Hazard Communication, 50280-50549 [E9-22483]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 30, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50280-50549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22483]



[[Page 50279]]

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

Part II





Department of Labor





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



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



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



29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926



Hazard Communication; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 50280]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926

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


Hazard Communication

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to modify its existing Hazard Communication 
Standard (HCS) to conform with the United Nations' (UN) Globally 
Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). 
OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the proposed 
modifications will improve the quality and consistency of information 
provided to employers and employees regarding chemical hazards and 
associated protective measures. The Agency anticipates this improved 
information will enhance the effectiveness of the HCS in ensuring that 
employees are apprised of the chemical hazards to which they may be 
exposed, and in reducing the incidence of chemical-related occupational 
illnesses and injuries.
    The proposed modifications to the standard include revised criteria 
for classification of chemical hazards; revised labeling provisions 
that include requirements for use of standardized signal words, 
pictograms, hazard statements, and precautionary statements; a 
specified format for safety data sheets; and related revisions to 
definitions of terms used in the standard, requirements for employee 
training on labels and safety data sheets. OSHA is also proposing to 
modify provisions of a number of other standards, including standards 
for flammable and combustible liquids, process safety management, and 
most substance-specific health standards, to ensure consistency with 
the modified HCS requirements.

DATES: Written comments. Written comments, including comments on the 
information collection determination described in Section VIII of the 
preamble (OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), must 
be submitted by the following dates:
    Hard copy: Comments must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by 
December 29, 2009.
    Facsimile and electronic transmissions: Comments must be sent by 
December 29, 2009.
    Informal public hearings. The Agency will schedule an informal 
public hearing on the proposed rule. 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 by any of the 
following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow 
the instructions on-line for making electronic submissions.
    Fax: If your submissions, including attachments, are not longer 
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service: 
You must submit three copies of your comments to the OSHA Docket 
Office, Docket No. OSHA-H022K-2006-0062, U.S. Department of Labor, Room 
N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries 
(hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are accepted during 
the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 
8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., E.T.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the 
docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-H022K-2006-0062). 
All comments, including any personal information you provide, are 
placed in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions you 
about submitting personal information such as social security numbers 
and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download comments submitted in response to this 
Federal Register notice, go to Docket No. OSHA-H022K-2006-0062 at 
https://www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA Docket Office at the address 
above. All comments are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index; 
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly 
available to read or download through that Web page. All comments, 
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and 
copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available 
at https://regulations.gov. Copies also are available from the OSHA 
Office of Publications, Room N-3101, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1888. This document, as well as news releases and other relevant 
information, are also available at OSHA's Web page at https://www.osha.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press 
inquiries, contact Jennifer Ashley, Office of Communications, Room N-
3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999. For technical 
information, contact Maureen O'Donnell, Directorate of Standards and 
Guidance, Room N-3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1950.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The preamble to the proposal to modify the Hazard Communication 
Standard 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 provisions set 
forth in the proposed standard. The discussion follows this outline:

I. Introduction
II. Issues
III. Events Leading to the Proposed Modifications to the Hazard 
Communication Standard
IV. Overview and Purpose of the Proposed Modifications to the Hazard 
Communication Standard
V. Need and Support for the Proposed Modifications to the Hazard 
Communication Standard
VI. Pertinent Legal Authority
VII. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis
VIII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
IX. Federalism
X. State Plans
XI. Unfunded Mandates
XII. Protecting Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
XIII. Environmental Impacts
XIV. Public Participation
XV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Modifications to the 
Hazard Communication Standard
    (a) Purpose
    (b) Scope
    (c) Definitions
    (d) Hazard Classification
    (e) Written Hazard Communication Program
    (f) Labels and Other Forms of Warning
    (g) Safety Data Sheets

[[Page 50281]]

    (h) Employee Information and Training
    (i) Trade Secrets
    (j) Effective Dates
    (k) Other Standards Affected
    (l) Appendices
XVI. References
XVII. Authority and Signature
XVIII. Proposed Amendments

    In the preamble, OSHA references a number of supporting materials. 
References to these materials are given as ``Document ID'' 
followed by the last four digits of the document number. The referenced 
materials are posted in Docket No. OSHA-H022K-2006-0062 (which is 
available at https://www.regulations.osha.gov). The documents are also 
available at the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section above). For 
further information about accessing documents referenced in this 
Federal Register notice, see Section XIV (Public Participation--Notice 
of Hearing).

II. Issues

    OSHA requests comment on all relevant issues, including economic 
impact and feasibility, environmental impact, effects on small 
entities, proposed revisions to the HCS, and subsequent modifications 
to other standards. OSHA has received many comments on the issues 
raised in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (71 FR 
53617, September 12, 2006), and the Agency has considered those 
comments in the development of this proposal. This section identifies 
issues on which the Agency seeks additional information and comment to 
supplement that received in response to the ANPR, as well as new topics 
related to this proposal. While new comments are welcome, OSHA requests 
that comments submitted in response to the ANPR not be resubmitted as 
they are retained in the rulemaking record and reconsidered throughout 
the process.
    OSHA is including these issues at the beginning of the document to 
assist readers as they consider the comments they plan to submit. 
However, to fully understand the questions and provide substantive 
input in response to them, the parts of the preamble that address these 
issues in detail should be read and reviewed. These include Section 
VII, which addresses the impacts of the NPRM, and thus provides the 
background related questions 2 through 5. Section XV provides the 
Summary and Explanation of the proposed regulatory text, and Section 
XVII is the text itself. These are key to understanding questions 6 
through 26. It should be noted that the Federal Register's required 
format for a modification of an existing standard does not allow the 
Agency to provide the full text of the rule, i.e., the regulatory text 
in this document only addresses those paragraphs that OSHA is proposing 
to change. Therefore, the Agency is putting a marked up version of the 
text of the current rule on its web page to help readers understand the 
proposed changes in context. The marked up text will be found on 
www.osha.gov under Hazard Communication in the subject index.
    OSHA requests that comments be organized, to the extent possible, 
around the following issues and numbered questions. Submitting comments 
in an organized manner and with clear reference to the issue raised 
will enable all participants to easily see what issues the commenter 
addressed and how they were addressed. This is particularly important 
in a rulemaking such as GHS which affects many diverse industries. Many 
commenters, especially small businesses, are likely to confine their 
interest (and comment) to the issues that affect them, and they will 
benefit from being able to quickly identify comment on their issues in 
others' submissions. Of course, OSHA also welcomes relevant comments 
concerning the proposal that fall outside the issue questions raised in 
this section. However, the Agency is particularly interested in 
receiving public responses, supported by evidence and reasons, to the 
following questions:

Need and Support for the Standard

    1. OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the proposed 
modifications to the HCS would increase the quality and consistency of 
information provided to employers and employees. Specifically, OSHA 
believes that standardized label elements would be more effective in 
communicating hazard information; standardized headings and a 
consistent order of information would improve the utility of SDSs; and 
training would support and enhance the effectiveness of the new label 
and SDS requirements. Is this assessment correct? OSHA requests 
information that reflects on the effectiveness of the proposed 
modifications to the HCS in protecting employees from chemical hazards 
in the workplace.

Economic Impacts and Economic Feasibility

    2. The preliminary economic analysis in Section VII raises a 
variety of specific questions and issues with respect to the 
preliminary economic analysis. OSHA would appreciate it if you could 
place answers to these issues as heading 2 in your comments and further 
organize comments on the preliminary economic analysis (PEA) as 
follows:
    a. Industrial profiles. This covers issues concerning how many 
employees, establishments and products would be affected by the 
proposed standard. OSHA welcomes comments on all aspects of the 
industrial profile and is particularly interested in comments on the 
number of affected employees, and the number of SDSs that would need 
revision, by industry.
    b. Issues with respect to estimated benefits of the proposed 
standard. OSHA considers three kinds of benefits in this preliminary 
analysis: Benefits associated with preventing injuries, illnesses, and 
fatalities through clearer and more accessible information; benefits 
associated with reducing the time that safety and health managers and 
logistics and emergency response personnel spend on hazardous chemicals 
through clearer and easier-to-find information; and benefits associated 
with reducing the time needed to develop and review SDSs because of 
international harmonization. OSHA is particularly interested in 
comments on the scope of these benefits; the extent to which they are 
already being achieved by existing practices; and the extent to which 
they depend on other countries following the harmonization effort.
    c. Issues with respect to the costs and range of costs of the 
proposed standard. OSHA preliminarily estimated the principal costs of 
the standard to chemical producers for reclassification of chemicals; 
remaking SDS's; and redoing labels; and to chemical users for 
familiarization and program changes for managers and for training 
exposed employees. OSHA welcomes comments on all aspects of the costs, 
and is particularly interested in comments on the extent to which 
chemical producers may have already met some of the requirements of the 
standard and the time and professional skills needed for the activities 
the standard would require.
    d. Issues with respect to economic impacts and feasibility of the 
proposed standard, including the sensitivity of OSHA's economic 
feasibility determination with respect to various assumptions. OSHA 
welcomes comments on all aspects of the economic impact and economic 
feasibility analyses.
    e. All other issues with respect to the PEA.

Effects on Small Entities

    3. OSHA has certified that the proposed standard will not have a

[[Page 50282]]

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Nevertheless, because of the number of small entities affected, OSHA 
has prepared a voluntary initial regulatory flexibility analysis, the 
results of which are described in Section VII of the proposed rule. Do 
you consider the estimated costs and impacts on small entities 
presented there to be reasonable? Why or why not?
    4. Are there alternatives to the rule as a whole or specific 
requirements of the rule that reduce impacts on small entities while 
still protecting the health of employees and meeting the broad goal of 
a globally harmonized system?

Environmental Impacts

    5. OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposed standard 
will not have any adverse effects on the environment, and may have 
positive effects on the environment. OSHA welcomes comments on this 
determination.

Hazard Classification

    6. OSHA is proposing to adopt all of the physical and health hazard 
classes in the GHS. Among the physical and health hazard classes, OSHA 
is proposing to include all hazard categories in the GHS except Acute 
Toxicity Category 5 for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposures; Skin 
Corrosion/Irritation Category 3; and Aspiration Hazard Category 2. If 
you believe that the exclusion of these hazard categories is not 
consistent with the scope and/or level of protection provided by the 
current HCS, please describe any recommended changes to this proposal 
and the reasons you think these changes are necessary.
    7. OSHA has proposed a definition for unclassified hazards be added 
to the HCS to ensure that all hazards currently covered by the HCS--or 
new hazards that are identified in the future--are included in the 
scope of the revised standard until such time as specific criteria for 
the effect are added to the GHS and subsequently adopted by OSHA. Will 
this approach provide sufficient interim coverage for hazards such as 
combustible dust? Are there other hazards for which criteria should be 
developed and added to the GHS? Please provide information regarding 
these hazards, and the information available to characterize them.
    8. OSHA believes it may be more appropriate to add specific 
coverage for simple asphyxiants to the standard in the final rule to 
ensure everyone properly addresses their coverage rather than 
addressing them under the unclassified hazard definition. This effect 
is simple and straightforward, and could be addressed in a definition 
that does not involve extensive criteria. OSHA is requesting comment on 
this approach. A possible definition would be as follows:

    ``Simple asphyxiants'' are substances that displace oxygen in 
the ambient atmosphere, and can thus cause oxygen deprivation in 
exposed workers that leads to unconsciousness and death. They are of 
particular concern in confined spaces. Examples of asphyxiants 
include: nitrogen, helium, argon, propane, neon, carbon dioxide, and 
methane.

    OSHA would also like to solicit comments on specific label elements 
for simple asphyxiants. No symbol would be required, but the signal 
word ``warning'' would be used, with the hazard statement ``may be 
harmful if inhaled''. In addition, a precautionary statement such as 
the following would be required: May displace oxygen in breathing air 
and lead to suffocation and death, particularly in confined spaces.
    All other requirements of the standard that apply to hazardous 
chemicals would also apply to chemicals that meet this definition. 
These substances would generally be covered already under the proposed 
rule as compressed gases, and may also pose other effects such as 
flammability that would have to be addressed as well. They are also 
already covered under the existing HCS. Is the definition suggested by 
OSHA sufficient to cover this effect? Do you have suggestions for 
modifying this definition? Are the label elements suggested 
appropriate?
    9. In order to help to ensure that health hazard determinations are 
properly conducted under a performance-oriented approach, the HCS 
includes a ``floor'' of chemicals that are to be considered hazardous 
based on several cited reference lists. In addition, the existence of 
one toxicological study indicating a possible adverse effect is 
considered sufficient for a finding of hazard for any health effect. 
Under the GHS, there is no floor of chemicals cited, nor is there an 
across-the-board provision such as the one-study criterion. Instead, 
specific, detailed criteria are provided for each type of health hazard 
to guide the evaluation of relevant data and subsequent classification 
of the chemical. The proposed modifications to the HCS would align the 
standard to the GHS approach, and thus do not include the floor of 
chemicals nor the universal one-study rule. Would the proposed detailed 
criteria provide sufficient guidance for a thorough hazard evaluation?
    10. OSHA has edited the chapters in the GHS for classification of 
physical and health hazards to remove material not directly related to 
classification and to otherwise streamline the text. OSHA anticipates 
providing the decision logics separately to serve as guidance, but has 
not included them in the regulatory text. Are there any additions, 
subtractions, or clarifications of the classification criteria from the 
GHS that OSHA needs to consider?
    11. Certain physical hazard classification criteria (i.e., for 
self-reactive chemicals, organic peroxides, self-heating chemicals, 
explosives) either directly reference packaging or quantity, or rely on 
test methods that reference packaging or quantity. The criteria were 
developed for transport concerns. Clearly, quantity and packaging can 
greatly affect safe transport of chemicals that pose hazards such as 
those listed above. However, OSHA seeks comments on whether the 
criteria as stated in the GHS are appropriate for the workplace. Does 
use of these criteria present any obstacles to classification or create 
any difficulties for suppliers or users of chemicals? Describe any 
difficulties these criteria may present and any suggestions for 
addressing these issues, particularly recommendations that would be 
consistent with the GHS and maintain the GHS level of safety for these 
chemicals.
    12. The GHS gives countries guidance on a cut-off or concentration 
limit for chemical mixtures containing target organ toxicity hazards. 
In Appendix A, Section A.8.3, OSHA is proposing to make the suggested 
20% concentration limit mandatory so that label preparers are clear on 
what needs to be done. Please comment on whether this mandatory 
concentration limit is appropriate. If you have an alternative, please 
provide it along with the rationale.

Labels

    13. The proposal would require pictograms to have a red frame. As 
discussed in Section V, OSHA believes that use of the color red will 
make warnings more noticeable and will aid in communicating the 
presence of a hazard. However, the GHS gives competent authorities such 
as OSHA the discretion to allow use of a black frame when the pictogram 
appears on a label for a package which will not be exported. For 
packages that will not be exported, should the modified standard allow 
black frames on pictograms, or should the pictogram frame be required 
to be presented in red?

[[Page 50283]]

    14. In addition to the pictograms, signal word and hazard 
statements, GHS labels must include precautionary statements. OSHA is 
proposing to require the text in the precautionary statements in the 
GHS to be on HCS labels. As discussed in Section XV Summary and 
Explanation of the Proposed Standard, these statements are codified 
under the GHS, meaning that numbers have been assigned to them. In 
addition, the appropriate statements to use for each hazard class and 
category have been indicated in the GHS annexes. This means that label 
preparers will know exactly what precautionary statements to apply once 
they complete their hazard classification, and chemical users will see 
consistent language on labels to indicate the necessary precautionary 
measures. However, the statements are not yet considered to be part of 
the harmonized text like hazard statements are; rather they are 
included in the GHS as an suggested language. OSHA expects that other 
countries may adopt the codified precautionary statements when they put 
GHS in place. For example the EU has required that labels use the GHS 
codified precautionary statement text in adapting the GHS. Since OSHA 
did not previously require the use of precautionary statements, and had 
no such recommended statements to provide, the Agency is proposing to 
use those currently in the GHS as the mandatory requirements with the 
option of consolidating statements where appropriate (See Appendix C). 
OSHA anticipates this approach will provide the maximum benefit. OSHA 
is also seeking comment on whether any of these statements should be 
modified or if other precautionary statements should be included.
    In addition, as discussed in Section IV, OSHA has presented other 
alternatives with regards to precautionary statements, and OSHA is 
soliciting comment on these options as well. Specifically, OSHA is 
seeking feedback on whether the Agency should include the GHS 
precautionary statements as nonbinding examples, through a non 
mandatory appendix or guidance, rather than as required statements, or 
whether OSHA should allow label preparers to develop their own 
precautionary statements rather than specifying the text to be used.
    15. OSHA has not proposed to require the exploding bomb pictogram 
or specific precautionary statements for Division 1.4S ammunition and 
ammunition components because the specified GHS label elements may not 
accurately reflect the hazards of these materials. Is this sufficiently 
protective? Are any adjustments to the label elements for Division 1.4S 
ammunition and ammunition components necessary? Describe any requested 
changes and explain why such revisions are necessary.
    16. In the current HCS, OSHA has a provision that requires labels 
to be updated within three months of obtaining new and significant 
information about the hazards. The Agency has not been enforcing this 
provision for many years, and there has been an administrative stay on 
enforcement. OSHA is including the provision in this proposal, and 
inviting comment on it with the intention of including it in the final 
rule and lifting the stay. Is three months the appropriate time 
interval for updating? Are there any practical accommodations that need 
to accompany this limit (for example, related to stockpiles of 
chemicals)? Provide any alternatives you consider appropriate, as well 
as documentation to support them.

Safety Data Sheets (SDSs)

    17. As discussed in Section XV, the Agency is proposing to require 
that OSHA permissible exposure limits (PELs) be included on the SDS, as 
well as any other exposure limit used or recommended by the chemical 
manufacturer, importer, or employer preparing the safety data sheet. 
OSHA welcomes comments on this approach, along with an explanation of 
the basis for your position.
    18. OSHA is proposing that Section 15 of the SDS be non-mandatory. 
As indicated in Appendix D, Section 15 addresses regulatory information 
concerning the chemical. OSHA is considering requiring the substance 
specific standards be referenced in this section, which would make 
Section 15 mandatory. Would employers and employees benefit from having 
this information in this section of the SDS?

Other Standards Affected

    19. OSHA is proposing to align the definitions of the physical 
hazards to the requirements of the GHS categories in safety standards 
for general industry, construction, and maritime standards, which 
either directly reference the HCS or provide information pertinent to 
the Safety Data Sheets (SDSs). In most cases OSHA has modified the 
standards to maintain scope and protection. However, the changes in 
definitions for flammable liquids Category 1 and 2 and flammable 
aerosols appear to be more than simply rounding to the nearest 
significant number.
    [cir] Flammable liquids Category 1 and 2: The boiling point cut-off 
for Category 1 is reduced from 100 deg F (37.8 deg C) or less to 95 deg 
F (35 deg C) or less, which could shift some liquids from Category 1 to 
Category 2.
    [cir] Flammable aerosols: OSHA is proposing to adopt the GHS method 
to determine flammability rather than the method defined by the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
    OSHA's decision to change these definitions to be consistent with 
the GHS is based not only upon harmonizing its standards with those of 
other countries that have adopted or may adopt the GHS, but OSHA is 
also concerned with making its standards internally consistent. OSHA 
believes the methods used to classify these physical hazards are 
similar enough so that substances that are currently regulated by OSHA 
would continue to be regulated and that few, if any, changes would 
result in a shift in regulatory coverage. Would the proposed changes 
have any impact on your operations? If so, describe the anticipated 
effects.
    20. OSHA is proposing to eliminate the term ``combustible liquid'' 
in 29 CFR 1910.106. 1910.107, 1910.123, 1910.124, 1910.125, and 
1926.155 for liquids with a flashpoint above 100 [deg]F. To reflect 
consistency with the revised HCS where appropriate, OSHA is proposing 
to add the specific flashpoint criteria. This will maintain equivalent 
protection. Are there other standards that OSHA should update with the 
new terminology?
    21. OSHA is proposing to modify the language required on signs in 
substance-specific health standards. The Agency developed the proposed 
language to reflect the terminology of the revised HCS while, at the 
same time, providing adequate warning through language that is 
consistent with the current sign requirements for these chemicals. An 
added benefit is the hazard warnings on signs specified for these 
standards will now be consistent throughout OSHA standards. For 
example, all carcinogens will now bear the hazard statement ``MAY CAUSE 
CANCER''. OSHA believes that providing language that is consistent on 
both signs and labels will improve comprehension for employees. Does 
the proposed language on signs accurately convey the hazards?
    22. OSHA is proposing to revise the substance-specific health 
standards' provisions on labeling for producers and importers of 
chemicals and substances. Currently in the substance-specific standards 
OSHA requires specific language on labels for certain chemicals. OSHA 
is proposing to change these labeling requirements by referring those 
responsible for labeling to the modified HCS and including in each 
substance-

[[Page 50284]]

specific standard a list of health effects that must be considered for 
hazard classification. The modified HCS will dictate the specific 
language (i.e., signal word, hazard statement(s), and precautionary 
statement(s)) that is required on labels through the classification 
process. However, OSHA is proposing to maintain specific language for 
labels on contaminated clothing and waste/debris containers to ensure 
adequate hazard communication for the downstream recipients. How would 
the removal of required language for labels from substance-specific 
standards affect your work place? Are there hazard warnings that will 
be lost that do not have an equivalent hazard or precautionary 
statement? Are there alternatives to OSHA's approach for the substance-
specific standards that will assure information is disseminated in a 
manner that is consistent with the modified HCS labeling requirements?
    23. In determining the health hazards that need to be considered by 
manufacturers, importers and distributors when classifying chemicals 
regulated by the substance-specific standards, OSHA is proposing to 
primarily rely on the determinations made by the Agency in each 
rulemaking, the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards (2005) and the 
International Chemical Safety Cards, and use as a secondary source the 
health effects identified by the European Commission (2007). OSHA is 
proposing to include a health hazard only if it is identified as such 
by two or more of these organizations. Are there other sources of 
information that OSHA should consult?
    24. As detailed in the Summary and Explanation section of this 
document, OSHA is not proposing in this rulemaking to update the 
electrical standards (general industry 1910 subpart S and construction 
1926 subpart K) or Explosives and blasting agents (general industry 
1910.109 and construction 1926.914). These subparts are ``self-
contained'' in that they do not rely on other OSHA standards for 
regulatory scope or definitions, but reference external organizations 
(such as the National Fire Protection Association [NFPA]). OSHA 
believes that these standards could be updated when the referenced 
external organizations adopt applicable GHS elements. If OSHA were to 
change these standards to comply with the GHS, how would this impact 
your operations?

Effective Dates

    25. OSHA has proposed to require that employers train employees 
regarding the new labels and safety data sheets within two years after 
publication of the final rule to ensure they are familiar with the new 
approach when they begin to see new labels and SDSs in their 
workplaces. Is the proposed time appropriate?
    26. OSHA has proposed that chemical manufacturers, importers, 
distributors, and employers be required to comply with all provisions 
of the modified final rule within three years after its publication. 
Does this allow adequate time to review hazard classifications and 
amend them as necessary, and to revise labels and safety data sheets to 
reflect the new requirements? Would a shorter time frame be sufficient?
    27. Are there any other factors that should be considered in 
establishing the phase-in period?

Compliance Assistance and Outreach

    28. OSHA received many comments in response to the questions in the 
ANPR regarding compliance assistance and outreach and is seeking 
additional comment in this proposal. However, comments already 
submitted need not be resubmitted. Please refer to the discussion in 
Section XV. Specifically, OSHA is interested in your responses to the 
following: What types of materials or products would best assist 
employers in understanding and complying with the modified HCS? OSHA 
seeks input to identify the tools that would be most useful to 
employers and employees, the subjects of greatest interest (e.g., 
classification criteria, labels, safety data sheets), and the best 
means of distributing these materials.
    29. OSHA received a number of comments that suggested that a data 
base of chemical classifications should be developed and maintained to 
assist chemical manufacturers and importers in performing hazard 
classifications. This approach has been adopted in some other 
countries. Would such a data base be helpful? Who would be responsible 
for doing the classifications and maintaining them? How would the data 
base be kept aligned with other countries' classifications?

Alternative Approaches

    30. OSHA has described alternatives to the scope and application of 
the proposed rule in the preamble, Section IV. These include 
consideration of allowing voluntary implementation of the GHS; 
exemptions based on size of the business; adopting some components of 
the GHS but not others; and not adopting all of the required label 
elements. The Agency requests comments on these alternatives, with data 
to support the views expressed. Suggestions and support for other 
alternatives are requested as well.

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

    OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200; 
1915.1200; 1917.28; 1918.90; and 1926.59) was first issued in 1983 and 
covered the manufacturing sector of industry (48 FR 53280, November 25, 
1983). In 1987, the Agency expanded the scope of coverage to all 
industries where employees are potentially exposed to hazardous 
chemicals (52 FR 31852, August 24, 1987). Although full implementation 
in the non-manufacturing sector was delayed by various court and 
administrative actions, the rule has been fully enforced in all 
industries covered by OSHA since March 17, 1989 (54 FR 6886, February 
15, 1989). In 1994, OSHA made a number of minor changes and technical 
amendments to the HCS to help ensure full compliance and achieve better 
protection of employees (59 FR 6126, February 9, 1994). The development 
of the HCS is discussed in detail in the preambles to the original and 
revised final rules (see 48 FR 53280-53281; 52 FR 31852-31854; and 59 
FR 6127-6131). This discussion will focus on the sequence of events 
leading to the development of the Globally Harmonized System of 
Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) and the modifications 
to the HCS included in this proposed rule.
    The HCS requires chemical manufacturers and importers to evaluate 
the chemicals they produce or import to determine if they are 
hazardous. The rule provides definitions of health and physical hazards 
to use as the criteria for determining hazards in the evaluation 
process. Information about hazards and protective measures is then 
required to be conveyed to downstream employers and employees through 
labels on containers and safety data sheets. All employers with 
hazardous chemicals in their workplaces are required to have a hazard 
communication program, including container labels, safety data sheets, 
and employee training. (Note: The HCS uses the term ``material safety 
data sheet'' or ``MSDS'', while the GHS uses ``safety data sheet'' or 
``SDS''. For convenience and for consistency with the GHS, safety data 
sheet or SDS is being used throughout this document and that term would 
replace MSDS in the modified HCS.)
    To protect employees and members of the public who are potentially 
exposed to chemicals during their production,

[[Page 50285]]

transportation, use, and disposal, a number of countries have developed 
laws that require information about those chemicals to be prepared and 
transmitted to affected parties. These laws vary with regard to the 
scope of chemicals covered, definitions of hazards, the specificity of 
requirements (e.g., specification of a format for safety data sheets), 
and the use of symbols and pictograms. The inconsistencies between the 
various laws are substantial enough that different labels and safety 
data sheets must often be developed for the same product when it is 
marketed in different nations.
    Within the U.S., several regulatory authorities exercise 
jurisdiction over chemical hazard communication. In addition to OSHA's 
HCS, the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates chemicals in 
transport, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulates 
consumer products, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
regulates pesticides, as well as having other authority over labeling 
under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Each of these regulatory 
authorities operates under different statutory mandates, and has 
adopted distinct hazard communication requirements.
    Tracking the hazard communication requirements of different 
regulatory authorities is a burden for manufacturers, importers, 
distributors, and transporters engaged in commerce in the domestic 
arena. This burden is magnified by the need to develop multiple sets of 
labels and safety data sheets for each product in international trade. 
Small businesses may have particular difficulty in coping with the 
complexities and costs involved. The problems associated with differing 
national and international requirements were recognized and discussed 
when the HCS was first issued in 1983. The preamble to the final rule 
included a commitment by OSHA to review the standard regularly to 
address international harmonization of hazard communication 
requirements. OSHA was asked to include this commitment in recognition 
of an interagency trade policy that supported the U.S. pursuing 
international harmonization of requirements for chemical classification 
and labeling. The potential benefits of harmonization were noted in the 
preamble:

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

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

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

This international mandate initiated a substantial effort to develop 
the GHS, involving numerous international organizations, many 
countries, and extensive stakeholder representation.
    A coordinating group comprised of countries, stakeholder 
representatives, and international organizations was established to 
manage the work. This group, the Inter-Organization Programme for the 
Sound Management of Chemicals Coordinating Group for the Harmonization 
of Chemical Classification Systems, established overall policy for the 
work and assigned tasks to other organizations to complete. The 
Coordinating Group then took the work of these organizations and 
integrated it to form the GHS. OSHA served as chair of the Coordinating 
Group.
    The work was divided into three main parts: Classification criteria 
for physical hazards; classification criteria for health and 
environmental hazards (including criteria for mixtures); and hazard 
communication elements, including requirements for labels and safety 
data sheets. The criteria for physical hazards were developed by a 
United Nations Subcommittee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous 
Goods/International Labour Organization working group and were based on 
the already harmonized criteria for the transport sector. The criteria 
for classification of health and environmental hazards were developed 
under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development. The ILO developed the hazard communication elements. OSHA 
participated in all of this work, and served as U.S. lead on 
classification of mixtures and hazard communication.
    Four major existing systems served as the primary basis for 
development of the GHS. These systems were the requirements in the U.S. 
for the workplace, consumers and pesticides; the requirements of Canada 
for the workplace, consumers and pesticides; European Union directives 
for classification and labeling of substances and preparations; and the 
United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. The 
requirements of other systems were also examined as appropriate, and 
taken into account as the GHS was developed. The primary approach to 
reconciling these systems involved identifying the relevant provisions 
in each system; developing background documents that compared, 
contrasted, and explained the rationale for the provisions; and 
undertaking negotiations to find an agreed approach that addressed the 
needs of the countries and stakeholders involved. Principles to guide 
the work were established, including an agreement that protections of 
the existing systems would not be reduced as a result of harmonization. 
Thus countries could be assured that the existing protections of their 
systems would be maintained or enhanced in the GHS.
    An interagency committee under the auspices of the Department of 
State coordinated U.S. involvement in the development of the GHS. In 
addition to OSHA, DOT, CPSC, and EPA, there were a number of other 
agencies

[[Page 50286]]

involved that had interests related to trade or other aspects of the 
GHS process. Different agencies took the lead in various parts of the 
discussions. Positions for the U.S. in these negotiations were 
coordinated through the interagency committee. Interested stakeholders 
were kept informed through e-mail dissemination of information, as well 
as periodic public meetings. In addition, the Department of State 
published a notice in the Federal Register that described the 
harmonization activities, the agencies involved, the principles of 
harmonization, and other information, as well as invited public comment 
on these issues (62 FR 15951, April 3, 1997). Stakeholders also 
actively participated in the discussions at the international level and 
were able to present their views directly in the negotiating process.
    The GHS was formally adopted by the new United Nations Committee of 
Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and the Globally Harmonized 
System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals in December 2002. 
In 2003, the adoption was endorsed by the Economic and Social Council 
of the United Nations. The GHS will be updated as necessary to reflect 
new technology and scientific developments, or provide additional 
explanatory text. This proposed rule is based on Revision 3 of the GHS, 
published in 2009.
    Countries have been encouraged to implement the GHS as soon as 
possible, and established a goal to have fully operational systems by 
2008. This goal was adopted by countries in the Intergovernmental Forum 
on Chemical Safety, and was endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable 
Development. The U.S. participated in these groups, and agreed to work 
toward achieving these goals. While much progress was made by the U.S. 
and other countries by the end of 2008, most are still in the process 
of implementing the GHS.
    OSHA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on 
the GHS in September of 2006 (71 FR 53617, September 12, 2006). The 
ANPR provided information about the GHS and its potential impact on the 
HCS, and sought input from the public on issues related to GHS 
implementation. Over 100 responses were received, and the comments and 
information provided were taken into account in the development of the 
modifications to the HCS included in this proposed rule. At the same 
time the ANPR was published, OSHA made a document summarizing the GHS 
available on its Web site (https://www.osha.gov).
    OSHA remains engaged in a number of activities related to the GHS. 
The U.S. is a member of both the United Nations Committee of Experts on 
the Transport of Dangerous Goods and the Globally Harmonized System of 
Classification and Labeling of Chemicals, as well as the Subcommittee 
of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and 
Labeling of Chemicals. These permanent UN bodies have international 
responsibility for maintaining, updating as necessary, and overseeing 
the implementation of the GHS. OSHA and other affected Federal agencies 
actively participate in these UN groups. In addition, OSHA and EPA also 
participate in the GHS Programme Advisory Group under the United 
Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). UNITAR is 
responsible for helping countries implement the GHS, and has ongoing 
programs to prepare guidance documents, conduct regional workshops, and 
implement pilot projects in a number of nations. OSHA also continues to 
be involved in interagency discussions related to coordination of 
domestic implementation of the GHS, and in discussions related to 
international work to implement and maintain the GHS.

IV. Overview and Purpose of the Proposed Modifications to the Hazard 
Communication Standard

    The intent of the HCS is to ensure that the hazards of all 
chemicals are evaluated, and that information concerning chemical 
hazards and associated protective measures is transmitted to employers 
and employees. The standard achieves this goal by requiring chemical 
manufacturers and importers to review available scientific evidence 
concerning the physical and health hazards of the chemicals they 
produce or import to determine if they are hazardous. For every 
chemical found to be hazardous, the chemical manufacturer or importer 
must develop a container label and an SDS and provide both documents to 
downstream users of the chemical. All employers with employees exposed 
to hazardous chemicals must develop a hazard communication program, and 
ensure that exposed employees are provided with labels, access to SDSs, 
and training on the hazardous chemicals in their workplace.
    The three information components in this system--labels, SDSs, and 
employee training--are all essential to the effective functioning of 
the program. Labels provide a brief, but immediate and conspicuous 
summary of hazard information at the site where the chemical is used. 
SDSs provide detailed technical information and serve as a reference 
source for exposed employees, industrial hygienists, safety 
professionals, emergency responders, health care professionals, and 
other interested parties. Training is designed to ensure that employees 
understand the chemical hazards in their workplace and are aware of 
protective measures to follow. Labels, SDSs, and training are 
complementary parts of a comprehensive hazard communication program--
each element reinforces the knowledge necessary for effective 
protection of employees.
    Information required by the HCS reduces the incidence of chemical-
related illnesses and injuries by enabling employers and employees to 
implement protective measures in the workplace. Employers can select 
less hazardous chemical alternatives and ensure that appropriate 
engineering controls, work practices, and personal protective equipment 
are in place. Improved understanding of chemical hazards by supervisory 
personnel results in safer handling of hazardous substances, as well as 
proper storage and housekeeping measures.
    Employees provided with information and training on chemical 
hazards are able to fully participate in the protective measures 
instituted in their workplaces. Knowledgeable employees can take the 
steps required to work safely with chemicals, and are able to determine 
what actions are necessary if an emergency occurs. Information on 
chronic effects of exposure to hazardous chemicals helps employees 
recognize signs and symptoms of chronic disease and seek early 
treatment. Information provided under the HCS also enables health and 
safety professionals to provide better services to exposed employees. 
Medical surveillance, exposure monitoring, and other services are 
enhanced by the ready availability of health and safety information.
    OSHA believes that the comprehensive approach adopted in the HCS--
requiring evaluation of chemicals and the transmittal of information 
through labels, SDSs, and training--is sound. The proposed 
modifications to the rule do not alter that approach. Rather, the 
proposed modifications to the rule are intended to improve the 
effectiveness of the HCS by enhancing the quality and consistency of 
the information provided to employers and employees. OSHA believes this 
can be accomplished by modifying the requirements of the standard to 
conform with the more specific and detailed provisions of the GHS for 
classification,

[[Page 50287]]

labeling, and SDSs. OSHA's rationale for this belief is summarized 
below. The evidence supporting this preliminary conclusion is presented 
in Section V of this preamble, and the proposed revisions to the HCS 
are discussed in detail in Section XV.

HCS Provisions for Classification, Labeling, and SDSs

    The HCS covers a broad range of health and physical hazards. The 
standard is performance-oriented, providing definitions of hazards and 
parameters for evaluating the evidence to determine whether a chemical 
is considered hazardous. The evaluation is based upon evidence that is 
currently available, and no testing of chemicals is required.
    The standard covers every type of health effect that may occur, 
including both acute and chronic effects. Definitions of a number of 
adverse health effects are provided in the standard. These definitions 
are indicative of the wide range of coverage, but are not exclusive. 
Any adverse health effect that is substantiated by a study conducted 
according to established scientific principles, and reporting a 
statistically significant outcome, is sufficient for determining that a 
chemical is hazardous under the rule.
    Most chemicals in commerce are not present in the pure state (i.e., 
as individual elements or compounds), but are provided as mixtures of 
chemicals. Evaluation of the health hazards of mixtures is based on 
data for the mixture as a whole when such data are available. When data 
on the mixture as a whole are not available, the mixture is considered 
to present the same health hazards as any ingredients present at a 
concentration of 1% or greater, or, in the case of carcinogens, 
concentrations of 0.1% or greater. The HCS also recognizes that risk 
may remain at concentrations below these cut-offs, and where there is 
evidence that is the case, the mixtures are considered hazardous under 
the standard.
    The current definitions of physical hazards in the HCS were derived 
from other OSHA standards that address such chemicals (e.g., flammable 
chemicals), or from the DOT criteria for physical hazards at the time 
OSHA promulgated the HCS. DOT subsequently changed their criteria to be 
consistent with the internationally harmonized transport requirements, 
and the HCS criteria for classification of physical hazards are 
generally not consistent with current DOT requirements.
    The HCS establishes requirements for minimum information that must 
be included on labels and SDSs, but does not provide specific language 
to convey the information or a format in which to provide it. When the 
HCS was issued in 1983, the public record strongly supported this 
performance-oriented approach (see 48 FR 53300-53310). Many chemical 
manufacturers and importers were already providing information 
voluntarily, and in the absence of specific requirements had developed 
their own formats and approaches. The record indicated that a 
performance-oriented approach would reduce the need for chemical 
manufacturers and importers to revise these existing documents to 
comply with the HCS, thus reducing the cost impact of the standard. In 
recognition of the work that had been voluntarily completed, OSHA 
decided to allow labels and SDSs to be presented in any format desired, 
as long as the minimum information requirements of the standard were 
met.

GHS Provisions for Classification, Labeling, and SDSs

    The GHS is an internationally harmonized system for classifying 
chemical hazards and developing labels and safety data sheets. However, 
the GHS is not a model standard that can be adopted verbatim. Rather, 
it is a set of criteria and provisions that regulatory authorities can 
incorporate into existing systems, or use to develop a new system.
    The GHS is designed to allow regulatory authorities to choose 
provisions that are appropriate to their particular sphere of 
regulation. This is referred to as the ``building block approach.'' The 
GHS includes all of the regulatory components, or building blocks, that 
might be needed for classification and labeling requirements for 
chemicals in the workplace, transport, pesticides, and consumer 
products.
    Regulatory authorities such as OSHA adopt the provisions of the GHS 
that are appropriate for their particular regulatory sector, but do not 
need to adopt all of the criteria and provisions of the GHS. For 
example, the GHS includes criteria for classifying chemicals for 
aquatic toxicity. Since OSHA does not have the regulatory authority to 
address environmental concerns, OSHA would not adopt the GHS criteria 
for aquatic toxicity. The building block approach may also be applied 
to the criteria for defining hazards. For example, the acute toxicity 
criteria in the GHS are much broader than those currently found in the 
HCS. This is to allow consumer product authorities the ability to 
address the protection of children and other vulnerable populations. 
OSHA would not need to adopt all of the acute toxicity categories to 
maintain protection of employees in the workplace.
    The building block approach can also be applied when a regulatory 
authority decides which parts of the system to adopt. For example, the 
GHS includes classification criteria and provisions for labels and 
SDSs. While OSHA is proposing to adopt all of these elements because 
the current HCS cover labels and SDSs, consumer product and 
transportation authorities are not expected to require SDSs.
    Under the GHS, each hazard or endpoint (e.g., Explosives, 
Carcinogenicity) is considered to be a hazard class. The classes are 
generally sub-divided into categories of hazard. The definitions of 
hazards are more specific and detailed than those currently in the HCS. 
For example, under the HCS, a chemical is either an explosive or it is 
not. Under the GHS, there are seven categories of explosives, and 
assignment to these categories is based on the classification criteria 
provided.
    The GHS generally applies a tiered approach to evaluation of 
mixtures. The first step is consideration of data on the mixture as a 
whole. The second step allows the use of ``bridging principles'' to 
estimate the hazards of the mixture based on information about its 
components. The third step of the tiered approach involves use of cut-
off values based on the composition of the mixture, or for acute 
toxicity, a formula which is used for classification. The approach is 
generally consistent with the current requirements of the HCS, but 
provides more detail and specification and allows for extrapolation of 
data available on the components of a mixture to a greater extent--
particularly for acute effects.
    Hazard communication requirements under the GHS are directly linked 
to the hazard classification. For each class and category of hazard, a 
harmonized signal word (e.g., Danger), pictogram (e.g., skull and 
crossbones), and hazard statement (e.g., Fatal if Swallowed) are 
specified. These specified elements are referred to as the core 
information for a chemical. Thus, once a chemical is classified, the 
GHS provides the specific core information to convey to users of that 
chemical. The core information allocated to each category generally 
reflects the degree of severity of the hazard. Precautionary statements 
are also required on GHS labels. The GHS provides example precautionary 
statements, but they are not yet

[[Page 50288]]

considered formally harmonized. In other words, it would be possible 
for regulatory authorities to use different language for the 
precautionary statements. However, it appears likely that the language 
in the examples will become the harmonized text of the GHS on 
precautionary statements in the near future. The most recent revision 
to the GHS has codified these statements (i.e., assigned numbers to 
them) as well as aligned them with the hazard classes and categories. 
Codification allows reference to them in a shorthand form, and makes it 
easier for authorities using them in regulatory text to organize them. 
In addition, there are provisions to allow supplementary information so 
that chemical manufacturers can provide data in addition to the 
specified core information.
    The GHS establishes a standardized 16-section format for SDSs to 
provide a consistent sequence for presentation of information to SDS 
users. Items of primary interest to exposed employees and emergency 
responders are presented at the beginning of the document, while more 
technical information is presented later. Headings for the sections 
(e.g., First Aid Measures, Handling and Storage) are standardized to 
facilitate locating information of interest. The harmonized data sheets 
are consistent with the order of information included in the voluntary 
industry consensus standard for safety data sheets (ANSI Z400.1).

Advantages of the Proposed Modifications to the Standard

    OSHA believes that the detailed and specific classification 
requirements of the GHS would result in better, more consistent 
information being provided to employers and employees. Classification 
under the revised criteria would not only indicate the type of hazard, 
but would generally give an indication of the degree of severity of the 
hazard as well. This information would be helpful to both employers and 
employees in understanding chemical hazards and identifying and 
implementing protective measures. The detailed criteria for 
classification are also expected to result in greater accuracy in 
hazard classification and more consistency among classifiers. By 
following the detailed criteria, classifiers are less likely to reach 
different interpretations of the same data.
    OSHA also believes that standardized presentation of information on 
labels and safety data sheets would improve the comprehensibility of 
chemical hazard information. Employers and employees would be given the 
same core information on a chemical regardless of the supplier. Use of 
standardized pictograms would complement and reinforce the information 
provided through signal words and hazard statements. Pictograms are 
also anticipated to improve communication for those who are not 
functionally literate, or who are not literate in the language used on 
the label. The standardized format for SDSs is expected to make the 
information easier for users to find, with the information employees 
and emergency responders need most appearing in the beginning of the 
document for easy identification and reference.
    Standardized requirements for labels and SDSs are also expected to 
increase the accuracy of chemical hazard information. With consistent 
presentation of information, the task of reviewing SDSs and labels to 
assure accuracy would be simplified. Individuals preparing and 
reviewing these documents should find it easier to identify any missing 
elements, and OSHA enforcement personnel should be able to more 
efficiently examine SDSs and labels when conducting inspections.
    Another advantage that will result from adopting a system that has 
harmonized hazard statements in it relates to the use of ``control 
banding,'' a guidance approach to recommending control measures for 
chemical exposures. The approach uses information that is readily 
available to small and medium-sized employers with chemicals in their 
workplaces to provide them with workplace-specific control 
recommendations. Basically, the system uses such information to 
estimate the degree of severity of the hazard and the amount of 
chemical present, and relates that to the degree of control needed. The 
control banding approach relies on harmonized hazard statements to 
allow the system to estimate the degree of severity of the hazard. 
Initially based on the European hazard classification system, it has 
now been converted to the GHS phrases. The use of control banding to 
provide guidance for chemical safety and health approaches in U.S. 
workplaces cannot be accomplished until harmonized hazard statements 
are readily available. Adoption of the GHS and its phrases would open 
up the possibility that control banding guidance can be used in the 
U.S. to help small and medium-sized employers select and implement 
appropriate control measures. For more information on control banding, 
please see https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ctrlbanding/.
    OSHA is proposing modifications to the HCS that are necessary for 
consistency with the GHS. The GHS does not include requirements for a 
written hazard communication program or for employee training. OSHA is 
not proposing any substantive changes to the requirements for a written 
hazard communication program. However, OSHA believes that additional 
training would be necessary to ensure that employees understand some 
elements of the new system. In particular, s