ASSE stated that their
``members do not see the need for the fifth category of `Flammable
Liquids Over a Flash Point of 93.3 [deg]C.' Specific flash point
criteria should be used'' (Document ID 0336). NFPA expressed
general concern about the elimination of the Class IIIB liquids by the
adoption of the GHS categorization system, though they acknowledged
that OSHA had proposed to extend liquids as ``flammable liquid with
flash point greater than 93 [deg]C'' (Document ID 0366 and
0497 Tr. 56-58). The point was further clarified upon questioning at
the hearing where NFPA agreed that by extending the liquids to
flashpoints greater than 199.4 [deg]F, OSHA was providing the coverage
for Sec.  1910.107 that had always been there. In addition, NFPA
recommended it be further clarified that these liquids with the higher
flashpoints belong to Sec.  1910.107 and are not part of GHS Category 4
(Document ID 0497 Tr. 68).
    In addition, Intercontinental Chemical Corporation recommended that
OSHA create six new categories matching the six classes in the original
Sec.  1910.106 (Document ID 0500). The Agency believes that
this approach would be inconsistent with GHS, since the GHS
classifications and categories, including flammable liquid Categories
1-4, were established by international committees and are in place.
OSHA's intent in this rulemaking is to harmonize the HCS with the
existing GHS classifications and categories, not to make new
categories.
    In summary, OSHA views this rulemaking as a step towards
eliminating current inconsistencies. OSHA believes the potential
confusion with other agency policies, standards, consensus standards,
and traditional practices suggested by the commenters are not likely to
occur for several reasons. First, the changes in the final rule will
bring internal consistency to the OSHA standards covered. OSHA
standards currently have several cut-off values for flammable and
combustible liquids. In OSHA's general industry standard (Sec.
1910.106), 100 [deg]F is the cut-off between the flammable and
combustible liquids, but in construction, Sec.  1926.155, 140 [deg]F is
the cut-off between flammable and combustible. Harmonizing these
standards, which have been out of sync for many years, will bring
needed consistency to the safety standards. In addition, as noted
above, substantive requirements have not changed, and therefore designs
are not affected.
    Second, the changes to the standards do not require changes in work
practices. Rather, what have changed are a few regulatory terms used in
the standards. Commenters who thought that such changes in definitions
and terminology would result in significant and costly modifications to
facility design and operation are incorrect, as the old requirements in
the standards remain and no facility design and operation changes are
required (Document ID 0344, 0381, and 0399). The requirements
for what were known formerly as combustible liquids remain the same
even though they are now categorized as flammable liquids.
    Third, there is growing awareness of the GHS ``flammable liquids''
definition. Other agencies, such as DOT, are already aligned with the
GHS definition for flammable liquids (49 CFR 173.120), and OSHA
believes that its ANPR and NPRM have raised awareness of the
definition.
    Change occurs in every area of employment, and employers and
workers get trained and adjust to the change; OSHA believes these minor
changes will be accepted and adopted. OSHA's flammable and combustible
liquid storage requirements have always been based on the flashpoint
and boiling point of the liquid; OSHA does not

believe that facility designs rely on whether the liquid is labeled as
flammable or combustible. (See Document ID 0497 Tr. 84-85)
Thus, OSHA has concluded that the allegations of impacts on facility
design and operations are perceptual rather than actual. This is
especially true in light of the fact that certain OSHA standards were
exempted from the terminology changes if these changes were to affect
internal design criteria of any area of the workplace. OSHA has
therefore concluded that the proposed changes to the Sec.  1910.106
definitions are reasonably necessary and appropriate and has carried
them forward into the final rule.
    OSHA will be doing outreach to affected parties and working with
professional and trade associations to help users become familiar with
and competent in applying these modifications. ORC testified that the
changes may cause confusion to workers familiar with NFPA nomenclature,
and agreed with OSHA that, with training, any confusion resulting from
the change from NFPA definitions and terminology to GHS definitions and
terminology would be overcome. ORC (Document ID 0494 Tr. 100-
101) further stated that potential confusion would not be a reason to
delay moving forward with finalizing the standard:

There's a significant problem with lack of harmonization of chemical
control approaches in the United States, and we would like to see,
as we said in our testimony, some sort of formalization because we
think it's the only thing that's going to work here, formalization
of regular contacts between the NFPA and OSHA.

Mike Wright, representing the United Steelworkers (Document ID
0494 Tr. 76-77), put it succinctly, stating:

The whole point of harmonization is to reconcile different
standards, which may be conflicting. That means something has to
change. * * * Ultimately, in the short term will there be some
confusion? Yes. Can we minimize that through good training, through
good information? Yes, and we ought to, but ultimately I think we
have a globally harmonized system that's been adopted on a worldwide
level and then we have various national organizations--very
important ones like the NFPA--which may deviate in the way they
communicate hazards from that globally harmonized system.
With respect to my friends at the NFPA, who I think do wonderful
work, I think their job is to harmonize their system to the Globally
Harmonized System. We hope that happens as soon as possible, and I'm
confident that it will.
You know, ultimately we need to go to one * * * system worldwide. We
have that system now. It will take some time and a little bit of
confusion to conform every other kind of national voluntary system
to that, but that work has to be done.

    OSHA agrees and believes users of the new GHS flammable liquid
categories will implement its new terminology in their work.
Minor Safety Standard Changes
    The note in the PSM construction standard, Sec.
1926.64(d)(1)(vii), has been changed. In the current standard,
paragraph (d)(1)(vii), the note states, ``Material Safety Data Sheets
meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.59(g) may be used to comply
with this requirement to the extent they contain the information
required by this subparagraph.'' The note has been changed to ``Safety
Data Sheets (SDSs) meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200(g) . *
* *''
    To correct a technical error and to complete alignment across
standards, Sec.  1910.106(j), Scope, has been made consistent with
Sec.  1910.106(a)(19) and Sec.  1910.1200, Appendix B. Proposed Sec.
1910.106(j) stated that it ``applie[d] to the handling, storage, and
use of flammable liquids with a flashpoint below 199.4 [deg]F (93
[deg]C) unless otherwise noted.'' (Emphasis added). Final Sec.
1910.106(j) is now consistent with Sec.  1910.106(a)(19) and Sec.
1910.1200 in that it applies to ``* * * flammable liquids with a
flashpoint at or below 199.4 [deg]F (93 [deg]C) * * *'' (Emphasis
added).
    In Sec.  1926.155, OSHA proposed to harmonize the definitions of
flammable and combustible liquids to be consistent with the GHS
categories of flammable liquids (i.e., the updating of the definition
of flammable liquids and the removal of the definition for combustible
liquids), and this change is carried through to the final rule. The
final rule also removes ``or combustible'' in the other standards in
Subpart F, to maintain consistency with the ``Definitions'' in Sec.
1926.155. In Sec.  1926.150(c)(vi), which currently states, ``A fire
extinguisher, rated not less than 10B, shall be provided within 50 feet
of wherever more than 5 gallons of flammable or combustible liquids or
5 pounds of flammable gas are being used on the jobsite,'' the term
``or combustible'' has been removed. Likewise, the Agency is correcting
Sec.  1926.151(b)(3) by removing ``or combustible.'' In Sec.
1926.151(a)(4), Portable battery powered lighting, which states that
``the storage, handling, or use of flammable gases or liquids, shall be
* * * approved for the hazardous locations,'' the term ``flammable
liquids'' has been changed to ``Category 1, 2, or 3 flammable
liquids.'' This change maintains the scope set by the flashpoint ranges
for the Subpart (as defined by the original Sec.  1926.155 paragraphs
(c) and (h)).
    The Soap and Detergent Association and Consumer Specialty Products
Association, in a joint comment (Document ID 0344), suggested
that OSHA change the term ``pilot light'' to ``indicating light.'' As
discussed previously, this type of change is outside of the scope of
this rulemaking since it does not pertain to hazard communication or
GHS harmonization. Therefore, OSHA is not adopting that suggestion at
this time.
Methods To Determine Flashpoints
    OSHA proposed to update the methods that may be used to determine
flashpoints in the NPRM. These methods include updated ASTM methods,
ISO methods, and British, French, and German national standards for the
testing. The methods are listed in Appendix B.6 of Sec.  1910.1200 and
are also referenced in Revision 3 of the GHS (2009), Chapter 2.6.
    In the definitions of Sec.  1910.106, the current standard allowed
only ASTM D-56-70 and ASTM D-93-71 as testing methods to determine
flashpoints. In Sec.  1926.155, which applies to Subpart F of the
construction standards (Fire Protection and Prevention), OSHA currently
allows only ASTM D-56-69 and ASTM D-93-69 for such determinations. The
current HCS allows only ASTM D 56-79, ASTM D 93-79, and ASTM D 3278-78.
The methods allowed in Sec.  1910.155 were adopted in the late 1960s,
and the methods for Sec.  1910.106 and Sec.  1926.1200 were adopted in
the 1970s.
    The NPRM updated the methods in Sec.  1910.1200 to conform to the
GHS. However, flashpoint methods in Sec.  1910.1200 had always differed
from methods in Sec.  1910.106 and Sec.  1926.155. Instead of revamping
the older test methods in OSHA's other standards, the proposal allowed
a broader test selection. OSHA kept the tests currently permitted in
Sec.  1910.106 and Sec.  1926.155 because they were in the original
OSHA standards, but allowed methods in the GHS-modified HCS be used as
well. The final rule adopts these changes.
    Thus, the final rule amends Sec.  1910.106 and Sec.  1926.155 to
allow ASTM D-56-70 and ASTM D-93-71 for Sec.  1910.106; ASTM D-56-69
and ASTM D-93-69 for Sec.  1910.155; and the equivalent testing methods
permitted in the HCS, Sec.  1910.1200, Appendix B.6, Physical Hazard
Criteria. For example, as amended by the final rule, Sec.
1910.106(a)(14)(i) states that for a liquid which has a viscosity of
less than 45 SUS at 100 [deg]F (37.8 [deg]C), does not

contain suspended solids, and does not have a tendency to form a
surface film while under test, the procedure specified in the Standard
Method of Test for Flashpoint by Tag Closed Tester (ASTM D-56-70),
which is incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  1910.6, or an
equivalent test method as defined in Appendix B to Sec.  1910.1200--
Physical Hazard Criteria, must be used.
    By equivalent test method, OSHA means employers can select any of
the test methods in Appendix B.6 or in Chapter 2.6 of Revision 3 of the
GHS (2009).
    The only comments on this issue recommended additional methods for
determining flashpoints (Document ID 0344 and 0381). The Soap
and Detergent Association/Consumer Specialty Products Association
(Document ID 0344) and the Procter & Gamble Company (Document
ID 0381) recommended OSHA include ASTM D6450 on the list of
approved methods for determining the flashpoints of liquids in the
``incorporation by reference'' list in Sec.  1910.106. OSHA is not
prepared to adopt this method at this time. The determination of
flashpoint test methods for GHS falls under a Sub-committee of the
United Nations Economic and Social Council's Committee of Experts on
the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UNCEDTG). Commenters who wish the GHS
to incorporate ASTM D6450 should direct their requests to that body,
and if the method is incorporated into the GHS, OSHA will consider the
matter at that time.
Flammable Aerosols
    OSHA currently defines the term ``flammable aerosol'' in Sec.
1910.106 and in Sec.  1910.1200 by reference to a definition developed
by the Consumer Product Safety Commission under the Federal Hazardous
Substances Act. See 16 CFR 1500.45; See also 15 U.S.C. 1261(l). The
current HCS defines flammable aerosol as an aerosol that, when tested
by the method described in 16 CFR 1500.45, yields a flame projection
exceeding 18 inches at full valve opening, or a flashback (a flame
extending back to the valve) at any degree of valve opening.
    The current Sec.  1910.106 definitions for ``aerosol'' and
``flammable aerosol'' are provided in (Sec.  1910.106(a)(1)) and (Sec.
1910.106(a)(13)) and are different from those in the revised Hazard
Communication Standard. In the current Sec.  1910.106, an aerosol is
defined as a material which is dispensed from its container as a mist,
spray, or foam by a propellant under pressure. However, in the current
Sec.  1910.106, a flammable aerosol is defined as an aerosol which is
required to be labeled ``Flammable'' under the Federal Hazardous
Substances Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1261). For the purposes of Sec.
1910.106(d), such aerosols are considered Class IA liquids.
    OSHA proposed to remove the definitions of ``aerosol'' and
``flammable aerosol'' from Sec.  1910.106 and instead insert its GHS-
consistent definitions along with references to Appendix B.3 of the
GHS-modified HCS. In response to OSHA's proposed action, National Paint
and Coatings Association and Alliance of Hazardous Materials
Professionals both said that, while they were not prepared to offer
specific impact information on operations, ``to align OSHA definitions
for * * * Flammable Aerosols is fully consistent with the concept of a
`single world-wide' definition for these hazards.'' (Document ID
0313 and 0327).
    OSHA agrees with these comments and has included the revised
definition of ``flammable aerosols'' in the final rule. The revised
definition in the Flammable liquids standard, Sec.  1910.106,
duplicates the flammable aerosols definition contained in Appendix B to
Sec.  1910.1200--Physical Hazard Criteria. For the purposes of Sec.
1910.106(d), such aerosols are considered Category 1 flammable liquids.
    The GHS-modified definition and classification criteria for
flammable aerosols can be found in Appendix B.3 of HCS.
    OSHA's decision to change the definition of aerosols to be
consistent with the GHS-modified HCS is based not only upon harmonizing
its own standards with those followed by other countries who have or
are considering adopting GHS, but also to harmonize with DOT's
definition for flammable aerosols, which is also consistent with the
GHS. See 49 CFR 173.115(k).
    Dr. Michelle Sullivan (Document ID 0382), alluding to
flammable aerosols, pointed out that flammable categories will differ
among regulatory authorities. She stated:

[T]he GHS flammable aerosol criteria are linked to the criteria for
flammable liquid, flammable solid and flammable gas, the flammable
aerosol criteria depend on the hazard categories/building blocks of
these other hazards * * * some regulatory authorities will adopt
categories 1-4 while others will adopt categories 1-3 * * * [and
thus] * * * the flammable aerosol criteria will differ for these
regulatory authorities.

    Regarding Dr. Sullivan's comment, OSHA acknowledges that other
regulatory bodies, when adopting GHS, may choose different building
blocks. However, the basis for classification will still be based on
the same criteria and will lead to harmonization of similarly covered
materials. This does not affect OSHA's decision to strive for both
domestic and international harmonization.
    Finally, OSHA believes that the GHS classification criteria are
similar enough to the current Sec.  1910.106 and Sec.  1910.1200
criteria that all aerosols currently regulated by OSHA would continue
to be so, and that few, if any, new aerosols would be subject to OSHA
regulation. Indeed, OSHA raised this issue in the NPRM and received no
comments to the contrary.
Standards Not Included in This Rulemaking
    OSHA did not propose to change standards that incorporate by
reference other consensus standards, such as NFPA codes, or are based
on consensus standards when those consensus standards are used for
internal design criteria only and do not reference the HCS for
applicable scope or incorporation into the SDS. These standards include
Subpart S--Electrical, in Part 1910 (General Industry), and Subpart K--
Electrical, in Part 1926 (Construction). Many commenters on the ANPR
were particularly concerned that a change in OSHA's definitions would
create an incompatibility with local building codes (Document ID
0047, 0075, 0076, 0104, 0113, 0145 and 0163). They alleged
that, in many cases, this would require extensive rewiring to meet the
Subpart S requirements on hazardous locations and would lead to
conflicts with local electrical codes.
    Many commenters on the NPRM supported OSHA's exemption of these
standards (Document ID 0328, 0330, 0336, 0370, 0393, and
0408). Ameren expressed concern that if OSHA harmonized the electrical
and blasting agents standards (Part 1910 Subpart S, Sec.  1910.109, and
Part 1926 Subpart K, Sec.  1926.914) with the GHS, such changes would
require training of affected employees on the changes (Document ID
0330). ASSE agreed with OSHA's decision not to propose updates
to the electrical standards (general industry 1910 Subpart S and
construction 1926 Subpart K) or explosives and blasting agents (general
industry Sec.  1910.109 and construction Sec.  1926.914), since these
subparts are ``self-contained'' in that they do not rely on other OSHA
standards for regulatory scope or definitions but reference external
organizations such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
(Document ID 0336). The American Iron and Steel Institute
agreed (Document ID 0408). ORC strongly

supported OSHA's approach of not updating these standards but waiting
until the referenced external organizations adopted the GHS elements
(Document ID 0370).
    Wacker Chemical Company, PRR, and ACC urged OSHA to update
electrical and explosive and blasting agents standards if the consensus
organizations could come to agreement, and they expressed their
concerns regarding potential conflicts with local codes and regulations
(Document ID 0335, 0339, and 0393). Wacker Chemical
Corporation encouraged OSHA to work closely with organizations (NFPA
and others) that develop fire and electrical codes to ensure there is
consistent application of these codes to area classification, building
construction, equipment electrical ratings, etc. (Document ID
0335). Wacker Chemical suggested that OSHA could make progress