[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 16, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9576-9831]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28987]

Vol. 86

Tuesday,

No. 29

February 16, 2021

Part II

Department of Labor

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

 Occupational Safety and Health Administration

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

29 CFR Part 1910

 Hazard Communication Standard; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2019-0001]
RIN 1218-AC93

Hazard Communication Standard

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing through this notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) to modify the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to conform to
the United Nations' Globally Harmonized System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) Revision 7 (GHS, Rev. 7), to address
issues that arose during the implementation of the 2012 update to the
HCS, and provide better alignment with other U.S. agencies and
international trading partners, without lowering overall protections of
the standard. OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposed
revisions to the HCS will 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 Executive order entitled ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (January 18, 2011) and section 3(a)
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which call for assessment and, where
appropriate, modification and improvement of existing rules to minimize
any significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small
entities, OSHA has reviewed the existing HCS. The agency has
preliminarily determined that the proposed revisions will enhance the
effectiveness of the HCS by ensuring employees are appropriately
apprised of the chemical hazards to which they may be exposed, thus
reducing the incidence of chemical-related occupational illnesses and
injuries. The proposed modifications to the standard include revised
criteria for classification of certain health and physical hazards,
revised provisions for updating labels, new labeling provisions for
small containers, technical amendments related to the contents of
safety data sheets (SDSs), and related revisions to definitions of
terms used in the standard.

DATES: Comments on this NPRM (including requests for hearing) and other
information must be submitted by April 19, 2021.
    Informal public hearing: OSHA will schedule an informal public
hearing on the proposed rule if requested during the comment period. If
a hearing is requested, the location and date of the hearing,
procedures for interested parties to notify the agency of their
intention to participate, and procedures for participants to submit
their testimony and documentary evidence will be announced in the
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES:
    Written comments: You may submit comments and attachments,
identified by Docket No. OSHA-2019-0001, electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow
the instructions online for making electronic submissions. After
accessing ``all documents and comments'' in the docket (Docket No.
OSHA-2019-0001), check the ``proposed rule'' box in the column headed
``Document Type,'' find the document posted on the date of publication
of this document, and click the ``Comment Now'' link. When uploading
multiple attachments to regulations.gov, please number all of your
attachments because www.regulations.gov will not automatically number
the attachments. This will be very useful in identifying all
attachments in the preamble. For example, Attachment 1_title of your
document, Attachment 2_title of your document, Attachment 3_title of
your document. For assistance with commenting and uploading documents,
please see the Frequently Asked Questions on regulations.gov.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name and
the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2019-0001). All
comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting information they do not want made available to the public,
or submitting materials that contain personal information (either about
themselves or others), such as Social Security Numbers and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download comments and materials submitted in
response to this Federal Register document, go to Docket No. OSHA-2019-
0001 at http://www.regulations.gov. All comments and submissions are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through that website. All comments and submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection through
the OSHA Docket Office.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Documents submitted to the docket by OSHA or stakeholders
are assigned document identification numbers (Document ID) for easy
identification and retrieval. The full Document ID is the docket
number plus a unique four-digit code. OSHA is identifying supporting
information in this NPRM by author name, publication year, and the
last four digits of the Document ID.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For press inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, Office of
Communications, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information and technical inquiries: Contact Maureen
Ruskin, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Introduction
III. Events Leading to the Proposed Modifications to the Hazard
Communication Standard
IV. Need and Support for the Proposed Modifications to the Hazard
Communication Standard
V. Pertinent Legal Authority
VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VII. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
VIII. Federalism
IX. State-Plan States
X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
XI. Protecting Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
XII. Environmental Impacts
XIII. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
XIV. Issues and Options Considered
XV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Modifications to the
Hazard Communication Standard
XVI. Authority and Signature

I. Executive Summary

    The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of
Chemicals (GHS) has been implemented around the world. In 2012, OSHA
updated its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), 29 CFR 1910.1200, to
align with Revision 3 of the GHS (77 FR 17574).

However, the GHS is updated with improvements and clarifications every
two years. This proposed rulemaking would amend the HCS to align with
Revision 7 of the GHS, published in 2017. OSHA is also proposing
updates to address specific issues that have arisen since the 2012
rulemaking and to provide better alignment with international trading
partners, without lowering the protections provided by the standard.
This action is consistent with Executive Order 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (January 18, 2011), and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 610, which requires periodic
review of rules that may be out-of-date, ineffective, or excessively
burdensome.
    OSHA is required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(OSH Act) to assure, as far as possible, safe and healthful working
conditions for the Nation's working men and women. As part of this
effort, OSHA first promulgated the HCS in 1983 to provide a
standardized approach to workplace hazard communications associated
with exposure to hazardous chemicals. The HCS requires chemical
manufacturers or importers to classify the hazards of chemicals they
produce or import. The standard requires all employers to provide
information to their employees about the hazardous chemicals to which
they are exposed, by means of a hazard communication program, labels
and other forms of warning, safety data sheets (SDSs), and information
and training. OSHA is not proposing to change the fundamental structure
of the HCS.
    OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposed amendments to
the HCS would enhance the effectiveness of the standard by ensuring
that employees are appropriately apprised of the chemical hazards to
which they may be exposed. The proposed modifications to the standard
include revised criteria for classification of certain health and
physical hazards to better capture and communicate the hazards to
downstream users, revised provisions for labels (including proposed
provisions addressing the labeling of small containers and the
relabeling of chemicals that have been released for shipment),
technical amendments related to the contents of SDSs, and new
provisions relating to concentrations or concentration ranges being
claimed as trade secrets.
    Additionally, in accordance with all applicable Executive Orders,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,
OSHA has prepared a Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), including a
Preliminary Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Certification, for the
proposed modifications to the HCS (see the full PEA in Section VII of
this document). Supporting materials prepared by OSHA, such as
spreadsheets, are available in the public docket for this rulemaking,
Docket ID OSHA-2019-0001, through www.regulations.gov. OSHA invites
comments on all aspects of the PEA.
    In the PEA, OSHA estimates that the proposed rule would result in
net cost savings of $26.8 million per year at a 7 percent discount
rate, as shown in Table ES-1, below (a summary of annualized costs by
affected industry). Annualized at a 3 percent discount rate, OSHA
estimates that the proposed rule would result in net cost savings of
$27.5 million per year. Under a perpetual time horizon to allow for
cost comparisons under Executive Order 13771, OSHA estimates that the
net cost savings of the proposed rule at a discount rate of 7 percent
would be $19.6 million per year in 2016 dollars.\2\ OSHA also expects
that the proposed revisions to the HCS would result in modest
improvements in worker health and safety above those already being
achieved under the current HCS, but the agency was unable to quantify
the magnitude of these health and safety benefits (see Section VII.D.
Health and Safety Benefits and Unquantified Positive Economic Effects).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This calculation (a) converts the costs and cost savings of
the rule from 2019 dollars to 2016 dollars using the BEA (2020)
implicit price deflator for Gross Domestic Product, and (b)
discounts the first year costs by five years, to reflect the five
years between 2016 and 2021, the scheduled year of publication of
this NPRM. For further details, see Document ID 0049, tab
``Tables'', E.O. 13771 Summary Table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.000

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

II. Introduction

    This preamble to the proposal to modify the HCS includes a review
of the events leading to the proposal, a discussion of the reasons why
OSHA believes these modifications are necessary, the preliminary
economic and regulatory flexibility analysis for the proposal, and an
explanation of the specific revisions OSHA is proposing to make to the
standard.

III. Events Leading to the Proposed Modifications to the Hazard
Communication Standard

    OSHA first promulgated the HCS in 1983, covering only the chemical
manufacturing industry (48 FR 53280). The purpose of the standard was
to provide a standardized approach for communicating workplace hazards
associated with exposure to hazardous chemicals. OSHA updated the HCS
in 1987 to expand coverage to all industries where workers are exposed
to hazardous chemicals (52 FR 31852). In 1994, OSHA promulgated an
additional update to the HCS with technical changes and amendments
designed to ensure better comprehension and greater compliance with the
standard (59 FR 6126). In adopting the original HCS in 1983, the agency
noted the benefits of an internationally harmonized chemical hazard
communication standard (48 FR 53287), and actively participated in
efforts to develop one over the subsequent decades. In 2012, the agency
officially harmonized the HCS with the third revision of the United
Nations' Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals (GHS) (UN GHS, Rev. 3, 2009, Document ID 0085) (77 FR 17574).
    OSHA has always envisioned that the HCS would require periodic
rulemakings to maintain consistency with the GHS and incorporate the
progression of scientific principles and best approaches for
classification and communication of workplace hazards related to
hazardous chemical exposure (77 FR 17574). This section provides
information on the events that have occurred since promulgation of the
2012 HCS, with additional information on the development of the GHS and
its relationship to the HCS, and explains the impetus for this proposed
rule.
    Several international and domestic activities have impacted the
direction of the HCS and led to the updates proposed in this NPRM,
including negotiations at the UN, OSHA's participation in the U.S.-
Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) with Health Canada, and
information OSHA has received from HCS stakeholders. These are
discussed below.

A. International Events Affecting the Standard

    The evolution of what was to become the GHS had its early
beginnings with the work started in 1956 by the United Nations Economic
and Social Council Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous
Goods (TDG) and continued in the 1990s through the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Economic Development (UNCED), the United
Nations International Labour Organization (ILO), and the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (UN GHS, 2019, Document
ID 0053). The overarching goal was to provide an internationally
harmonized system to convey information to workers, consumers, and the
general public on the physical, health, and environmental effects of
hazardous chemicals across the globe, as well as to provide a
foundation for the safe management of those chemicals.
    Finalized by the UN in 2002, the GHS is intended to harmonize
elements of hazard communication, including SDSs and labels, by
providing a unified classification system of chemicals based on their
physical and health-related hazards. The GHS is updated and revised
every two years based on information and experience gained by
regulatory agencies, industry, and non-governmental organizations (UN
GHS, 2020, Document ID 0052). OSHA largely adopted the third revision
to the GHS in 2012.
    OSHA leads the U.S. Interagency GHS Coordinating Group, an
interagency group that serves as a U.S. delegation to the UN. The
Interagency Group works to ensure that modifications to the GHS
continue to reflect U.S. agencies' key priorities and do not conflict
with U.S. hazard communication and associated requirements. The group
meets regularly to discuss issues related to the domestic
implementation of the GHS, as well as international work being done at
the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the GHS (UNSCEGHS). The
Interagency Group consists of representatives from OSHA, the Department
of State, the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Coast Guard, the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC), the Department of Energy (DOE), the
Department of Defense (DOD), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF). To date, OSHA is the only U.S. agency to
have implemented the GHS, although CPSC regulations contain elements of
the GHS (e.g., precautionary statements) (CPSC, 2006, Document ID
0175). The EPA (which initiated the U.S. working group) has proposed
changes to its regulations governing significant new uses of chemical
substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act that would align with
the HCS and the GHS as well as OSHA's respiratory protection standard
(29 CFR 1910.134) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) respirator certification requirements (81 FR 49598).
    Since OSHA's adoption of Revision 3 in 2012, the GHS has been
updated five times; the latest revision, Revision 8, was published in
July 2019 (UN GHS, Rev. 8, 2019, Document ID 0065). Updates to the GHS
in Revision 4 (2011) included changes to hazard categories for
chemically unstable gases and non-flammable aerosols and updates to,
and clarification of, precautionary statements (UN GHS, 2011, Document
ID 0240). Changes in Revision 5 of the GHS (2013) included a new test
method for oxidizing solids; miscellaneous provisions intended to
further clarify the criteria for some hazard classes (skin corrosion/
irritation, severe eye damage/irritation, and aerosols) and to
complement the information to be included in the SDS; revised and
simplified classification and labeling summary tables; a new
codification system for hazard pictograms; and revised precautionary
statements (UN GHS, 2013, Document ID 0241).
    Revision 6 of the GHS (2015) included a new hazard class for
desensitized explosives and a new hazard category for pyrophoric gases;
miscellaneous provisions intended to clarify the criteria for some
hazard classes (explosives, specific target organ toxicity following
single exposure, aspiration hazard, and hazardous to the aquatic
environment); additional information to be included in section 9 of the
SDS; revised precautionary statements; and a new example in Annex 7
addressing labelling of small packages (UN GHS, 2015, Document ID
0134). Changes in Revision 7 (2017) included revised criteria for
categorization of flammable gases within Category 1; miscellaneous
amendments intended to clarify the definitions of some health hazard
classes; additional guidance regarding the coverage of section 14 of
the SDS (which is non-mandatory under the HCS); and a new example in
Annex 7 addressing labelling of small packages

with fold-out labels (UN GHS, 2017, Document ID 0094). Revision 8
(published July 2019) includes a change in classification criteria for
aerosols (based on flammable properties, heat of combustion); minor
changes to precautionary statements for skin irritation and serious eye
damage; new provisions for use of non-animal test methods for the skin
irritation/corrosion hazard class; and new precautionary pictograms for
``keep out of reach of children'' (UN GHS, Rev. 8, 2019, Document ID
0065). OSHA is proposing to revise the HCS to align with the GHS
Revision 7; however, the agency has included select provisions from
Revision 8 for consideration in this rulemaking. Major U.S. trading
partners are also aligning with Revision 7. This is discussed in more
detail in the introduction to Issues and Options (see Section XIV) and
the introduction to Summary and Explanation (see Section XV).
    The GHS model is comprehensive and forward-looking, embracing
concepts defined in the principles of aggregate exposure and cumulative
risk, which have been developed and/or adopted by agencies such as the
U.S. EPA pesticides program and NIOSH (US EPA, 2017, Document ID 0054;
Lentz, 2015, Document ID 0071). In brief, aggregate exposure considers
the combined exposures of a single chemical from multiple pathways
(e.g., oral, dermal, inhalation), while cumulative risk evaluates the
potential adverse effects from multiple chemicals or stressors (such as
heat and noise). Because of its comprehensive approach, the GHS takes
into consideration multiple aspects of the intrinsic hazards of a
chemical (e.g., physical, health, and environmental hazards) and makes
this information available in a manner that facilitates the assessment
of aggregate exposures from a single chemical and identifies factors
that may contribute to cumulative risk from multiple chemical
exposures. While the HCS requires employers to provide information on
SDSs in sections 1-11 and 16 (12-15 are non-mandatory) for workplace
settings (29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(2)), many consumer products have SDSs
available to the public through the National Library of Medicine (NLM,
2020, http://medlineplus.gov/householdproducts.html, Document ID 0059).
Thus, aggregate exposure information is available to the public for
many chemicals where occupational, consumer, and environmental
exposures are possible, as intended by the GHS.
    An additional international activity impacting the HCS is OSHA's
participation in the RCC. The RCC was established in 2011 to promote
economic growth, job creation, and other benefits through increased
regulatory coordination and transparency between the U.S. and Canada
(US EOP, 2011, Document ID 0057). In June 2018, U.S.-Canada RCC
principles were reaffirmed through a memorandum of understanding
between the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
within the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Treasury
Board of Canada (US-Canada MOU, 2018, Document ID 0199). Since the
RCC's inception, OSHA and Health Canada, Canada's corresponding
governmental agency, have developed joint guidance products and
consulted on respective regulatory activities. In keeping with the
RCC's goal of regulatory cooperation, OSHA is proposing several updates
to the HCS that will align with Canada's Hazardous Products Regulations
(HPR), such as changes to exemptions for labeling small containers and
using prescribed concentration ranges when claiming trade secrets
(Health Canada, 2015, Document ID 0051).

B. Stakeholder Engagement

    Since updating the HCS in 2012, OSHA has engaged stakeholders in
various ways in order to keep them apprised of changes to the GHS that
may have an impact on future updates to the HCS, as well as to gather
information about stakeholders' experience implementing the standard.
For example, in November 2016, OSHA convened a meeting (International/
Globally Harmonized System (GHS), Docket No. OSHA-2016-0005) to inform
the public that OSHA was beginning rulemaking efforts to maintain
alignment of the HCS with more recent revisions of the GHS. Meeting
attendees discussed topics and issues that OSHA should consider during
the rulemaking. In addition, attendees provided suggestions as to the
types of publications (such as guidance products) that would be helpful
in complying with the standard and the topics they would like OSHA to
address in future compliance assistance materials.
    OSHA has also engaged stakeholders through Interagency Group public
meetings, prior to each UNSCEGHS Session, to discuss the issues and
proposals being presented at the UN. During this forum, stakeholders
have the opportunity to provide comments or voice concerns regarding
the various proposals under discussion. Stakeholders are also able to
provide comments on these proposals in writing via OSHA's docket for
International/Globally Harmonized System (GHS) (Docket No. OSHA-2016-
0005). The Interagency Group considers the comments and information
gathered at these public meetings and in the docket when developing the
United States' position on issues before the UN.
    Additionally, in December 2018, the RCC held a stakeholder forum in
Washington, DC. The purpose of the forum was to conduct senior-level
discussions to proactively identify and discuss challenges,
opportunities, and lessons learned regarding Canada-U.S, regulatory
cooperation'' (US EOP, 2018, Document ID 0252). OSHA led the session
regarding chemicals management and workplace chemicals.

C. OSHA Guidance Products, Letters of Interpretation, and Directives

    Since OSHA's publication of the HCS update in 2012, the agency has
published guidance documents, issued letters of interpretation (LOI),
and implemented an enforcement directive. To see the guidance
documents, please go to OSHA's web page at: https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/guidance.html. OSHA will continue to develop guidance documents
to assist employers and employees with their understanding of the HCS
and is seeking comments in this NPRM on types of guidance documents
that the public may find useful to understand the updated HCS. Any
guidance provided will accord with the Department's regulation at 29
CFR part 89, with a primary aim of providing helpful, plain language
explanations.
    OSHA has issued several letters of interpretation (LOI) in response
to questions from the regulated community. These LOI provide
clarification on provisions in the 2012 update to the HCS, and how they
apply in particular circumstances. Some of the major issues covered in
the LOI include the labeling of small containers, the labeling of
chemicals released for shipment, and the use of concentration ranges
for trade secrets. OSHA's LOI on the HCS may be found at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1200%20-%20Index/result. In addition, the agency has published a
directive that provides guidance to enforcement compliance officers
intended to ensure uniform enforcement of the standard by the OSHA
field offices (CPL 02-02-079, OSHA, 2015, Document ID 0007; https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_02-02-079.pdf). Several of the
updates in this proposal would codify specific elements of the
enforcement guidance the agency has already

provided in the LOI and the directive (see Section XV: Summary and
Explanation for Regulatory Text, Appendix B and Appendix D).

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

    The HCS is the cornerstone of OSHA's risk mitigation strategy for
controlling hazardous chemicals in the workplace. The importance of
hazard communication in general and the HCS specifically have been well
established over the past few decades, ever since OSHA first
established the HCS in 1983 as a worker's ``right to know'' standard
(OSHA Publication 3021--Workers' Rights, 2017). However, even prior to
OSHA's promulgation of the HCS, there was recognition that workers
needed to know the hazards encountered in the workplace and the
importance of communicating, classifying, and training how to address,
those hazards. The foundational goal of the HCS is to identify,
understand, and communicate the hazards associated with exposure to
chemicals before workers experience chronic exposure to those hazards.
    OSHA first established the need for the HCS in the 1983 standard
(48 FR 53282-53284) and most recently reiterated the need for the
standard in 2012, when OSHA adopted the GHS hazard communication
framework (77 FR 17584-17600). The 2012 HCS emphasized the need for
improved quality, consistency, and comprehensibility of information
provided to workers. The improved information mandated by the current
HCS enables employers and workers to further reduce risks associated
with chemical hazards by enabling them to identify and determine the
hazards and by providing a method to indicate the severity of the
relevant hazards. The HCS, as updated in 2012, also mandates
information on proper storage and handling and other information on
risk mitigation and management. Numerous studies examined in the final
rulemaking for the 2012 HCS supported the need for a hazard
communication standard that was focused on ensuring the
comprehensibility of the conveyed information (77 FR 17584-17585).
    OSHA is now proposing additional changes to the HCS that will serve
three primary purposes: (1) Maintaining alignment with the GHS and
ensuring that the standard reflects the current state of science and
knowledge on relevant topics; (2) cooperating with international
trading partners and other Federal agencies; and (3) responding to
stakeholder experiences implementing current HCS requirements. The
proposed changes include clarifying the purpose and scope of the
standard, adding definitions, codifying enforcement policies currently
in OSHA's compliance directive, clarifying requirements related to the
transport of hazardous chemicals, adding labeling provisions for small
containers, and adopting new requirements related to preparation of
SDSs and new provisions related to claiming concentration ranges as
trade secrets. The agency believes that the changes proposed in this
NPRM will further improve the comprehensibility and utility of the
standard and allow the HCS to keep up with advances in relevant science
and technology, thereby better protecting worker health and safety.

A. Maintaining Alignment With the GHS and Ensuring That the Standard
Reflects the Current State of Science and Knowledge on Relevant Topics

    Periodic updates to the HCS are needed to maintain pace with the
general advancement of science, technology, and our understanding of
the processes involved in effective communication. As stated in the
2008 ILO report, ``Continuous improvement of occupational safety and
health must be promoted. This is necessary to ensure that national
laws, regulations, and technical standards to prevent occupational
injuries, disease, and deaths are adapted periodically to social,
technical, and scientific progress and other changes in the world of
work.'' (ILO, 2008, Document ID 0181). While the tools and protective
measures in place to reduce or prevent chemical-related occupational
injuries and illnesses are effective, such tools and systems become
less effective as time goes by and new technologies and workplace
hazards emerge. Therefore, there is a need for continual improvement in
the systems and processes designed to identify, communicate about, and
reduce workplace exposures to chemical hazards. OSHA has always
intended for the HCS to be updated periodically to reflect these
advancements, as is the GHS (for further discussion see Section XIV,
Issues and Options).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The ILO and the World Health Organization (WHO) have also
adopted an evergreen approach to workplace hazard communication
(i.e., an approach that ensures systems for hazard communication
remain relevant and up-to-date). The ILO and WHO produce
international chemical safety cards (ICSC) and maintain a database
of approximately 500 data sheets designed to provide safety and
health information on hazardous chemicals in a format consistent
with the GHS. While not exactly like SDSs, ICSCs use GHS
precautionary statements to convey safety and health information
about workplace chemicals in a consistent, internationally-
accessible manner. With participation by experts from government
agencies around the world, including the U.S. (CDC/NIOSH), Canada
(Health Canada and Environment Canada), and the European Commission
(ECHA), ICSCs are prepared and periodically updated to account for
the most recent scientific developments. Due to the robust process
of preparation and peer-review, the ICSCs are considered
authoritative in nature and a significant asset for workers and
health professionals across the globe, including in the United
States (ILO, 2019, Document ID 0069).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to the HCS will result in better alignment
between the standard and the continually-evolving GHS. The first
edition of the UN GHS, adopted in December 2002 and published in 2003,
implemented the 16-section format for SDSs that is now standard across
much of the globe. As information has improved, the GHS has updated the
form and content of SDSs \4\ to improve readability, minimize
redundancies, and ensure hazards are communicated appropriately (UN
GHS, 2017, Document ID 0060; ANS revises standard, 2005, Document ID
0237).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ SDSs, as adopted by the HCS, are intended to provide
comprehensive information about a substance or mixture for use in
the workplace, including identification of the substance or mixture;
hazard identification; composition/ingredient information; first aid
measures; fire-fighting measures; accidental release measures;
handling and storage; exposure controls/personal protective
measures; physical and chemical properties; stability and
reactivity; toxicological information; ecological information;
disposal considerations; transport information; regulatory
information; and other information that may be relevant to the
workplace (e.g., date the SDS was prepared, key literature
references, and sources of data used to prepare the SDS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information OSHA has collected since publication of the 2012
updates to the HCS indicates that aligning the HCS with the GHS has had
a positive impact. Data from published studies indicate that the hazard
communication approach taken in the 2012 HCS has been effective, when
implemented appropriately, in enabling workers to understand, avoid,
and mitigate exposures to hazardous chemicals in the workplace
(Bechtoldt, 2014, Document ID 0061; Elliott, 2016, Document ID 0119).
Industry representatives have indicated that workers responded
positively to training on pictograms and hazard statements because it
provided an opportunity to address distinctions between acute toxicity
and chronic health effects (Bechtold, 2014, Document ID 0061). In
reference to SDSs, one industry representative stated that ``[b]ecause
the standardized hazard statements and classifications are so precisely
disclosed, it'll be a lot easier for industrial hygienists to identify
the more hazardous chemicals, decide where they may need to take
action, and compare the hazards of one product versus another.''
(Bechtold, 2014,

Document ID 0061; Elliot, 2016, Document ID 0119). Consistent labeling
requirements have also enabled employers to identify the most hazardous
materials in the workplace, understand more about the health effects of
these chemicals, and address which hazardous chemicals they may want to
replace with safer alternatives (Bechtold, 2014, Document ID 0061).
    Several studies published since the 2012 HCS adopted the 16-section
SDS format indicate that the new format improves comprehension in the
workplace (Elliott, 2016, Document ID 0119; Boelhouwer, 2013, Document
ID 0107). However, other recent studies have shown that the system can
still be improved upon. Multiple studies in various industries have
demonstrated that while comprehension has improved, many SDSs lack
information vital to worker protections. Problems include insufficient
information on the identification of substances/mixtures; inadequate
hazard identification and classification information (e.g., missing
information on carcinogens and sensitizers, incorrect chemical
classifications); lack of precautionary statements on safe handling;
missing information on exposure controls/personal protective equipment;
and missing toxicological information (Jang, 2019, Document ID 0110;
Allen, 2017, Document ID 0117; DiMare, 2017, Document ID 0118; Tsai,
2016, Document ID 0116; Friis, 2015, Document ID 0120; Saito, 2015,
Document ID 0191; Suleiman, 2014, Document ID 0192; Lee, 2012, Document
ID 0070). A 2014 study concluded that the contents of the SDSs
evaluated were generic and incomplete, lacking important safety
measures and health information (Suleiman, 2014, Document ID 0192). A
study on mixtures found that information on individual ingredients
within mixtures was sometimes completely missing and that information
on hazard characterization and classification was ambiguous and almost
entirely incorrect (LeBouf, 2019, Document ID 0183). Furthermore, a
2012 study conducted by NIOSH found that SDSs for certain classes of
chemicals lacked sufficient information to communicate the appropriate
hazards and remedies related to engineered nanomaterials (Eastlake,
2012, Document ID 0063). A follow-up NIOSH study found some improvement
in SDS preparation since implementation of the 2012 HCS; however, the
study also found that there are still serious deficiencies in providing
adequate information on the inherent health and safety hazards of
engineered nanomaterials, including handling and storage (Hodson, 2019,
Document ID 0067).
    Inadequate information on the chemical hazards and risk management
practices required on SDSs can lead to overexposure to chemical hazards
and puts workers at risk. The studies described above demonstrate the
need for ongoing review and refinement to make certain the standard is
addressing comprehensibility issues and staying relevant with current
occupational safety and health tools, science, and technology. Using
information gained through the experience of global stakeholders, the
GHS is updated with revisions and improvements every two years. These
changes have been outlined in brief in Section III (Events Leading to
the Proposed Modifications to the Hazard Communication Standard) of
this NPRM. The proposed updates to appendix D, which are based in part
on recent revisions to the GHS, seek, among other things, to remedy the
issues that have been identified by clarifying the information needed
in the SDS. For example, the change in section 9 (physical
characteristics to include particle characteristics) will identify
exposure issues that are not addressed by the current format. This
should, among other things, improve the hazard information required for
nanomaterials.
    Furthermore, the GHS has been updated to reflect the development of
non-animal test methods for use in hazard determination and
classification. The development of these test methods led to updates in
Chapter 3.2 on skin corrosion/irritation that incorporated new in vitro
test methods, and computational and in silico techniques, to classify
chemicals for this category of hazard (UN GHS, 2018, Document ID 0242).
And techniques and processes developed in the behavioral sciences have
led to the development of more effective communication practices for
occupational safety and health purposes (NIOSH, 2019, Document ID
0126).\5\ Studies evaluating the effectiveness of precautionary
statements and pictograms used in the GHS have led to their evolution
and continued revisions (Fagotto, 2003, Document ID 0125; Ta, 2010,
Document ID 0115; Ta, 2011, Document ID 0194; Chan, 2017, Document ID
0017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Holistic programs such as NIOSH's Total Worker Health (TWH)
program, where behavioral science is integrated into more
traditional risk-management practices, require robust hazard
communication practices (Tamers, 2019, Document ID 0076).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to directly enhancing worker protections through
improved hazard communication, updating the HCS (based on the GHS) will
also improve the availability of important information to support
larger efforts to address workplace hazards. For example, NIOSH is
exploring the use of aggregate exposures (exposures to a specific
chemical or hazard from several different sources) and cumulative risk
models for use in setting occupational exposure limits and assessing
impacts on worker health (Lentz, 2015, Document ID 0071; Redingert,
2015, Document ID 0100). A real-world example of the potential effects
of aggregate exposure comes from the increased use of nanosilver in
consumer products. A recent NIOSH review of nanosilver indicates that
the current OSHA PEL for silver is adequate to protect workers from
silver's adverse health effects (NIOSH, 2018, Document ID 0188).
However, a 2013 study looking at the increased presence of nanosilver
in consumer products (e.g., use of nanosilver as an antimicrobial in
clothing and materials that come into contact with food), and the
increased environmental exposures from the manufacture, use, and
disposal of these consumer products, indicates that the OSHA PEL may be
inadequate to protect workers if nanosilver continues to be added to
new consumer products (Balcher, 2013, Document ID 0097). This example
highlights the importance of an effective overarching hazard
communication strategy in understanding and managing exposures and
risk.
    Regularly updating the HCS to align with international practices
also eases compliance for regulated entities because it provides
greater international consistency (Bechtold, 2014, Document ID 0061).
Industry groups, such as the American Petroleum Institute (API), have
indicated their support for regular HCS updates as long as there is
sufficient input from stakeholders (API, 2009, Document ID 0167).
During the 2012 rulemaking, numerous safety organizations (including
NIOSH, the American Chemical Society (ACS), the American Industrial
Hygiene Association (AIHA), the American Society of Safety Engineers
(ASSE), and the Society for Chemical Hazard Communication (SCHC)) have
publicly supported OSHA's continued updates to the HCS (see 77 FR
17585, 17603, 17604). The Society of Toxicology has also expressed
support for updating the HCS to align with the GHS as this ``is ani
important step toward creating consistent communication about the
hazards of chemicals used around the world.'' (see 77 FR 17585).

B. Cooperating With International Trading Partners and Other Federal
Agencies

    In support of the second goal of this NPRM, OSHA expects that the
proposed updates to the HCS will facilitate cooperation with
international trading partners and other Federal agencies. With respect
to the U.S. and Canada specifically, the two countries participate in
the RCC, which has a goal to ``reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary regulatory differences between both countries while
maintaining high levels of protection for health, safety, and the
environment'' (US-Canada MOU, 2018, Document ID 0252). OSHA continues
to work with Health Canada through the RCC to develop guidance
documents pertaining to hazard communication issues the two countries
share and to work cooperatively through the UN GHS subcommittee (see
Section III, Events Leading to the Proposed Modifications to the Hazard
Communication Standard). In addition, OSHA and Health Canada share
regular updates on regulatory activity. As explained in the Summary and
Explanation (see Section XV), a number of the updates OSHA is proposing
in this NPRM would align U.S. and Canadian hazard communication
practices, thereby facilitating cooperation between the two countries,
easing compliance for employers who participate in both markets, and
strengthening worker protections by providing harmonized hazard
communication standards across trade borders.
    In addition, OSHA is proposing to update the requirements for bulk
shipment under paragraph (f)(5), Transportation to provide additional
clarity for shipments that are also regulated by the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT). For bulk shipments, the proposed new paragraph
would increase flexibility by allowing labels to be placed on the
immediate container or transmitted with shipping papers, bills of
lading, or by other technological or electronic means so that they are
immediately available to workers in printed form on the receiving end
of the shipment. And in another effort to facilitate inter-agency
cooperation, OSHA is proposing new language for paragraph (f)(5)
providing that where a pictogram required by the DOT appears on the
label for a shipped container, the HCS pictogram for the same hazard
may also be provided, but is not required.

C. Responding to Stakeholder Experiences Implementing the 2012 HCS

    Finally, some of the proposed changes in this NPRM, those related
to labeling of small containers and relabeling requirements for
chemicals that have been released for shipment, were developed in
response to feedback and comments received from stakeholders since the
promulgation of the 2012 updates to the HCS (Collatz, 2015, Document ID
0174; Ghosh, 2015, Document ID 0180). With respect to the labeling of
small containers, issues raised by stakeholders included concerns about
insufficient space on the label to highlight the most relevant safety
information, problems with the readability of information on small
labels, and challenges associated with using fold-out labels for
certain small containers that need special handling (Watters, 2013,
Document ID 0200; Collaltz, 2015, Document ID 0174; Blankfield, 2017,
Document ID 0170). The proposed updates to the HCS related to the
labeling of small containers are designed to address these issues.
Furthermore, OSHA believes that adopting a uniform standard for the
labeling of small containers will enhance worker protections by
providing more clarity and certainty about the hazards posed by the
chemicals contained in such containers (see Section X Summary and
Explanation for (f)(12), Small container labelling).
    Similarly, the proposed revisions to paragraph (f)(11), which
address the relabeling of chemicals that have been released for
shipment, are designed to address stakeholder concerns about the
difficulty some manufacturers have in complying with paragraph (f)(11),
especially in the case of chemicals that travel through long
distribution cycles (Kenyon, 2017, Document ID 0182). Many products
have straightforward supply chains and are packaged, labeled, and
promptly shipped downstream. Other products, for example in the
agrochemical sector, are packaged and labeled when they leave the
chemical manufacturer's facility, but may reside at a warehouse or
distribution facility for extended periods of time (e.g., several
years) before being shipped downstream. There are also instances where
products may be returned from the downstream users to the distribution
facility and then shipped to other customers (NGFA, 2016, Document ID
OSHA-2016-0005-0018; AFIA, 2016, Document ID OSHA-2016-0005-0017). OSHA
believes the proposed revisions to paragraph (f)(11) to provide that
relabeling is not required for chemicals that have been released for
shipment and are awaiting future distribution will accommodate these
concerns; the proposal would also maintain worker protections by
requiring the chemical manufacturer or importer to provide an updated
label for each individual container with each shipment.

V. Pertinent Legal Authority

A. Background

    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the
``OSH Act'' or ``Act'') (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is ``to assure so far
as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and
healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' 29
U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary
of Labor to promulgate occupational safety and health standards
pursuant to notice and comment. 29 U.S.C. 655(b). An occupational
safety and health standard is a standard ``which requires conditions,
or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods,
operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to
provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.'' 29
U.S.C. 652(8).
    The OSH Act also authorizes the Secretary to ``modify'' or
``revoke'' any occupational safety or health standard, 29 U.S.C.
655(b), and under the Administrative Procedure Act, regulatory agencies
generally may revise their rules if the changes are supported by a
reasoned analysis. See Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, U.S., 136 S.
Ct. 2117, 2125-26 (2016); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983). In passing the OSH Act,
Congress recognized that OSHA should revise and replace its standards
as ``new knowledge and techniques are developed.'' S. Rep. 91-1282 at 6
(1970). The Supreme Court has observed that administrative agencies
``do not establish rules of conduct to last forever, and . . . must be
given ample latitude to adapt their rules and policies to the demands
of changing circumstances.'' Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, 463 U.S. at 42
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
    Before the Secretary can promulgate any permanent health or safety
standard, he must make a threshold finding that significant risk is
present and that such risk can be eliminated or lessened by a change in
practices. Indus. Union Dep't v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 642
(1980) (plurality opinion)

(``Benzene''). As explained more fully below, OSHA need not make
additional findings on risk for this proposal because OSHA previously
determined that the HCS addresses a significant risk. 77 FR 17603-
17604.
    In promulgating a standard under, and making the determinations
required by, the OSH Act, OSHA's determinations will be deemed
conclusive if they are ``supported by substantial evidence in the
record considered as a whole.'' 29 U.S.C. 655(f). OSHA must use the
``best available evidence,'' which includes ``the latest available
scientific data in the field''; ``research, demonstrations,
experiments, and such other information as may be appropriate''; and
``experience gained under this and other health and safety laws.'' 29
U.S.C. 655(b)(5).

B. Authority--Section 6(b)(5)

    The HCS is a health standard promulgated under the authority of
section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act. See Associated Builders & Contractors,
Inc. v. Brock, 862 F.2d 63, 67-68 (3d Cir. 1988); United Steelworkers
of Am. v. Auchter, 763 F.2d 728, 735 (3d Cir. 1985); 77 FR 17601.
Section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act provides that in promulgating health
standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents, the
Secretary must ``set the standard which most adequately assures, to the
extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no
employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional
capacity even if such employee has regular exposure to the hazard dealt
with by such standard for the period of his working life.'' 29 U.S.C.
655(b)(5). Thus, once OSHA determines that a significant risk due to a
health hazard is present and that such risk can be reduced or
eliminated by an OSHA standard, section 6(b)(5) requires OSHA to issue
the standard, based on the best available evidence, that ``most
adequately assures'' employee protection, subject only to feasibility
considerations. As the Supreme Court has explained, in passing section
6(b)(5), Congress ``place[d] . . . worker health above all other
considerations save those making attainment of this `benefit'
unachievable.'' Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490,
509 (1981) (``Cotton Dust'').

C. Other Authority

    The HCS is also promulgated under the authority of section 6(b)(7)
of the OSH Act. See United Steelworkers, 763 F.2d at 730; 77 FR 17601.
Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act provides in part: ``Any standard
promulgated under this subsection shall prescribe the use of labels or
other appropriate forms of warning as are necessary to insure that
employees are apprised of all hazards to which they are exposed,
relevant symptoms and appropriate emergency treatment, and proper
conditions and precautions of safe use or exposure.'' 29 U.S.C.
655(b)(7). Section 6(b)(7)'s labeling and employee warning requirements
provide basic protections for employees in the absence of specific
permissible exposure limits, particularly by providing employers and
employees with information necessary to design work processes that
protect employees against exposure to hazardous chemicals in the first
instance.
    The last sentence of section 6(b)(7) provides that the Secretary,
in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may by
rule promulgated pursuant to section 553 of Title 5, make appropriate
modifications in the foregoing requirements relating to the use of
labels or other forms of warning, monitoring or measuring, and medical
examinations, as may be warranted by experience, information, or
medical or technological developments acquired subsequent to the
promulgation of the relevant standard. 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7). OSHA used
the authority granted by this paragraph to promulgate the 2012
revisions to the HCS, 77 FR 17602, and this provision provides
additional authority for the current proposal.
    This proposal to update the HCS fits well within the authority
granted by the last sentence of section[thinsp]6(b)(7). The changes
proposed would constitute a ``modification'' of the HCS regarding ``the
use of labels or other forms of warning.'' As explained more fully
elsewhere in this preamble, OSHA believes the proposed updates to be
``appropriate'' based on ``experience, information, or medical or
technological developments acquired subsequent to the promulgation of
the relevant standard.'' The updates found in GHS Rev. 7 may be
considered a ``technological development'' that has occurred since the
promulgation of the HCS in 2012 and are also ``warranted by experience
[and] information.'' The GHS was negotiated and drafted through the
involvement of labor, industry, and governmental agencies, and thus
represents the collective experience and information on hazard
communication gathered by the participants in these sectors over the
last several decades. See 71 FR 53617, 53618-53619.\6\ See also Section
III of this preamble, Events Leading to the Proposed Modifications to
the Hazard Communication Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The last sentence of section 6(b)(7) requires consultation
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. OSHA briefed NIOSH
on this proposal during a collaboration meeting held in December
2018, which was attended by the Director of NIOSH, and NIOSH
expressed its support. NIOSH also supported OSHA's update of the HCS
in 2012. See 77 FR 17603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Authority for the HCS is also found in section 8, paragraphs (c)
and (g), of the OSH Act. Section 8(c)(1) of the OSH Act empowers the
Secretary to require employers to make, keep, and preserve records
regarding activities related to the OSH Act and to make such records
available to the Secretary. 29 U.S.C. 657(c)(1). Section 8(g)(2) of the
OSH Act empowers the Secretary to ``prescribe such rules and
regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out [his]
responsibilities'' under the Act. 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2).

D. Significant Risk

    As required for standards promulgated under section 6(b)(5) of the
OSH Act, OSHA determined that the HCS would substantially reduce a
significant risk of material harm. Most OSHA health standards protect
employees by imposing requirements when employees are exposed to a
concentration of a hazardous substance that OSHA has found creates a
significant risk of material health impairment. Thus, in making the
significant risk determination in these cases, OSHA measures and
assesses the hazards of employee exposures in order to determine the
level at which a significant risk arises.
    OSHA took a different approach to its significant risk
determination when first promulgating the HCS in 1983. Rather than
attempting to assess the risk associated with exposures to each
hazardous chemical in each industry to determine if that chemical posed
a significant risk in that industry, OSHA took a more general approach.
It relied on NIOSH data showing that about 25 million or about 25
percent of American employees were potentially exposed to one or more
of 8,000 NIOSH-identified chemical hazards and that for the years 1977
and 1978 more than 174,000 illnesses were likely caused by exposure to
hazardous chemicals. 48 FR 53282. OSHA then noted the consensus evident
in the record among labor, industry, health professionals, and
government that an ``effective [F]ederal standard requiring employers
to identify workplace hazards, communicate hazard information to
employees, and train employees in recognizing and avoiding those
hazards'' was necessary to protect employee health. 48 FR

53283. OSHA determined that the HCS addressed a significant risk
because ``inadequate communication about serious chemical hazards
endangers workers,'' and that the practices required by the standard
were ``necessary or appropriate to the elimination or mitigation of
these hazards.'' 48 FR 53321. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit agreed that ``inadequate communication is itself a hazard,
which the standard can eliminate or mitigate.'' United Steelworkers,
763 F.2d at 735. That court has upheld OSHA's determination of
significant risk as sufficient to justify the HCS. See Associated
Builders & Contractors, 862 F.2d at 67-68 (discussing the history of
its review of the issue).
    OSHA reaffirmed its finding of significant risk in adopting
revisions to the HCS in 1994. See 59 FR 6126-6133. When revising the
HCS to adopt the GHS model in 2012, OSHA found that there remained a
``significant risk of inadequate communication'' of chemical hazards in
the workplace and that adopting the standardized requirements of the
GHS would substantially reduce that risk by improving chemical hazard
communications. 77 FR 17603-17604.
    In previous rulemakings, OSHA rejected suggestions that the hazard
assessment and communication obligations of the HCS should arise only
where the downstream use creates a significant risk because it is
difficult, if not impossible, for OSHA or manufacturers and importers
to know in advance where these risks might occur. See 48 FR 53295-
53296; 59 FR 6132. Further, it is only by the provision of hazard
information that downstream employers and employees can determine how
to use the chemical so that exposure and risk may be minimized. See 48
FR 53295-53296; 59 FR 6132. Thus, the HCS protects employees from
significant risk by requiring communications about all chemicals that
may present a hazard to employees, regardless of the exposure or risk
levels any particular downstream user might actually experience. See
Durez Div. of Occidental Chem. Corp. v. OSHA, 906 F.2d 1, 3-4 (D.C.
Cir. 1990); Gen. Carbon Co. v. OSHRC, 860 F.2d 479, 484-85 (D.C. Cir.
1988).
    For the changes proposed in this NPRM, OSHA has not made a new
preliminary finding of significant risk, but is proposing changes that
are reasonably related to the purpose of the HCS as a whole. When, as
here, OSHA has previously determined that its standard substantially
reduces a significant risk, it is unnecessary for the agency to make
additional findings on risk for every provision of that standard. See,
e.g., Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Tyson, 796 F.2d 1479, 1502
n.16 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (rejecting the argument that OSHA must ``find
that each and every aspect of its standard eliminates a significant
risk''). Rather, once OSHA makes a general significant risk finding in
support of a standard, the next question is whether a particular
requirement is reasonably related to the purpose of the standard as a
whole. See Asbestos Info. Ass'n/N. Am. v. Reich, 117 F.3d 891, 894 (5th
Cir. 1997); Forging Indus. Ass'n v. Sec'y of Labor, 773 F.2d 1436, 1447
(4th Cir. 1985); United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Marshall,
647 F.2d 1189, 1237-38 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (``Lead I'').
    Furthermore, the Supreme Court has recognized that protective
measures like those called for by the HCS may be imposed in workplaces
where chemical exposure levels are below that for which OSHA has found
a significant risk. In Benzene, the Court recognized that the
``backstop'' provisions of section 6(b)(7) allow OSHA to impose
information requirements even before the employee is exposed to the
significant risk. See Benzene, 448 U.S. at 657-58 & n.66. Rather than
requiring a finding of significant risk, the last sentence of section
6(b)(7) provides other assurances that OSHA is exercising its authority
appropriately by requiring the involvement of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, and by limiting the authority only to modifications
that are based on ``experience, information, or medical or
technological developments'' acquired since the promulgation of the
standard in the limited areas of hazard communication, monitoring, and
medical examinations. Therefore, OSHA need not make any new significant
risk findings; rather, the final rule is supported by the significant
risk findings that OSHA made when it adopted the current HCS.\7\ See 77
FR 17602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act also exempts modifications to
hazard communication, monitoring, and medical examination
requirements from the standard-setting requirements of section 6(b),
and so evidences Congress' intent to provide OSHA with an expedited
procedure to update these requirements. The last sentence of section
6(b)(7) merely allows these requirements to be updated to reflect
the latest knowledge available. The authorization to use
Administrative Procedure Act notice and comment procedures rather
than the more elaborate framework established by section 6(b)
demonstrates congressional intent to treat such modifications
differently from rulemakings to adopt standards. Congress envisaged
a simple, expedited process that is inconsistent with the idea that
OSHA must undertake additional significant risk analyses before
exercising this authority. See 77 FR 17602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Feasibility

    Because section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act explicitly requires OSHA to
set health standards that eliminate risk ``to the extent feasible,''
OSHA uses feasibility analysis to make standards-setting decisions
dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents. 29 U.S.C.
655(b)(5); Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 509. Feasibility in this context
means ``capable of being done, executed, or effected.'' Cotton Dust,
452 U.S. at 508-09. Feasibility has two aspects, economic and
technological. Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1264. A standard is technologically
feasible if the protective measures it requires already exist, can be
brought into existence with available technology, or can be created
with technology that can reasonably be expected to be developed. See
id. at 1272. A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb
or pass on the cost of compliance without threatening its long-term
profitability or competitive structure. See Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at
530 n.55; Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1265. As discussed more fully in Section
VII.E of this preamble, Technological Feasibility, OSHA has
preliminarily determined that compliance with the proposed revisions to
the HCS is technologically feasible for all affected industries because
compliance can be achieved with readily and widely available
technologies. As discussed more fully in Section VII.G, Economic
Feasibility and Impacts, OSHA has preliminarily determined that the
proposed changes to the HCS are economically feasible because employers
can comply without threatening the long-term profitability or
competitive structure of any affected industries.

VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

A. Overview

    OSHA is proposing to revise the Hazard Communication Standard
(HCS), 29 CFR 1910.1200, which contains collection of information that
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., and OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The agency is planning to
revise and update the existing previously-approved paperwork package
under OMB control number 1218-0072.
    The PRA defines ``collection of information'' to mean ``the
obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the
disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or
for an agency, regardless of form or

format.'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Under the PRA, a Federal agency cannot
conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves it
and the agency displays a currently valid OMB control number. 44 U.S.C.
3507. Also, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no employer
shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of
information if the collection of information does not display a
currently valid OMB control number. 44 U.S.C. 3512.

B. Solicitation of Comments

    OSHA prepared and submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR)
to OMB proposing to revise certain collection of information currently
contained in that paperwork package in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
3507(d). The agency solicits comments on the revision of the collection
of information requirements and reduction in estimated burden hours
associated with these requirements, including comments on the following
items:
     Whether the collection of information are necessary for
the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the
information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the compliance burden on employers, for
example, by using automated or other technological techniques for
collecting and transmitting information.

C. Proposed Information Collection Requirements

    As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2), the
following paragraphs provide information about the ICR.
    1. Title: Hazard Communication Standard.
    2. Description of the ICR: The proposal would revise the currently
approved Hazard Communication ICR and change the existing collection of
information requirements currently approved by OMB.
    3. Brief Summary of the Information Collection Requirements: This
proposal would revise and clarify the collection of information
contained in the existing ICR. Specifically, OSHA is proposing to (1)
add to paragraph (d)(1) that the chemical manufacturer or importer
shall determine for each chemical the hazard classes, and where
appropriate, the category of each class that apply to the chemical
being classified under normal conditions of use and foreseeable
emergencies; (2) add language to paragraph (f)(1) requiring that the
chemical manufacturer, importer, or distributor ensure labels on
shipped containers bear the date the chemical is released for shipment;
(3) revise paragraph (f)(5) by adding two new provisions related to
bulk shipments of chemicals; (4) revise paragraph (f)(11) by adding a
provision related to release for shipment that requires updated labels
accompany each shipment; and (5) add new labeling requirements for
small containers at paragraph (f)(12). See Table 1.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.004

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
    4. OMB Control Number: 1218-0072.
    5. Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    6. Number of Respondents: 2,206,700.
    7. Frequency of Responses: Varies.

    8. Number of Reponses: 74,019,955.
    9. Average Time per Response: Varies.
    10. Estimated Annual Total Burden Hours: 7,023,513.
    11. Estimated Annual Total Cost (Operation and maintenance):
$45,676,443.

D. Submitting Comments

    Members of the public who wish to comment on the revisions to the
paperwork requirements in this proposal must send their written
comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB
Desk Officer for the Department of Labor, OSHA (RIN-1218-AC93), Office
of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The agency encourages commenters also to
submit their comments on the paperwork requirements to the rulemaking
docket (Docket Number OSHA-2019-0001) along with comments on other
parts of the proposed rule. For instructions on submitting these
comments to the rulemaking docket, see the sections of this Federal
Register document titled DATES and ADDRESSES. Comments submitted in
response to this document are public records; therefore, OSHA cautions
commenters about submitting personal information such as Social
Security numbers and dates of birth.

E. Docket and Inquiries

    To access the docket to read or download comments and other
materials related to this paperwork determination, including the
complete ICR (containing the Supporting Statement with attachments
describing the paperwork determinations in detail) use the procedures
described under the section of this document titled ADDRESSES.
    You also may obtain an electronic copy of the complete ICR by
visiting the web page at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,
scroll under ``Currently Under Review'' to ``Department of Labor
(DOL)'' to view all of the DOL's ICRs, including those ICRs submitted
for proposed rulemakings. To make inquiries, or to request other
information, contact Ms. Seleda Perryman, Directorate of Standards and
Guidance, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

VII. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis

A. Introduction and Summary

    Under Executive Order 12866, OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a regulatory action is
significant and, therefore, subject to the requirements of Executive
Order 12866 and OMB review. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action that is likely
to result in a rule that (1) has an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more, or adversely affects in a material way a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or state, local or tribal governments or
communities (also referred to as economically significant); (2) creates
serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3) materially alters the budgetary impacts
of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raises novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866. Upon review, OMB has
determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action
(``Other Significant'') under Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), OIRA designated that
this rule is not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    OSHA has made a preliminary determination that this action is not
an economically significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of
Executive Order 12866 because it is not likely to have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more. This proposed rule is expected
to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the
estimated cost-savings of this rule can be found in the economic
analysis below. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify
its costs; tailor the regulation to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; and in choosing
among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that
maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 recognizes that some
benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate
and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitatively
values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity,
human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.
    OSHA has prepared this Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA),
including a Preliminary Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Certification,
for the proposed modifications to the HCS. Supporting materials
prepared by OSHA (including spreadsheets) are available in the public
docket for this rulemaking, Docket ID OSHA-2019-0001, through
www.regulations.gov. OSHA invites comment on any aspects of this PEA.
    In this PEA, OSHA estimates that the proposed amendments to the HCS
would result in annualized net cost savings of $26.8 million at a 7
percent discount rate. Annualized at a 3 percent discount rate, OSHA
estimates that the proposed amendments to the rule would lead to net
cost savings of $27.5 million per year. Under a perpetual time horizon
to allow for cost comparisons under Executive Order 13771, OSHA
estimates that at a discount rate of 7 percent the net cost savings of
the proposed amendments to the HCS would be $19.6 million per year in
2016 dollars.\8\ OSHA expects that the proposed revisions to the HCS
would also result in modest improvements in worker health and safety
above those already being achieved under the current HCS, but the
agency is unable to quantify the magnitude of these benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This calculation (a) converts the costs and cost savings of
the rule from 2019 dollars to 2016 dollars using the BEA (2020)
implicit price deflator for Gross Domestic Product, and (b)
discounts the first year costs by five years, to reflect the five
years between 2016 and 2021, the scheduled year of publication of
this NPRM. For further details, see Document ID 0049, tab Tables,
E.O. 13771 Summary Table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Need for Regulation

    Employees in work environments covered by OSHA's HCS are exposed to
a variety of significant hazards associated with chemicals used in the
workplace that can and do cause serious injury, illness, and death. The
HCS serves to ensure that both employers and employees are provided the
information they need about these chemical hazards. The current HCS
contains a set of requirements for chemical products, including
mandatory hazard classification, labeling requirements, provisions for
providing detailed information (in SDSs), and label updating
requirements. These requirements are based on Revision 3 of the GHS,
which was adopted by the UN Committee and Sub-Committee of Experts on
the GHS in December 2008.
    OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposed revisions to
the HCS would make employers' hazard communication programs more
worker-protective, efficient, and effective through standardizing
practices nationally and internationally. In addition, aligning with
the GHS Rev. 7 would continue to facilitate

international trade, as a number of U.S. trading partners are also
preparing to align with the GHS Rev. 7.
    The proposed revisions to the HCS include the following notable
changes to improve the U.S. hazard communication system:

 Maintain alignment with the GHS
    [cir] Adding classification categories for aerosols, desensitized
explosives, and flammable gases; and
    [cir] Updating select hazard and precautionary statements for
clearer and more precise hazard information.
 Address issues identified in implementing the HCS 2012
    [cir] Updating labeling requirements for small containers; and
    [cir] Updating labeling requirements for packaged containers that
have been released for shipment.

    As discussed in Section F of this PEA, the estimated costs and cost
savings resulting from the proposed revisions to the HCS consist of
five main categories: (1) The cost of reclassifying affected chemicals
and revising the corresponding SDSs and labels to achieve consistency
with the reclassification (per proposed changes to appendix B), and the
cost of revising SDSs and labels to conform with new precautionary
statements and other new mandatory language in the appendices to the
HCS (per proposed changes to appendices C and D); (2) the cost of
management familiarization and other management-related costs
(associated with all of the proposed revisions to the standard); (3)
the cost of training employees as necessitated by the proposed changes
to the HCS (see existing 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1)); (4) the cost savings
resulting from the new released-for-shipment provision (proposed
revisions to 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(11)); and (5) the cost savings from
limiting labeling requirements for certain very small containers
(proposed 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(12)). The first three categories are
considered to be one-time costs and the last two categories are cost
savings that would accrue to employers annually.
    The proposed changes to the HCS would maintain the uniformity of
hazard information with the GHS and would, accordingly, serve to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing hazard
communication system in the U.S., ensure that updated and advanced HCS
methods are recognized, and reduce unnecessary barriers to trade. In
short, the GHS is a ``uniformity standard'' for the presentation of
hazard information (Hemenway, 1975, Document ID 0050). Much like other
uniformity standards, such as driving on the right side of the road (in
the U.S.), screw threads for fire hose connectors, ``handshake''
protocols for communication between computers, and, for that matter,
language, the GHS provides significant efficiencies and economies.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A specification standard, such as an engineering standard,
would spell out, in detail, the equipment or technology that must be
used to achieve compliance. The usual rationale for a specification
standard is that compliance would be difficult to verify under a
performance standard; hence, a specification standard would better
protect employees against the risk in question. A specification
standard would generally not provide the efficiencies or economies
(such as easier, less expensive training on uniform pictograms and a
uniform SDS format made possible by the GHS) to the regulated
community that a uniformity standard would. On the contrary, a
specification standard could impose additional costs on some firms
that may be able to effectively protect workers using a cheaper
alternative approach if such flexibility were permitted.
    It is also worth noting that, for uniformity standards with
technological implications, the benefits of reduced information
costs, economies of uniformity, and facilitation of exchange may
need to be weighed against possible losses of flexibility,
experimentation, and innovation. However, because the GHS is limited
to the presentation of hazard information and does not involve other
than incidental technological or strategic considerations, the
possible costs of uniformity here would be minuscule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since publication of the update to the HCS in 2012, there continues
to be movement by U.S. trading partners toward maintaining
standardization, consistent with the revisions in the GHS. However,
OSHA does not believe that full and comprehensive standardization in
accordance with the GHS, or the goal of harmonizing the U.S. system
with the international one, can be achieved voluntarily in the absence
of regulation.
    First, the market alone will not ensure alignment with the GHS Rev.
7. In some cases (e.g., aerosols, desensitized explosives), the GHS
Rev. 7 contains different hazard classes or classification criteria
than the current HCS, and it would be impermissible for a manufacturer
to comply with the GHS Rev. 7 rather than the criteria in the existing
HCS. Moreover, making compliance with the latest revision of the GHS
optional undermines the goal of harmonizing classification criteria and
label elements. Second, while the costs of creating SDSs and labels are
borne directly by the chemical producers, maintaining alignment with
the GHS benefits the users of hazardous chemicals. These users include
employers who are direct customers of chemical manufacturers, employees
who use or are exposed to workplace chemicals, and emergency responders
who typically have no market relationship with the chemical producers.
Even if market forces could ensure the socially optimal approach to
SDSs between chemical manufacturers and their customers, there are
limited market forces at work between the chemical manufacturer and two
key sets of users--the employees and the emergency response community.
Therefore, the benefits achieved by maintaining alignment with the GHS
are unlikely to be obtained in the private market without regulation.
    OSHA recognizes that there will be some market pressure to align
with the GHS Rev. 7 as its adoption expands internationally.\10\ Some
firms in the U.S. may think that they have no need to follow the GHS
because they do not ship their products internationally. These firms
may not realize the extent to which they are involved in international
trade. There are probably few companies that have products that are
never involved in international trade or that never import chemical
products requiring hazard information.\11\ Nonetheless, even the small
percentage of U.S. companies that only conduct business domestically
are required to identify and communicate hazards to workers under the
HCS. Many chemical producers ship their products to distributors and
are unaware of where their products are ultimately used. These
distributors might well put pressure on their suppliers to maintain
compliance with the GHS. Further, small companies sell chemicals to
larger companies. The larger companies may use those chemicals to make
other products that are exported. These larger companies might also
pressure their small-firm suppliers to align with the GHS.
Nevertheless, relying solely on market pressures would surely involve a
long transition period, with attendant

losses in worker protection and production efficiencies, and it is
unlikely that the market alone will ensure full alignment with the GHS
for reasons described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2018/dgac10c4/ST-SG-AC10-C4-70e.pdf, pp. 12-13 (UN GHS, 2018, Document ID
0040).
    \11\ According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, U.S.
imports of chemicals and related products increased 23 percent from
2015 ($260.4 billion) to 2019 ($320.1 billion); and U.S. exports of
chemicals and related products increased 7 percent from 2015 ($227.7
billion) to 2019 ($243.7 billion). See https://usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/trade_shifts_2019/chemicals.htm, accessed
October 2, 2020 (Document ID 0234). The International Trade
Administration reported that the U.S. chemical industry accounted
for 18 percent of global chemical shipments. See https://www.selectusa.gov/chemical-industry-united-states, accessed October
2, 2020 (Document ID 0236). The American Chemistry Council reported
that in 2019, total U.S. chemical exports accounted for 10 percent
of all U.S. goods exports and 10 percent of all global chemical
exports. See https://www.americanchemistry.com/Policy/Trade/US-Chemicals-Trade-by-the-Numbers.pdf, accessed October 2, 2020
(Document ID 0235).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to the HCS would involve costs and cost
savings mainly for manufacturers and importers. Manufacturers and
importers of chemicals would also achieve benefits--in part because
they themselves benefit as both producers and users, and in part as a
result of foreign trade benefits. Some manufacturers may not obtain
trade benefits unless they engage in chemical export. International
harmonization of hazard communication requirements may also make it
easier for small companies to engage in international trade if they so
desire (see additional discussion below in VII.D. Health and Safety
Benefits and Unquantified Positive Economic Effects).
    Of more significance to the concerns of the OSH Act, the proposed
changes would also provide health benefits from improved hazard
classification and communication; although unquantified in this
proposal, these benefits would include reductions in worker illnesses,
injuries, and fatalities (see additional discussion below in VII.D.
Health and Safety Benefits and Unquantified Positive Economic Effects).
    Because many of the health and safety benefits and cost savings
described in this analysis require uniformity and are dispersed among a
network of producers and users, only some of which have direct market
relationships with each other, OSHA believes maintaining a single,
uniform standard can best achieve the full benefits available from a
hazard communications system.

C. Profile of Affected Industries, Establishments, and Employees

    The proposed modifications to the standard include revised criteria
for classification of certain health and physical hazards; revised
labeling provisions for small containers and packages that have been
released for shipment; revised trade secret disclosure requirements;
updates to certain aspects of SDSs and precautionary statements; and
related revisions to definitions of terms used in the standard.
    In this section, OSHA presents a preliminary profile of industries
affected by this proposal to revise the HCS. The profile data in this
section are based upon the 2012 HCS final economic analysis (FEA),
updated in this PEA with the most recent data available.
    As a first step, OSHA identifies the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) industries affected by the proposed
changes to the HCS. Next, OSHA provides statistical information on the
affected industries, including the number of affected entities and
establishments; the number of workers whose exposure to the chemicals
subject to the HCS could result in injury, illness, or death
(``affected relevant employees''); and the average revenues and profits
for affected entities and establishments by six-digit NAICS
industry.\12\ This information is provided for each affected industry
as a whole, as well as for small entities, as defined by the Small
Business Administration (SBA), and for ``very small'' entities, defined
by OSHA as those with fewer than 20 employees, in each affected
industry (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020a, Document ID 0231; U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020b, Document ID 0232).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Census Bureau defines an establishment as a single
physical location at which business is conducted or services or
industrial operations are performed. The Census Bureau defines a
business firm or entity as a business organization consisting of one
or more domestic establishments in the same state and industry that
are specified under common ownership or control. The firm and the
establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. For each
multi-establishment firm, establishments in the same industry within
a state will be counted as one firm; the firm employment and annual
payroll are summed from the associated establishments. (U.S. Census
Bureau, Document ID 0047).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revisions to the HCS would affect establishments in a variety
of different industries in which employees are exposed to hazardous
chemicals or in which hazardous chemicals are produced. The proposed
changes to the HCS are not expected to change the overall list of
affected industries or establishments. However, the changes are
expected to affect certain establishment groupings that manufacture
aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases. These proposed
changes are also expected to affect certain manufacturers of hazardous
chemicals that are packaged in small containers and manufacturers of
chemicals that are not immediately distributed after being released for
shipment.
    The proposed revisions define and revise specific classifications
and categories of hazards, but the scope of the requirements under
which a chemical (whether a substance or mixture of substances) becomes
subject to the standard is not substantially different from the current
version of the HCS. Therefore, OSHA believes that the revisions would
have little or no effect on whether specific establishments fall within
the scope of the standard. OSHA requests comments on its preliminary
determinations about the scope of the proposed revisions to the HCS and
the details within the industrial profile presented in this section.
    OSHA's estimates of the number of employees who will require new
training under the proposed revisions to the standard are based on BLS'
(2020) Occupational Employment Statistics data for May 2019,
specifically the estimates of the number of employees in SOC 51-0000
Production Occupations and SOC 13-1081 Logisticians working in firms in
the NAICS industries that would be affected by the proposed
requirements to reclassify aerosols, desensitized explosives, and
flammable gases.\13\ (See the analysis and discussion of training costs
below in VII.F. Compliance Costs and Cost Savings.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The NAICS industries estimated to be affected by the
proposed requirement to reclassify aerosols, desensitized
explosives, and flammable gases are the following: 211130 Natural
Gas Extraction, 324110 Petroleum Refineries, 325110 Petrochemical
Manufacturing, 325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing, 325320 Pesticide
and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing, 325412 Pharmaceutical
Preparation Manufacturing, 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing,
325520 Adhesive Manufacturing, 325611 Soap and Other Detergent
Manufacturing, 325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good
Manufacturing, 325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing, 325620
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing, and 325920 Explosives
Manufacturing. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2020). Occupational
Employment Statistics--May 2019 (Released March 3, 2020). Available
at https://www.bls.gov/oes/#data (Accessed April 3, 2020) (Document
ID 0223).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VII-1 provides an overview of the estimated numbers of firms,
establishments, and employees in each covered NAICS industry; the
estimated number of employees in covered occupations (e.g., logistics
personnel); and the estimated numbers of affected firms, affected
establishments, and affected employees in covered occupations.\14\
Tables VII-2 and VII-3, respectively, provide parallel information for
all affected business entities defined as small by the SBA \15\ and all
affected very small business entities, defined by OSHA as those with
fewer than 20 employees. The data in

these tables update the estimates provided in the FEA in support of the
2012 HCS final rule (Document ID 0005, Section VI) and rely on the most
recent comprehensive set of data (including revenues) available from
the U.S. Census Bureau (2020a; 2020b).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The overall percentage of firms, establishments, or
employees affected is based on the largest percentage affected for
any single cost item--as shown in Table VI-10 later in this section.
To estimate the overall number of affected firms, establishments,
and employees, OSHA multiplied the total number of firms,
establishments, and employees by the maximum percentage of firms,
establishments, and/or employees affected by any single provision.
Because most of the NAICS industries shown in the table would be
affected by rule familiarization, this percentage is 100 percent for
most of the NAICS industries shown.
    \15\ For the 2019 SBA U.S. Small Business Administration Table
of Small Business Size Standards matched to North American Industry
Classification System Codes (Effective August 19, 2019),(see SBA,
2019, Document ID 0225).
    \16\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2017
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/susb/2017-susb-annual.html (Document ID 0231) and https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2017/econ/susb/2017-susb.html (Document ID 0232) (accessed
August 14, 2020).

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

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.017

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
    The costs and cost savings of some of the proposed provisions (new
classification criteria for select hazards and labels on very small
containers) are

driven by the number of SDSs (and labels) that manufacturers must
redesign as a result of the new criteria and the number of labels on
very small containers. In support of the cost analysis to follow later
in this PEA, Table VII-4 presents OSHA's preliminary estimate of the
number of labels per container by container size (and type).\17\
Starting with the fifth row (container type: 250 ml container), Table
VII-4 is drawn from data in a table (Table VI-5) presented in the FEA
in support of the 2012 HCS final rule (77 FR 17640), but OSHA has
updated the data to include smaller containers to permit evaluation of
the impacts of the small container and very small container labeling
provisions proposed in paragraph (f)(12). Also, the term ``jug'' has
been changed to the more generic term ``container.'' The figures in
Table VII-4 are slightly different than some of the figures in Table
VI-5 of the 2012 FEA due to a change in OSHA's approach to rounding and
the reporting of more significant digits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As reflected in Table VI-4, OSHA assumes one outer
packaging with an additional label for every two 2.5-gallon
containers; one outer packaging with an additional label for every
four 1-liter, 2-liter, and 1-gallon containers; and one outer
packaging with an additional label for every eight containers
smaller than 1 liter.

                       Table VII-4--Chemical Container Estimated Typical Shipment Weights
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Estimated shipment weight (lbs.)            Number of
                                                 ------------------------------------------------   labels per
                 Container type                                                                     container a
                                                      Minimum         Typical         Maximum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 ml container..................................            0.01            0.01            0.01            1.13
30 ml container.................................            0.06            0.08            0.13            1.13
60 ml container.................................            0.12            0.16            0.26            1.13
125 ml container................................            0.25            0.33            0.54            1.13
250 ml container................................            0.50            0.67            1.08            1.13
500 ml container................................            0.92            1.26            2.08            1.13
1 liter container...............................            1.84            2.51            4.16            1.25
2 liter container...............................            3.57            4.92            8.22            1.25
1 gallon container..............................            6.83            9.38           15.63            1.25
2.5 gallon container............................           18.00           24.38           40.00            1.50
5 gallon drum...................................           34.95           47.71           78.95            1.00
30 gallon drum..................................          202.00          278.56          466.00            1.00
55 gallon drum..................................          371.00          511.37          855.00            1.00
275 gallon tote.................................        1,830.00        2,531.84        4,250.00            1.00
330 gallon tote.................................        2,196.00        3,038.21        5,100.00            1.00
Tank Truck--5.5k g..............................       34,100.00       48,136.79       82,500.00            0.00
Tank Truck--7.0k g..............................       43,400.00       61,265.00      105,000.00            0.00
Rail Car--20k g.................................      128,805.00      181,825.77      311,625.00            0.00
Rail Car--30k g.................................      186,000.00      262,564.29      450,000.00            0.00
Barge...........................................    2,670,774.00    3,770,160.58    6,461,550.00            0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Assumes 8 units per package for containers smaller than 1 liter, 4 units per package for containers from 1
  liter to 1 gallon in volume, and 2 units per package for 2.5-gallon containers.
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health.

    As will be discussed at greater length below in Section VII.F.
Compliance Costs and Cost Savings, it is OSHA's understanding that
chemical manufacturers and importers periodically review, revise, and
update the electronic templates they use to create SDSs and labels.
Changes are made, for example, as information regarding specific
hazards becomes available, new information about protective measures is
ascertained, or revisions are made to product information and marketing
materials. Labels and SDSs are also produced and modified when products
are first introduced to the market or when products change. In this
PEA, the terms ``electronic templates'' and ``electronic files'' are
used interchangeably with, and as proxies for, the term ``SDS.'' All
three terms refer to the electronic files that are used to generate
SDSs and labels. Table VII-5 provides, by covered NAICS industry,
estimates of the total number of labels, the number of labels on very
small containers (containers of 3 ml capacity or less), the total
number of SDSs, and the number of labels and SDSs affected by the
proposed revisions to the HCS classification criteria. The term ``SDS''
in the column headers and in the discussion below represents the
estimated number of electronic templates (files) that are used to
create SDSs and labels. The derivation of these estimates is discussed
below. OSHA invites public comment on its understanding about the use
of electronic template files to create SDSs and labels.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.019

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
    OSHA's estimate of the total number of SDSs per NAICS industry, as
presented in Table VII-5, was developed by its contractor to support

the agency's FEA for the 2012 final standard.\18\ The analysis started
with the number of SDSs per establishment by establishment size, as
originally derived in the economic analysis in support of the 2009
proposed HCS rule (Document ID 0029) using a sampling of company
websites and the SDSs posted there.\19\ The analysis then combined the
estimated number of SDSs per establishment by establishment size with
the estimated number of establishments to estimate the weighted average
number of SDSs per establishment in a given NAICS industry. This
estimate was then multiplied by the average number of establishments
per firm to estimate the number of SDSs per firm for each NAICS
industry. Multiplying by the number of firms per NAICS industry yields
the total number of SDSs in each NAICS industry (as shown in Column 5
of Table VII-5). Although OSHA has preliminarily determined that this
methodology remains sound, the agency invites public comment on the
reasonableness of this methodology for the current analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Technical and analytical support for this preliminary
economic analysis was provided by Eastern Research Group, Inc. under
Contract No. DOL-OPS-16-D-0012.
    \19\ This methodology was not challenged by commenters during
the rulemaking that resulted in the 2012 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's estimate of the number of labels per NAICS industry is
constructed using the same methodology developed in the 2012 HCS final
rule (Document ID 0005, pp. 17634-17643), but with more recent data.
The steps in the analysis, elaborated on below, can be summarized as
follows:
     Begin with data on shipment weight by commodity code and
shipment weight class.
     Estimate the average weight per container for containers
of various sizes.
     Allocate the tons shipped in each shipment weight class
for certain sizes of containers.
     Divide the tons shipped by the average container weight to
estimate total containers.
     Multiply the containers by the average number of labels
per container to estimate total labels.
     Allot the labels among NAICS codes using receipts data.
    The label analysis begins with the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S.
Department of Transportation's jointly-produced Commodity Flow Survey
(CFS) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a, Document ID 0024) data on shipment
characteristics by commodity and shipment weight. This dataset includes
the number of tons shipped for a range of shipment weight classes by
Standard Classification of Transported Goods (SCTG) code. The number of
tons is converted to pounds, and limited to hazardous non-consumer
products (i.e., those that would have the HCS labeling).\20\ This
estimate is used in conjunction with another CFS dataset (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2014b, Document ID 0030) that has shipment data by NAICS
industry (but not by shipment weight) to divide the detailed shipment
weight data into shipments coming from manufacturers and distributors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The estimated percentages for the transported goods
identified as hazardous non-consumer products were presented in the
2012 HCS FEA cost model. See ERG/OSHA, 2012, Document ID 0029). At
the time OSHA developed this PEA, the final 2017 CFS data was not
yet available. Therefore, 2012 CFS data was the most recent
information available. OSHA requests public comments on the
estimated percentages for the transported goods identified as
hazardous non-consumer products in this preliminary profile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next step in the methodology estimated the representative
weight per container for a variety of types of containers (ranging in
size from a 3-milliliter vial to a rail car) and substances (such as
antifreeze, diesel fuel, paint). Using representative substances, OSHA
estimated the shipment weight for one container of each size as
Shipment Weight = (Product Weight per gallon x Container Capacity) +
Container Weight. Because of a lack of available data establishing the
percentage of products shipped by container type (i.e., the breakdown
of the types of products shipped by each container type), the
calculation for each product and container type relied on professional
judgment (by OSHA and its economic contractor, ERG) to select a
``typical'' product weight per gallon and container weight for each
container type. Next, the analysis estimated shipment weight per
container by multiplying the average product weight per gallon times
the number of gallons per container, plus the container weight.
    To convert the CFS data on tons (or pounds) shipped by container
size into a number of containers, the analysis estimated the percentage
of each shipment class likely to be shipped in certain sizes of
containers. Shipments of lower weights are generally estimated to be
shipped in smaller containers, and vice versa. Then the total non-
consumer hazardous pounds shipped (from the CFS data) was multiplied by
the estimated percentage shipped in each container type to yield the
number of non-consumer hazardous pounds in each container type.
Finally, the non-consumer hazardous pounds in each container type was
divided by the average weight per container type to yield an estimate
of the total number of containers.
    To estimate the number of labels that would be used on these
containers, the analysis first estimated the average number of labels
on a single container for each container size (from Table VII-4 above).
As previously noted, these estimates account for the fact that some
containers have outer packaging that would require an additional label
under this proposed rule (e.g., kits containing containers less than
100 ml where tags and fold out labels are infeasible) or are shipped
with several containers grouped into a single outer container with a
label. This average number of labels per container for each shipment
size class was then multiplied by the number of containers to estimate
the total number of labels.
    The final step in the analysis was to allocate the number of labels
shipped from SCTG codes to NAICS codes. The NAICS-to-SCTG mapping was
adapted from the mapping used in the FEA in support of the 2012 HCS
final rule analysis, but with NAICS categories updated from 2007 to
2017 categories. U.S. Census (2020a; 2020b) Statistics of U.S.
Businesses data was used to estimate each NAICS industry's share of
total receipts for the SCTG code with which it corresponds, and then
the number of labels in each SCTG was allocated proportionally. (This
calculation was performed separately for shipments from manufacturers
and from distributors for purposes of estimating cost savings due to
the proposed released-for-shipment provision in paragraph (f)(11)).
This resulted in the estimated number of labels shown in Column 3 of
Table VII-5.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For example, NAICS 211130--Natural Gas Extraction is
categorized as a basic chemicals manufacturer, or Code 20 in the
SCTG commodity coding system. Across the range of container types
and container weights shown in Table VII-4, the analysis led to an
estimate of the total number of labels (474,629,165) required by all
SCTG Code 20 manufacturers (see Document ID 0049, tab ``Labels per
NAICS'', cell O11). The percentage of receipts (22.3 percent) for
NAICS 211130 relative to total receipts for SCTG Code 20 employers
(Document ID 0049, tab ``Labels per NAICS'', cells N11-P11) was then
applied to this total number of labels. The result, shown in Column
3 in Table VII-5, is an estimated 105,723,103 labels for NAICS
2111130. Note that multiplying factors may yield a slightly
different total due to rounding of the factors in the table (but not
in the spreadsheet).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the number of labels on very small containers (those on
containers with a volume capacity of 3 ml or less), the same analysis
was performed, but it was limited to containers in that size range. The
resulting estimates of the number of

labels on very small containers is shown in Column 4 of Table VII-5.
    Not every SDS and label, and not every label on very small
containers, would be affected by the proposed rule. Only SDSs and
labels for certain products (aerosols, desensitized explosives, and
flammable gases) would be affected by the new classification criteria.
Only certain very small containers would be covered by proposed
paragraph (f)(12)(iii), which would eliminate some labeling
requirements in certain circumstances. In particular, under proposed
paragraph (f)(12)(iii), only a product identifier would be required on
the immediate outer package of very small containers (3 ml or less)
where the manufacturer, importer, or distributor can demonstrate that a
label would interfere with the normal use of the container and that it
is not feasible to use pull-out labels, fold-back labels, or tags
containing the full label information. Thus, in addition to the
estimated total number of SDSs, labels, and labels on very small
containers, Table VII-5 shows the number of each estimated to be
affected by this proposed rule.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Note that OSHA's cost estimates for reclassifying affected
chemicals and revising the corresponding SDSs and labels to achieve
consistency with the reclassification (per proposed changes to
Appendix B), and for revising SDSs and labels to conform with new
precautionary statements and other new mandatory language in the
appendices to the HCS (per proposed changes to Appendices C and D),
are based on the costs associated with chemical manufacturers
editing their electronic files (which are used to produce labels and
SDSs) for each product for which reclassification would be required
as a result of the proposed rule. They are not based on the number
of labels or SDSs actually produced or used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables VII-6 and VII-7, respectively, provide information on total
numbers of SDSs, labels, and labels on very small containers, and on
the numbers of SDSs and labels (including labels on very small
containers) affected by reclassification and the provisions for labels
on very small containers, for all covered small entities and very small
entities.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.023

    Table VI-8 shows average estimated profit rates for affected NAICS
industries based on IRS (2016) SOI Tax Stats--Corporation Source Book
profit data for each of the 14 years 2000-

2013.\23\ Table VII-9 presents estimates of total revenues and total
profits by NAICS industry code for all entities, small entities, and
very small entities affected by this proposed rule. OSHA calculated
total profits per NAICS industry by multiplying the average profit rate
(NAICS industry) (IRS, 2016, Document ID 0004) by total revenues (NAICS
industry) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020a, Document ID 0231; U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020b, Document ID 0232).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ IRS, 2016, Document ID 0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VII-10 shows, by NAICS industry code, OSHA's best estimates
of the percentage of establishments or entities estimated to be
affected for each element of the proposed revisions to the HCS that is
projected to result in costs (see Section VII.F. Compliance Costs and
Cost Savings in this PEA for an explanation of the cost categories
presented in this table).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Note that the provisions that are projected to result in
cost savings are not included in Table VII-10 because, for those
provisions, OSHA estimates a percentage of product, rather than a
percentage of entities or establishments, that would be affected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Table VII-11 summarizes key estimates for the combined
covered industries, labels, and SDSs affected by this proposed rule.
The data in this table are drawn from profile tables presented earlier
in this PEA and summarize both the magnitude of the global profile
metrics (within the scope of Federal OSHA jurisdiction) and the
magnitude of affected inputs critical to the agency's analysis of
preliminary economic impacts.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE21.035

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

 Table VII-11--Characteristics of Industries and Labels/SDSs Affected by OSHA's Proposed Revisions to the HCS a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Percentage
                                                                       Total         affected        Affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firms...........................................................       6,077,430            1.91         115,758
Establishments..................................................       7,780,863            1.96         152,427
Relevant Employees..............................................     148,004,068            2.82       4,178,738
Labels Being Revised Due to Chemical Reclassification and Labels   1,512,219,200           63.55     961,053,993
 Revisions......................................................
Labels for Very Small Containers................................     147,599,473           17.21      25,394,066
Firms w/Warehoused Labels that Change...........................             230            1.00            2.30
SDSs............................................................       1,519,506           94.40       1,434,377
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020a (Document ID 0231); U.S. Census Bureau, 2020b (Document ID 0232); U.S. Census
  Bureau, 2019a (Document ID 0227); BLS, 2020 (Document ID 0223); U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and
  Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health.
Note: Due to rounding, data derived by applying the percentages shown in the table to the figures shown in the
  ``Total'' column may not be identical to the figures shown in the ``Affected'' column.
a The data in this table are drawn from tables presented earlier in this PEA (for firms, establishments and
  employees, see Table VII-1; for labels and SDSs, see Table VII-5).

D. Health and Safety Benefits and Unquantified Positive Economic
Effects

    As part of the rulemakings that resulted in promulgation of the
original HCS in 1983, and the 1987 updates, OSHA conducted research to
identify and estimate expected health and safety benefits, as described
in the preambles to those final rules (48 FR 53327-53329; 52 FR 31868-
31869). Combining the 1983 and 1987 rulemakings, OSHA estimated that
the HCS would prevent 31,841 non-lost-workday injuries and illnesses,
20,263 lost-workday injuries and illnesses, 6,410 chronic illnesses,
and 4,260 fatalities (77 FR 17621). In the 2012 final rule to modify
the HCS to conform with the GHS, OSHA estimated that compliance with
those revisions to the HCS would result in additional health and safety
benefits equal to one percent of the previously-estimated health and
safety benefits--that is, they would result in the prevention of an
additional 318 non-lost-workday injuries and illnesses, 203 lost-
workday injuries and illnesses, 64 chronic illnesses, and 43 fatalities
annually (77 FR 17620-17624).
    Relative to the HCS rulemakings that resulted in the promulgation
of final rules in 1983, 1987, and 2012, these proposed revisions to the
HCS are incremental and minor. Accordingly, OSHA expects that the
proposed revisions to the standard will result in more modest
improvements in employee health and safety than the estimated benefits
OSHA attributed to the earlier rulemakings. But OSHA expects that the
promulgation of the proposed revisions to the HCS will result in an
increased degree of health and safety for affected employees and a
corresponding reduction in the annual numbers of injuries, illnesses,
and fatalities associated with workplace exposures to hazardous
chemicals. Aligning with the GHS Rev. 7 will improve worker health and
safety by ensuring the provision of more and better hazard information
to employers and workers. For example, OSHA anticipates that the
improved criteria for aerosols and flammable gases and the new hazard
class for desensitized explosives, along with updated precautionary
statements, will better differentiate the hazards associated with those
chemicals. In addition, the proposed released-for-shipment provisions
will remove the risk of injury and chemical exposures for employees who
previously would have confronted the possibility of, for example,
having to break down pallets of sealed, shrink-wrapped, packaged
containers to replace labels when new hazards were identified.
    Although OSHA expects that the proposed revisions to the HCS would
reduce injuries, illnesses, and fatalities, the limited scope and
nature of the changes being proposed have led OSHA to a preliminary
determination that it cannot reasonably quantify an estimate of how
many injuries, illnesses, and fatalities would be prevented. As the
agency noted in the 2012 FEA, any assessment of benefits that are
incremental to the original estimated benefits, e.g., benefits
associated with minor improvements to an existing standard, broaden the
range of uncertainty associated with the original estimates (77 FR
17621).\25\ OSHA invites interested parties to provide comments and
evidence on how the proposed revisions to the HCS are likely to affect
worker safety and health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ As described above, OSHA estimated that the 2012 revisions
to the HCS would result in benefits equal to one percent of the
health and safety benefits previously estimated for the standard (77
FR 17620-17624). In the 2012 rulemaking, OSHA and stakeholders
collectively noted the considerable uncertainty inherent in
estimating benefits that are additional (incremental) to the set of
benefits associated with the original rule (see 77 FR 17620-17624).
The agency stated: ``OSHA believes that a reasonable range for the
magnitude of the health and safety benefits resulting from the
proposed revisions would be between 0.5 percent and 5 percent of the
benefits associated with the current HCS.'' (77 FR 17621 (n 14)). In
addition, OSHA stated in the 2012 FEA that ``[i]t is conceivable
that actual benefits might be somewhat lower, but because the GHS is
expected to result, in some situations, in more timely and
appropriate treatment of exposed workers, OSHA expects that actual
benefits may be larger, perhaps several times larger.'' (77 FR
17621)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the aforementioned health and safety benefits, OSHA
expects that the proposed revisions to the HCS would result in other
positive economic effects. For example, being better aligned with the
GHS would help facilitate international trade, thereby enhancing
competition, increasing export opportunities for U.S. businesses,
reducing costs for imported products, and generally expanding the
selection of chemicals and products available to U.S. businesses and
consumers. As a result of the direct savings expected to result from
better harmonization and the associated increase in international
competition, prices for the affected chemicals and products, and the
corresponding goods and services that use them, should decline, even if
only to a limited extent.
    Similarly, better alignment between the HCS and the GHS would have
the additional benefit of meeting the international goals for adoption
and implementation of the GHS that have been supported by the U.S.
government.\26\ Maintaining alignment with the GHS in U.S. laws and
policies through appropriate legislative and

regulatory action was anticipated by the U.S. when it supported
international mandates regarding the GHS in the Intergovernmental Forum
on Chemical Safety, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, and
the United Nations. It is also consistent with the established goals of
the Strategic Approach to International Chemical Management that the
U.S. helped to craft.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The EU, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have also
indicated that they are proposing updates to align with the 7th
revision to the GHS (Report of the Sub-Committee of Experts on the
Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals on its thirty-fifth session ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/7, Document ID
0040).
    \27\ https://2009-2017.state.gov/e/oes/eqt/chemicalpollution/83012.htm (SAICM, 2006, Document ID 0039).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Technological Feasibility

    In accordance with the OSH Act, OSHA is required to demonstrate
that occupational safety and health standards promulgated by the agency
are technologically feasible. A standard is technologically feasible if
the protective measures it requires already exist, can be brought into
existence with available technology, or can be created with technology
that can reasonably be expected to be developed. See Lead I, 647 F.2d
at 1272.
    OSHA has reviewed the requirements that would be imposed by the
proposed rule and has assessed their technological feasibility. As a
result of this review, OSHA has preliminarily determined that
compliance with the requirements of the rule is technologically
feasible for all affected industries.
    The proposed revisions to OSHA's HCS would require manufacturers
and importers to reclassify aerosols, desensitized explosives, and
flammable gases in accordance with the new classification criteria and
make corresponding revisions to SDSs and labels. Compliance with these
requirements would mainly involve revisions to the presentation of
information and is not expected to involve any technological obstacles.
    The proposed changes to the requirements for the labeling of very
small containers, which would eliminate full labeling requirements for
some containers with a volume capacity of 3 ml or less, is expected to
address current feasibility issues related to labeling these small
containers. When a label would interfere with the normal use of the
container, and it is not feasible to use pullout labels, fold-back
labels, or tags containing full label information, the proposal would
require the container to bear only the product identifier, which could
be etched onto the container itself. Similarly, the proposed released-
for-shipment provisions would alleviate employer concerns regarding the
practicability of breaking down pallets of sealed, shrink-wrapped
packaged containers to replace labels when new hazards are identified.
OSHA requests public comment on any employer concerns associated with
the proposed provision for labeling very small containers or with the
proposed provision addressing the relabeling of containers that have
been released for shipment.
    OSHA has preliminarily determined that compliance with all of the
requirements of the proposed revisions to the HCS can be achieved with
readily and widely available technologies. No new technologies are
required for compliance with the proposed modifications to the HCS.
Therefore, OSHA believes that there are no technological constraints
associated with compliance with any of the proposed revisions to the
HCS. OSHA invites comment on these preliminary findings of
technological feasibility.

F. Compliance Costs and Cost Savings

Introduction
    This section presents OSHA's estimates of the costs and cost
savings expected to result from the proposed revisions to the HCS. The
estimated costs and cost savings are based on employers achieving full
compliance with the new requirements of the proposed rule. They do not
include prior costs and cost savings associated with firms whose
current practices are already in compliance with the proposed
requirements (where prior compliance is possible).
    The estimated costs and cost savings resulting from the proposed
revisions to the HCS consist of five main categories: (1) The cost of
revising SDSs and labels for select hazardous chemicals to reflect
chemical reclassifications (per proposed changes to appendix B) and to
conform to language criteria in precautionary statements and other
mandatory language (per proposed changes to appendices C and D); (2)
the cost of management familiarization and other management-related