[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17574-17896]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4826]

Vol. 77

Monday,

No. 58

March 26, 2012

Part II

Department of Labor

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

29 CFR 1910, 1915 and 1926

Hazard Communication; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Rules
and Regulations

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926

[Docket No. OSHA-H022K-2006-0062 (formerly Docket No. H022K)]
RIN 1218-AC20

Hazard Communication

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOL.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this final rule, OSHA is modifying its Hazard Communication
Standard (HCS) to conform to the United Nations' Globally Harmonized
System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). OSHA has
determined that the modifications will significantly reduce costs and
burdens while also improving the quality and consistency of information
provided to employers and employees regarding chemical hazards and
associated protective measures. Consistent with the requirements of
Executive Order 13563, which calls for assessment and, where
appropriate, modification and improvement of existing rules, the Agency
has concluded this improved information will enhance the effectiveness
of the HCS in ensuring that employees are apprised of the chemical
hazards to which they may be exposed, and in reducing the incidence of
chemical-related occupational illnesses and injuries.
    The modifications to the standard include revised criteria for
classification of chemical hazards; revised labeling provisions that
include requirements for use of standardized signal words, pictograms,
hazard statements, and precautionary statements; a specified format for
safety data sheets; and related revisions to definitions of terms used
in the standard, and requirements for employee training on labels and
safety data sheets. OSHA is also modifying provisions of other
standards, including standards for flammable and combustible liquids,
process safety management, and most substance-specific health
standards, to ensure consistency with the modified HCS requirements.
The consequences of these modifications will be to improve safety, to
facilitate global harmonization of standards, and to produce hundreds
of millions of dollars in annual savings.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective on May 25, 2012 Affected
parties do not need to comply with the information collection
requirements in the final rule until the Department of Labor publishes
in the Federal Register the control numbers assigned by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Publication of the control numbers
notifies the public that OMB has approved these information collection
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    The incorporation by reference of the specific publications listed
in this final rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register
as of May 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates
Joseph M. Woodward, Associate Solicitor for Occupational Safety and
Health, Office of the Solicitor, Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor;
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, as the recipient of
petitions for review of this final standard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press
inquiries, contact: Frank Meilinger, OSHA Office of Communications,
Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For technical
information, contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Director, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1950.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule modifies the Hazard
Communication standard (HCS) and aligns it with the Globally Harmonized
System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) as
established by the United Nations (UN). This action is consistent with
Executive Order 13563 and, in particular, with its requirement of
``retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective,
insufficient, or excessively burdensome.'' The preamble to the final
rule provides a synopsis of the events leading up to the establishment
of the final rule, a detailed description of OSHA's rationale for the
necessity of the modification, and final economic and voluntary
flexibility analyses that support the Agency's determinations. Also
included are explanations of the specific provisions that are modified
in the HCS and other affected OSHA standards and OSHA's responses to
comments, testimony, and data submitted during the rulemaking. The
discussion follows this outline:

I. Introduction
II. Events Leading to the Revised Hazard Communication Standard
III. Overview of the Final Rule and Alternatives Considered
IV. Need and Support for the Revised Hazard Communication Standard
V. Pertinent Legal Authority
VI. Final Economic Analysis and Voluntary Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
VII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VIII. Federalism and Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
IX. State Plans
X. Unfunded Mandates
XI. Protecting Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
XII. Environmental Impacts
XIII. Summary and Explanation of the Modifications to the Hazard
Communication Standard
    (a) Purpose
    (b) Scope
    (c) Definitions
    (d) Hazard Classification
    (e) Written Hazard Communication Program
    (f) Labels and Other Forms of Warning
    (g) Safety Data Sheets
    (h) Employee Information and Training
    (i) Trade Secrets
    (j) Effective Dates
    (k) Other Standards Affected
    (l) Appendices
XIV. Authority and Signature

    The HCS requires that chemical manufacturers and importers evaluate
the chemicals they produce or import and provide hazard information to
downstream employers and employees by putting labels on containers and
preparing safety data sheets. This final rule modifies the current HCS
to align with the provisions of the UN's GHS. The modifications to the
HCS will significantly reduce burdens and costs, and also improve the
quality and consistency of information provided to employers and
employees regarding chemical hazards by providing harmonized criteria
for classifying and labeling hazardous chemicals and for preparing
safety data sheets for these chemicals.
    OSHA is required by the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of
1970 to assure, as far as possible, safe and healthful working
conditions for all working men and women. Section 3(8) of the OSH Act
(29 U.S.C. 652(8)) empowers the Secretary of Labor to promulgate
standards that are ``reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide
safe or healthful employment and places of employment.'' This language
has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to require that an OSHA
standard address a significant risk and reduce this risk significantly.
See Industrial Union Dep't v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S.
607 (1980). As discussed in Sections IV and V of this preamble, OSHA
finds that inadequate communication to

employees regarding the hazards of chemicals constitutes a significant
risk of harm and estimates that the final rule will reduce this risk
significantly.
    Section 6(b)(7) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)) allows OSHA to
make appropriate modifications to its hazard communication requirements
as new knowledge and techniques are developed. The GHS system is a new
approach that has been developed through international negotiations and
embodies the knowledge gained in the field of chemical hazard
communication since the current rule was first adopted in 1983. As
indicated in Section IV of this preamble, OSHA finds that modifying the
HCS to align with the GHS will enhance worker protections
significantly. As noted in Section VI of this preamble, these
modifications to HCS will also result in less expensive chemical hazard
management and communication. In this way, the modifications are in
line with the requirements of Executive Order 13563 and its call for
streamlining of regulatory burdens.
    OSHA is also required to determine if its standards are
technologically and economically feasible. As discussed in Section VI
of this preamble, OSHA has determined that this final standard is
technologically and economically feasible.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), requires OSHA to
determine if a regulation will have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As discussed in Section VI, OSHA
has determined and certified that this rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 require OSHA to assess the
benefits and costs of final rules and of available regulatory
alternatives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules,
and promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated an
economically significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget, and the remainder of this section
summarizes the key findings of the analysis with respect to the costs
and benefits of the final rule.
    Because this final rule modifies the current HCS to align with the
provisions of the UN's GHS, the available alternatives to the final
rule are somewhat limited. The Agency has qualitatively discussed the
two major alternatives to the proposed rule--(1) voluntary adoption of
GHS within the existing HCS framework and (2) a limited adoption of
specific GHS components--in Section III of this preamble, but
quantitative estimates of the costs and benefits of these alternatives
could not reasonably be developed. However, OSHA has determined that
both of these alternatives would eliminate significant portions of the
benefits of the rule, which can only be achieved if the system used in
the U.S. is consistently and uniformly applied throughout the nation
and in conformance with the internationally harmonized system.
    Table SI-1, derived from material presented in Section VI of this
preamble, provides a summary of the costs and benefits of the final
rule. As shown, the final rule is estimated to prevent 43 fatalities
and 521 injuries and illnesses annually. Also as shown, OSHA estimates
that the monetized health and safety benefits of the final rule are
$250 million annually and that the annualized cost reductions and
productivity gains are $507 million annually. In addition, OSHA
anticipates that the final rule will generate substantial (but
unquantified) savings from simplified hazard communication training and
from expanded opportunities for international trade due to a reduction
in trade barriers.
    The estimated cost of the rule is $201 million annually. As shown
in Table SI-1, the major cost elements associated with the final rule
include the classification of chemical hazards in accordance with the
GHS criteria and the corresponding revision of safety data sheets and
labels to meet new format and content requirements ($22.5 million);
training for employees to become familiar with new warning symbols and
the revised safety data sheet format ($95.4 million); management
familiarization and other management-related costs as may be necessary
($59.0 million); and costs to purchase upgraded label printing
equipment and supplies or to purchase pre-printed color labels in order
to include the hazard warning pictogram enclosed in a red-bordered
diamond on the product label ($24.1 million).
    The final rule is estimated to generate net monetized benefits of
$556 million annually, using a discount rate of 7 percent to annualize
costs and benefits. Using a 3 percent discount rate instead would have
the effect of lowering the costs to $161 million per year and
increasing the gross benefits to $839 million per year. The result
would be to increase net benefits from $556 million to $678 million per
year.
    These estimates are for informational purposes only and have not
been used by OSHA as the basis for its decision concerning the
requirements for this final rule.

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26MR12.000

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

I. Introduction

    In the preamble, OSHA refers to supporting materials. References to
these materials are given as ``Document ID '' followed by the
last four digits of the document number. The referenced materials are
posted in Docket No. OSHA-H022K-2006-0062, which is available at http://www.regulations.osha.gov; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through that
Web site. All of the documents are available for inspection and, where
permissible, copying at the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

II. Events Leading to the Revised Hazard Communication Standard

    The HCS was first promulgated in 1983 and covered the manufacturing
sector of industry (48 FR 53280, Nov. 25, 1983). (Please note: The
Agency's HCS (29 CFR 1910.1200; 1915.1200; 1917.28; 1918.90; and
1926.59) will be referred to as the ``current HCS'' throughout this
rule.) In 1987, the Agency expanded the scope of coverage to all
industries where employees are potentially exposed to hazardous
chemicals (52 FR 31852, Aug. 24, 1987). Although full implementation in
the non-manufacturing sector was delayed by various court and
administrative actions, the rule has been fully enforced in all
industries regulated by OSHA since March 17, 1989 (54 FR 6886, Feb. 15,
1989) (29 CFR 1910.1200; 1915.1200; 1917.28; 1918.90; and 1926.59). In
1994, OSHA made minor changes and technical amendments to the HCS to
help ensure full compliance and achieve better protection of employees
(59 FR 6126, Feb. 9, 1994). The development of the HCS is discussed in
detail in the preambles to the original and revised final rules (See 48
FR at 53280-53281; 52 FR at 31852-31854; and 59 FR at 6127-6131). This
discussion will focus on the sequence of events leading to the
development of the GHS and the associated modifications to the HCS
included in the final rule.
    The current HCS requires chemical manufacturers and importers to
evaluate the chemicals they produce or import to determine if they are
hazardous. The standard provides definitions of health and physical
hazards to use as the criteria for determining hazards in the
evaluation process. Information about hazards and protective measures
is then required to be conveyed to downstream employers and employees
through labels on containers and through material safety data sheets,
which are now called ``safety data sheets'' (SDS) under the final rule
and in this preamble. All employers with hazardous chemicals in their
workplaces are required to have a hazard communication program,
including container labels, safety data sheets, and employee training.
Generally, under the final rule, these obligations on manufacturers,
importers, and employers remain, but how hazard communication is to be
accomplished has been modified.
    To protect employees and members of the public who are potentially
exposed to hazardous chemicals during their production, transportation,
use, and disposal, a number of countries have developed laws that
require information about those chemicals to be prepared and
transmitted to affected parties. The laws vary on the scope of
chemicals covered, definitions of hazards, the specificity of
requirements (e.g., specification of a format for safety data sheets),
and the use of symbols and pictograms. The inconsistencies among the
laws are substantial enough that different labels and safety data
sheets must often be developed for the same product when it is marketed
in different nations.
    Within the U.S., several regulatory authorities exercise
jurisdiction over chemical hazard communication. In addition to OSHA,
the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates chemicals in
transport; the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulates
consumer products; and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulates pesticides, as well as exercising other authority over the
labeling of chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Each of
these regulatory authorities operates under different statutory
mandates, and all have adopted distinct hazard communication
requirements.
    Tracking and complying with the hazard communication requirements
of different regulatory authorities is a burden for manufacturers,
importers, distributors, and transporters engaged in commerce in the
domestic arena. This burden is magnified by the need to develop
multiple sets of labels and safety data sheets for each product in
international trade. Small businesses have particular difficulty in
coping with the complexities and costs involved. The problems
associated with differing national and international requirements were
recognized and discussed when the HCS was first promulgated in 1983. At
that time, OSHA committed to periodically reviewing the standard in
recognition of an interagency trade policy that supported the U.S.
pursuing international harmonization of requirements for chemical
classification and labeling. The potential benefits of harmonization
were noted in the preamble of the 1983 standard:

    * * * [O]SHA acknowledges the long-term benefit of maximum
recognition of hazard warnings, especially in the case of containers
leaving the workplace which go into interstate and international
commerce. The development of internationally agreed standards would
make possible the broadest recognition of the identified hazards
while avoiding the creation of technical barriers to trade and
reducing the costs of dissemination of hazard information by
elimination of duplicative requirements which could otherwise apply
to a chemical in commerce. As noted previously, these regulations
will be reviewed on a regular basis with regard to similar
requirements which may be evolving in the United States and in
foreign countries. (48 FR at 53287)

    OSHA has actively participated in many such efforts in the years
since that commitment was made, including trade-related discussions on
the need for harmonization with major U.S. trading partners. The Agency
issued a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register in
January 1990, to obtain input regarding international harmonization
efforts, and on work being done at that time by the International
Labour Organization (ILO) to develop a convention and recommendations
on safety in the use of chemicals at work (55 FR 2166, Jan. 22, 1990).
On a closely related matter, OSHA published a second RFI in May 1990,
requesting comments and information on improving the effectiveness of
information transmitted under the HCS (55 FR 20580, May 17, 1990).
Possible development of a standardized format or order of information
was raised as an issue in the RFI. Nearly 600 comments were received in
response to this request. The majority of responses expressed support
for a standard safety data sheet format, and the majority of responses
that expressed an opinion on the topic favored a standardized format
for labels as well.
    In June 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development issued a mandate (Chapter 19 of Agenda 21), supported by
the U.S., calling for development of a globally harmonized chemical
classification and labeling system:

    A globally harmonized hazard classification and compatible
labeling system, including material safety data sheets and easily
understandable symbols, should be available, if feasible, by the
year 2000.

This international mandate initiated a substantial effort to develop
the GHS,

involving numerous international organizations, many countries, and
extensive stakeholder representation.
    A coordinating group comprised of countries, stakeholder
representatives, and international organizations was established to
manage the work. This group, the Inter-Organization Programme for the
Sound Management of Chemicals Coordinating Group for the Harmonization
of Chemical Classification Systems, established overall policy for the
work and assigned tasks to other organizations. The Coordinating Group
then took the work of these organizations and integrated it to form the
GHS. OSHA served as chair of the Coordinating Group.
    The work was divided into three main parts: classification criteria
for physical hazards; classification criteria for health and
environmental hazards (including criteria for mixtures); and hazard
communication elements, including requirements for labels and safety
data sheets. The criteria for physical hazards were developed by a
United Nations Sub-committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous
Goods/International Labour Organization working group and were based on
the already harmonized criteria for the transport sector. The criteria
for classification of health and environmental hazards were developed
under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. The ILO developed the hazard communication elements. OSHA
participated in all of this work, and served as U.S. lead on
classification of mixtures and hazard communication.
    Four major existing systems served as the primary basis for
development of the GHS. These systems were the requirements in the U.S.
for the workplace, consumers, and pesticides; the requirements of
Canada for the workplace, consumers, and pesticides; European Union
directives for classification and labeling of substances and
preparations; and the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport
of Dangerous Goods. The requirements of other systems were also
examined as appropriate, and taken into account as the GHS was
developed. The primary approach to reconciling these systems involved
identifying the relevant provisions in each system; developing
background documents that compared, contrasted, and explained the
rationale for the provisions; and undertaking negotiations to find an
agreed approach that addressed the needs of the countries and
stakeholders involved. Principles to guide the work were established,
including an agreement that protections of the existing systems would
not be reduced as a result of harmonization. Thus, countries could be
assured that the existing protections of their systems would be
maintained or enhanced in the GHS.
    An interagency committee under the auspices of the Department of
State coordinated U.S. involvement in the development of the GHS. In
addition to OSHA, DOT, CPSC, and EPA, other agencies were involved that
had interests related to trade or other aspects of the GHS process.
Different agencies took the lead in various parts of the discussions.
Positions for the U.S. in these negotiations were coordinated through
the interagency committee. Interested stakeholders were kept informed
through email dissemination of information, as well as periodic public
meetings. In addition, the Department of State published a notice in
the Federal Register that described the harmonization activities, the
agencies involved, the principles of harmonization, and other
information, as well as invited public comment on these issues (62 FR
15951, Apr. 3, 1997). Stakeholders also actively participated in the
discussions at the international level and were able to present their
views directly in the negotiating process. The GHS was formally adopted
by the new United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification
and Labelling of Chemicals in December 2002. In 2003, the adoption was
endorsed by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.
Countries were encouraged to implement the GHS as soon as possible, and
have fully operational systems by 2008. This goal was adopted by
countries in the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety, and was
endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The U.S.
participated in these groups, and agreed to work toward achieving these
goals.
    OSHA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on
the GHS in September of 2006 (71 FR 53617, Sept. 12, 2006). At the same
time the ANPR was published, OSHA made available on its Web site a
document summarizing the GHS (http://www.osha.gov). The ANPR provided
information about the GHS and its potential impact on the HCS, and
sought input from the public on issues related to GHS implementation.
Over 100 responses were received, and the comments and information
provided were taken into account in the development of the
modifications to the HCS included in the September 2009 Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (74 FR 50279-50549, Sept. 30, 2009). A
notice of correction was published on November 5, 2009, in order to
correct misprints in the proposal (74 FR 57278, Nov. 5, 2009). Over 100
comments were received in response to the NPRM. Commenters represented
the broad spectrum of affected parties and included government
agencies, industries, professional and trade associations, academics,
employee organizations and individuals. Public hearings were held in
Washington, DC, from March 2 through March 5, 2010, and in Pittsburgh,
PA, on March 31, 2010. Over 40 panels participated in the hearings. The
comments, testimony, and other data received regarding this rulemaking
were overwhelmingly favorable, and will be discussed in detail later in
this preamble. The final post-hearing comment period for further
submissions and briefs ended and the record was certified by
Administrative Law Judge Stephen L. Purcell and closed on May 31, 2010.
Executive Order 13563, emphasizing the importance of retrospective
analysis of rules, was issued on January 18, 2011.
    This final rule is based on Revision 3 of the GHS. The adoption of
the GHS will improve OSHA's current HCS standard by providing
consistent, standardized hazard communication to downstream users.
However, even after the U.S. and other countries implement the GHS, it
will continue to be updated in the future. These updates to the GHS
will be completed as necessary to reflect new technological and
scientific developments as well as provide additional explanatory text.
Any future changes to the HCS to adopt subsequent changes to the GHS
would require OSHA's rulemaking procedures.
    OSHA will remain engaged in activities related to the GHS. The U.S.
is a member of the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport
of Dangerous Goods and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification
and Labelling of Chemicals, as well as the Sub-committee of Experts on
the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals, where OSHA is currently the Head of the U.S. Delegation.
These permanent UN bodies have international responsibility for
maintaining, updating as necessary, and overseeing the implementation
of the GHS. OSHA and other affected Federal agencies actively
participate in these UN groups. In addition, OSHA will also continue to
participate in the GHS Programme Advisory Group under the United
Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). UNITAR is

responsible for helping countries implement the GHS, and has ongoing
programs to prepare guidance documents, conduct regional workshops, and
implement pilot projects in a number of nations. OSHA will also
continue its involvement in interagency discussions related to
coordination of domestic implementation of the GHS, and in discussions
related to international work to implement and maintain the GHS.

III. Overview of the Final Rule and Alternatives Considered

    Based on consideration of the record as a whole, OSHA has modified
the HCS to make it consistent with the GHS. OSHA finds that harmonizing
the HCS with the GHS will improve worker understanding of the hazardous
chemicals they encounter every day. Such harmonization will also reduce
costs for employers.
    OSHA believes that adopting the GHS will result in a clearer, more
effective methodology for conveying information on hazardous chemicals
to employers and employees. Commenters overwhelmingly supported the
revision, and their submissions form a strong evidentiary basis for
this final rule. The American Health Care Association stated that the
GHS ``would enhance the effectiveness of the HCS in ensuring that
employees are apprised of the chemical hazards to which they might be
exposed'' (Document ID 0346). The National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences concurred, and added that adopting the
GHS ``would provide better worker health and safety protections''
(Document ID 0347). (See also Document ID 0303, 0313,
0322, 0324, 0327, 0328, 0329, 0330, 0331, 0334, 0335, 0336, 0339, 0340,
0341, 0344, 0345, 0346, 0347, 0349, 0350, 0351, 0352, 0353, 0354, 0356,
0357, 0359, 0363, 0365, 0367, 0369, 0370, 0371, 0372, 0374, 0375, 0376,
0377, 0378, 0379, 0381, 0382, 0383, 0385, 0386, 0387, 0388, 0389, 0390,
0392, 0393, 0396, 0397, 0399, 0400, 0402, 0403, 0404, 0405, 0407, 0408,
0409, 0410, 0411, 0412, 0414, 0417, 0453, 0456, 0461, and 0463.)
    Consistent with Executive Order 13563, OSHA has concluded that the
revision significantly improves the current HCS standard. Moreover,
there is widespread agreement that aligning the HCS with the GHS would
establish a valuable, systematic approach for employers to evaluate
workplace hazards, and provide employees with consistent information
regarding the hazards they encounter. A member of the United Steel
Workers aptly summed up the revision by stating that ``the HCS in 1983
gave the workers the `right to know' but the GHS will give the workers
the `right to understand' '' (Document ID 0403). The American
Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) concurred, stating that adoption of
the HCS was ``necessary to help this nation's workers deal with the
increasingly difficult challenge of understanding the hazards and
precautions needed to handle and use chemicals safely in an
increasingly connected workplace'' (Document ID 0336).
Phlymar, ORC, BCI, 3M, American Iron & Steel Institute, and the North
American Metals Council (NAMC) all agreed that the adoption of the GHS
would improve the quality and consistency of information and the
effectiveness of hazard communication (Documents ID 0322,
0336, 0339, 0370, 0377, 0390, 0405, and 0408). (See also Document ID
0327, 0338, 0339, 0346, 0347, 0349, 0351, 0354, 0363, 0365,
0370, 0372, 0374, 0379, 0389, 0390, 0397, 0405, 0408, and 0414.) The
evidence supporting the Agency's conclusions is discussed more
thoroughly below in Sections IV, V, and VI; the revisions to the HCS
are discussed in detail in Section XIII.
    This section of the preamble provides an overview of the current
HCS and how the adoption of the GHS will change this standard.
Moreover, this section will also discuss the alternatives to mandatory
implementation and the benefits of the final rule. The specific issues
for which OSHA solicited comments in the NPRM will be discussed within
their respective sections.

1. The Hazard Communication Standard

    The HCS requires a comprehensive hazard evaluation and
communication process, aimed at ensuring that the hazards of all
chemicals are evaluated, and also requires that the information
concerning chemical hazards and necessary protective measures is
properly transmitted to employees. The HCS achieves this goal by
requiring chemical manufacturers and importers to review available
scientific evidence concerning the physical and health hazards of the
chemicals they produce or import to determine if they are hazardous.
For every chemical found to be hazardous, the chemical manufacturer or
importer must develop a container label and an SDS, and provide both
documents to downstream users of the chemical. All employers with
employees exposed to hazardous chemicals must develop a hazard
communication program, and ensure that exposed employees are provided
with labels, access to SDSs, and training on the hazardous chemicals in
their workplace.
    There are three information communication components in this
system--labels, SDSs, and employee training, all of which are essential
to the effective functioning of the program. Labels provide a brief,
but immediate and conspicuous, summary of hazard information at the
site where the chemical is used. SDSs provide detailed technical
information and serve as a reference source for exposed employees,
industrial hygienists, safety professionals, emergency responders,
health care professionals, and other interested parties. Training is
designed to ensure that employees understand the chemical hazards in
their workplace and are aware of protective measures to follow. Labels,
SDSs, and training are complementary parts of a comprehensive hazard
communication program--each element reinforces the knowledge necessary
for effective protection of employees. Information required by the HCS
reduces the incidence of chemical-related illnesses and injuries by
enabling employers and employees to implement protective measures in
the workplace. Employers can select less hazardous chemical
alternatives and ensure that appropriate engineering controls, work
practices, and personal protective equipment are in place. Improved
understanding of chemical hazards by supervisory personnel results in
safer handling of hazardous substances, as well as proper storage and
housekeeping measures.
    Employees provided with information and training on chemical
hazards are able to fully participate in the protective measures
instituted in their workplaces. Knowledgeable employees can take the
steps required to work safely with chemicals, and are able to determine
what actions are necessary if an emergency occurs. Information on
chronic effects of exposure to hazardous chemicals helps employees
recognize signs and symptoms of chronic disease and seek early
treatment. Information provided under the HCS also enables health and
safety professionals to provide better services to exposed employees.
Medical surveillance, exposure monitoring, and other services are
enhanced by the ready availability of health and safety information.
The modifications that make up this final rule build on these core
principles by establishing a more detailed and consistent
classification system and requiring uniform labels and SDSs, which will
better ensure that workers are informed and adequately protected from
chemical exposures.

2. Current HCS Provisions for Classification, Labeling, and SDSs

    The current HCS covers a broad range of health and physical
hazards. The standard is performance-oriented, providing definitions of
hazards and parameters for evaluating the evidence to determine whether
a chemical is considered hazardous. The evaluation is based upon
evidence that is currently available, and no testing of chemicals is
required.
    The current standard covers every type of health effect that may
occur, including both acute and chronic effects. Definitions of a
number of adverse health effects are provided in the standard. These
definitions are indicative of the wide range of coverage, but are not
exclusive. Mandatory Appendix A of the current standard lists criteria
for specific health effects; however, it also notes that these criteria
are not intended to be an exclusive categorization scheme, but rather
any available scientific data on the chemical must be evaluated to
determine whether the chemical presents a health hazard. Any adverse
health effect that is substantiated by a study conducted according to
established scientific principles, and reporting a statistically
significant outcome, is sufficient for determining that a chemical is
hazardous under the rule.
    Most chemicals in commerce are not present in the pure state (i.e.,
as individual elements or compounds), but are ingredients in mixtures
of chemicals. Evaluation of the health hazards of mixtures is based on
data for the mixture as a whole when such data are available. When data
on the mixture as a whole are not available, the mixture is considered
to present the same health hazards as any ingredients present at a
concentration of 1% or greater, or, in the case of carcinogens,
concentrations of 0.1% or greater. The current HCS also recognizes that
risk may remain at concentrations below these cut-offs, and where there
is evidence that that is the case, the mixtures are considered
hazardous under the standard.
    The current HCS establishes requirements for minimum information
that must be included on labels and SDSs, but does not provide specific
language to convey the information or a format in which to provide it.
When the current HCS was issued in 1983, the public record strongly
supported this performance-oriented approach (See 48 FR at 53300-
53310). Many chemical manufacturers and importers were already
providing information voluntarily, and in the absence of specific
requirements had developed their own formats and approaches. The record
indicated that a performance-oriented approach would reduce the need
for chemical manufacturers and importers to revise these existing
documents to comply with the HCS, thus reducing the cost impact of the
standard.

3. GHS Provisions for Classification, Labeling, and SDSs

    The GHS is an internationally harmonized system for classifying
chemical hazards and developing labels and safety data sheets. However,
the GHS is not a model standard that can be adopted verbatim. Rather,
it is a set of criteria and provisions that regulatory authorities can
incorporate into existing systems, or use to develop new systems.
    The GHS allows a regulatory authority to choose the provisions that
are appropriate to its sphere of regulation. This is referred to as the
``building block approach.'' The GHS includes all of the regulatory
components, or building blocks, that might be needed for classification
and labeling requirements for chemicals in the workplace, transport,
pesticides, and consumer products. This rule only adopts those sections
of the GHS that are appropriate to OSHA's regulatory sector. For
example, while the GHS includes criteria on classifying chemicals for
aquatic toxicity, these provisions were not adopted because OSHA does
not have the regulatory authority to address environmental concerns.
The building block approach also gives regulatory agencies the
authority to select which classification criteria and provisions to
adopt. OSHA is adopting the classification criteria and provisions for
labels and SDSs, because the current HCS covers these elements. Broad
criteria were established for the GHS in order to allow regulatory
bodies to apply the same standards to a wide array of hazards. The
building block approach may also be applied to the criteria for
defining hazard categories. As a result, the GHS criteria are more
comprehensive than what was in the current HCS, and OSHA did not need
to incorporate all of the GHS hazard categories into this final rule.
    Under the GHS, each hazard or endpoint (e.g., Explosives,
Carcinogenicity) is considered to be a hazard class. The classes are
generally sub-divided into categories of hazard. For example,
Carcinogenicity has two hazard categories. Category one is for known or
presumed human carcinogens while category two encompasses suspected
human carcinogens. The definitions of hazards are specific and
detailed. For example, under the current HCS, a chemical is either an
explosive or it is not. The GHS has seven categories of explosives, and
assignment to these categories is based on the classification criteria
provided. In order to determine which hazard class a mixture falls
under, the GHS generally applies a tiered approach. When evaluating
mixtures, the first step is consideration of data on the mixture as a
whole. The second step allows the use of ``bridging principles'' to
estimate the hazards of the mixture based on information about its
components. The third step of the tiered approach involves use of cut-
off values based on the composition of the mixture or, for acute
toxicity, a formula that is used for classification. The approach is
generally consistent with the requirements of the pre-modified HCS, but
provides more detail and specification and allows for extrapolation of
data available on the components of a mixture to a greater extent--
particularly for acute effects.
    Hazard communication requirements under the GHS are directly linked
to the hazard classification. For each class and category of hazard, a
harmonized signal word (e.g., Danger), pictogram (e.g., skull and
crossbones), and hazard statement (e.g., Fatal if Swallowed) must be
specified. These specified elements are referred to as the core
information for a chemical. Thus, once a chemical is classified, the
GHS provides the specific core information to convey to users of that
chemical. The core information allocated to each category generally
reflects the degree or severity of the hazard.
    Precautionary statements are also required on GHS labels. The GHS
provides precautionary statements; while they have been codified
(numbered), they are not yet considered formally harmonized. In other
words, regulatory authorities may choose to use different language for
the precautionary statements and still be considered to be harmonized
with the GHS. The GHS has codified these statements (i.e., assigned
numbers to them) as well as aligned them with the hazard classes and
categories. Codification allows the precautionary statements to be
referenced in a shorthand form and makes it easier for authorities
using them in regulatory text to organize them. In addition, there are
provisions to allow inclusion of supplementary information so that
chemical manufacturers can provide data in addition to the specified
core information.
    The GHS establishes a standardized 16-section format for SDSs to
provide a consistent sequence for presentation of information to SDS
users. Items of

primary interest to exposed employees and emergency responders are
presented at the beginning of the document, while more technical
information is presented in later sections. Headings for the sections
(e.g., First-aid measures, Handling and storage) are standardized to
facilitate locating information of interest. The harmonized data sheets
are consistent with the order of information included in the voluntary
industry consensus standard for safety data sheets (ANSI Z400.1).

4. Revisions to the Hazard Communication Standard

    The GHS uses an integrated, comprehensive process of identifying
and communicating hazards, and the GHS modifications improve the HCS by
providing more extensive criteria for defining the hazards in a
consistent manner, as well as standardizing label elements and SDS
formats to help to ensure that the information is conveyed
consistently. The GHS does not include requirements for a written
hazard communication program, and this final rule does not make
substantive changes to the current HCS requirements for a written
hazard communication program. Nor does the GHS impose employee training
requirements; however, OSHA believes that additional training will be
necessary to ensure that employees understand the new elements,
particularly on the new pictograms. Therefore, modified training
requirements have been included in the final rule in order to address
the new label elements and SDS format required under this revised
standard.
a. Modifications
    The revised HCS primarily affects manufacturers and importers of
hazardous chemicals. Pursuant to the final rule, chemical manufacturers
and importers are required to re-evaluate chemicals according to the
new criteria in order to ensure the chemicals are classified
appropriately. For health hazards, this will involve assigning the
chemical both to the appropriate hazard category and subcategory
(called hazard class). For physical hazards, these new criteria are
generally consistent with current DOT requirements for transport.
Therefore, if the chemicals are transported (i.e., they are not
produced and used in the same workplace), this classification should
already be done to comply with DOT's transport requirements. This will
minimize the work required for classifying physical hazards under the
revised rule.
    Preparation and distribution of modified labels and safety data
sheets by chemical manufacturers and importers will also be required.
However, those chemical manufacturers and importers following the ANSI
Z400.1 standard for safety data sheets should already have the
appropriate format, and will only be required to make some small
modifications to the content of the sheets to be in compliance with the
final rule.
    Using the revised criteria, a chemical will be classified based on
the type, the degree, and the severity of the hazard it poses. This
information will help employers and employees understand chemical
hazards and identify and implement protective measures. The detailed
criteria for classification will result in greater accuracy in hazard
classification and more consistency among classifiers. Uniformity will
be a key benefit; by following the detailed criteria, classifiers are
less likely to reach different interpretations of the same data.
b. Specific Changes From the Proposal
    Based on comments from the rulemaking effort, OSHA has made some
modifications from the proposal to the final rule. These changes were
the result of OSHA's analysis of the comments and data received from
interested parties who submitted comments or participated in the public
hearings. The major changes are summarized below and are discussed in
the Summary and Explanation Section of this Preamble (Section XIII).

Safety Data Sheet

    In the proposal, OSHA asked interested parties to comment on
whether OSHA's permissible exposure limits (PELs) should be included on
SDSs, as well as any other exposure limit used or recommended by the
chemical manufacturer, importer, or employer who prepares SDSs. After
reviewing and analyzing the comments and testimony, OSHA has decided
not to modify the HCS with regard to the American Conference of
Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values (TLVs)
and so will continue to require ACGIH TLVs on SDSs. We have also
retained the classification listings of the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) on
SDSs. As explained more fully in the Summary and Explanation, OSHA
finds that requiring ACGIH TLVs as well as the IARC and NTP
classification listings on the SDS will provide employers and employees
with useful information to help them assess the hazards presented by
their workplaces.

Labels

    As discussed in the NPRM, the GHS gives individual countries the
option of using black, rather than red, borders around pictograms for
labels used in domestic commerce. OSHA proposed requiring red frames
for all labels, domestic and international. The final rule carries
forward this requirement. As discussed in Sections IV and XIII, studies
showed that there is substantial benefit to the use of color on the
label. The color red in particular will make the warnings on labels
more noticeable, because red borders are generally perceived to reflect
the greatest degree of hazard. Further, while commenters who objected
to this requirement cited the cost of printing in red ink as a reason
to allow domestic use of black borders, OSHA was unconvinced that the
costs involved made the provision infeasible, excessively burdensome,
or warranted the diminished protection provided by black borders. (See
Sections VI and XIII below.)
    One option suggested by commenters was requiring a red label but
allowing manufacturers and importers to use preprinted labels with
multiple red frames. This would save costs because the preprinted label
stock could be used for different products requiring different
pictograms. Use of this option, however, would mean that the label for
a particular chemical might have empty red frames if the chemical did
not require as many pictograms as there were red frames on the label
stock.
    As explained in Sections IV and XIII, OSHA has concluded that a red
border without a pictogram can create confusion and draw worker
attention away from the appropriate hazard warnings (See Section IV for
more detail). Additionally, OSHA is concerned that empty red borders
might be inconsistent with DOT regulations (See 49 CFR 172.401).
Therefore, while OSHA is not opposed to the use of preprinted stock,
OSHA has decided not to allow the use of blank red frames on finished
labels.

Hazard Classification

    Another change to the final rule is the inclusion of the IARC and
NTP as resources for determining carcinogenicity. Commenters generally
supported this modification, and OSHA believes the inclusion of this
information will assist evaluators with the classification process.
Therefore, descriptions of both the IARC and NTP classification
criteria have been added to Appendix F, and IARC and NTP
classifications may be used to determine

whether a chemical should be classified as a carcinogen.

Unclassified Hazards

    OSHA has made several modifications to clarify and specify the
definition for unclassified hazards, based on the comments provided.
Executive Order 13563 states that our regulatory system ``must promote
predictability and reduce uncertainty,'' and these efforts at
clarification are designed to achieve that goal. OSHA included this
definition to preserve existing safeguards under requirements of the
HCS for chemical manufacturers and importers to disseminate information
on hazardous chemicals to downstream employers, and for all employers
to provide such information to potentially exposed employees. Inclusion
of the definition does not create new requirements. OSHA has made
certain changes to clarify application of the definition, and to ensure
that the relevant provisions do not create confusion or impose new
burdens.
    In order to minimize confusion, OSHA has renamed unclassified
hazards, ``hazards not otherwise classified.'' More fundamentally, and
in response to the majority of the comments on this issue, OSHA has
removed from the coverage of the general definition the hazards
identified in the NPRM as not currently classified under the GHS
criteria. These hazards are: pyrophoric gases, simple asphyxiants, and
combustible dust. As described below, OSHA has added definitions to the
final rule for pyrophoric gases and simple asphyxiants, and provided
guidance on defining combustible dust for purposes of complying with
the HCS. In addition, the Agency has also provided standardized label
elements for these hazardous effects.

Precautionary/Hazard Statements

    In response to concerns by commenters that, on occasion, a
specified precautionary statement might not be appropriate, OSHA
modified mandatory Appendix C to provide some added flexibility. Where
manufacturers, importers, or responsible parties can show that a
particular statement is inappropriate for the product, that
precautionary statement may be omitted from the label. This is
discussed in more detail in section XIII below.

Other Standards Affected

    Changing the HCS to conform to the GHS requires modification of
other OSHA standards. For example, modifications have been made to the
standards for Flammable and Combustible Liquids in general industry (29
CFR 1910.106) and construction (29 CFR 1926.152) to align the
requirements of the standards with the GHS hazard categories for
flammable liquids. Modifications to the Process Safety Management of
Highly Hazardous Chemicals standard (29 CFR 1910.119) will ensure that
the scope of the standard is not changed by the revisions to the HCS.
In addition, modifications have been made to most of OSHA's substance-
specific health standards, ensuring that requirements for signs and
labels and SDSs are consistent with the modified HCS.

Effective Dates

    In the proposal, OSHA solicited comments regarding whether it would
be feasible for employers to train employees regarding the new labels
and SDSs within two years after publication of the final rule.
Additionally, OSHA inquired as to whether chemical manufacturers,
importers, distributors, and employers would be able to comply with all
the provisions of the final rule within three years, and whether a
phase-in period was necessary.
    OSHA received many comments and heard testimony regarding the
effective dates which are discussed in detail in Section XIII below.
First, after analysis of the record, the Agency has determined that
covered employers must complete all training regarding the new label
elements and SDS format by December 1, 2013 since, as supported by
record, employees will begin seeing the new style labels considerably
earlier than the compliance date for labeling. Second, OSHA is
requiring compliance with all of the provisions for preparation of new
labels and safety data sheets by June 1, 2015. However, distributors
will have an additional six months (by December 1, 2015) to distribute
containers with manufacturers' labels in order to accommodate those
they receive very close to the compliance date. Employers will also be
given an additional year (by June 1, 2016) to update their hazard
communication programs or any other workplace signs, if applicable.
    Additionally, OSHA has decided not to phase in compliance based on
whether a product is a substance or a mixture. OSHA has concluded that
adequate information is available for classifiers to use to classify
substances and mixtures. Finally, as discussed in the NPRM, 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 it appears in the CFR as of October 1, 2011) or this
revised HCS. A detailed discussion regarding the effective dates is in
Section XIII.

5. Alternatives of Mandatory Implementation

    In the NPRM, OSHA proposed several alternatives to mandatory
implementation of the GHS in response to concerns raised by commenters
through the ANPR (74 FR at 50289). Commenters generally supported the
concept of adopting the GHS as it was proposed. However, a few
commenters indicated that they were concerned with what they saw as the
cost burden on small businesses that are not involved in international
trade. To address these concerns, OSHA solicited comments in the NPRM
on several options proposed by the Agency regarding alternatives to
mandatory harmonization. The following is a discussion of these
alternatives; the potential impact and the response from participants
in the rulemaking regarding the relative benefit, feasibility, impact
on small business; and the impact on worker safety and health.
    The first alternative OSHA proposed was to facilitate voluntary
adoption of GHS within the existing HCS framework, and give
manufacturers and importers the option to use the current HCS or the
GHS system. This option would have permitted companies to decide
whether they wanted to comply with the existing standard or with the
GHS. A variation of this alternative was also proposed that would have
adopted the GHS with an exemption allowing small chemical producers to
continue to use the HCS, even after this GHS-modified HCS is
promulgated.
    The second alternative was a limited adoption of specific GHS
components. Under this approach, producers could either comply with the
GHS or a modified HCS that would retain the current HCS hazard
categories, but require standardized hazard statements, signal words,
and precautionary statements. A variation of this alternative would
have omitted mandatory precautionary statements.
    Commenters almost universally objected to both of the alternatives
listed above (Document ID 0324, 0328, 0329, 0330, 0335, 0338,
0339, 0341, 0344, 0351, 0352, 0355, 0365, 0370, 0377, 0381, 0382, 0385,
0387, 0389, 0393, 0495, 0403, 0404, and 0412). American Industrial
Hygiene Association (AIHA), in a representative comment, stated that
``permitting voluntary use of some of the system * * * or exempting
certain sectors based on business size or other criteria [would] defeat
the purpose of revising this standard and of the GHS'' (Document ID
0365). Additionally, the

Compressed Gas Association stated they ``would not support any
alternative approach as it would defeat the goal of global hazard
communication coordination'' (Document ID 0324).
    Many commenters argued that a dual system that permitted businesses
to opt out of complying with the GHS would undermine the key benefits
of implementation. For example, Ferro Corporation stated that ``for GHS
to be effective and efficient in the U.S., implementation should be
consistent and congruent'' (Document ID 0363). DuPont Company
argued ``dual systems would be confusing for employers'' (Document ID
0329). ORC also rejected voluntary implementation, reasoning
that ``consistent requirements for all manufacturers and importers of
chemicals [are] needed to maximized efficiency in the chemical supply
chain'' (Document ID 0370). Additionally, the AFL-CIO cited
consistent hazard information for workers and employers as the core
objective of this rulemaking (Document ID 0340).
    The commenters who supported GHS as proposed indicated that
consistency was an essential aspect of this rule. Stericycle, Inc.,
stated that SDSs which ``do not follow a consistent format would cause
issues in understanding and implementing the controls to limit exposure
and protect employee safety and health,'' and argued that exemptions
from GHS requirements would ``shift the burden from the chemical
industry to all employers'' (Document ID 0338). Additionally,
commenters did not support exempting small businesses from adopting the
GHS. Ecolab argued that ``large and small businesses use each others'
products'' and are inextricably linked, and they indicated that
voluntary adoption ``could cause confusion about product hazards if two
identical products are labeled differently due solely to the size of
the business from which [they are] obtained'' (Document ID
0351).
    OSHA agrees that the first alternative is unworkable as even one
business's adoption of one of the alternatives would affect other
companies. As stated in the comments above, if small businesses do not
adopt the GHS, then large businesses or distributors will either have
to generate GHS classifications for chemicals purchased, or request
that small businesses supply data and labels using GHS classifications.
Likewise, chemical producers often provide their products to
distributors who then sell them to customers who are unknown to the
original producer. This would lead to a plethora of product labels, a
situation that is bound to make hazard communication far more
difficult.
    Commenters specifically cited issues with safety as their basis for
rejecting the first proposed alternative. The AIHA (Document ID
0365) stated:

    If employers and employees cannot have confidence that labels
and MSDSs provide a consistent safety message superficial
standardization will not improve safety. Safety is also seriously
compromised if different hazard communication systems are present in
the work area. Effective training is not possible if pictograms and
hazard statements are not used in a consistent manner * * *. All of
the approaches discussed will create competitive pressures that can
affect classification decisions and make good and consistent hazard
communication more difficult.

North American Metal Council argued that the alternative would penalize
workers of small business, and asserted that a ``worker's right to know
about chemical hazards, should not depend on the source of a chemical
or the size of the worker's employer'' (Document ID 0337).
    Moreover, commenters asserted that the benefits derived from the
harmonized labeling of chemicals would be significantly diluted if
employers were not uniformly required to adopt the GHS. United Steel
Workers Union aptly reiterated that the primary benefit of adopting the
GHS is not the facilitation of international trade, but rather is the
protection of workers, which is ``best accomplished through a uniform
system of classification leading to comprehensible hazard information''
(Document ID 0403). (See also Document ID 0339, 0351,
0376, 0377, 0382, and 0412.)
    Several commenters supported the voluntary adoption of the GHS
(Document ID 0355, 0389, and 0502). For example,
Intercontinental Chemical Corporation supported voluntary adoption for
companies not involved in international trade (Document ID
0502). Additionally, Betco supported allowing ``small
businesses that market domestically'' to retain the current HCS and
suggested that ``voluntary adoption would not be any less protective
for employees or create confusion'' (Document ID 0389).
    OSHA acknowledges that small chemical manufacturers will have some
burdens associated with the adoption of GHS. However, employees who use
products produced by small employers are entitled to the same
protections as those who use products produced by companies engaged in
international trade. The confusion created by two or more competing
systems would undermine the consistency of hazard communication
achievable by a GHS-modified HCS. Moreover, whether or not a product
will wind up in international trade may not be known to the
manufacturer or even the first distributer. A producer may provide a
chemical to another company, which then formulates it into a product
that is sold internationally. Thus, the original producer is involved
in international trade without necessarily realizing it. For these
reasons, OSHA has determined that, in order to achieve a national,
consistent standard, all businesses must be required to adhere to the
revised HCS.
    OSHA concludes that the rulemaking record does not support adoption
of the first alternative. The majority of private industry, unions, and
professional organizations did not support this approach, arguing
persuasively that piecemeal adoption would undermine the benefits of
harmonization. As discussed above, while improvements to international
trade are a benefit of this rulemaking; they are not the primarily
intended benefit. OSHA believes that implementation of the GHS, without
exceptions based on industry or business size, will enhance worker
safety through providing consistent hazard communication and,
consequently, safe practices in the workplace. However, as indicated
above, OSHA does recognize that there are burdens with any change and
as discussed in Section XIII, OSHA will use the input OSHA has received
to the record to develop an outreach plan for additional guidance.
    The second alternative, a halfway measure allowing businesses to
adopt some of the features of a GHS-modified HCS but not requiring
adoption of others, drew little interest or comment from the
participants. OSHA has concluded that this alternative, which would
have led to even more inconsistencies in hazard communication, is not a
viable alternative. OSHA's conclusion is supported by the overwhelming
number of commenters who spoke out against the first option and
strongly supported the proposed standard. Allowing employers to adopt,
say, only the provisions for the labels or safety data sheets will
result in inconsistent use of the standardized hazard statement, signal
word, and precautionary statement without clear direction on when they
would be required, a situation that is sure to compromise safety in the
workplace. Therefore, OSHA has concluded that implementation of the GHS
is also preferable to the second alternative.

    Pursuant to its analysis of the entire rulemaking record, OSHA has
decided to adopt the GHS as proposed and is not incorporating any of
the alternatives into this final rule. The adoption of any of the
alternatives would undermine the key benefits associated with the GHS.
OSHA has concluded, as discussed in Section V, that the adoption of GHS
as proposed will strengthen and refine OSHA's hazard communication
system, leading to safer workplaces.

IV. Need and Support for the Modifications to the Hazard Communication
Standard

    Chemical exposure can cause or contribute to many serious adverse
health effects such as cancer, sterility, heart disease, lung damage,
and burns. Some chemicals are also physical hazards and have the
potential to cause fires, explosions, and other dangerous incidents. It
is critically important that employees and employers are apprised of
the hazards of chemicals that are used in the workplace, as well as the
associated protective measures. This knowledge is needed to understand
the precautions necessary for safe handling and use, to recognize signs
and symptoms of adverse health effects related to exposure when they do
occur, and to identify appropriate measures to be taken in an
emergency.
    OSHA established the need for disclosure of chemical hazard
information when the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) was issued in
1983 (48 FR 53282-53284, Nov. 25, 1983). As noted in the NPRM (74 FR
50291, Sept. 30, 2009), this need continues to exist. The Agency
estimates that 880,000 hazardous chemicals are currently used in the
U.S., and over 40 million employees are now potentially exposed to
hazardous chemicals in over 5 million workplaces. During the September
29, 2009, press conference announcing the publication of the HCS NPRM,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
Jordan Barab, discussed the impact that the HCS has had on reducing
injury and illness rates. Mr. Barab stated that, since the HCS's
original promulgation in 1983, ``OSHA estimates that chemically-related
acute injuries and illness [have] dropped at least 42%.'' Reiterating
information from OSHA's preliminary economic analysis in the NPRM, Mr.
Barab also stated:

    [T]here are still workers falling ill or dying from exposure to
hazardous chemicals. OSHA estimates, based on BLS data, that more
than 50,000 workers became ill and 125 workers died due to acute
chemical exposure in 2007. These numbers are dwarfed by chronic
illnesses and fatalities that are estimated in the tens of
thousands.
    OSHA believes that aligning the Hazard Communication Standard
with the provisions of the GHS will improve the effectiveness of the
standard and help to substantially improve worker safety and health.
The GHS will provide a common system for classifying chemicals
according to their health and physical hazards and it will specify
hazard communication elements for labeling and safety data sheets.

    Data collected and analyzed by the Agency also reflect this
critical need to improve hazard communication. Chemical exposures
result in a substantial number of serious injuries and illnesses among
exposed employees. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that
employees suffered 55,400 illnesses that could be attributed to
chemical exposures in 2007, the latest year for which data are
available (BLS, 2008). In that same year, 17,340 chemical-source
injuries and illnesses involved days away from work (BLS, 2009).
    The BLS data, however, do not indicate the full extent of the
problem, particularly with regard to illnesses. As noted in the
preamble to the HCS in 1983, BLS figures probably only reflect a small
percentage of the incidents occurring in exposed employees (48 FR
53284, Nov. 25, 1983). Many occupational illnesses are not reported
because they are not recognized as being related to workplace
exposures, are subject to long latency periods between exposure and the
manifestation of disease, and other factors (e.g., Herbert and
Landrigan, 2000, Document ID 0299; Leigh et al., 1997,
Document ID 0274; Landrigan and Markowitz, 1989, Document ID
0299).
    While the current HCS serves to ensure that information concerning
chemical hazards and associated protective measures is provided to
employers and employees, the Agency has determined that the revisions
adopted in this final rule will substantially improve the quality and
consistency of the required information. OSHA believes these revisions
to the HCS, which align it with the GHS, will enhance workplace
protections significantly. Better information will enable employers and
employees to increase their recognition and knowledge of chemical
hazards and take measures that will reduce the number and severity of
chemical-related injuries and illnesses.
    A key foundation underlying this belief relates to the
comprehensibility of information conveyed under the GHS. All hazard
communication systems deal with complicated scientific information
being transmitted to largely non-technical audiences. During the
development of the GHS, in order to construct the most effective hazard
communication system, information about and experiences with existing
systems were sought to help ensure that the best approaches would be
used. Ensuring the comprehensibility of the GHS was a key principle
during its development. As noted in a Federal Register notice published
by the U.S. Department of State (62 FR 15956, April 3, 1997): ``A major
concern is to ensure that the requirements of the globally harmonized
system address issues related to the comprehensibility of the
information conveyed.'' This concern is also reflected in the
principles of harmonization that were used to guide the negotiations
and discussions during the development of the GHS. As described in
Section <IP_ADDRESS>(g) of the GHS, the principles included the following:
``[T]he comprehension of chemical hazard information, by the target
audience, e.g., workers, consumers and the general public should be
addressed.''
    As was discussed in the proposal (74 FR 50291), to help in the
development of the GHS, OSHA had a review of the literature conducted
to identify studies on effective hazard communication, and made the
review and the analysis of the studies available to other participants
in the GHS process. One such study, prepared by researchers at the
University of Maryland, entitled ``Hazard Communication: A Review of
the Science Underpinning the Art of Communication for Health and
Safety'' (Sattler et al., 1997, Document ID 0191) has also
long been available to the public on OSHA's Hazard Communication web
page. Additionally, OSHA conducted an updated review of the literature
published since the 1997 review. This updated review examined the
literature relevant to specific hazard communication provisions of the
GHS (ERG, 2007, Document ID 0246).
    Further work related to comprehensibility was conducted during the
GHS negotiations by researchers in South Africa at the University of
Cape Town--the result is an annex to the GHS on comprehensibility
testing (See GHS Annex 6, Comprehensibility Testing Methodology)
(United Nations, 2007, Document ID 0194). Such testing has
been conducted in some of the developing countries preparing to
implement the GHS, and has provided these countries with information
about which areas in the GHS will require more training in their
programs to

ensure people understand the information. The primary purpose of these
activities was to ensure that the system developed was designed in such
a way that the messages would be effectively conveyed to the target
audiences, with the knowledge that the system would be implemented
internationally in different cultures with varying interests and
concerns.
    Another principle that was established to guide development of the
GHS was the agreement that levels of protection offered by an existing
hazard communication system should not be reduced as a result of
harmonization. Following these principles, the best aspects of existing
systems were identified and included in a single, harmonized approach
to classification, labeling, and development of SDSs.
    The GHS was developed by a large group of experts representing a
variety of perspectives. Over 200 experts provided technical input on
the project. The United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the GHS,
the body that formally adopted the GHS and is now responsible for its
maintenance, includes 35 member nations as well as 14 observer nations.
Authorities from these member states are able to convey the insight and
understanding acquired by regulatory authorities in different sectors,
and to relate their own experiences in implementation of hazard
communication requirements. In addition, over two dozen international
and intergovernmental organizations, trade associations, and unions are
represented, and their expertise serves to inform the member nations.
The GHS consequently represents a consensus recommendation of experts
with regard to best practices for effective chemical hazard
communication, reflecting the collective knowledge and experience of
regulatory authorities in many nations and in different regulatory
sectors, as well as other organizations that have expertise in this
area.
    United States-based scientific and professional associations have
endorsed adoption of the GHS since publication of the Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in 2006 (71 FR 53617, Sept. 12, 2006). For
example, the American Chemical Society (ACS) indicated its support for
the GHS, stating: ``The American Chemical Society strongly supports the
adoption of the GHS for hazard communication in general and
specifically as outlined in the ANPR'' adding that ``* * * ACS
anticipates that OSHA implementation of GHS in the U.S. will enhance
protection of human health and the environment through warnings and
precautionary language that are consistent across different products
and materials as well as across all workplaces'' (Document ID
0165). The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
affirmed its support for modification of the HCS to adopt the GHS. AIHA
maintained that standardized labels and safety data sheets will make
hazard information easier to use, thereby improving protection of
employees (Document ID 0034). While acknowledging that the GHS
presents a number of concerns and challenges, the Society of Toxicology
has also expressed its support for the GHS, stating that ``a globally
harmonized system for the classification of chemicals is an important
step toward creating consistent communications about the hazards of
chemicals used around the world'' (Document ID 0304). The
American Association of Occupational Health Nurses joined these
organizations in advocating adoption of the GHS, arguing that
standardization of chemical hazard information is critical to
protecting the safety and health of employees (Document ID
0099). Responders to the 2009 NPRM reiterated their support or, in the
case of new commenters, echoed the comments from other scientific and
professional associations to the ANPR (See, e.g., Document ID
0338, 0357, 0365, 0393, and 0410). The positions taken by
these organizations point to wide support for the GHS among the
scientific and professional communities.
    Stakeholders representing a wide range of sectors and interests
agreed with OSHA that aligning the HCS with the GHS will improve
comprehensibility, and thus lead to reductions in chemical source
illnesses and injuries. American Society of Safety Engineers, Dow
Chemical, and ORC all voiced their support for the proposed rule,
citing improved comprehensibility and quality of transmitted
information as key benefits (Document ID 0336, 0353, and
0370). Representing union labor, the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) stated that this rulemaking
would ``allow critical communication about the hazards of chemicals to
be understood by all workers, regardless of their literacy level or
primary language * * * [and] will in turn lead to safer, more
productive workplaces'' (Document ID 0414). Many stakeholders
asserted that adopting the GHS would lead to safer workplaces. The
Chamber of Commerce provided its support for the rulemaking, stating
that the GHS could ``improve worker safety, and facilitate business
growth and international trade'' (Document ID 0397). The
American Subcontractors Association, Inc. added that consistent hazard
communication is critical to having a safe work program (Document ID
0322). Additionally, North American Metals Council (NAMC),
which represents the interests of the metals and mining industry,
stated that a single, globally harmonized classification and labeling
system is of vital interest to its members (Document ID 0233).
The position that GHS would increase worker protection was also raised
in testimony during the hearings. Elizabeth Treanor of Phylmar
Regulatory Roundtable testified that adopting the GHS would ``enhance
the effectiveness of the hazard communication standard by improving the
quality and consistency of chemical hazard information that is provided
to employees and employers'' (Document ID 0497 Tr. 92).
    In addition to the endorsement of the GHS by a group of experts
with extensive knowledge and experience in chemical hazard
communication, support from scientific and professional associations
with expertise in this area, and support from industry and labor
stakeholders, a substantial body of evidence indicates that the
modifications to the HCS will better protect employees. Specifically,
this evidence supports OSHA's findings that: (1) Standardized label
elements--signal words, pictograms, hazard statements and precautionary
statements--will be more effective in communicating hazard information;
(2) standardized headings and a consistent order of information will
improve the utility of SDSs; and (3) training will support and enhance
the effectiveness of the new label and SDS requirements.
    This evidence was obtained from sources predating the ANPR and from
more recent data. OSHA commissioned several studies to examine the
quality of information on SDSs (Karstadt, 1988, Document ID
0296; Kearney/Centaur 1991a, 1991b, Document ID 0309
and 0310; Lexington Group, 1999, Document ID 0257); the
General Accounting Office (GAO) has issued two reports based on its
evaluation of certain aspects of the HCS (GAO 1991 and 1992, Document
ID 0271 and 0272); a National Advisory Committee on
Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) workgroup conducted a review of
hazard communication and published a report of its findings (NACOSH,
1996, Document ID 0260); and a substantial amount of
scientific literature relating to hazard communication has been
published. As mentioned previously, OSHA

commissioned a review of the literature, and a report based on that
review was published in 1997 (Sattler et al., 1997, Document ID
0191). An updated review was conducted in 2007 (ERG, 2007,
Document ID 0246). In addition, OSHA conducted a review of the
requirements of the HCS and published its findings in March of 2004
(OSHA, 2004, Document ID 0224). Key findings derived from
these sources are discussed below.
    No commenters questioned the validity of studies presented in the
NPRM. Similarly, commenters did not question OSHA's analysis or
interpretation of the study findings. Only one commenter suggested that
OSHA should adopt more ``conservative expectations for the effects that
warning format changes can have on the behavior of end users,'' adding
that ``real-world conditions'' must be accounted for when determining
the actual responses of users (Document ID 0396). However, the
commenter did not disagree with OSHA's overall conclusion that this
final rule would improve safety. OSHA agrees that external factors may
influence the overall benefits of label elements (this will be
addressed in Section VI).
    The studies discussed in the NPRM formed the evidentiary basis for
the revised HCS. As such, OSHA infers that commenters generally found
the studies, as well as OSHA's analysis, to be sound. OSHA's rationale
for adopting the GHS is tied to anticipated improvements in the quality
and consistency of the information that would be provided to employers
and employees. Hazard classification is the foundation for development
of this improved information. Indeed, hazard classification is the
procedure of identifying and evaluating available scientific evidence
in order to determine if a chemical is hazardous, and the degree of
hazard, pursuant to the criteria for health and physical hazards set
forth in the standard. Hazard classification provides the basis for the
hazard information that is provided in labels, SDSs, and employee
training. As such, it is critically important that classification be
performed accurately and consistently.
    The GHS provides detailed scientific criteria to direct the
evaluation process. The specificity and detail provided help ensure
that different evaluators would reach the same conclusions when
evaluating the same chemical. Moreover, the GHS refines the
classification process by establishing categories of hazard within most
hazard classes. These categories indicate the relative degree of
hazard, and thereby provide a basis for determining precise hazard
information that is tailored to the level of hazard posed by the
chemical. The classification criteria established in the GHS thus
provide the necessary basis for development of the specific, detailed
hazard information that would enhance the protection of employees.

Labels

    Labels serve as immediate visual reminders of chemical hazards, and
complement the information presented in training and on SDSs. The
current HCS requires that labels on hazardous chemical containers
include the identity of the hazardous chemical; appropriate hazard
warnings that convey the specific physical and health hazards,
including target organ effects; and the name and address of the
chemical manufacturer, importer, or other responsible party. The HCS
does not specify a standard format or design elements for labels.
    In the NPRM, OSHA proposed to improve the HCS by changing the
performance requirements for labels to the GHS-specific requirements
that labels include four standardized elements: a signal word; hazard
statement(s); pictogram(s); and precautionary statement(s) (See Section
XV for a detailed discussion of the requirements). The appropriate
label elements for a chemical are to be determined by the hazard
classification. OSHA has concluded that these standardized label
elements better convey critically important hazard warnings, and
provide useful information regarding precautionary measures that will
serve to better protect employees than the performance-oriented
approach of the current rule.
    This requirement is different from the current HCS in that it will
require consistent and detailed information regarding a chemical based
on the hazard classification. The current rule does not specify a
standard format or design elements for labels. Rather, all that is
required in the current HCS is that the label of the hazardous chemical
containers include the identity of the hazardous chemical; appropriate
hazard warnings that convey the specific physical and health hazards,
including target organ effects; and the name and address of the
chemical manufacturer, importer, or other responsible party.
    Additionally, as discussed in the proposal (74 FR 50291, Sept. 30,
2009), a great deal of literature has been developed that examines the
effectiveness of warnings on labels. These studies support OSHA's
adoption of standardized warnings on the labels of hazardous chemicals.
Although the studies discussed below pertain to prescription and non-
prescription medications, alcoholic beverages, or consumer products
rather than hazardous chemicals, it does not diminish the importance or
relevance of the data. This literature provides a substantial body of
information directly applicable and analogous to workplace chemical
labels. In spite of the differences in affected populations, workplace
chemical labels have many characteristics that are comparable to those
found in other sectors. Pharmaceutical labels, for example, are similar
to chemical labels in that they often have explicit instructions for
use which, if not followed, can cause adverse health effects or death.
Designers of pharmaceutical labels also encounter many of the same
challenges faced by those who design chemical labels, such as container
space limitations and the need to convey information to low-literate or
non-English-literate users. In addition, some of the research is not
directly related to any particular sector or type of product. Some
findings related to use of color, for example, could reasonably be
applied to a wide variety of label applications. The studies are
discussed below in the specific labeling sections.

Signal Words

    A signal word is a word that typically appears near the top of a
warning, sometimes in all capital letters. Common examples include
DANGER, WARNING, CAUTION, and NOTICE. The signal word is generally
understood to serve a dual purpose: Alerting the user to a hazard and
indicating a particular level of hazard. For example, users generally
perceive the word DEADLY to indicate a far greater degree of hazard
than a term like NOTICE.
    This final rule requires the use of one of two signal words for
labels--DANGER or WARNING--depending on the hazard classification of
the substance in question. These are the same two signal words used in
the GHS. DANGER is used for the more severe hazard categories, while
WARNING denotes a less serious hazard. These signal words are similar
to those in other established hazard communication systems, except that
some other systems have three or more tiers. For example, ANSI Z129.1
(the American National Standard for Hazardous Industrial Chemicals--
Precautionary Labeling) uses DANGER, WARNING, and CAUTION, in
descending order of severity (ANSI, 2006, Document ID 0280).
    A number of studies have examined how people perceive signal words
and,

in particular, how they perceive signal words to be different from one
another. Overall, this research supports the use of signal words on
labels, demonstrating that they can attract attention and help people
clearly distinguish between levels of hazard. The research also
supports the decision to use only two tiers, as many recent studies
have found clear differences between DANGER and WARNING, but little
perceived difference between WARNING and CAUTION.
    Wogalter et al. investigated the influence of signal words on
perceptions of hazard for consumer products (Wogalter et al., 1992,
Document ID 0300). Under the pretext of a marketing research
study, 90 high school and college students rated product labels on
variables such as product familiarity, frequency of use, and perceived
hazard. Results showed that the presence of a signal word increased
perceived hazard compared to its absence. Between extreme terms (e.g.,
NOTE and DANGER), significant differences were noted.
    Seeking to test warning signs in realistic settings, Adams et al.
tested five industrial warning signs on a group of 40 blue-collar
workers employed in heavy industry, as well as a group of students
(Adams et al., 1998, Document ID 0235). Signs were manipulated
to include four key elements (signal word, hazard statement,
consequences statement, and instructions statement) or a subset of
those elements. Participants were asked questions to gauge their
reaction and behavioral intentions. Overall, 77 percent (66 percent of
the worker group) recognized DANGER as the key word when it appeared,
and more than 80 percent recognized BEWARE and CAUTION, suggesting that
the signal word was generally noticed, and it was recognized as the key
alerting element. DANGER was significantly more likely than other words
to influence behavioral intentions.
    Laughery et al. also demonstrated the usefulness of signal words.
The authors tested the warnings on alcoholic beverage containers in the
U.S., and found that a signal word (WARNING) was one of several factors
that decreased the amount of time it took for participants to locate
the warning (Laughery et al., 1993, Document ID 0281).
    Several studies have tested the arousal strength or perceived
hazard of different signal words. Arousal strength is a term used to
indicate the overall importance of the warning, and incorporates both
the likelihood and severity of the potential threat. Silver and
Wogalter tested the arousal strength of signal words on college
students and found that DANGER connoted greater strength than WARNING
and CAUTION (Silver and Wogalter, 1993, Document ID 0308). The
results failed to show a difference between WARNING and CAUTION. Among
other words tested, DEADLY was seen as having the strongest arousal
connotation, and NOTE the least.
    Griffith and Leonard asked 80 female undergraduates (who were
unlikely to have already received industrial safety training) to rate
signal words. Results included a list of terms in order of
``meaningfulness,'' representing conceptual ``distance'' from the
neutral term NOTICE (Griffith and Leonard, 1997, Document ID
0250). From most to least meaningful, these terms were
reported to be DANGER, URGENT, BEWARE, WARNING, STOP, CAUTION, and
IMPORTANT.
    Wogalter et al. asked over 100 undergraduates and community
volunteers to rank signal words (Wogalter et al., 1998, Document ID
0286). DEADLY was perceived as most hazardous, followed by
DANGER, WARNING, and CAUTION. All differences were statistically
significant. In a follow-up experiment using labels produced in the
ANSI Z535.2 (American National Standard for Environmental and Facility
Safety Signs), ANSI Z535.4 (American National Standard for Product
Safety Signs and Labels), and alternative formats, the authors found a
similar rank order for signal words with all labeling systems. Finally,
the authors tested the same terms on employees from manufacturing and
assembly plants and found the same general order: DEADLY, then DANGER,
then WARNING and CAUTION with no significant difference between the
last two terms.
    In more of a free-form experiment, Young asked 30 subjects to
produce warning signs for a set of scenarios, using different sign
components available on a computer screen (Young, 1998, Document ID
0289). In roughly 80 percent of the signs, the participant
chose to use a signal word. DANGER, DEADLY, and LETHAL were more likely
to be used for scenarios with severe hazards; CAUTION and NOTICE for
non-severe scenarios. WARNING was used equally in both types of
scenarios. The author suggests that these results support a two-tiered
system of signal words. In a separate task, users ranked the perceived
hazard of signal words, resulting in the following list from most to
least severe: DEADLY, LETHAL, DANGER, WARNING, CAUTION, and NOTICE.
    While these studies have focused on the relative perceptions of
signal words, others have sought to evaluate how the absolute meaning
of common signal words is perceived. Drake et al. asked a group of
students and community volunteers to match signal words with
definitions borrowed from consensus standards and other sources (Drake
et al., 1998, Document ID 0244). Participants matched DANGER
to a correct definition 64 percent of the time, while NOTICE was
matched correctly 68 percent of the time. WARNING and CAUTION were
matched correctly less than half of the time, suggesting confusion. The
authors recommended using WARNING and CAUTION interchangeably. The
authors also suggested that a standard set of signal words (but not
synonyms) is helpful for users with limited English skills, who can be
trained to recognize a few key words.
    Signal word perceptions are reported to be consistent among some
non-U.S. populations, as well. Hellier et al. asked 984 adults in the
UK to rate DANGER, WARNING, and CAUTION on a hazard scale from 1 (low)
to 10 (high) (Hellier et al., 2000a, Document ID 0252). DANGER
was ranked as 8.5, WARNING was ranked as 7.8, while CAUTION was rated
as 7.25. These results are consistent with the findings of studies on
subjects in the U.S. In a second study published in 2000, Hellier et
al. asked a mixed-age group of participants in the UK to rate the
arousal strength of 84 signal words commonly used in the U.S. (Hellier
et al., 2000b, Document ID 0253). The authors found that
DANGER is stronger than WARNING, while WARNING and CAUTION are not
significantly different from each other.
    Similar results were found among workers in Zambia. Banda and
Sichilongo tested GHS-style labels using four different signal words
(as well as other variables) (Banda and Sichilongo, 2006, Document ID
0237). Among workers in the industrial and transport sectors,
DANGER was generally perceived as the most hazardous signal word.
WARNING was one of a group of terms that were largely indistinguishable
from one another, but distinct from DANGER. The authors support
adoption of the GHS, suggesting that having just two possible signal
words will lead to ``more impact and less confusion about the extent of
hazard.''
    In addition, comparable results were found in South Africa (London,
2003, Document ID 0311). In a large study on SDS and label
comprehensibility conducted for South Africa's National Economic
Development and Labour

Council (NEDLAC), DANGER was generally ranked as more hazardous than
WARNING by participants in the four sectors tested: industry,
transport, agriculture, and consumers.
    Cumulatively, these studies provide a clear indication that signal
words are effective in alerting readers that a hazard exists, and in
conveying the existence of a particular level of hazard. The studies
found a generally consistent hierarchy of signal words with respect to
perceived hazard. DANGER and WARNING appear to connote different levels
of hazard, while the perceived difference between WARNING and CAUTION
is often insignificant.
    In response to the NPRM, OSHA received a comment from Croplife
America about the impact of using a two-tiered signal word system on
pesticide labels (Document ID 0387). Croplife America
explained that they believe a three-tiered system (DANGER, WARNING and
CAUTION) provides ``a little more distinction in the relative toxicity
of a compound'' and ``if everything says `warning,' we run the risk of
diluting the effectiveness of the signal word'' (Document ID
0495 Tr. 251). During the informal public hearings, OSHA
requested that Croplife America support their position on why a three-
tiered warning system is better than a two-tiered system. To support
this assertion, Croplife America submitted a late comment containing an
additional paper by Hellier et al. which analyzed how signal words are
interpreted (Hellier et al., 2007, Document ID 0646).
    This paper discusses two studies performed in 2007 to analyze if
alternative information is communicated with signal words (Hellier et
al., 2007, Document ID 0646). Using 17 signal words, 30
undergraduate students were asked to rate the similarities of paired
signal words. In the first study, the result ratings revealed that
signal words were interpreted by the participants along three
dimensions; dimension one: the level of hazard implied by the signal
words, dimension two: the extent to which they explicitly implied a
risk, and dimension three`: the clarity of the instruction given by the
signal word. Using the same signal words as in the first study, the
second study explored how these signal words were interpreted by the
study participants. Using statistical analysis, the analysis confirmed
that the participants were able to discern the levels of hazard implied
by the signal words and how it to relates to the explicitness of the
implied risk (dimensions one and two). The results of the third
dimension were unclear. The studies indicate that the extent to which
signal words imply risk is important--people may not respond when
repeatedly exposed to warnings that do not explicitly imply a risk. The
results support using signal words to denote the level of hazard
implied by the situation, and that there might be utility in using
signal words to convey both information about a potential risk and the
level of hazard.
    Even if it had been timely submitted, OSHA is not convinced that
this study supplies sufficient evidence that using a two-tiered signal
word approach will diminish the chemical user's ability to distinguish
hazard severity. In OSHA's opinion, if anything, the Hellier study
provides additional support for the use of signal words on labels to
attract attention and to identify levels of hazard. Indeed, its results
show that the signal word ``caution'' was substantially less connected
by participants with communicating hazards than ``warning'' and
``danger,'' which supports OSHA's decision not to use ``caution'' as a
signal word. The record supports OSHA's determination that using the
signal word in combination with the hazard statement alerts the
chemical user to the hazard and allows him or her to distinguish the
level of hazard severity posed by hazardous chemicals in the workplace.
    Commenting on the studies presented in the proposal, Applied Safety
and Ergonomics (ASE) agreed that there are benefits associated with the
standardization of warning elements. However, they also urged ``OSHA to
adopt more conservative expectations for the effect that warning format
changes can have on the behavior of end users'' (Document ID
0396). See Section VI of this final rule for a detailed
discussion of the benefits of standardized warning elements. OSHA does
not disagree with these comments and has determined that requiring the
use of the combined labeling elements (pictograms, signal words, hazard
statements, and precautionary statements) will result in a uniform and
consistent system of identifying and communicating chemical hazards in
the workplace. No other comments were received on the studies OSHA used
in its discussion of the need for signal words in this revised HCS.
    Comments received from stakeholders support the revision of the HCS
to include the use of standardized signal words (Document ID
0321, 0338, 0339, and 0349). For example, the Communications
Workers of America (CWA) stated: ``Clearly, the Rule's requirements
regarding revised SDSs and labeling provisions requiring the use of
standardized signal words, pictograms, and hazard and precautionary
statements would prove invaluable to affected CWA members whom have
been exposed to hazardous chemicals and chemical products that have
produced negative health effects and medical problems'' (Document ID
0349). These comments support OSHA's conclusion that signal
words alert chemical users to a hazard and indicate a particular level
of hazard.
    After reviewing the comments received and the evidence presented in
the record, OSHA has determined that, in this revised rule, use of the
signal words ``DANGER'' and ``WARNING'' is appropriate.

Pictograms

    A pictogram is a graphical composition that may include a symbol
along with other graphical elements, such as a border or background
color. A pictogram is a communication tool and is intended to convey
specific information. The proposed rule included requirements for use
of eight different pictograms. Each of these pictograms consists of a
different symbol in black on a white background within a red square
frame set on a point (i.e., a red diamond). The specific pictograms on
a label were to be determined based on the hazard classification of the
substance in question. OSHA has found ample evidence to support the
requirement for pictograms.
    A study by Kalsher et al. reported that users preferred labels with
pictorials. The authors concluded that pictorials focused the attention
of the user, helped users who were unable to read the small font size
or print on the labels, and were useful for individuals who did not
understand English (Kalsher et al., 1996, Document ID 0256).
The presence of the symbol can attract attention to the warnings and
are more memorable than written warnings (Parsons et al., 1999,
Document ID 0262). Symbols serve several important functions
in warning labels. As Wogalter et al. explained (Wogalter et al., 2006,
Document ID 0275), symbols may alert the user to a hazard more
effectively than text alone:

    Symbols may be more salient than text because of visual
differentiations of shape, size, and color. Usually symbols have
unique details and possess more differences in appearance than do
the letters of the alphabet. Letters are highly familiar and are
more similar to one another than most graphical symbols.

    Other investigators have examined the benefits of pictograms for
those with low literacy levels and those who do not understand the
language in which the

label text is written. A study by Parsons et al. concluded that
nonverbal graphics are especially helpful for ensuring that
individuals, who do not speak English or who have limited understanding
of English, understand the meaning of the intended warning (Parsons et
al., 1999, Document ID 0262). Another study has shown that
people with low literacy skills can, with the help of pictographs,
recall large amounts of medical information over significant periods of
time (Houts et al., 2001, Documents ID 0254).
    Several researchers have sought to evaluate how people comprehend
symbols, including the symbols that were proposed to be required.
Several studies have found that the skull and crossbones icon--one of
the symbols proposed and included in the final rule--is among the most
recognizable of safety symbols. For example, Wogalter et al. asked 112
undergraduates and community volunteers to rank various label elements
(Wogalter et al., 1998, Document ID 0244). Among shapes and
icons, the skull symbol (in this case, without the crossbones) was
rated most hazardous and most noticeable. The skull connoted the
greatest hazard among industrial employees as well. Smith-Jackson and
Wogalter asked 48 English-speaking workers to rate the perceived
hazards of six alerting symbols (Smith-Jackson and Wogalter, 2000,
Document ID 0196). The skull was rated significantly higher
than all other symbols.
    Several studies have examined other pictograms included in the
final rule. As part of an experiment to see how individuals comprehend
warnings on household chemical labels, Akerboom and Trommelen asked 60
university students whether they understood the meaning of several
pictograms, including four that are included in the final rule
(Akerboom and Trommelen, 1998, Document ID 0236). The authors
reported the following levels of comprehension for these pictograms:
    [ssquf] Flame: 93 percent comprehension;
    [ssquf] Skull and crossbones: 85 percent comprehension;
    [ssquf] Corrosion: 20 percent comprehension; and
    [ssquf] Flame over circle: 13 percent comprehension.
    Only the flame and skull and crossbones pictograms met the 85
percent comprehension criteria suggested by ANSI Z535.3 (the American
National Standard Criteria for Safety Symbols) (ANSI, 2002a, Document
ID 0276). The authors recommend that labels present the hazard
phrase [statement] and symbol together, along with corresponding
precautions, as has been included as a requirement in the final rule.
    Banda and Sichilongo tested comprehension of labels among 364
workers in four sectors in Zambia (transport, agriculture, industrial,
and household consumers) (Banda and Sichilongo, 2006, Document ID
0237). Within this population, the skull and crossbones symbol
was widely understood, as was the ``flame'' symbol. Based on these
results, the authors suggest a preference for symbols that depict
familiar, meaningful, and recognizable images.
    London performed a similar study among the same four sectors in
South Africa, finding that the skull and crossbones was understood by
at least 96 percent of each sector and ``flame'' by at least 89 percent
(London, 2003, Document ID 0311). ``Exploding bomb'' was
correctly comprehended by 44 to 71 percent of each sector. On the other
hand, many health-related symbols did not fare well, and six symbols
had less than 50 percent comprehension across all four sectors. Outside
the transport sector, ``Gas cylinder'' was the least comprehended
symbol.
    These findings indicate that some of the pictograms included in the
final rule are already widely recognized by a general audience. Others,
however, are not commonly understood. Therefore, simply adding some of
the pictograms on labels will not provide useful information unless
efforts are also undertaken to ensure that employees understand the
meaning of the pictograms. As Wogalter et al. noted, some studies have
found slower processing, poorer recognition, and greater learning
difficulties with symbols versus with text--particularly if the symbols
are complex or non-intuitive (Wogalter et al., 2006, Document ID
0275). These results emphasize the need to train employees on
the meaning of the pictograms that will be included on chemical labels.
    Where pictograms are used and understood, communication of hazards
can be improved. Houts et al. studied long-term recall of spoken
medical instructions when accompanied by a handout with pictograms
(Houts et al., 2001, Document ID 0254). Nearly 200 pictograms
were tested with 21 low-literate adults (less than grade 5 reading
level). Immediately after training, participants recalled the meaning
of 85 percent of the pictograms, and they recalled 71 percent after 4
weeks. This study found that recall was better for simple pictograms
where there is a direct relationship between the image and its
meaning--that is, where no inference is required.
    Another body of literature focuses on the utility of symbols in
general. Ganier found that people generally construct mental
representations faster with pictures than they do with text, supporting
earlier findings on the usefulness of symbols (Ganier, 2001, Document
ID 0275). Evans et al. found similar results with a task in
which undergraduates were asked to sort items into categories using
either text clues, visual clues, or a combination of pictures and text
(Evans et al., 2002; Document ID 0192). When categories were
fixed (i.e., sorting instructions were specific), people sorted the
cards more consistently with one another when presented with pictures
than when presented with text alone.
    In a follow-up article on the South African study mentioned
previously, Dowse and Ehlers found that patients receiving antibiotics
adhered to instructions much better when the instructions included
pictograms--(54 percent with high adherence, versus 2 percent when
given text-only instructions) (Dowse and Ehlers, 2005, Document ID
0243).
    Pictograms also serve to attract attention to the hazard warnings
on a label. To examine factors that influence the effectiveness of
pharmaceutical labels, Kalsher et al. asked subjects to rate the
noticeability, ease of reading, and overall appeal of labels with or
without pictorials (Kalsher et al., 1996, Document ID 0256). A
group of 84 undergraduates gave consistently higher ratings to labels
with pictorials. A group of elderly subjects had similar preferences,
rating labels with pictorials as significantly more noticeable and
likely to be read.
    Laughery et al. found similar results with a timed test on
alcoholic beverage labels (Laughery et al., 1993, Document ID
0281). When a pictorial was present to the left of the warning
showing what not to do when drinking, the amount of time it took to
find the label was significantly reduced. An icon consisting of the
alert symbol (an exclamation mark set within a triangle) and the signal
word WARNING also decreased response time. The fastest response time
came when four different enhancements (including the pictorial and the
icon) were included. In a follow-up exercise, an eye scan test found
that the pictorial had a particularly strong influence on reaction
time, compared with other enhancements.
    Where chemical labels are concerned, London found that symbols tend
to be the most easily recalled label elements (London, 2003, Document
ID 0311). In the comprehensibility test of labels

among South African workers mentioned previously, symbols were the most
commonly recalled elements--particularly the skull and crossbones--and
people recalled looking at symbols first. Symbols were also cited as by
far the most important factor in determining hazard perception. The
author concludes that ``Symbols are therefore key to attracting
attention and informing risk perception regarding a chemical'' (London,
2003, Document ID 0311).
    Wogalter et al. found factors other than pictorials influenced
workers (Wogalter et al., 1993, Document ID 0285). The authors
tested the influence of various warning variables on whether subjects
wore proper protective equipment during a task involving measuring and
mixing chemicals. Warning location and the amount of clutter around the
warning had significant effects on compliance, but the presence or
absence of pictorials did not.
    Meingast asked subjects to recall warning content after viewing
labels that were considered either high quality (with color signal
icons, pictorials, and organized text conforming to ANSI Z535.4, the
American National Standard for Product Safety Signs and Labels) or low
quality (text only) (Meingast, 2001, Document ID 0210).
Pictorials were the items remembered most often, accounting for 48
percent of what viewers of high-quality labels recalled. The author
suggests that these pictorials also served the role of dual coding,
meaning that they help to improve the retention of corresponding text.
    Other studies support this dual-coding function of pictorials,
finding that symbols tend to be most effective when paired with
redundant or reinforcing text. For example, Sojourner and Wogalter
asked 35 participants to rate several prescription label formats in
terms of ease of reading, ease of understanding, overall effectiveness,
likelihood of reading, overall preference, pictorial understanding, and
how helpful pictorials are in helping to remember the instructions
(Sojourner and Wogalter, 1997, Document ID 0288). The authors
found that people prefer fully redundant text and pictorials, which
they judged easiest to read, most effective, and preferred overall.
Dual-coded pictorials aided understanding and memory more than labels
with pictorials only (no text).
    In a follow-up study, Sojourner and Wogalter gave undergraduates,
young adults, and older adults a free recall test after viewing
medication labels (Sojourner and Wogalter, 1998, Document ID
0288). Fully redundant text and pictorials led to
significantly greater recall than other formats, and were rated most
effective by all age groups.
    Similarly, Sansgiry et al. found that pictograms on over-the-
counter drug labels improved comprehension, but only when they were
congruent with the corresponding text (Sansgiry et al., 1997, Document
ID 0264). The 96 adults who were tested were less confused,
were more satisfied, were more certain about their knowledge, and
understood more when shown labels that contained congruent pictures and
verbal instructions, versus verbal instructions alone. The results were
significantly better with congruent pictures and text than with either
pictures alone or incongruent pictures and text.
    Some evidence links use of pictograms directly to safer behavior.
Jaynes and Boles investigated whether different warning designs,
specifically those with symbols, affect compliance rates (Jaynes and
Boles, 1990, Document ID 0290). Five conditions were tested: a
verbal warning, a pictograph warning with a circle enclosing each
graphic, a pictograph warning with a triangle on its vertex enclosing
each graphic, a warning with both words and pictographs, and a control
(no warning). Participants performed a chemistry laboratory task using
a set of instructions that contained one of the five conditions. The
warnings instructed them to wear safety goggles, mask, and gloves. All
four warning conditions had significantly greater compliance than the
no-warning condition. A significant effect was also found for the
``presence of pictographs'' variable, suggesting that the addition of
pictographs will increase compliance rates.
    NIOSH submitted an additional study at the informal public hearings
that analyzed the use of pictograms on labels. In 1997, Wilkinson et
al. (Document ID 0480.6), interviewed 206 farmers in Victoria
Australia. Two widely used agricultural herbicides were used for the
basis of the research. The researchers developed three ``mocked-up''
labels for each herbicide--one containing existing warning text, one
containing existing text with pictograms of appropriate safety
precautions, and one containing text with pictograms that had been
tested for recognition and comprehension across a variety of cultures
and literacy levels. The interviewees answered questions using a rating
scale, which was subjected to a statistical analysis to determine the
significance of the responses. The authors concluded that ``the labels
with added pictograms were perceived by pesticide users as
significantly easier to obtain information from than labels containing
text only'' (Document ID 0480.6).
    Stakeholders on the whole supported the inclusion of pictograms on
the labels of hazardous substances. During the hearings, Chris Trahan
of the AFL-CIO voiced support for including pictograms on the labels of
hazardous chemicals, and cited construction workers as a group whose
safety and health conditions would be greatly improved by OSHA's
adoption of ``a system of symbols [workers] can then readily use to
make decisions on a daily basis'' (Document ID 0494 Tr. 8).
    As discussed in the proposal, a considerable amount of evidence
shows that pictograms can serve as useful and effective communication
tools. In the final rule, OSHA has decided to adopt the eight GHS
pictograms initially proposed in the NPRM. Each of these pictograms
consists of a different symbol in black on a white background within a
red square frame set on a point (i.e., a red diamond). The specific
pictograms that are required on a particular label are to be determined
based on the hazard classification of the substance in question.
    OSHA finds, based on scores of supporting studies and persuasive
testimony that the pictograms will make warnings on labels more
noticeable and easier for employees to understand. In particular,
symbols will improve comprehension among people with low literacy
levels and those who are not literate in the English language.
Moreover, pictograms will be used not only in conjunction with other
label elements, but also in the context of the hazard communication
program as a whole. Training that includes an explanation of labels
(included in the final rule) will ensure that the pictograms are
understood by employees.

Red Borders

    GHS allows regulatory authorities the option of permitting black
pictogram borders for labels on domestic products, and in the proposal
OSHA requested comment on this issue. Mandating the use of red borders
was supported by stakeholders, who argued persuasively that red borders
would make labels more noticeable and would make the warnings appear to
be more important (Document ID 0339, 0341, 0365, 0383, 0408,
0410, 0412, and 0456). The National Association of Chemical
Distributers, in supporting the use of red borders, reasoned that they
would be consistent with the overall goal of the

GHS (Document ID 0341). Additionally, the AIHA stated that
requiring red borders would promote the safe use of chemicals (Document
ID 0365).
    Several commenters raised economic concerns, suggesting that
because red ink is more expensive, the use of black borders should be
permitted (Document ID 0318, 0328, 0370, 0377, 0382, 0393, and
0411). Dow Chemical, Troy Corporation, and several other commenters
recommended that red borders should only be required on products that
were being exported (Document ID 0352, 0353, 0399, 0405, and
0389). Similarly, API argued that in order to remain consistent with
the GHS, OSHA should only require exported chemicals to have a red
border (Document ID 0376).
    OSHA finds this argument to be unpersuasive. In order to reap the
benefits of consistency in warnings, labels must have a degree of
sameness and that includes the colors used. Moreover, OSHA analyzed the
impact that the use of red borders would have on production costs.
While the use of red borders may increase the cost of printing, OSHA
has determined that the cost does not render the rule infeasible. This
issue is discussed in greater detail in Section VI. Finally, the GHS
does not even state a preference for black borders on labels of
domestic products; it simply gives the competent authority discretion
to allow black borders when the product will not enter into
international commence.
    Numerous studies have found that substantial benefits exist when
color is used on labels. Due to the extensive amount of information
that needs to be displayed, warning labels can become cluttered.
Swindell found that searching for needed information on a cluttered
label is very challenging for the user (Swindell, 1999, Document ID
0284). Her study concluded that minor changes to an extensive
warning label, such as the addition of color, can greatly improve the
noticeability of the warning, grab the attention of the user faster,
and produce quicker reaction times.
    Swindell also researched the effect that different colors (red,
blue, and black) had on the time it took users to locate and respond to
a warning. Red was perceived to indicate the highest degree of hazard
and was shown to increase the perceived hazard of a word presented in
that color (e.g., DANGER in blue is perceived as less hazardous than
WARNING in red).
    Swindell's findings echo the results reported by Laughery et al.,
who found that alcoholic beverage labels were located significantly
faster when the text was red instead of black (Laughery et al., 1993,
Document ID 0281). These studies involve color on label
elements other than the pictogram borders, but the presence of color
and the particular color is germane to the red borders of labels.
    The primacy of red as an understandable color denoting danger is
also supported by these studies.
     Smith-Jackson and Wogalter asked English-speaking
community members to rate the perceived hazard of ten ANSI safety
colors (Smith-Jackson and Wogalter, 2000, Document ID 0196).
Red, yellow, black, and orange were rated the highest (in descending
order). Differences were statistically significant except the
difference between yellow and black.
     Among 80 college students asked to rate colors by Griffith
and Leonard, red was rated the most ``meaningful'' color (i.e., most
distinct in meaning from neutral gray), followed by green, orange,
black, white, blue, and yellow (Griffith and Leonard, 1997, Document ID
0250).
     Wogalter et al. asked Spanish speakers to rank the
perceived hazard of ANSI safety colors (Wogalter et al., 1997b,
Document ID 0266). Red was ranked highest, followed by orange,
black, and yellow.
     Dunlap et al. surveyed 1169 subjects across several
different language groups including English, German, and Spanish
speakers (Dunlap et al., 1986, Document ID 0191). Subjects
rated the color words red, orange, yellow, blue, green, and white
according to the level of perceived hazard. The results demonstrated
that the hazard information communicated by different colors followed a
consistent pattern across language groups, with red having the highest
hazard ratings.
     Wogalter et al. asked undergraduates and community
volunteers to rank various warning components (Wogalter et al., 1998,
Document ID 0286). Red connoted a significantly greater hazard
than other colors, followed by yellow, orange, and black (in that
order). A group of industrial workers ranked the colors from greatest
to least hazard as follows: red, yellow, black, orange.
     London asked workers in four sectors in South Africa to
rank the colors red, yellow, green, and blue in terns of perceived
hazard; 95 percent said red represents the greatest hazard, and 58
percent said yellow is the second greatest hazard (London, 2003;
Document ID 0311).
     Banda and Sichilongo asked workers in Zambia to rate the
perceived hazard of various colors used in chemical labels (Banda and
Sichilongo, 2006, Document ID 0237). Red was associated with
the greatest hazard, followed by yellow.
     Among a sample of 30 undergraduates who rated the
perceived hazard of 105 signal word/color combinations, Braun et al.
reported that red conveyed the highest level of perceived hazard
followed by orange, black, green, and blue (Braun et al., 1994,
Document ID 0298).
    These reports are consistent in showing that red is commonly
understood to be associated with a high level of hazard--the highest of
any color.
    After reviewing stakeholder comments and studies investigating the
benefits of using the color red to signal a hazard, OSHA has decided to
require all pictograms to have red borders. OSHA finds that these
labels will be more effective in communicating hazards to employees--
both by drawing the attention of employees to the label and by
indicating the presence of a hazard through non-verbal means.
Consistently applying red borders to all labels, regardless of the
final destination, will ensure that workers are protected. OSHA has
determined that red pictogram borders will maximize recognition of the
warning label and ensure consistency; therefore the final rule requires
red borders for both domestic and international labeling.

Blank Diamonds

    The final rule requires that all red diamonds printed on a label
have one of the eight pictograms printed inside the diamond. The
prohibition of blank diamonds on labels will ensure that users do not
get desensitized to warnings placed on labels. Two commenters proposed
alternatives to the prohibition of blank diamonds. The American
Chemical Council (ACC) suggested that, because the red diamond border
for pictograms are often pre-printed on shipping labels, OSHA allow
printing the word ``BLANK'' on, or writing ``pictogram intentionally
left blank'' in, the unused diamond (Document ID 0393).
Additionally, Michelle Sullivan also suggested writing ``intentionally
left blank'' in the empty diamonds (Document ID 0382).
    OSHA acknowledges that prohibiting blank diamonds on labels may
require an adjustment in practice for entities that use pre-printed
labels or require businesses to inventory additional blank stock. OSHA
analyzed the impact that prohibiting the use of blank diamonds on
labels would have on production costs. While this requirement may

increase costs associated with labeling, OSHA has determined that the
costs do not render the rule infeasible. This issue is discussed in
greater detail in Section VI.
    Including diamonds on labels only when a pictogram is required will
ensure that such warnings stand out to users. Prohibiting the use of
blank diamonds will improve the likelihood that users will notice and
react to the warning on the label. Therefore, OSHA has determined that
prohibiting the use of blank diamonds on labels is necessary to provide
the maximum recognition and impact of warning labels and to ensure that
users do not get desensitized to the warnings placed on labels.

Hazard Statements and Precautionary Statements

    Hazard statements describe the hazards associated with a chemical.
Precautionary statements describe recommended measures that should be
taken to protect against hazardous exposures, or improper storage or
handling of a chemical. This revised rule replaces the current
performance-oriented requirement for ``appropriate hazard warnings'' on
labels with a requirement for specific hazard and precautionary
statements on labels. The statements are prescribed, based on the
hazard classification of the chemical.
    Standardized requirements for hazard and precautionary statements
provide a degree of consistency that is lacking among current chemical
labels. This lack of consistency among current labels makes it
difficult for users to understand the nature and degree of hazard
associated with a chemical, and to compare chemical hazards. For
example, in an article reviewed for the record, Dr. Beach relates
experiences from the perspective of a doctor treating occupationally
exposed patients (Beach, 2002, Document ID 0238). The author
noted that different suppliers use different risk phrases for the same
chemical, making it difficult for users to compare relative risks.
    ANSI standard Z129.1, Hazardous Industrial Chemicals--Precautionary
Labeling (Document ID 0610), was developed to provide a
consistent approach to labeling of hazardous chemicals. This standard
gives manufacturers and importers guidance on how to provide
information on a label, including standardized phrases and other
information that can improve the quality of labels. Because it is a
voluntary standard, however, not all chemical manufacturers and
importers have adopted the ANSI approach. As a result of the diverse
formats and language used in the past, a consistent and understandable
presentation of information was not fully achieved.
    A preference for hazard statements was shown in EPA's Consumer
Labeling Initiative (Abt Associates, 1999, Document ID 0209).
This study asked consumers about their attitudes toward labels on