Hazard Communication Standard, 44144-44461 [2024-08568]
Download as PDF
44144
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. OSHA–2019–0001]
RIN 1218–AC93
Hazard Communication Standard
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
OSHA is amending the
Hazard Communication Standard (HCS)
to conform to the United Nations’
Globally Harmonized System of
Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals (GHS), primarily Revision 7
(Rev. 7), 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, while
enhancing the effectiveness of the
standard. Consistent with Executive
Order 13563 and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, which call for
assessment and, where appropriate,
modification and improvement of
existing rules, OSHA has reviewed the
existing HCS. The agency has
determined that the revisions in this
final rule 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 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, new provisions
related to trade secrets, technical
amendments related to the contents of
safety data sheets (SDSs), and related
revisions to definitions of terms used in
the standard.
DATES: This final rule is effective July
19, 2024. The incorporation by reference
of certain publications listed in this
final rule is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as of July 19, 2024.
The incorporation by reference of
certain other publications listed in the
rule was approved by the Director as of
July 15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: In compliance with 28
U.S.C. 2112(a), the agency designates
Edmund C. Baird, Associate Solicitor for
Occupational Safety and Health, Office
of the Solicitor, Room S–4004, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, as
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
the recipient of petitions for review of
this final rule.
Docket: To read or download
comments or other material in the
docket, go to Docket No. OSHA–2019–
0001 at 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.
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 fourdigit code. For example, the Document
ID number for the 2021 HCS Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is
OSHA–2019–0001–0258. Some
Document ID numbers also include one
or more attachments.
When citing exhibits in the docket,
OSHA includes the term ‘‘Document
ID’’ followed by the last four digits of
the Document ID number. For example,
document OSHA–2019–0001–0258
would appear as Document ID 0258.
Citations may also include the
attachment number (designated ‘‘Att.’’)
or other attachment identifier, if
applicable, page numbers (designated
‘‘p.’’, or ‘‘Tr.’’ for pages from a hearing
transcript), and in a limited number of
cases a footnote number (designated
‘‘Fn.’’).
This information can be used to
search for a supporting document in the
docket at www.regulations.gov. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–
2350 (TTY number: 877–889–5627) for
assistance in locating docket
submissions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
For press inquiries: Contact Frank
Meilinger, Director, Office of
Communications, Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor; telephone: (202)
693–1999; email: meilinger.francis2@
dol.gov.
For general information and technical
inquiries: Contact Tiffany DeFoe,
Director, Office of Chemical Hazards—
Metals, Directorate of Standards and
Guidance, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor; telephone: (202) 693–1950;
email: defoe.tiffany@dol.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Introduction
III. Events Leading to the Revised Hazard
Communication Standard
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
IV. Need and Support for the Revised Hazard
Communication Standard
V. Pertinent Legal Authority
VI. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
VII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
VIII. Federalism
IX. State Plans
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. Summary and Explanation of the Final
Rule
XV. Issues and Options Considered
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910
Authority and Signature
I. Executive Summary
The Globally Harmonized System of
Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals (GHS) has been implemented
around the world. In 2012, OSHA
revised its Hazard Communication
Standard (HCS), 29 CFR 1910.1200, to
align with Revision 3 (Rev. 3) of the
GHS (77 FR 17574). However, the GHS
is updated with improvements and
clarifications every two years. This
rulemaking amends the HCS primarily
to align with Revision 7 (Rev. 7) of the
GHS, published in 2017, where
appropriate. OSHA is also finalizing
updates to address specific issues that
have arisen since the 2012 rulemaking
and to provide better alignment with
other U.S. agencies and international
trading partners, while enhancing the
effectiveness of 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. 601 et seq.) which require
retrospective analysis 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) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.)
to assure, as far as possible, safe and
healthful working conditions for
workers. As part of this effort, OSHA
first promulgated the HCS in 1983 to
provide a standardized approach to
workplace hazard communication
associated with exposure to hazardous
chemicals. The HCS requires chemical
manufacturers or importers to classify
the hazards of chemicals they produce
or import. It also 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. This final rule
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
does not change the fundamental
structure of the HCS.
OSHA has determined that the
amendments to the HCS contained in
this final rule enhance the effectiveness
of the standard by ensuring that
employees are appropriately apprised of
the chemical hazards to which they may
be exposed. The 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 provisions
addressing the labeling of small
containers and the relabeling of
chemicals that have been released for
shipment); amendments related to the
contents of SDSs; and new provisions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
relating to concentrations or
concentration ranges being claimed as
trade secrets.
Additionally, in accordance with
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), OSHA has prepared
a Final Economic Analysis (FEA),
including a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Certification, for the final
modifications to the HCS (see the full
FEA in Section VI of this notice).
Supporting materials prepared by
OSHA, such as cost-estimate
spreadsheets, are available in the public
docket for this rulemaking, Docket ID
OSHA–2019–0001, through
www.regulations.gov.
In the FEA, OSHA estimates that,
annualized at a 7 percent discount rate,
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44145
the final rule would result in net cost
savings of $29.8 million per year, 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
final rule would result in net cost
savings of $30.7 million per year. OSHA
also expects that the final revisions to
the HCS will 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 VI.D: Health and
Safety Benefits and Unquantified
Positive Economic Effects).
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44146
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.135</GPH>
325
326
327
331
Chemical Manufacturing
Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing
Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
Primary Metal Manufacturing
Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health (Document ID 0481 ).
[a] Figures in this column represent the sum of the costs for chemical reclassification and requirements in the appendices to the standard addressing precautionary statements and
other mandatory language.
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table ES-1: Total Annualized Costs for All Entities Affected by the Revisions to the Hazard Communication Standard (by Industry and Provision, 7
Percent Discount Rate1 2022 Dollars
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
II. Introduction
This preamble includes a review of
the events leading to the final rule, a
discussion of the reasons why OSHA
finds these modifications to the HCS
necessary, the final economic analysis
and regulatory flexibility analysis for
the standard, and an explanation of the
specific revisions OSHA is making to
the standard.
Section XIV: Summary and
Explanation of the Final Rule is
organized by paragraph of regulatory
text affected by this update, followed by
the appendices to the regulatory text.
Stakeholders can examine the redline
strikeout of the regulatory text (changes
from 2012 HCS to this final) at OSHA’s
HCS web page (https://www.osha.gov/
dsg/hazcom/) to view all of the changes
to the 2012 HCS made in this final rule.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
III. Events Leading to the Revised
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 GHS (Document ID 0085)
(77 FR 17574).
On February 16, 2021, OSHA
published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) to modify the HCS,
to bring it into alignment with the
seventh revision of the GHS (Document
ID 0060) (86 FR 9576), to address
specific issues that have arisen since the
2012 rulemaking, and to provide better
alignment with other U.S. agencies and
international trading partners. On
September 21–23, 2021, the agency held
an informal public hearing to gather
additional input from interested
stakeholders. OSHA received more than
170 public submissions (e.g., written
comments, exhibits, and briefing
materials) during the public comment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
period. This rulemaking finalizes the
amendments proposed in 2021 with
modifications based on stakeholder
input through the public comment
process.
The HCS requires periodic revision 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. Several
international and domestic activities
have impacted the direction of the HCS
and led to the updates of this rule,
including international negotiations at
the United Nations (UN), coordination
with other U.S. agencies, OSHA’s
participation in the U.S.–Canada
Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC)
with Health Canada, and information
OSHA has received from HCS
stakeholders. Below, the agency
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 rule.
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 UN
Economic and Social Council
Committee of Experts on the Transport
of Dangerous Goods (TDG) and
continued in the 1990s through the UN
Conference on Environment and
Economic Development (UNCED), the
UN International Labour Organization
(ILO), and the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) (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 nongovernmental organizations (Document
ID 0052).
Since OSHA’s adoption of Rev. 3 in
2012, the GHS has been updated six
times; the latest revision, Rev. 9, was
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44147
published in July 2021 (https://
unece.org/transport/standards/
transport/dangerous-goods/ghs-rev92021). Updates to the GHS in Rev. 4
(2011) included changes to hazard
categories for chemically unstable gases
and non-flammable aerosols and
updates to, and clarification of,
precautionary statements (Document ID
0240). Changes in Rev. 5 (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
(Document ID 0241). Rev. 6 (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 (Document ID 0197). Changes
in Rev. 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 labeling of small packages
with fold-out labels (Document ID
0094). Rev. 8 (2019) added a table for
the classification criteria versus only
relying on the decision logics for
chemicals under pressure; 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’’ (Document ID
0065). Rev. 9 (2021) included changes to
chapter 2.1 to better address explosive
hazards when not in transport, revisions
to decision logics, revisions to Annex
1—classification and labeling summary
tables, revisions to precautionary
statements, and updates to OECD test
guidelines in Annexes 9 and 10 (https://
unece.org/transport/standards/
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44148
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
transport/dangerous-goods/ghs-rev92021).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
I. U.S. Participation at the United
Nations and Interagency Coordination
OSHA leads the U.S. Interagency GHS
Coordinating Group, an interagency
group that serves as a U.S. delegation to
the UN (‘‘Interagency Group’’). 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 UN
Sub-Committee of Experts on the GHS
(UNSCEGHS). It 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), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and
other agencies as appropriate. 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)
(Document ID 0175). EPA (which
initiated the U.S. working group)
finalized changes to its regulations
governing significant new uses of
chemical substances under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) that
would align with the HCS and the GHS
as well as with OSHA’s respiratory
protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134)
and National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) respirator
certification requirements (87 FR
39756).
II. U.S.–Canada Coordination
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 (Document ID 0057; 0199). 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
(OMB) and the Treasury Board of
Canada. Since the RCC’s inception,
OSHA and Health Canada, Canada’s
corresponding governmental agency,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
have developed joint guidance products
and consulted on respective regulatory
activities. In keeping with the RCC’s
goal of regulatory cooperation, this final
rule contains 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 (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 to inform the public
that OSHA was beginning rulemaking
efforts to maintain alignment of the HCS
with more recent revisions of the GHS
(International/Globally Harmonized
System (GHS), Docket No. OSHA–2016–
0005). 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 held 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
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 U.S.
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 ‘‘bring together senior
regulatory officials, industry, and other
interested members of the public from
both sides of the border to discuss
recent accomplishments and new
opportunities for regulatory
cooperation’’ (Document ID 0057).
OSHA led the session regarding
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
chemicals management and workplace
chemicals.
C. OSHA Guidance Products, Letters of
Interpretation, and Directives
Since OSHA’s publication of the 2012
HCS update, the agency has published
guidance documents, issued letters of
interpretation (LOIs), and implemented
an enforcement directive. These
guidance documents are available 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.
OSHA has issued several LOIs in
response to questions from the regulated
community. These LOIs 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 LOIs
include the labeling of small containers,
the labeling of chemicals released for
shipment, and the use of concentration
ranges for trade secrets. OSHA’s LOIs on
the HCS may be found at https://
www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standard
interpretations/standardnumber/1910/
1910.1200%20-%20Index/result.
Several of the updates in this final rule
clarify specific elements of the
enforcement guidance the agency has
already provided in LOIs and the
directive. The agency anticipates
publishing an updated directive to
provide guidance to OSHA compliance
officers; however, the 2015 directive is
still in force until rescinded or updated
(Document ID 0007).
OSHA requested comments in the
NPRM on types of guidance documents
that the public may find useful to
understand the updated HCS. The
American Society of Safety
Professionals (ASSP) suggested that
OSHA ‘‘create training modules focused
on the changes to the HCS once the rule
is finalized’’ (Document ID 0284, p. 2).
Hugo Hidalgo suggested that the agency
‘‘leverage technology to effectively
communicate hazards of chemicals to
customers and end-users once the
information becomes available’’
(Document ID 0297, p. 4). Other
comments received in response to
OSHA’s request for comments on
guidance documents are highlighted in
Section XV., Issues and Options
Considered. OSHA has considered all
requests for guidance and is evaluating
the best approaches to implement those
requests and suggestions.
IV. Need and Support for the Revised
Hazard Communication Standard
Hazardous chemical exposures in
workplaces in the United States present
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
a serious and ongoing danger to
workers. Acute and chronic exposures
to hazardous chemicals in the
workplace can have serious health
consequences. As described in the 2012
HCS, chemical exposures are either
directly responsible for or contribute to
serious adverse health effects including
cancer; heart, lung, reproductive, and
immunological diseases; hearing loss;
and eye and skin damage (77 FR 17584).
In addition to health effects, exposure to
hazardous chemicals can result in
physical hazards, such as fires,
explosions, and other dangerous
incidents (77 FR 17584). Recognition of
the significant risk posed by these
workplace hazards was the impetus for
OSHA to promulgate the original hazard
communication standard in order to
promote responsible chemical
management practices (48 FR 53282–
53283).
Hazard communication is a
fundamental element of sound chemical
management practices. As stated in the
GHS, ‘‘[a]vailability of information
about chemicals, their hazards, and
ways to protect people, will provide the
foundation for national programmes for
the safe management of chemicals’’
(Document ID 0060, p. iii). An
anonymous comment on the NPRM
stated that ‘‘[a]rming employers with
this information, since the 1980s, has
undoubtedly reduced the potential for,
and severity of, chemical and toxic
substance injuries and illnesses, to
include a reduced number of fatalities.
Globally harmonizing the system for
classification and labeling across a big
part of the world was also beneficial as
it provided consistency, and more
simplicity, especially for foreign
products utilized domestically’’
(Document ID 0300, p. 1). The
commenter went on to state that
‘‘[p]roviding safety and health
information to product users is
imperative. Ultimately, this information
equals a form of protection’’ (Document
ID 0300, p. 1).
OSHA recognized the importance of a
robust hazard communication strategy
as early as the 1980s, when the agency
first promulgated the HCS (48 FR
53282–53284). The agency also
recognized the need for a global strategy
and was instrumental in the
development of the GHS (48 FR 53287).
From its inception, OSHA indicated that
the HCS would be updated periodically
to keep pace with the advancement of
scientific principles underlying the
hazard determination process as well as
improvements in communication
systems (48 FR 53287). In hearing
testimony and post-hearing briefs,
NIOSH provided documentation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
supporting the continual updating of
occupational safety and health
information, stating that the ‘‘process
should be a never-ending loop of
research and translation, allowing for
ongoing integration of effective
approaches’’ (Document ID 0456, Att.
15, p. 4).
The ‘‘research and translation’’
described by NIOSH is at the heart of
the GHS and HCS process—continually
evaluating and updating to improve
worker protections and make hazard
communication clearer and more
effective for both workers and
employers. In addition to directly
enhancing worker protections through
improved hazard communication,
updating the HCS to maintain alignment
with the GHS also improves the
availability of important information to
support larger efforts to address
workplace hazards. Commenters on the
NPRM recognized this principle. For
example, Ameren stated that the
modifications to the HCS ‘‘takes a
positive approach in our efforts of
eliminating risk events’’ (Document ID
0309, p. 2). ASSP commented, ‘‘[w]e
believe that aligning the HCS to
international regulations is beneficial
overall to the OSH profession and our
members will assist in ensuring
employers use these enhanced
requirements to better protect their
workers’’ (Document ID 0284, p. 1). The
following sections provide more
detailed information on the need for the
updates being finalized in this final
rule.
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 a report
published by the ILO in 2008,
‘‘[c]ontinuous 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).1 While
1 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 1,700
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44149
the tools and protective measures in
place to reduce or prevent chemicalrelated 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.
The changes finalized in this update
to the HCS will result in better
alignment between the standard and the
continually evolving GHS. The first
edition of the GHS, adopted in
December 2002 and published in 2003,
implemented the 16-section format for
SDSs 2 that is now standard across much
of the globe. As information has
improved, the GHS has updated the
form and content of SDSs to improve
readability, minimize redundancies, and
ensure hazards are communicated
appropriately (Document ID 0060;
Document ID 0237).
Information OSHA has collected since
publication of the 2012 update to the
HCS indicates that aligning the HCS
with the GHS has had a positive impact
on workplace hazard communication.
Data from published studies indicate
that the hazard communication
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 phrases similar to GHS
precautionary statements to convey safety and
health information about workplace chemicals in a
consistent, internationally accessible manner. ICSCs
also display classification information (hazard
pictograms, signal words, and hazard statements) in
line with GHS classification criteria—this
information is added during updates. With
participation by experts from government agencies
around the world, including the U.S. (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)/NIOSH),
Canada (Quebec–CNESST), Japan (National
Institute of Health Sciences), and several European
countries, 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).
2 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).
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44150
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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 (Bechtold, 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 explained
distinctions between acute toxicity and
chronic health effects (Bechtold, 2014,
Document ID 0061). 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).
Labels and SDSs are often the first
indication to a worker that they are
handling a hazardous chemical, so it is
imperative that labels and SDSs be as
accurate and complete as possible.
While the HCS does not require testing
of chemicals, it does require that labels
and SDSs have accurate information
based on all available evidence and that
manufacturers, importers, distributors,
and employers provide the complete
information on the hazards available to
them. Without a complete picture of the
hazards associated with a particular
chemical, workers cannot know how to
adequately protect themselves or safely
handle these chemicals. North
America’s Building Trades Unions
(NABTU) commented that ‘‘[It] is really
important to have . . . the labels on the
products that are being used because
that’s the first source of information.
The SDS is the backup source . . . .
[Labels and SDSs are] where they’re
going to get information on the hazards
of what they’re using and the
precautions that need to be taken,
including . . . any engineering controls
or any personal protective equipment’’
(Document ID 0464, p. 2).
Several studies published since the
2012 HCS adopted the 16-section SDS
format indicate that the new format has
improved comprehension in the
workplace (Elliott, 2016, Document ID
0119; Boelhouver, 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 protection. Problems
include insufficient information on the
identification of substances/mixtures;
inadequate hazard identification and
classification information (e.g., missing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 0016; 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 0167).
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. An anonymous
commenter stated that ‘‘[i]naccurate
information makes it difficult for
downstream users who have to rely on
inaccurate or incomplete information
. . . ’’ (Document ID 0308, p. 1). 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. This final
rule’s 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, a
change in Section 9 (physical
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
characteristics to include particle
characteristics) will identify exposure
issues that were not addressed by the
previous 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 (which
correspond to updates in this final rule
to Appendix A.2 of the HCS) on skin
corrosion/irritation that incorporated
new in vitro test methods, and
computational or in silico techniques, to
classify chemicals for this category of
hazard (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).3
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;
ISHN, 2019, Document ID 0068; Ta,
2010, Document ID 0115; Ta, 2011,
Document ID 0194; Chan, 2017,
Document ID 0017).
Regularly updating the HCS to align
with international practices also eases
compliance for global corporations
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
(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), the
Center for Protection of Workers’ Rights
(CPWR), and the Society for Chemical
Hazard Communication (SCHC))
publicly supported OSHA’s continued
updates to the HCS (see 77 FR 17585,
17603). The Society of Toxicology (SOT)
also expressed support for updating the
HCS to align with the GHS as this
‘‘creates consistent communication
about the hazards of chemicals across
the globe’’ (see 77 FR 17585).
3 Holistic programs such as NIOSH’s Total
Worker Health program, where behavioral science
is integrated into more traditional risk-management
practices, require robust hazard communication
practices (Tamers, 2019, Document ID 0076).
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
B. Cooperating With International
Trading Partners and Other Federal
Agencies
OSHA expects that the updates to the
HCS will facilitate cooperation with
international trading partners and other
federal agencies. The U.S. and Canada
participate in the RCC, which has a goal
to ‘‘enhance regulatory cooperation and
economic competitiveness that maintain
high standards when it comes to health,
safety, and the environment’’
(Document ID 0127). 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
UNSCEGHS subcommittee. In addition,
OSHA and Health Canada share regular
updates on regulatory activity. As
explained in the Section XIV., Summary
and Explanation of the Final Rule,
several updates in this final rule will
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 updating the
requirements for bulk shipment under
paragraph (f)(5) to provide additional
clarity for shipments that are also
regulated by the DOT. For bulk
shipments, the finalized new paragraph
should 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. This allows for the
full label information to be available to
the downstream user upon receipt while
recognizing the unique DOT placarding
issues for bulk shipments. And in
another effort to facilitate inter-agency
cooperation, OSHA is finalizing 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 to acknowledge that the
DOT regulations allow for the GHS
pictogram to be on the shipped
container (49 CFR 172.401(c)(5)).
C. Responding to Stakeholder
Experiences Implementing the 2012
HCS
Finally, some of the changes in this
final rule, including those related to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
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).
This final rule includes revisions
designed to address these issues with
small container labeling as well as
revisions addressing other issues raised
by commenters. Furthermore, OSHA
believes that adopting a uniform
approach to labeling small containers
will enhance worker protections by
ensuring that critical information on the
hazards posed by the chemicals is
included on the label regardless of the
size of the container. For a full
discussion of this change, see the
Summary and Explanation for (f)(12).
Similarly, the finalized 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 the HCS’s requirements
to update labels when new information
becomes available, especially in the case
of chemicals that travel through long
distribution cycles (Kenyon, 2017,
Document ID 0182). This final rule
revises paragraph (f)(11) to address
these concerns while maintaining
worker protections.
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 after 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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44151
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, they 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 in
Section V.D., Significant Risk, OSHA
need not make additional findings on
risk for this final rule 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.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44152
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
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, particularly in the
absence of specific permissible exposure
limits, 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 issue
a rule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to ‘‘make
appropriate modifications in the
foregoing requirements relating to the
use of labels or other forms of warning
. . . as may be warranted by experience,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 this final rule.
This final rule, which is an update to
the existing HCS, fits well within the
authority granted by the last sentence of
section 6(b)(7). The changes in the final
rule 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 has determined the updates are
‘‘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 are a ‘‘technological
development’’ that has occurred since
the 2012 revisions to the HCS 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; 4 see also Section III.:
Events Leading to the Revised Hazard
Communication Standard in this
preamble.
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 by section 6(b)(5) of the
OSH Act, OSHA originally determined
that the HCS would substantially reduce
a significant risk of material harm when
promulgating the standard in 1983.
4 The last sentence of section 6(b)(7) requires
consultation with the Secretary of Health and
Human Services. OSHA briefed NIOSH on the
proposal for this rule during a collaboration
meeting held in December 2018, which was
attended by the Director of NIOSH, and NIOSH
expressed its support. NIOSH continued to express
support in its comments on the proposed rule
(Document ID 0281) and also supported OSHA’s
update of the HCS in 2012, see 77 FR 17603.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Many 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 those
cases, OSHA measures and assesses the
hazards of employee exposures 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. 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. Based on that evidence, 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
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
substantially reduce that risk by
improving chemical hazard
communications. 77 FR 17603–17604.
For the changes in this final rule,
OSHA has not made a new finding of
significant risk but is making 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.5 See 77 FR
17602.
5 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 analyses to make standardssetting 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.’’ Id. 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. OSHA’s
determinations regarding feasibility are
discussed more fully in Section VI.E.,
Technological Feasibility, and Section
VI.G., Economic Feasibility and
Impacts, in this preamble.
VI. Final Economic Analysis and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
A. Introduction and Summary
Under Executive Order 12866 (E.O.)
12866, OIRA determines whether a
regulatory action is significant and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
E.O. 12866 and OMB review. Section
3(f) of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O.
14094, 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 $200 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
significant under Section 3(f)(1)); (2)
creates serious inconsistency or
otherwise interferes with an action
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44153
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 E.O. 12866.
Upon review, OMB has determined that
this final rule is a significant regulatory
action under E.O. 12866.6 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).
OIRA has made a determination that
this action is not a significant regulatory
action under section 3(f)(1) of E.O.
12866, as amended by E.O. 14094,
because it is not likely to have an
annual effect on the economy of $200
million or more. Nor is this final
standard a major rule under the
Congressional Review Act because this
rule will not result in (1) an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more; (2) a major increase in costs or
prices for consumers, individual
industries, federal, state, or local
government agencies, or geographic
regions; nor (3) significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, or innovation,
or on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and
export markets. 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Details
on the estimated cost-savings of this
rule can be found in the economic
analysis below.
E.O. 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.
E.O. 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.
Because section 6(b)(5) of the OSH
Act explicitly imposes the ‘‘to the extent
feasible’’ limitation on the setting of
health standards, OSHA is not
permitted to use cost-benefit analysis to
make its standards-setting decisions (see
29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5); Cotton Dust, 452
6 https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202210&RIN=1218AC93.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44154
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
U.S. at 509). In addition to determining
economic feasibility, OSHA estimates
the costs and benefits of its proposed
and final rules to ensure compliance
with other requirements such as those
in E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563.
In this FEA, OSHA estimates that the
proposed amendments to the HCS
would result in annualized net cost
savings of $29.8 million at a seven
percent discount rate. Annualized at a
three percent discount rate, OSHA
estimates that the proposed
amendments to the rule would lead to
net cost savings of $30.7 million per
year. OSHA expects that the revisions to
the HCS will 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.
The remainder of this FEA includes
the following sections:
B. Need for Regulation
C. Profile of Affected Industries,
Establishments, and Employees
D. Health and Safety Benefits and
Unquantified Positive Economic Effects
E. Technological Feasibility
F. Compliance Costs and Cost Savings
G. Economic Feasibility and Impacts
H. Final Regulatory Flexibility Screening
Analysis and FRFA Certification
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
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 HCS contains a
set of requirements for chemical
products, including mandatory hazard
classification, labeling requirements,
provisions for communication of
detailed information (in SDSs), and
label updating requirements. These
requirements are based on Rev. 3 of the
GHS, which was adopted by the
UNSCEGHS in December 2008.
OSHA, in the 2021 Preliminary
Economic Analysis (PEA), determined
that the revisions to the HCS would
make employers’ hazard communication
programs more worker-protective,
efficient, and effective through
standardizing practices nationally and
internationally (86 FR 9590). In
addition, OSHA found that 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 Rev. 7 (86 FR
9590–91).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
The revisions to the HCS include the
following notable changes:
• Maintaining alignment with the
GHS:
Æ Adding classification categories for
aerosols, desensitized explosives, and
flammable gases; and
Æ Updating select hazard and
precautionary statements for clearer and
more precise hazard information.
• Addressing issues identified in
implementing the 2012 HCS:
Æ Updating labeling requirements for
small containers;
Æ Updating labeling requirements for
packaged containers that have been
released for shipment or that constitute
bulk shipping; and
Æ Allowing the withholding of
concentration ranges of substances for
reasons related to trade secrets.
As discussed in Section VI.F.,
Compliance Costs and Cost Savings, of
this FEA, the estimated costs and cost
savings resulting from the final
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 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 changes to Appendices
C and D); (2) the cost of management
familiarization and other managementrelated costs (associated with all of the
revisions to the standard); (3) the cost of
training employees as necessitated by
the changes to the HCS (see paragraph
(h)(1) of the 2012 HCS); (4) the cost
savings resulting from the new releasedfor-shipment provision (revisions to
paragraph (f)(11)); and (5) the cost
savings from limiting labeling
requirements for certain very small
containers (proposed paragraph (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 changes to the HCS will maintain
the uniformity of hazard information
with the GHS and will, 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
(Document ID 0050). And 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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
communication between computers,
and, for that matter, language, the GHS
provides significant efficiencies and
economies.7
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
timely alignment with the GHS as it
undergoes revision periodically.
Additionally, in some cases (e.g.,
aerosols, desensitized explosives), Rev.
7 contains different hazard classes or
classification criteria than the 2012
HCS, and it would be impermissible for
a manufacturer to comply with Rev. 7
rather than the criteria in the existing
HCS. 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.
7 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.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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 Rev.
7 as its adoption expands
internationally.8 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.9 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.
The changes to the HCS will involve
costs and cost savings mainly for
manufacturers, importers, and
distributors. Manufacturers and
importers of chemicals will also achieve
benefits, in part because they
themselves benefit as both producers
and users, and in part because 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 VI.D., Health and Safety Benefits and
Unquantified Positive Economic
Effects).
8 See
UN, 2018, pp. 12–13 (Document ID 0040).
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) (Document ID 0234). And 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 (Document ID 0235).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
9 According
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Of more significance to the concerns
of the OSH Act, the changes will also
provide health benefits from improved
hazard classification and
communication; although unquantified
in this final rule, these benefits include
reductions in worker illnesses, injuries,
and fatalities (see additional discussion
below in VI.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 whom have
direct market relationships with each
other, OSHA believes maintaining a
single, uniform standard will best
achieve the full benefits available from
a hazard communications system.
C. Profile of Affected Industries,
Establishments, and Employees
In this section, OSHA presents a final
profile of industries affected by this
revision to the HCS. The profile data in
this section are based upon the 2012
HCS FEA and the PEA supporting the
2021 HCS NPRM, updated in this FEA
with the most recent data available.
As a first step, OSHA identifies the
North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) industries affected by
the changes to the HCS.10 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.11 This information is provided
for each affected industry as a whole, as
well as for small entities, as defined by
the Small Business Administration
10 For this FEA, OSHA used 2017 NAICS industry
categorization and nomenclature. Although the
2017 NAICS categorization was updated in 2022,
OSHA notes that all profile data presented in this
FEA were published in 2022 or earlier years but are
pre-2022 in content, and therefore were assigned
2017 NAICS IDs.
11 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 (Document ID 0047).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44155
(SBA) 12 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).
The revisions to the HCS affect
establishments in a variety of different
industries in which employees are
exposed to hazardous chemicals or in
which hazardous chemicals are
produced. The changes to the HCS do
not change the overall list of affected
industries or establishments. However,
some changes specifically affect certain
establishment groupings that
manufacture aerosols, desensitized
explosives, and flammable gases. Other
changes 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 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 2012 version of the HCS.
Therefore, OSHA believes that the
revisions have little or no effect on
whether specific establishments fall
within the scope of the standard.
OSHA’s estimates of the number of
employees who will require new
training under the revisions to the
standard are based on BLS’s (2023)
Occupational Employment Statistics
data for May 2022, 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 are
affected by the revised requirements to
reclassify aerosols, desensitized
explosives, and flammable gases.13 (See
12 According to the SBA, ‘‘The size standards are
for the most part expressed in either millions of
dollars (those preceded by ‘‘$’’) or number of
employees (those without the ‘‘$’’). A size standard
is the largest that a concern can be and still qualify
as a small business for Federal Government
programs. For the most part, size standards are the
average annual receipts or the average employment
of a firm. How to calculate average annual receipts
and average employment of a firm can be found in
13 CFR 121.104 and 13 CFR 121.106, respectively’’
(SBA, 2019, Table of Small Business Size
Standards—Effective Aug 19, 2019, Document ID
0225)). In December 2022, SBA published an
update to the table of small business size standards.
However, the schedule for this final HCS
rulemaking did not allow for a timely adoption of
the 2022 table.
13 The NAICS industries estimated to be affected
by the revised requirement to reclassify aerosols,
desensitized explosives, and flammable gases are
the following: 211130 Natural Gas Extraction,
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
Continued
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44156
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
the analysis and discussion of training
costs below in VI.F., Compliance Costs
and Cost Savings.)
Table VI–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 VI–2 and VI–3,
respectively, provide parallel
information for all affected business
entities defined as small by the SBA 15
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,
2023). Occupational Employment Statistics—May
2022 (Released April 25, 2023). Available at https://
www.bls.gov/oes/#data (Accessed April 27, 2023)
(Document ID 0482).
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 PEA in support of the
2021 HCS NPRM (Document ID 0258)
and rely on the most recent
comprehensive set of data (including
revenues) available from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS, 2023) and the U.S.
Census Bureau (2022a; 2022b; 2022c).16
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
Classification System Codes (Effective August 19,
2019), see Document ID 0225. In Table VI–2 in the
PEA, the numbers shown for Total Employees and
Employees in Covered Occupations (columns 5 and
6) erroneously understated the correct estimates.
However, because OSHA’s underlying calculations
utilized the correct estimates, the errors in that table
did not affect compliance cost estimates or any
other results derived in the PEA.
16 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S.
Businesses, 2017 (Document ID 0231; 0232).
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-1: Characteristics oflndustries Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS - All Entities
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
83
471
175
64,334
25,482
25,482
15,929
6,309
83
471
175
1,337
1,336
6,309
324122 Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
324191 Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
110
207
10,685
4,232
110
205
4,232
240
13,253
5,249
240
63
3,308
1,310
63
305
82
5,249
324199 All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
306
83
325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing
325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing
31
51
9,966
4,066
31
496
12,781
5,216
136
8,740
3,566
78
103
50
495
4,066
78
103
134
3,566
376
117
645
207
40,131
10,945
16,375
4,466
376
117
645
16,375
4,466
325130 Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
325180 Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
325194 Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing
325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
325212 Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
325220 Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
325311 Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
20MYR4
325312 Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
325314 Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
207
1,310
5,216
49
74
5,870
2,395
49
73
2,395
608
67,055
82,409
27,362
608
33,627
856
837
1,154
27,362
856
837
1,154
137
114
150
131
10,615
15,094
4,332
6,159
137
114
149
4,332
6,159
165
204
6,353
2,593
165
130
201
44
371
70
494
6,144
9,682
2,507
44
371
70
494
3,950
33,627
2,593
2,507
3,950
184
223
11,585
4,727
184
222
597
1,117
642
1,387
31,276
146,583
10,814
50,682
597
1,117
640
1,387
189
250
29,082
10,055
189
250
325414 Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing
276
371
58,859
20,351
276
371
10,055
20,351
958
1,135
38,909
15,877
958
1,135
15,877
325520 Adhesive Manufacturing
325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
401
561
25,514
10,411
401
560
10,411
631
699
28,475
11,619
631
699
11,619
325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
325413 In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
4,727
10,814
50,682
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
32411 0 Petroleum Refineries
324121 Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
44157
ER20MY24.136</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44158
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
428
462
15,872
6,477
428
461
108
135
6,912
2,820
108
132
2,820
1,010
1,060
53,432
21,802
1,010
1,060
21,802
162
307
90
9,965
4,066
162
306
4,066
53
7,413
3,025
53
88
3,025
347
429
20,597
8,404
347
429
8,404
163
175
7,569
3,089
163
174
3,089
1,072
1,257
39,401
16,077
1,072
1,256
16,077
326111 Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
262
19,359
262
332
19,359
310
333
404
32,737
326112 Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing
34,079
20,153
310
403
20,153
388
494
20,715
11,730
22,579
13,353
256
375
442
11,730
256
376
442
388
324
493
324
35,030
19,835
20,715
326121 Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Manufacturing
326122 Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
213
232
13,625
8,057
213
232
8,057
306
459
430
674
27,028
32,028
15,983
18,940
306
459
429
194
473
33,312
19,700
194
672
472
15,983
18,940
298
334
19,098
11,294
298
334
11,294
4,965
5,950
386,178
228,368
4,965
5,950
228,368
84
46,699
6,494
29,786
4,142
84
240
136
29,786
4,142
325910 Printing Ink Manufacturing
325920 Explosives Manufacturing
325991 Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
326130 Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape Manufacturing
326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing
326160 Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
326191 Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
326211 Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)
6,477
13,353
19,700
20MYR4
326212 Tire Retreading
326220 Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing
240
136
354
186
264
20,229
12,902
186
353
263
326291 Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use
326299 All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
336
549
400
655
33,512
34,057
21,375
21,722
336
549
399
654
21,722
327110 Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
327120 Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
327211 Flat Glass Manufacturing
546
564
12,886
505
23,618
4,455
8,167
546
356
356
561
504
4,455
8,167
103
137
12,242
4,233
103
136
4,233
327212 Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing
327213 Glass Container Manufacturing
404
428
14,159
4,896
404
428
4,896
37
74
13,979
4,834
37
71
4,834
327215 Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass
327310 Cement Manufacturing
895
1,031
50,161
17,345
895
1,029
17,345
88
193
13,321
4,606
88
193
4,606
12,902
21,375
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
ER20MY24.137</GPH>
Table VI-1: Characteristics oflndustries Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS - All Entities
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-1: Characteristics oflndustries Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS - All Entities
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
2,022
5,806
84,236
29,127
2,022
5,806
29,127
407
15,919
5,505
407
89
672
185
5,944
2,055
89
671
183
2,055
327390 Other Concrete Product Manufacturing
327410 Lime Manufacturing
327420 Gypsum Product Manufacturing
1,504
1,882
1,504
1,881
19,844
105
57,389
4,755
19,844
33
119
1,645
104
1,645
195
9,779
3,382
33
119
195
3,382
327910 Abrasive Product Manufacturing
327991 Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing
Frm 00017
327992 Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing
327993 Mineral Wool Manufacturing
327999 All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
331110 Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
331210 Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased Steel
331221 Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
331222 Steel Wire Drawing
331313 Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
331314 Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
331315 Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
331318 Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
331410 Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining
20MYR4
331420 Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
331491 Nonfer_rous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling, Drawing, and
Extrudm
331492 Secondary Smelti~g, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except
Copper and Alummum)
331511 Iron Foundries
331512 Steel Investment Foundries
331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment)
331523 Nonferrous Metal Die-Casting Foundries
331524 Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting)
331529 Other Nonferrous Metal Foundries (except Die-Casting)
5,505
244
290
12,866
4,448
244
288
4,448
1,954
2,016
31,514
10,897
1,954
2,011
10,897
151
251
3,005
5,318
250
246
8,692
15,381
151
165
165
244
3,005
5,318
270
428
15,254
5,274
270
428
5,274
90,066
27,120
38,075
15,304
312
452
209
282
38,075
15,304
312
452
209
282
175
216
9,991
5,638
175
215
5,638
186
231
44
14,674
4,363
8,280
2,269
186
8,280
2,269
87
5,951
3,095
37
64
229
42
92
267
20,283
32,158
10,551
16,728
67
199
37
64
67
199
85
3,095
92
266
10,551
16,728
118
133
8,093
4,440
118
133
151
231
25,481
13,983
151
230
4,440
13,983
226
254
16,187
8,882
226
253
8,882
169
205
9,813
5,384
169
205
5,384
260
305
35,153
23,720
260
305
23,720
95
115
16,123
10,879
95
114
10,879
164
176
12,747
8,601
164
176
8,601
344
281
381
301
32,606
14,014
22,002
9,456
344
281
380
22,002
9,456
239
249
10,721
7,234
239
300
246
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
327320 Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
327331 Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturing
327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
7,234
44159
ER20MY24.138</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44160
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-1: Characteristics oflndustries Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS - All Entities
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
1,622
1,786
88,728
44,902
1,622
1,786
533
554
15,489
7,838
533
552
7,838
324
476
24,988
12,646
324
476
12,646
339116 Dental Laboratories
339910 Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
339920 Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
5,142
5,464
42,549
21,532
5,142
5,462
21,532
1,987
2,010
22,294
12,133
1,987
2,007
12,133
1,569
1,631
35,839
16,885
1,569
1,630
16,885
507
413
515
6,268
2,953
11,930
5,621
507
413
513
440
2,953
442
5,741
5,865
76,944
36,250
5,741
36,250
339991 Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
339992 Musical Instrument Manufacturing
475
823
37,564
17,697
475
5,863
822
576
597
11,829
5,573
576
594
5,573
99
155
106
170
4,042
1,904
104
1,904
9,620
4,532
99
155
170
4,532
3,660
43,896
1,725
79
91
1,725
20,680
3,008
3,029
20,680
301,213
16,317
7,207
10,524
16,317
1,833
6,892
2,046
5,804
2,752
1,833
9,357
33,843
127,212
9,355
6,892
3,740
67,737
3,670
2,172
3,738
3,670
339930 Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
339940 Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
339950 Sign Manufacturing
44,902
5,621
17,697
79
94
Sfmt 4725
339999 All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
3,008
3,030
424210 Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers
424610 Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers
424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
424710 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
7,207
2,046
5,804
10,524
2,752
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers ( except Bulk
424720
Stations and Terminals)
424910 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424950 Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424990 Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
1,830
2,451
34,350
1,861
1,830
2,451
1,861
4,909
9,027
108,603
5,883
4,909
9,024
5,883
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
Fmt 4701
339993 Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
339994 Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
339995 Burial Casket Manufacturing
2,172
20MYR4
959
1,881
21,147
1,146
959
1,879
1,146
10,285
10,819
77,358
4,191
10,285
10,818
4,191
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020a (Document ID 0231 ); U.S. Census Bureau, 2020b (Document ID 0232); U.S. Census Bureau, 2020c (Document ID 0227); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022a
(Document ID 0476); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022b (Document ID 0477); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022c (Document ID 0478); BLS, 2023 (Document ID 0482); U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health.
ER20MY24.139</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
339114 Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
339115 Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
Note: "Affected" firms, establislnnents, and employees are based on the maximum number affected by any one provision of the rule.
[a] Figures in these columns for two-digit and three-digit NAICS codes represent totals for the entire industry at the specified level and may exceed the total sum of the data for the affected six-digit
NAICS industries that fall within the aggregated levels. This occurs because two-digit and three-digit NAICS codes may encompass some six-digit NAICS industries not covered by OSHA. (For
example, NAICS 21 encompasses Mining, which is not covered by OSHA regulations.)
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-1: Characteristics oflndustries Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS - All Entities
44161
ER20MY24.140</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44162
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-2: Characteristics of Industries Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS - Small Entities
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Petroleum Refineries
324121
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
421
57
638
5,783
7,890
324122
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
95
211
117
324191
236
All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
52
67
52
175
2,291
1,336
3,125
3,415
1,353
1,353
3,040
95
211
205
7,675
305
3,040
1,933
766
52
82
766
324199
Fmt 4701
52
421
Frm 00020
2,291
3,125
325110
Petrochemical Manufacturing
15
16
766
312
15
50
312
325120
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
64
67
1,049
428
64
495
428
Sfmt 4725
325130
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
325180
325193
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
95
3,576
1,460
90
134
1,460
451
139
16,461
6,071
6,717
2,478
310
103
645
207
6,717
2,478
32
33
957
391
32
73
391
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
325199
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical
Manufacturing
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
530
599
23,908
9,756
530
837
9,756
325211
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
771
896
36,365
14,838
771
1,154
325212
325220
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
112
119
149
90
99
2,170
2,494
112
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
5,319
6,112
14,838
2,170
90
130
2,494
169
43
2,824
1,152
150
201
1,152
897
7,031
366
2,869
35
70
494
366
2,869
222
2,072
325194
325311
325312
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
150
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
35
325314
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
428
325320
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
353
165
2,072
325411
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
567
585
5,078
19,199
353
165
6,638
567
640
6,638
325412
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
1,045
1,099
50,061
17,309
1,045
1,387
17,309
2,845
175
167
181
8,230
2,845
167
250
231
257
12,337
4,265
231
325510
Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
924
991
22,451
9,161
924
371
1,135
325520
325611
Adhesive Manufacturing
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
345
380
624
10,165
12,819
4,148
5,231
345
560
605
605
699
5,231
325612
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
409
420
10,924
4,458
409
461
4,458
325413
325414
ER20MY24.141</GPH>
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
90
310
103
4,265
9,161
4,148
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
324110
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-2: Characteristics of Industries Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS - Small Entities
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
92
100
2,903
1,185
92
132
1,185
325620
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
981
1,008
32,391
13,217
981
1,060
13,217
325910
Printing Ink Manufacturing
145
228
4,180
1,706
145
306
1,706
325920
Explosives Manufacturing
38
45
1,996
815
38
88
325991
325992
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
306
151
331
155
9,804
2,244
4,000
915
306
151
429
174
815
4,000
325998
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation
Manufacturin
980
1,048
18,595
7,587
980
1,256
7,587
326111
Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
233
249
11,232
6,642
233
332
6,642
273
289
16,195
9,577
273
403
9,577
347
378
14,166
8,377
347
493
8,377
289
313
273
10,527
6,225
289
222
9,232
5,459
222
375
442
5,459
182
188
5,885
3,480
182
232
3,480
282
Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
Frm 00021
326112
Fmt 4701
326121
Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated)
Manufacturing
Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging)
Manufacturing
Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Manufacturing
326122
Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
326113
326130
Sfmt 4725
326140
Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape
Manufacturing
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
915
6,225
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
8,127
282
429
8,127
415
337
479
13,742
16,371
9,682
415
181
235
11,910
7,043
181
672
472
9,682
326160
Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing
Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
326191
Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
290
302
12,919
7,640
290
334
7,640
326199
4,693
5,065
201,259
119,016
4,693
5,950
326150
7,043
20MYR4
326211
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)
70
72
5,951
3,795
70
136
119,016
3,795
326212
Tire Retreading
224
261
3,660
2,334
224
353
2,334
326220
Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing
167
188
8,678
5,535
167
263
5,535
326291
Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use
306
330
16,098
10,268
306
399
10,268
326299
All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
492
545
16,683
10,641
492
654
10,641
327110
Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
534
540
534
561
2,622
Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
326
370
7,583
13,190
2,622
327120
4,561
326
504
4,561
327211
327212
Flat Glass Manufacturing
91
388
95
400
2,802
6,950
969
2,403
91
388
136
428
969
2,403
327213
327215
327310
327320
Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing
Glass Container Manufacturing
Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass
Cement Manufacturing
Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
29
32
1,454
503
29
71
503
861
896
82
22,144
7,657
861
1,029
7,657
1,988
49,657
687
17,170
73
1,958
193
5,806
687
17,170
73
1,958
3,369
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
325613
44163
ER20MY24.142</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44164
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-2: Characteristics of Industries Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS - Small Entities
Concrete Block and Brick Manufactnring
Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
Other Concrete Product Manufacturing
327390
327420
327910
Lime Manufacturing
Gypsum Product Manufacturing
Abrasive Product Manufacturing
505
9,774
3,380
382
671
83
111
3,224
1,115
83
183
3,380
1,115
1,451
1,594
35,769
12,369
1,451
1,881
12,369
24
40
1,634
565
24
104
565
109
233
111
255
1,152
398
2,107
109
233
195
288
398
2,107
1,931
123
1,967
155
26,562
3,533
9,185
1,221
1,931
123
2,011
250
9,185
1,221
244
428
2,109
1,640
6,095
Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing
327993
327999
Mineral Wool Manufactnring
All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufactnring
152
239
193
280
6,100
4,742
2,109
1,640
152
239
331110
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
281
311
21,262
452
Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased Steel
175
214
14,595
8,988
8,236
281
331210
175
282
8,988
8,236
Fmt 4701
331221
Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
Steel Wire Drawing
154
172
6,459
3,645
154
215
3,645
331222
166
190
8,814
4,974
166
229
4,974
331313
331314
Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production
Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
27
27
1,083
27
42
52
58
3,120
52
85
331315
Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
56
67
5,179
563
1,623
2,694
56
92
563
1,623
2,694
331318
Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
172
188
13,225
6,880
172
266
6,880
331410
Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining
103
107
3,763
2,064
103
133
2,064
Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
129
152
12,069
6,622
129
230
6,622
201
204
4,932
2,707
201
253
2,707
151
171
6,285
3,448
151
205
3,448
231
245
14,616
9,862
231
305
9,862
88
97
8,228
5,552
88
114
5,552
4,662
PO 00000
327991
327992
Frm 00022
Jkt 262001
327410
382
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.143</GPH>
331420
331491
331492
331511
Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling, Drawing,
and Extruding
Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal
exce t Co er and Aluminum
Iron Foundries
331513
Steel Investment Foundries
Steel Foundries (except Investment)
145
150
6,909
4,662
145
176
331523
Nonferrous Metal Die-Casting Foundries
309
315
13,791
9,306
309
380
9,306
331524
331529
Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting)
267
225
276
230
9,735
5,293
6,569
300
246
6,569
3,572
267
225
339112
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
1,029
1,068
38,752
19,611
1,029
1,283
19,611
339113
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
1,562
1,662
40,262
20,375
1,562
1,786
20,375
339114
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
522
532
522
552
4,506
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
306
318
8,903
6,195
4,506
339115
3,135
306
476
3,135
331512
Other Nonferrous Metal Foundries ( except Die-Casting)
3,572
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
327331
327332
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-2: Characteristics oflndustries Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS - Small Entities
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Dental Laboratories
5,126
5,186
33,119
16,760
5,126
5,462
339910
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
1,972
1,981
14,748
8,026
1,972
2,007
8,026
1,549
1,581
511
25,747
5,416
12,131
2,552
1,549
1,630
425
5,801
8,968
65,652
4,225
30,931
503
401
513
440
12,131
2,552
5,863
822
339920
339930
339940
339950
339991
339992
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
Sign Manufacturing
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
503
401
5,708
434
16,760
4,225
30,931
Frm 00023
450
11,990
5,649
5,708
434
570
577
7,249
3,415
570
594
3,415
1,659
782
2,395
92
143
104
170
782
2,395
707
16,252
76
2,979
91
3,029
707
16,252
4,225
1,057
6,918
19,518
1,923
10,524
2,752
4,225
1,057
5,649
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
92
143
94
150
339995
339999
Burial Casket Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
76
2,979
82
5,083
1,501
2,995
34,496
424210
424610
Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers
6,918
1,923
7,202
2,138
77,992
Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers
424690
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
5,983
2,349
2,780
33,857
1,834
5,508
1,929
9,355
3,738
2,780
1,671
1,775
15,660
848
1,671
2,451
848
424910
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk
Stations and Terminals)
Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
5,508
1,929
51,315
424710
4,722
5,451
46,027
2,494
4,722
9,024
2,494
424950
Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
910
1,096
9,201
498
910
1,879
498
424990
Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
10,022
10,159
52,522
2,845
10,022
10,818
2,845
Fmt 4701
339993
339994
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
424720
1,834
20MYR4
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020a (Document ID 0231); U.S. Census Bureau, 2020b (Document ID 0232); U.S. Census Bureau, 2020c (Document ID 0227); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022a
(Document ID 0476); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022b (Document ID 0477); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022c (Document ID 0478); BLS, 2023 (Document ID 0482); SBA, 2019 (Document ID 0472); and
BEA, 2023 (Document ID 0480). U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health.
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
Note: "Affected" firms, establishments, and employees are based on the maximum number affected by any one provision of the rule.
[a] Figures in these columns for two-digit and three-digit NAICS codes represent totals for the entire industry at the specified level and may exceed the total sum of the data for the affected six-digit
NAICS industries that fall within the aggregated levels. This occurs because two-digit and three-digit NAICS codes may encompass some six-digit NAICS industries not covered by OSHA. (For
example, NAICS 21 encompasses Mining, which is not covered by OSHA regulations.)
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
339116
44165
ER20MY24.144</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44166
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-3: Characteristics oflndustries Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS- Entities With <20 Employees
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Petroleum Refineries
325110
325120
325130
325180
325193
325194
325199
325211
325212
325220
325311
325312
325314
325320
325411
325412
325413
325414
325510
325520
325611
325612
325613
Petrochemical Manufacturing
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
All Other Petroleum and Coal Products
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
Adhesive Manufacturing
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
24
240
57
126
32
25
244
57
128
34
147
1,399
361
871
154
58
555
143
345
61
24
240
57
126
32
25
244
57
128
34
58
555
143
345
61
8
51
52
151
16
19
283
352
59
38
109
10
241
111
397
662
93
139
629
215
464
295
59
8
51
52
151
17
19
284
352
59
38
109
10
242
111
397
664
95
139
630
216
464
296
59
61
272
310
936
92
122
1,605
2,525
307
252
624
80
1,393
546
1,908
3,209
557
792
3,944
1,424
2,469
1,547
356
24
111
126
382
38
50
655
1,030
125
103
254
33
569
223
659
1,110
192
274
1,609
581
1,008
632
145
8
51
52
151
16
19
283
352
59
38
109
10
241
111
397
662
93
139
629
215
464
295
59
8
51
52
151
17
19
284
352
59
38
109
10
242
111
397
664
95
139
630
216
464
296
59
24
111
126
382
38
50
655
1,030
125
103
254
33
569
223
659
1,110
192
274
1,609
581
1,008
632
145
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
ER20MY24.145</GPH>
324110
324121
324122
324191
324199
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-3: Characteristics oflndustries Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS- Entities With <20 Employees
Jkt 262001
697
698
3,448
1,407
697
698
1,407
98
18
99
18
668
146
273
99
18
273
60
98
18
325991 Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
184
184
1,133
463
184
184
463
325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
120
719
122
479
3,679
195
1,501
120
719
122
720
720
195
1,501
60
PO 00000
115
115
806
477
115
115
477
108
108
749
443
108
108
443
326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing
189
189
1,197
708
189
189
708
326121 Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Manufacturing
151
151
917
542
151
151
542
326122 Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
113
114
697
412
113
114
412
111
111
660
391
111
111
391
326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
149
149
1,063
629
149
149
629
326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing
221
221
1,623
960
221
221
960
326160 Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
Sfmt 4725
67
172
399
1,158
236
326191 Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
67
171
67
171
67
172
326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
2,682
2,687
17,402
2,682
2,687
43
43
217
326212 Tire Retreading
140
140
861
326220 Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing
90
153
90
153
519
331
326291 Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use
1,017
326299 All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
291
291
327110 Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
448
327120 Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
181
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
326130 Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape Manufacturing
Fmt 4701
Frm 00025
326111 Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
326112 Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
326211 Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)
685
10,291
236
685
10,291
20MYR4
43
43
140
140
138
549
649
90
153
90
153
649
1,954
1,246
291
291
1,246
449
1,747
604
448
449
604
181
1,135
392
181
181
392
57
57
246
85
57
57
85
327212 Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing
327213 Glass Container Manufacturing
325
326
20
1,288
325
20
326
20
446
26
327215 Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass
653
49
76
2,874
446
26
993
654
993
3,066
327211 Flat Glass Manufacturing
327310 Cement Manufacturing
327320 Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
327331 Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturing
327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
327390 Other Concrete Product Manufacturing
20
654
138
549
331
286
99
653
49
1,234
50
1,285
8,867
3,066
1,234
50
1,285
225
235
1,641
567
225
235
567
49
49
49
967
95
2,189
49
958
276
6,328
958
967
95
2,189
99
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
325910 Printing Ink Manufacturing
325920 Explosives Manufacturing
44167
ER20MY24.146</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44168
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-3: Characteristics oflndustries Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS- Entities With <20 Employees
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
12
13
78
27
12
13
27
91
147
91
147
487
1,063
169
91
147
169
367
91
147
367
1,541
1,547
9,273
3,206
1,541
1,547
3,206
64
64
400
64
88
663
138
229
64
87
87
88
138
229
327999
167
169
954
330
167
169
330
331110 Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
310
327420 Gypsum Product Manufacturing
327910 Abrasive Product Manufacturing
327991 Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing
327992 Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing
327993 Mineral Wool Manufacturing
174
734
310
174
174
70
70
339
192
70
70
192
331221 Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
77
77
484
273
77
77
273
87
87
538
303
87
87
303
19
19
82
42
19
19
42
331314 Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
20
20
106
55
20
20
55
331315 Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
30
30
159
82
30
30
82
331318 Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
76
64
239
333
183
76
64
76
64
239
Sfmt 4725
76
64
460
331410 Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining
41
41
294
162
41
41
162
142
143
804
441
142
143
441
82
85
504
276
82
85
276
523
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
331222 Steel Wire Drawing
331313 Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production
Fmt 4701
Frm 00026
174
331210 Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased Steel
331420 Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling, Drawing, and
331491
Extruding
331492 Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except
Copper and Aluminum)
331511 Iron Foundries
101
101
776
523
101
101
331512 Steel Investment Foundries
24
24
241
162
24
24
162
331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment)
73
74
533
360
73
74
360
20MYR4
331523 Nonferrous Metal Die-Casting Foundries
167
167
1,209
816
167
167
816
331524 Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting)
146
146
146
140
140
658
608
146
331529 Other Nonferrous Metal Foundries (except Die-Casting)
975
900
140
140
658
608
689
1,138
689
1,149
3,787
1,916
6,099
3,086
689
1,138
689
1,149
3,086
1,002
339112 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
1,916
339114 Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
447
447
1,980
1,002
447
447
339115 Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
240
240
1,225
620
240
240
620
4,792
4,796
17,350
8,780
4,792
4,796
8,780
339116 Dental Laboratories
ER20MY24.147</GPH>
183
339910 Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
1,795
1,797
6,260
3,407
1,795
1,797
3,407
339920 Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
1,278
1,280
6,116
2,881
1,278
1,280
2,881
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
327410 Lime Manufacturing
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Jkt 262001
339930 Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
442
442
1,803
849
442
442
849
339940 Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
320
329
1,638
772
320
329
772
10,640
339950 Sign Manufacturing
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
20MYR4
4,931
22,583
10,640
4,918
4,931
269
269
1,944
916
269
269
916
339992 Musical Instrument Manufacturing
339993 Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
495
495
2,209
1,041
495
495
1,041
71
71
308
146
71
71
146
90
92
569
268
90
92
268
339994 Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
59
60
305
144
59
60
144
339999 All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
2,555
2,555
11,697
5,511
2,555
2,555
5,511
1,287
339995 Burial Casket Manufacturing
424210 Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers
5,903
5,939
23,756
1,287
5,903
5,939
424610 Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers
1,630
1,679
8,014
434
1,630
1,679
434
424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
4,725
4,828
20,977
1,136
4,725
4,828
1,136
424710 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers ( except Bulk
424720
Stations and Terminals)
424910 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
1,226
1,291
8,025
435
1,226
1,291
435
1,319
1,335
5,665
307
1,319
1,335
307
3,952
4,035
17,797
964
3,952
4,035
964
758
9,352
812
9,399
3,809
30,715
206
1,664
758
9,352
812
206
9,399
1,664
424950 Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424990 Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020a (Document ID 0231); U.S. Census Bureau, 2020b (Document ID 0232); U.S. Census Bureau, 2020c (Document ID 0227); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022a
(Document ID 0476); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022b (Document ID 0477); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022c (Document ID 0478); BLS, 2023 (Document ID 0482); U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health.
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
Note: 'Affected" firms, establishments, and employees are based on the maximum number affected by any one provision of the rule.
[a] Figures in these columns for two-digit and three-digit NAICS codes represent totals for the entire industry at the specified level and may exceed the total sum of the data for the affected six-digit
NAICS industries that fall within the aggregated levels. This occurs because two-digit and three-digit NATCS codes may encompass some six-digit NAT CS industries not covered by OSHA. (For
example, NATCS 21 encompasses Mining, which is not covered by OSHA regulations.)
44169
not include the construction industry
(NAICS 23) within its scope and in
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
The PEA and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis in the NPRM did
PO 00000
ER20MY24.148</GPH>
4,918
339991 Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-3: Characteristics oflndustries Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS- Entities With <20 Employees
44170
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
written comments the Construction
Industry Safety Coalition (CISC)
questioned the basis for the exclusion
(Document ID 0335, pp. 2–3). In
response, OSHA notes that the scope
and application of the final standard
primarily refers to manufacturers,
importers, and distributors. OSHA
anticipates that the compliance burden
of this rule, and therefore the economic
impacts, will primarily be borne by the
general industry sectors noted above,
and although the construction industry
is not exempted from the scope and
application of the final standard, any
economic impact upon construction
employers will likely take the form of
downstream effects as consumers of
affected chemical products.
To the extent that there are costs for
the construction industry associated
with training workers on new SDSs,
OSHA believes that these costs will be
de minimis. As OSHA notes below in
the section on training costs, the agency
estimated training costs for health and
safety personnel, but not users of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
chemicals with new hazards because
OSHA concluded that there would only
be a trivial amount of training
associated with reclassification for those
users. OSHA’s understanding of the
construction industry is that there are
relatively few employees who are
affected by the HCS standard who are
not users of the chemicals, and therefore
has not taken costs for that industry.
The costs and cost savings of some of
the revised 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 that appears later in this FEA,
Table VI–4 presents OSHA’s estimate of
the number of labels per container by
container size (and type).17 Starting
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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with the fifth row (container type: 250
ml container), Table VI–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 17639–40), 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
introduced in (new) paragraph (f)(12).
Also, the term ‘‘jug’’ has been changed
to the more generic term ‘‘container.’’
The figures in Table VI–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.
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
1-gallon containers; and one outer packaging with
an additional label for every eight containers
smaller than 1 liter. In the PEA, OSHA requested
public comment on the label-container
specifications presented in Table VI–4. OSHA
received no comments addressing the specifications
proposed in Table VI–4; therefore, in this FEA
Table VI–4 remains unchanged from its preliminary
appearance.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
44171
Table VI-4: Chemical Container Estimated Typical Shipment Weights
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
2,670,774.00
3,770,160.58
6,461,550.00
0.00
Barge
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
As will be discussed at greater length
below in Section VI.F., Compliance
Costs and Cost Savings, it has been
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 the PEA, the terms
‘‘electronic templates’’ and ‘‘electronic
files’’ were used interchangeably with,
and as proxies for, the term ‘‘SDS.’’ All
three terms refer to electronic files that
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
are used to generate SDSs and labels.
Table VI–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
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.149</GPH>
[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 AnalysisHealth.
44172
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
estimated number of electronic
templates (files) that are used to create
SDSs and labels. The derivation of these
estimates is discussed below.
OSHA’s estimate of the total number
of SDSs per NAICS industry, as
presented in Table VI–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
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
18 Technical and analytical support for the PEA
and this FEA was provided by Eastern Research
Group, Inc. (ERG) under Contract No. DOL–OPS–
16–D–0012.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
19 This methodology was not challenged by
commenters during the rulemaking that resulted in
the 2012 final rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 VI–5).
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-5: Labels and SDSs Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS - All Entities
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Petroleum Refineries
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
324122
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
77,731
0
324191
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
687,175
0
185,895
0
324199
30,710,191
562,399
0
0
20,680
30,710,191
130,585
562,399
0
0
20,680
16,995
77,731
0
16,995
701,794
687,175
0
701,794
4,855
185,895
0
4,855
130,585
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
325110
Petrochemical Manufacturing
101,114,143
31,266,546
4,735
101,114,143
0
4,735
325120
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
17,249,456
5,333,882
4,458
17,249,456
0
4,458
325130
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
11,553,319
3,572,521
3,486
11,553,319
325180
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
55,880,535
17,279,396
4,852
55,880,535
0
6,911,758
4,852
325193
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
325199
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical
Manufacturing
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
325211
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
325194
3,486
5,038,676
0
4,835
5,038,676
0
4,835
35,391,818
0
3,478
35,391,818
0
3,478
131,647,121
6,936,348
40,707,962
30,008
114,766
131,647,121
6,936,348
16,283,185
0
0
30,008
114,766
1,628
325212
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
702,464
0
1,628
702,464
0
325220
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
1,343,499
0
196
1,343,499
0
196
325311
4,513,772
0
261
4,513,772
0
261
10,414,581
3,220,400
120
10,414,581
0
120
3,918,250
0
3,924
3,918,250
0
3,924
4,824
20MYR4
325312
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
325314
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
325320
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
325411
325413
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
325414
Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
325510
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
325520
Adhesive Manufacturing
325611
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
325612
325613
325412
24,849,634
7,684,011
4,824
24,849,634
0
20,720,549
6,407,215
5,830
20,720,549
2,562,886
5,830
28,326,493
7,477,924
16,560
28,326,493
2,991,169
16,560
32,276
2,153,945
568,621
32,276
2,153,945
227,448
7,086,482
1,870,764
3,807
7,086,482
748,305
3,807
134,121,161
0
71,805
134,121,161
0
71,805
77,133,673
0
29,880
77,133,673
0
29,880
42,885,953
13,261,207
18,500
42,885,953
0
18,500
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
29,763,617
0
11,037
29,763,617
0
11,037
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
39,128,389
0
5,505
39,128,389
0
5,505
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
324121
324110
44173
ER20MY24.150</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44174
Jkt 262001
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
205,896,455
0
17,926
205,896,455
0
17,926
325910
Printing Ink Manufacturing
19,389,593
0
29,967
19,389,593
0
29,967
325920
Explosives Manufacturing
12,574,669
0
0
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
885,863
0
2,856
4,303
12,574,669
325991
885,863
0
2,856
4,303
27,774,565
0
1,231
27,774,565
0
1,231
124,309,132
0
49,695
124,309,132
0
49,695
325992
325998
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
20MYR4
was constructed using the same
methodology developed in the 2012
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
OSHA’s preliminary estimate of the
number of labels per NAICS industry
PO 00000
325620
ER20MY24.151</GPH>
Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation
339112
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
4,592,056
0
2,990
4,592,056
0
2,990
339113
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
3,959,209
0
3,308
3,959,209
0
3,308
844
339114
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
539,771
0
844
539,771
0
339115
339116
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
0
1,270
Dental Laboratories
680,942
525,011
0
7,146
680,942
525,01 I
0
339910
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
339920
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
339930
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
339940
Office Supplies ( except Paper) Manufacturing
339950
339991
339992
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
339993
0
1,270
7,146
721,223
0
2,391
721,223
0
2,391
1,025,637
0
2,417
1,025,637
0
2,417
167,436
0
648
167,436
0
648
0
0
711
7,498
335,748
1,350,496
0
Sign Manufacturing
335,748
1,350,496
0
711
7,498
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
1,127,469
0
2,634
1,127,469
0
2,634
0
0
819
201
212,998
98,351
0
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
212,998
98,351
0
819
201
302,399
0
365
302,399
0
365
57,814
0
191
57,814
0
191
1,130,371
0
3,838
1,130,371
0
3,838
339994
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
339995
Burial Casket Manufacturing
339999
All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022a (Document ID 0476); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022b (Document ID 0477); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022c (Document ID 0478); BLS, 2023 (Document ID 0482);
U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health.
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
Note: "Affected" labels and SDSs are based on the maximum number affected by any one provision of the rule.
[a] Figures in these columns for two-digit and three-digit NAICS codes represent totals for the entire industry at the specified level and may exceed the total sum of the data for the affected six-digit
NATCS industries that fall within the aggregated levels. This occurs because two-digit and three-digit NATCS codes may encompass some six-digit NATCS industries not covered by OSHA. (For
example, NAICS 21 encompasses Mining, which is not covered by OSHA regulations.)
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-5: Labels and SDSs Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS - All Entities
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
HCS final rule (Document ID 0005, pp.
17634–17643), but with more recent
data.
The steps in the analysis, elaborated
on below, were summarized in the PEA
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. (86 FR 9610)
The label analysis in the PEA began
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).
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 the PEA, the final 2017 CFS
data was not yet available. Therefore,
2012 CFS data was the most recent
information available. OSHA requested
public comments, and received none, on
the estimated percentages for the
transported goods identified as
hazardous non-consumer products in
the preliminary profile. For this FEA,
OSHA has revised the preliminary
percentages of hazardous non-consumer
products to reflect data from the 2017
CFS (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020d,
Document ID 0474), which is the most
recent available.
The CFS-based percentage estimates
are used in conjunction with another
CFS dataset (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020e,
Document ID 0475) 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
The next step in the methodology
estimated the representative weight per
container for a variety of types of
containers (ranging in size from a 3milliliter 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 × 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, and no commenters provided data
that contradicted this approach. 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 nonconsumer hazardous pounds in each
container type were 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 VI–
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44175
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 (2022) 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 VI–5.20
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 are
shown in Column 4 of Table VI–5.
Not every SDS and label, and not
every label on very small containers,
would be affected by the rule. Only
SDSs and labels for certain products
(aerosols, desensitized explosives, and
flammable gases) would be affected by
the new classification criteria. And 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
paragraph (f)(12)(iii), only a product
identifier would be required on 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
20 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 VI–4, the
analysis led to an estimate of the total number of
labels (600,645,446) required by all SCTG Code 20
manufacturers (see Document ID 0481, tab ‘‘Labels
per NAICS’’, cell O11). The percentage of receipts
(30.7 percent) for NAICS 211130 relative to total
receipts for SCTG Code 20 employers (Document ID
0481, tab ‘‘Labels per NAICS’’, cells N11–P11) was
then applied to this total number of labels. The
result, shown in Column 3 in Table VI–5, is an
estimated 184,330,155 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).
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44176
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
information, although the immediate
outer packaging would need to include
the full label. Thus, in addition to the
estimated total number of SDSs, labels,
and labels on very small containers,
Table VI–5 shows the number of each
estimated to be affected by the revised
standard.21
Although OSHA preliminarily
determined that this methodology
remains sound, in the NPRM the agency
invited public comment on the
reasonableness of this methodology for
the current analysis and on its
understanding about the use of
electronic template files to create SDSs
and labels. One commenter, Ameren
Corporation (Ameren), directly
addressed OSHA’s nomenclature for
SDS electronic files and the ability of
stakeholders to understand the agency’s
preliminary methodology for estimating
SDSs and labels, with the comment,
‘‘Ameren agrees with OSHA’s
understanding of electronic template
files to create SDSs and labels’’
(Document ID 0309, p. 5). Another
commenter, Michele Sullivan, noted
that ‘‘every HCS SDS will need to be
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
21 Note that OSHA’s cost estimates for
reclassifying affected chemicals and revising the
corresponding SDSs and labels to achieve
consistency with the reclassification (per 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 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 final rule. They are not
based on the number of labels or SDSs produced or
used. The number of labels and labels affected by
revision in the tables provided represent the total
number produced; that number is provided to
include all relevant information even though it is
not being used in calculating costs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
revised’’ due to the changes in
Appendix D. As shown in Table VI–5,
OSHA already estimates that almost
every SDS will be revised due to the
provisions in the final rule.
Responsible Industry for a Sound
Environment (RISE) and CropLife
America (CropLife) noted that the
labeling requirements of the HCS do not
apply to pesticides that are regulated
under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), but Table VI–5 lists over 23
million labels affected by this revision
for the Pesticide and Other Agricultural
Manufacturing industry. RISE and
CropLife requested clarification on this
apparent conflict (Document ID 0343,
pp. 3–4).
In response to the concerns expressed
by the two trade associations about the
number of pesticide labels affected by
the revised HCS, OSHA notes that the
agency lacks data indicating what
proportion of chemicals produced by
the Pesticide and Other Agricultural
Manufacturing industry fall within
FIFRA’s definition of pesticide, which is
the category of chemicals exempt from
the HCS. The agency has chosen to err
on the side of caution and to the extent
that the preliminary estimate overstates
the actual number of labels affected, any
such differential would only overestimate the costs of the rule. This
assumption has no bearing on the scope
of the HCS and the HCS is clear that
pesticides that meet FIFRA’s definition
are exempt.
Several commenters described the
common practices found within their
industry for updating SDSs and labels,
which support OSHA’s understanding
of the use of electronic templates for
SDSs and labels. The Independent
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Lubricant Manufacturers Association
(ILMA) surveyed their membership on
several of the technical and economic
issues raised in the NPRM. Based on 16
responses to the ILMA survey, all from
the association’s manufacturing
members, ILMA stated that ‘‘[t]he
majority of ILMA members responding
to the survey indicated that they rely on
third-party services to generate SDS and
labels, whether it be software or
contracted work’’ (Document ID 0460,
Att. 1, p. 5).
On the topic of the outsourcing of
SDS software development, the National
Association of Chemical Distributors
(NACD) polled a few of their member
companies on how employers process
SDSs. At least one member company
noted that they outsourced the creation
of their SDSs to a firm that specializes
in that work because ‘‘like many NACD
members, most of whom are small
businesses,’’ their staff do not have time
to do that work (Document ID 0446, p.
2).
The Hach Company (Hach), a
manufacturer of chemical reagents and
instruments for water quality analysis,
indicated during testimony at the public
hearing and in a post-hearing comment
that it used software it purchased from
an outside vendor to create its SDSs
(Document ID 0427, pp. 1–2). Tables VI–
6 and VI–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
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-6: Labels and SDSs Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS - Small Entities
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Petroleum Refineries
2,389,460
0
6,736
2,389,460
0
6,736
247,100
0
25,735
247,100
0
25,735
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
324121
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
324122
324191
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
21,823
21,823
232,410
0
0
9,606
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
541,253
232,410
0
0
541,253
324199
All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
93,122
0
2,455
93,122
0
2,455
325110
Petrochemical Manufacturing
5,169,175
1,598,414
1,485
5,169,175
0
1,485
325120
325130
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
1,404,505
434,301
602
1,404,505
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
4,318,261
1,335,294
2,435
4,318,261
0
0
2,435
20,794,930
6,430,215
2,572,086
3,393
0
3,393
3,247
20,794,930
2,673,757
2,673,757
0
3,247
3,476,938
0
10,715,015
1,551
3,476,938
34,651,718
21,475
34,651,718
0
4,286,006
21,475
1,800,326
344,404
89,108
1,292
1,800,326
344,404
0
89,108
0
0
1,292
433,373
0
148
433,373
0
148
216
74
325180
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
325193
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
20MYR4
325194
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing
325199
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
325211
325212
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
325220
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
325311
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
1,340,177
1,252,542
0
387,312
216
74
1,340,177
1,252,542
0
2,689,237
7,239,361
0
2,238,558
2,274
2,689,237
7,239,361
0
325320
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
325411
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
10,743,725
3,322,178
325412
5,101,262
1,346,684
325312
325314
325413
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
325414
Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
325510
0
3,786
5,312
0
9,606
602
1,551
2,274
3,786
10,743,725
0
1,328,871
13,121
23,368
5,101,262
538,674
13,121
513,013
54,172
23,368
2,637
62,695
1,384,493
146,197
47,257,856
0
2,637
62,695
5,312
513,013
135,430
365,493
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
1,384,493
47,257,856
325520
Adhesive Manufacturing
22,760,134
0
8,160
22,760,134
0
8,160
325611
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
9,288,851
2,872,301
16,515
9,288,851
0
325612
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
17,821,361
0
10,034
17,821,361
0
16,515
10,034
0
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
324110
44177
ER20MY24.152</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44178
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-6: Labels and SDSs Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS - Small Entities
Jkt 262001
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
13,065,722
0
4,078
13,065,722
0
4,078
325620
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
81,849,662
0
17,047
81,849,662
0
17,047
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
325910
Printing Ink Manufacturing
6,852,549
0
10,217
6,852,549
0
10,217
325920
Explosives Manufacturing
2,954,563
0
1,428
2,954,563
0
1,428
325991
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
352,524
0
1,363
352,524
0
1,363
325992
325998
Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
3,544,283
0
0
1,090
3,544,283
18,345
46,760,919
0
0
18,345
0
0
2,489
1,155,424
3,078
1,019,245
0
0
3,078
0
0
810
254,759
848
127,208
0
0
848
0
339112
339113
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
46,760,919
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
1,155,424
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
1,019,245
Sfmt 4725
339114
339115
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
254,759
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
127,208
339116
Dental Laboratories
339910
339920
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
365,067
367,714
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
339930
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
339940
Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
1,090
2,489
810
0
5,756
2,246
616,709
0
0
123,625
0
628
684
232,160
0
684
5,756
2,246
365,067
367,714
616,709
0
0
2,343
123,625
0
628
232,160
0
2,343
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
339950
Sign Manufacturing
1,077,650
0
7,178
1,077,650
0
7,178
339991
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
258,541
0
769
258,541
0
769
339992
115,377
40,981
0
0
792
178
115,377
40,981
0
339993
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
0
792
178
339994
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
142,864
0
265
142,864
0
265
339995
Burial Casket Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
18,605
619,067
0
167
0
0
3,663
18,605
619,067
167
3,663
339999
0
20MYR4
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022a (Document ID 0476); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022b (Document ID 0477); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022c (Document ID 0478); BLS, 2023 (Document ID 0482);
U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health.
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
Note: "Affected" labels and SDSs are based on the maximum number affected by any one provision of the rule.
[a] Figures in these columns for two-digit and three-digit NAICS codes represent totals for the entire industry at the specified level and may exceed the total sum of the data for the affected six-digit
NAICS industries that fall within the aggregated levels. This occurs because two-digit and three-digit NATCS codes may encompass some six-digit NAICS industries not covered by OSHA. (For
example, NATCS 21 encompasses Mining, which is not covered by OSHA regulations.)
ER20MY24.153</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
325613
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-7: Labels and SDSs Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS - Entities with <20 Employees
Jkt 262001
Petroleum Refineries
PO 00000
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
8,813
48,940
0
0
250
8,813
2,440
48,940
0
0
250
2,440
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
324122
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
2,027
0
570
2,027
0
570
324191
324199
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
18,938
25,600
18,938
5,559
340
5,559
0
0
25,600
All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
0
0
325110
Petrochemical Manufacturing
85,646
26,484
0
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
184,472
57,042
80
102
85,646
325120
184,472
0
80
102
325130
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
273,613
84,607
416
273,613
325180
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
892,075
275,848
604
892,075
0
110,339
604
325193
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
85
85
0
133
55,637
390,109
0
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing
55,637
390,109
0
325194
0
133
325199
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
2,114,626
76,844
653,885
1,988
1,760
2,114,626
261,554
0
76,844
0
1,988
1,760
118
325211
340
416
20MYR4
325212
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
21,489
0
118
21,489
0
325220
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
18,486
267,430
0
38
109
18,486
267,430
0
38
0
109
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
88,838
424,715
27,470
10
484
88,838
424,715
0
10
484
325320
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
660,701
204,302
777
660,701
0
777
325411
993,779
329,859
307,297
87,080
1,985
3,320
993,779
329,859
122,919
34,832
1,985
325412
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
3,320
325413
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
29,991
7,917
950
29,991
3,167
950
325414
Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
96,855
25,569
417
96,855
10,228
417
325510
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
7,303,250
0
3,150
7,303,250
0
3,150
325520
Adhesive Manufacturing
3,089,152
3,089,152
0
1,080
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
992,956
0
307,042
1,080
325611
2,320
992,956
0
2,320
1,984,097
0
592
1,984,097
0
592
759,097
0
295
759,097
0
295
7,716,412
0
1,396
7,716,412
0
1,396
325311
325312
325314
325612
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
325613
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
325620
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
0
0
0
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
324110
324121
44179
ER20MY24.154</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44180
Jkt 262001
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
20MYR4
industries based on Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) (2016) SOI Tax Stats—
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
Table VI–8 shows average estimated
profit rates for affected NAICS
PO 00000
325910
Printing Ink Manufactnring
1,020,465
0
495
1,020,465
0
325920
Explosives Manufactnring
212,834
0
36
212,834
0
36
325991
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
0
368
368
Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufactnring
0
366
35,539
599,733
0
325992
35,539
599,733
0
366
325998
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufactnring
6,249,739
0
3,600
6,249,739
0
3,600
339112
339113
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
100,873
163,924
0
0
689
1,149
100,873
163,924
0
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
0
689
1,149
339114
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
30,531
0
447
30,531
0
447
339115
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
22,258
0
240
22,258
0
240
339116
Dental Laboratories
165,297
0
4,796
165,297
0
4,796
339910
339920
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
116,486
0
0
97,995
0
1,797
1,280
116,486
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
97,995
0
1,797
1,280
339930
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufactnring
35,995
0
442
35,995
0
442
339940
Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
23,646
291,071
0
23,646
291,071
0
495
339950
Sign Manufacturing
0
329
4,931
0
329
4,931
339991
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
42,201
0
269
42,201
0
269
339992
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
25,017
0
495
25,017
0
495
339993
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
4,456
0
71
4,456
0
71
339994
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
10,691
0
92
10,691
0
92
339995
Burial Casket Manufacturing
4,187
0
60
4,187
0
60
339999
All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
180,757
0
2,555
180,757
0
2,555
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022a (Document ID 0476); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022b (Document ID 0477); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022c (Document ID 0478); BLS, 2023 (Document ID 0482);
U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health.
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
Note: "Affected" labels and SDSs are based on the maximum number affected by any one provision of the rule.
[a] Figures in these columns for two-digit and three-digit NAICS codes represent totals for the entire industry at the specified level and may exceed the total sum of the data for the affected six-digit
NAICS industries that fall within the aggregated levels. This occurs because two-digit and three-digit NAICS codes may encompass some six-digit NAICS industries not covered by OSHA. (For
example, NAICS 21 encompasses Mining, which is not covered by OSHA regulations.)
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
VerDate Sep<11>2014
ER20MY24.155</GPH>
Table VI-7: Labels and SDSs Affected by OSHA's Revisions to the HCS - Entities with <20 Employees
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Corporation Source Book profit data for
each of the 14 years 2000–2013. OSHA’s
final estimate of average profit rates by
six-digit NAICS industry replicate the
agency’s preliminary estimate of profit
rates 22 (Document ID 0004).
Table VI–9 presents OSHA’s final
estimates of total revenues and total
profits by NAICS industry code for all
entities, small entities, and very small
entities affected by the revised standard
rule. For this FEA, OSHA extrapolated
the receipts reported in the 2017
Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) by
NAICS industry to 2022 dollars using
the PEA, OSHA requested public comment
on the estimated profit rates presented in Table VI–
8. OSHA received no comments addressing the
estimates proposed in Table VI–8; therefore, in this
FEA Table VI–8 remains unchanged from its
preliminary appearance.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
22 In
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
the Bureau of Economic Advisors (BEA)
GDP deflator. To assign revenue for
2022 at the six-digit NAICS level, OSHA
benchmarked per-establishment revenue
to per-establishment payroll based on
2017 SUSB revenue-payroll ratios and
projected to 2022 dollars using the BEA
GDP deflator.
OSHA calculated total profits per
NAICS industry by multiplying the
average profit rate (NAICS industry)
(Document ID 0004) by total revenues
(NAICS industry) (U.S. Census Bureau,
2022a, Document ID 0476; U.S. Census
Bureau, 2022b, Document ID 0477).
Table VI–10 shows, by NAICS
industry code, OSHA’s best estimates of
the percentage of establishments or
entities affected for each element of the
proposed revisions to the HCS that is
projected to result in costs (see Section
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44181
VI.F., Compliance Costs and Cost
Savings, in this FEA for an explanation
of the cost categories presented in this
table).23
Finally, Table VI–11 summarizes key
estimates for the combined covered
industries, labels, and SDSs affected by
the final rule. The data in this table are
drawn from profile tables presented
earlier in this FEA and summarize both
the magnitude of the global profile
metrics (within the scope of OSHA
jurisdiction) and the magnitude of
affected inputs critical to the agency’s
analysis of the final economic impacts.
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
23 Note that the provisions that are projected to
result in cost savings are not included in Table VI–
10 because, for those provisions, OSHA estimates
a percentage of product, rather than a percentage of
entities or establishments, that would be affected.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44182
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-8: Estimated Profit Rates for Industries Affected by the Final Rule<•>
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Petroleum Refineries
8.77%
7.99%
3.83%
6.49%
7.96%
8.57%
7.99%
7.35%
6.22%
6.59%
6.94%
5.20%
6.07%
5.39%
6.81%
Asphalt Paving Mixture aod Block Maoufacturing
8.77%
7.99%
3.83%
6.49%
7.96%
8.57%
7.99%
7.35%
6.22%
7.63%
7.81%
5.47%
4.08%
6.40%
6.90%
324122
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
8.77%
7.99%
3.83%
6.49%
7.96%
8.57%
7.99%
7.35%
6.22%
7.63%
7.81%
5.47%
4.08%
6.40%
6.90%
324191
Petroleum Lubricating Oil aod Grease Maoufactoring
8.77%
7.99%
3.83%
6.49%
7.96%
8.57%
7.99%
7.35%
6.22%
6.59%
6.95%
5.20%
6.05%
5.39%
6.81%
324199
All Other Petroleum aod Coal Products Maoufactoring
8.77%
7.99%
3.83%
6.49%
7.96%
8.57%
7.99%
7.35%
6.22%
6.59%
6.95%
5.20%
6.05%
5.39%
6.81%
Frm 00040
325110
Petrochemical Manufacturing
1.93%
-1.88%
-0.92%
3.08%
1.16%
6.94%
5.82%
4.63%
2.18%
2.25%
5.76%
4.31%
5.71%
6.82%
3.41%
325120
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
1.93%
-1.88%
-0.92%
3.08%
1.16%
6.94%
5.82%
4.63%
2.18%
2.25%
5.76%
4.31%
5.71%
6.82%
3.41%
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
325130
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufactoring
1.93%
-1.88%
-0.92%
3.08%
1.16%
6.94%
5.82%
4.63%
2.18%
2.25%
5.76%
4.31%
5.71%
6.82%
3.41%
325180
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Maoufacturing
1.93%
-1.88%
-0.92%
3.08%
1.16%
6.94%
5.82%
4.63%
2.18%
2.25%
5.76%
4.31%
5.71%
6.82%
3.41%
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
1.93%
-1.88%
-0.92%
3.08%
1.16%
6.94%
5.82%
4.63%
2.18%
2.25%
5.76%
4.31%
5.71%
6.82%
3.41%
1.93%
-1.88%
-0.92%
3.08%
1.16%
6.94%
5.82%
4.63%
2.18%
2.25%
5.76%
4.31%
5.71%
6.82%
3.41%
325199
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, aod Gum aod Wood Chemical
Maoufactoring
All Other Basic Orgaoic Chemical Manufacturing
1.93%
-1.88%
-0.92%
3.08%
1.16%
6.94%
5.82%
4.63%
2.18%
2.25%
5.76%
4.31%
5.71%
6.82%
3.41%
325211
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
4.50%
10.28%
0.92%
1.98%
3.16%
23.55%
7.83%
7.23%
2.08%
-0.22%
4.91%
3.43%
4.83%
8.68%
5.94%
325212
Synthetic Rubber Maoufacturing
4.50%
10.28%
0.92%
1.98%
3.16%
23.55%
7.83%
7.23%
2.08%
-0.22%
4.91%
3.43%
4.83%
8.68%
5.94%
4.50%
10.28%
0.92%
1.98%
3.16%
23.55%
7.83%
7.23%
2.08%
-0.22%
4.91%
3.43%
4.83%
8.68%
5.94%
7.17%
6.83%
7.20%
8.32%
7.44%
20.64%
9.91%
9.08%
8.59%
13.43%
9.93%
8.63%
9.32%
9.51%
9.71%
325193
325194
20MYR4
325311
Artificial aod Synthetic Fibers and Filaments
Maoufactoring
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Maoufactoring
325312
Phosphatic Fertilizer Maoufacturing
7.17%
6.83%
7.20%
8.32%
7.44%
20.64%
9.91%
9.08%
8.59%
13.43%
9.93%
8.63%
9.32%
9.51%
9.71%
325314
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufactoring
7.17%
6.83%
7.20%
8.32%
7.44%
20.64%
9.91%
9.08%
8.59%
13.43%
9.93%
8.63%
9.32%
9.51%
9.71%
325320
Pesticide aod Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
7.17%
6.83%
7.20%
8.32%
7.44%
20.64%
9.91%
9.08%
8.59%
13.43%
9.93%
8.63%
9.32%
9.51%
9.71%
325411
Medicinal aod Botaoical Maoufactoring
11.96% 11.48% 11.32% 12.05% 11.84% 32.22% 14.50% 13.01% 12.42%
19.61%
12.08% 10.93% 10.88%
9.89%
13.87%
325220
325412
Pharmaceutical Preparation Maoufacturing
11.96% 11.48% 11.32% 12.05% 11.84% 32.22% 14.50% 13.01% 12.42%
19.61%
12.08% 10.93% 10.88%
9.89%
13.87%
325413
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substaoce Manufacturing
11.96% 11.48% 11.32% 12.05% 11.84% 32.22% 14.50% 13.01% 12.42%
19.61%
12.08% 10.93% 10.88%
9.89%
13.87%
325414
Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufactoring
11.96% 11.48% 11.32% 12.05% 11.84% 32.22% 14.50% 13.01% 12.42%
19.61%
12.08% 10.93% 10.88%
9.89%
13.87%
325510
Paint aod Coating Maoufactoring
3.64%
3.69%
3.79%
4.48%
4.85%
5.45%
5.11%
5.15%
2.66%
3.28%
4.01%
3.90%
3.92%
4.48%
4.17%
325520
Adhesive Manufacturing
3.64%
3.69%
3.79%
4.48%
4.85%
5.45%
5.11%
5.15%
2.66%
3.28%
4.01%
3.90%
3.92%
4.48%
325611
Soap and Other Detergent Maoufactoring
6.88%
7.60%
9.62%
9.68%
7.89%
10.60% 10.11%
8.42%
14.61%
19.77%
19.03% 16.21% 15.78% 16.61%
12.34%
325612
Polish aod Other Sanitation Good Manufactoring
6.88%
7.60%
9.62%
9.68%
7.89%
10.60% 10.11%
8.42%
14.61%
19.77%
19.03% 16.21% 15.78% 16.61%
12.34%
325613
Surface Active Agent Maoufactoring
6.88%
7.60%
9.62%
9.68%
7.89%
10.60% 10.11%
8.42%
14.61%
19.77%
19.03% 16.21% 15.78% 16.61%
12.34%
325620
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
6.88%
7.60%
9.62%
9.68%
7.89%
10.60% 10.11%
8.42%
14.61%
19.77%
19.03% 16.21% 15.78% 16.61%
12.34%
4.17%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
ER20MY24.156</GPH>
324110
324121
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-8: Estimated Profit Rates for Industries Affected by the Final Rule<•)
Jkt 262001
Printing Ink Manufacturing
3.19%1 2.02%1
6.33%1 6.06%
5.89% I 5.83% I 8.92% I 9.86% I 9.81%
5.07%
325920
Explosives Manufacturing
3.19% I 2.02% I 3.57% I 0.86% I 1.42% I 5.03% I 2.20% I 6.33% I 6.06%
5.89% I 5.83% I 8.92% I 9.86% I 9.81%
5.07%
325991
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
3.19% I 2.02% I 3.57% I 0.86% I 1.42% I 5.03% I 2.20% I 6.33% I 6.06%
5.89% I 5.83% I 8.92% I 9.86% I 9.81%
5.07%
Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical
Manufacturin
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation
Manufacturi
3.19% I 2.02% I 3.57% I 0.86% I 1.42% I 5.03% I 2.20% I 6.33% I 6.06%
5.89% I 5.83% I 8.92% I 9.86% I 9.81%
3.19% I 2.02% I 3.57% I 0.86% I 1.42% I 5.03% I 2.20% I 6.33% I 6.06%
5.89% I 5.83% I 8.92% I 9.86% I 9.81%
325992
325998
Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
326111
PO 00000
Frm 00041
326121
Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated)
Manufacturin
Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging)
Manufacturin
Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Manufacturing
326122
Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
326112
326113
Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and
Shape Manufacturin
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
326130
326140
2.57%
2.49%
I 1.24% I 1.57% I 1.50% I 2.51% I 3.62% I 2.17% I 2.74% I 1.24%
2.32%
I 2.84% I 3.00% I 4.68% I 4.01%
2.57%
2.49%
I 1.24% I 1.57% I 1.50% I 2.51% I 3.62% I 2.17% I 2.74% I 1.24%
2.32%
I 2.84% I 3.00% I 4.68% I 4.01%
2.57%
2.49%
I 1.24% I 1.57% I 1.50% I 2.51% I 3.62% I 2.17% I 2.74% I 1.24%
I 1.24% I 1.57% I 1.50% I 2.51% I 3.62% I 2.17% I 2.74% I 1.24%
2.32%
2.32%
I 2.84% I 3.00% I 4.68% I 4.01%
I 2.84% I 3.00% I 4.68% I 4.01%
2.57%
2.49%
2.49%
I 1.24% I 1.57% I 1.50% I 2.51% I 3.62% I 2.17% I 2.74% I 1.24%
2.32%
I 2.84% I 3.00% I 4.68% I 4.01%
2.57%
2.49%
I 1.24% I 1.57% I 1.50% I 2.51% I 3.62% I 2.17% I 2.74% I 1.24%
2.32%
I 2.84% I 3.00% I 4.68% I 4.01%
2.57%
2.49%
I 1.24% I 1.57% I 1.50% I 2.51% I 3.62% I 2.17% I 2.74% I 1.24%
2.32%
I 2.84% I 3.00% I 4.68% I 4.01%
2.57%
2.49%
I 1.24%
I 1.24%
I 1.24%
I -0.88%
I -0.88%
I -0.88%
I -0.88%
I -0.88%
I 1.24%
I 1.24%
I 1.24%
I -2.00%
I -2.00%
I -2.00%
I -2.00%
I -2.00%
2.32%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.01%
2.57%
4.01%
2.57%
4.01%
2.57%
4.01%
1.69%
4.01%
1.69%
4.01%
1.69%
4.01%
1.69%
4.01%
1.69%
1.83%
1.77%
1.83%
1.77%
Sfmt 4725
Fmt 4701
I 2.84% I 3.00% I 4.68% I 4.01%
Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
2.49%
326199
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
2.49%
326211
Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)
1.61%
Tire Retreading
1.61%
326220
Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing
1.61%
326291
Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use
1.61%
326299
All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
1.61%
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
327110
I
I Clay
20MYR4
327211
I
Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
5.07%
2.32%
326191
327120
5.07%
I 1.24% I 1.57% I 1.50% I 2.51% I 3.62% I 2.17% I 2.74% I 1.24%
326160
326212
1.42%1 5.03%1 2.20%1
2.49%
Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene)
Manufacturin
Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
326150
3.57%1 0.86%1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.57%
1.57%
1.57%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
o.58%
o.58%
o.58%
o.58%
o.58%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.51%
2.51%
2.51%
1.48%
1.48%
1.48%
1.48%
1.48%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.62%
3.62%
3.62%
1.82%
1.82%
1.82%
1.82%
1.82%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.17%
2.17%
2.17%
1.45%
1.45%
1.45%
1.45%
1.45%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.74%
2.74%
2.74%
4.41%
4.41%
4.41%
4.41%
4.41%
2.32%
2.32%
1.21%
1.21%
1.21%
1.21%
1.21%
2.84%
2.84%
2.84%
1.94%
1.94%
1.94%
1.94%
1.94%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.39%
3.39%
3.39%
3.39%
3.39%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.68%
4.68%
4.68%
4.68%
4.68%
4.68%
4.68%
4.68%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.57%
Flat Glass Manufacturing
I 0.88% I -0.38% I -0.03% I 3.40% I 6.29% I -2.15% I -5.12% I 2.81%
I 0.88% I -0.38% I -0.03% I 3.40% I 6.29% I -2.15% I -5.12% I 2.81%
1.62% I 2.63% I 0.89% I 0.20% I -0.34% I 0.22% I 2.12% I 8.88% I 0.22%
1.62%
I 2.63% I 0.89% I 0.20% I -0.34% I 0.22% I 2.12% I 8.88% I 0.22%
1.81%
7.03%
I 4.75% I 4.09% I 5.51%
2.83%
327213
Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware
Manufacturin
Glass Container Manufacturing
1.62%
1.81%
7.03%
2.83%
Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass
1.62%
1.81%
7.03%
5.51%
2.83%
-7.44%
I -5.71%
I -5.71%
I -5.71%
I -5.71%
I -5.71%
I 4.75%
I 4.75%
I -4.26%
I -4.26%
I -4.26%
I -4.26%
I -4.26%
5.51%
327215
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.99%
1.47%
1.99%
1.47%
1.99%
1.47%
1.99%
1.47%
1.99%
1.47%
327212
Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
327310
I Cement
Manufacturing
327320
I
327331
I Concrete
Block and Brick Manufacturing
6.22%
327332
I Concrete
Pipe Manufacturing
6.22%
327390
I Other
Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
Concrete Product Manufacturing
6.22%
6.22%
6.22%
2.63%
2.63%
3.38%
3.38%
3.38%
3.38%
3.38%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.89%
0.89%
2.77%
2.77%
2.77%
2.77%
2.77%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.20%
0.20%
3.05%
3.05%
3.05%
3.05%
3.05%
I -0.34%
I -0.34%
I 5.23%
I 5.23%
I 5.23%
I 5.23%
I 5.23%
I 0.22% I
I 0.22% I
110.26% I
110.26% I
110.26% I
110.26% I
1 I0.26% I
2.12%
2.12%
4.23%
4.23%
4.23%
4.23%
4.23%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.88%
8.88%
4.70%
4.70%
4.70%
4.70%
4.70%
I 0.22%
I 0.22%
I -2.69%
I -2.69%
I -2.69%
I -2.69%
I -2.69%
I 1.09% I 3.50% I 3.50% I 4.62% I 1.57%
I 1.09% I 3.50% I 3.50% I 4.62% I 1.57%
1.81% I 7.03% I 4.75% I 4.09% I 5.51% I 2.83%
I
I
I
I
I
-7.44%
-7.44%
-7.44%
-7.44%
I 4.09%
I 4.09%
I -1.15%
I -1.15%
I -1.15%
I -1.15%
I -1.15%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
325910
44183
ER20MY24.157</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44184
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-8: Estimated Profit Rates for Industries Affected by the Final Rule<•>
3.98%
I
2.68%
1.71%
1.82%
I
3.65%
I
7.55%
I
2.64%
I
3.88%
I
-1.15%
I
-3.69%
I
-1.09%
I
-0.31%
I
1.12%
I
3.41%
1.87%
3.98%
I
2.68%
1.71%
1.82%
I
3.65%
I
7.55%
I
2.64%
I
3.88%
I
-1.15%
I
-3.69%
I
-1.09%
I
-0.31%
I
1.12%
I
3.41%
1.87%
327910
Abrasive Product Manufacturing
3.98%
I
2.68%
1.71%
1.82%
I
3.65%
I
7.55%
I
2.64%
I
3.88%
I
-1.15%
I
-3.69%
I
-1.09%
I
-0.31%
I
1.12%
I
3.41%
1.87%
327991
Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing
3.98%
I
2.68%
1.71%
1.82%
I
3.65%
I
7.55%
I
2.64%
I
3.88%
I
-1.15%
I
-3.69%
I
-1.09%
I
-0.31%
I
1.12%
I
3.41%
1.87%
327992
Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing
3.98%
I
2.68%
1.71%
1.82%
I
3.65%
I
7.55%
I
2.64%
I
3.88%
I
-1.15%
I
-3.69%
I
-1.09%
I
-0.31%
I
1.12%
I
3.41%
1.87%
327993
Mineral Wool Manufacturing
3.98%
I
2.68%
1.71%
1.82%
I
3.65%
I
7.55%
I
2.64%
I
3.88%
I
-1.15%
I
-3.69%
I
-1.09%
I
-0.31%
I
1.12%
I
3.41%
1.87%
3.98%
I
2.68%
1.71%
1.82%
I
3.65%
I
7.55%
I
2.64%
I
3.88%
I
-1.15%
I
-3.69%
I
-1.09%
I
-0.31%
I
1.12%
I
3.41%
1.87%
PO 00000
331110
-1.23%
I
-6.39%
I
-2.58%
I
-3.92%
I
7.34%
I
7.74%
I
8.96%
I
6.43%
I
5.80%
I
-6.26%
I
-0.65%
I
0.55%
I
1.79%
I
-0.23%
0.56%
I
-2.50%
I
-1.32%
I
-1.77%
I
5.58%
I
6.44%
I
7.55%
I
7.04%
I
4.38%
-3.37%
1.14%
1.77%
I
2.36%
1.29%
2.08%
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.158</GPH>
All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product
327999
I Iron
and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
I
1.24%
331221
Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from
Purchased Steel
Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
0.56%
I
-2.50%
I
-1.32%
I
-1.77%
I
5.58%
I
6.44%
I
7.55%
I
7.04%
I
4.38%
-3.37%
1.14%
1.77%
I
2.36%
1.29%
2.08%
331222
Steel Wire Drawing
0.56%
I
-2.50%
I
-1.32%
I
-1.77%
I
5.58%
I
6.44%
I
7.55%
I
7.04%
I
4.38%
-3.37%
1.14%
1.77%
I
2.36%
1.29%
2.08%
331313
331314
Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production
2.50%
I
0.74%
I
-0.16%
I
1.39%
I
3.72%
I
4.88%
I
6.17%
I
7.76%
I
4.38%
-3.37%
1.14%
1.77%
I
2.36%
1.29%
I
Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
2.50%
I
0.74%
I
-0.16%
I
1.39%
I
3.72%
I
4.88%
I
6.17%
I
7.76%
I
4.38%
I
-3.37%
I
1.14%
I
1.77%
I
2.36%
I
1.29%
I
2.47%
331315
I Aluminum
2.50%
I
0.74%
I
-0.16%
I
1.39%
I
3.72%
I
4.88%
I
6.17%
I
7.76%
I
1.81%
I
-1.82%
I
2.25%
I
2.21%
I
1.33%
I
1.12%
I
2.42%
331318
I Other
2.50%
I
0.74%
I
-0.16%
I
1.39%
I
3.72%
I
4.88%
I
6.17%
I
7.76%
I
4.38%
I
-3.37%
I
1.14%
I
1.77%
I
2.36%
I
1.29%
I
2.47%
o.56%
I
-2.50%
I
-1.32%
I
-1.77%
I
5.58%
6.44%
7.55%
7.04%
4.38%
-3.37%
1.14%
1.77%
2.36%
1.29%
2.08%
331210
Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and
Refmin
Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
331410
331420
2.47%
0.56%
I
-2.50%
I
-1.32%
I
-1.77%
I
5.58%
6.44%
7.55%
7.04%
4.38%
-3.37%
1.14%
1.77%
2.36%
1.29%
2.08%
0.56%
I
-2.50%
I
-1.32%
I
-1.77%
I
5.58%
6.44%
7.55%
7.04%
4.38%
-3.37%
1.14%
1.77%
2.36%
1.29%
2.08%
0.56%
I
-2.50%
I
-1.32%
I
-1.77%
I
5.58%
6.44%
7.55%
7.04%
4.38%
-3.37%
1.14%
1.77%
2.36%
1.29%
2.08%
331511
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling,
Drawing2 and Extrudin
Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous
Metal (except Copper and Aluminum
I Iron Foundries
1.03%
I
1.46%
I
0.31%
I
-0.44%
I
1.65%
I
4.95%
I
5.78%
I
7.11%
I
6.39%
I
3.99%
I
7.09%
I
7.57%
I
9.76%
I
9.48%
I
4.72%
331512
I
Steel InvestmentFoundries
1.03%
I
1.46%
I
0.31%
I
-0.44%
I
1.65%
I
4.95%
I
5.78%
I
7.11%
I
6.39%
I
3.99%
I
7.09%
I
7.57%
I
9.76%
I
9.48%
I
4.72%
331513
I
Steel Foundries (except Investment)
1.03%
I
1.46%
I
0.31%
I
-0.44%
I
1.65%
I
4.95%
I
5.78%
I
7.11%
I
6.39%
I
3.99%
I
7.09%
I
7.57%
I
9.76%
I
9.48%
I
4.72%
331523
I Nonferrous
Metal Die-Casting Foundries
1.03%
I
1.46%
I
0.31%
I
-0.44%
I
1.65%
I
4.95%
I
5.78%
I
7.11%
I
6.39%
I
3.99%
I
7.09%
I
7.57%
I
9.76%
I
9.48%
I
4.72%
331524
I Aluminum
Foundries (except Die-Casting)
1.03%
I
1.46%
I
0.31%
I
-0.44%
I
1.65%
I
4.95%
I
5.78%
I
7.11%
I
6.39%
I
3.99%
I
7.09%
I
7.57%
I
9.76%
I
9.48%
I
4.72%
331529
I Other Nonferrous
1.03%
I
1.46%
I
0.31%
I
-0.44%
I
1.65%
I
4.95%
I
5.78%
I
7.11%
I
6.39%
I
3.99%
I
7.09%
I
7.57%
I
9.76%
I
9.48%
I
4.72%
331491
331492
Metal Foundries (except Die-Casting)
339112
I
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
5.23%
I
4.45%
I
5.07%
I
3.98%
I
6.14% 115.65% 111.07%
I
7.53%
I
5.63%
I
7.65%
I
7.65%
I
7.72%
I
7.40%
I
7.48%
I
7.33%
339113
I
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
5.23%
I
4.45%
I
5.07%
I
3.98%
I
6.14% 115.65% I I!.07%
I
7.53%
I
5.63%
I
7.65%
I
7.65%
I
7.72%
I
7.40%
I
7.48%
I
7.33%
339114
I
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
5.23%
I
4.45%
I
5.07%
I
3.98%
I
6.14% 115.65% 111.07%
I
7.53%
I
5.63%
I
7.65%
I
7.65%
I
7.72%
I
7.40%
I
7.48%
I
7.33%
339115
I Ophthalmic
5.23%
I
4.45%
I
5.07%
I
3.98%
I
6.14%
15.65% I I!.07%
I
7.53%
I
5.63%
I
7.65%
I
7.65%
I
7.72%
I
7.40%
I
7.48%
I
7.33%
339116
I Dental Laboratories
5.23%
I
4.45%
I
5.07%
I
3.98%
I
6.14% 115.65% 111.07%
I
7.53%
I
5.63%
I
7.65%
I
7.65%
I
7.72%
I
7.40%
I
7.48%
I
7.33%
339910
I
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
3.26%
I
1.81%
I
2.91%
I
3.05%
I
3.19%
I
5.11%
I
5.41%
I
4.26%
I
3.63%
I
2.80%
I
4.68%
I
4.51%
I
6.37%
I
5.47%
I
4.03%
339920
I
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
3.26%
I
1.81%
I
2.91%
I
3.05%
I
3.19%
I
5.11%
I
5.41%
I
4.26%
I
3.63%
I
2.80%
I
4.68%
I
4.51%
I
6.37%
I
5.47%
I
4.03%
339930
I
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
3.26%
I
1.81%
I
2.91%
I
3.05%
I
3.19%
I
5.11%
I
5.41%
I
4.26%
I
3.63%
I
2.80%
I
4.68%
I
4.51%
I
6.37%
I
5.47%
I
4.03%
Goods Manufacturing
I
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Lime Manufacturing
Gypsum Product Manufacturing
Jkt 262001
21:23 May 17, 2024
327410
327420
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
3.26%
1.81%
2.91%
3.05%
3.19%
5.11%
5.41%
4.26%
3.63%
2.80%
4.68%
4.51%
6.37%
5.47%
4.03%
Sign Manufacturing
3.26%
1.81%
2.91%
3.05%
3.19%
5.11%
5.41%
4.26%
3.63%
2.80%
4.68%
4.51%
6.37%
5.47%
4.03%
339991
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
3.26%
1.81%
2.91%
3.05%
3.19%
5.11%
5.41%
4.26%
3.63%
2.80%
4.68%
4.51%
6.37%
5.47%
4.03%
339992
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
3.26%
1.81%
2.91%
3.05%
3.19%
5.11%
5.41%
4.26%
3.63%
2.80%
4.68%
4.51%
6.37%
5.47%
4.03%
339993
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
3.26%
1.81%
2.91%
3.05%
3.19%
5.11%
5.41%
4.26%
3.63%
2.80%
4.68%
4.51%
6.37%
5.47%
4.03%
339994
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
3.26%
1.81%
2.91%
3.05%
3.19%
5.11%
5.41%
4.26%
3.63%
2.80%
4.68%
4.51%
6.37%
5.47%
4.03%
339995
Burial Casket Manufacturing
3.26%
1.81%
2.91%
3.05%
3.19%
5.11%
5.41%
4.26%
3.63%
2.80%
4.68%
4.51%
6.37%
5.47%
4.03%
339999
All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
3.26%
1.81%
2.91%
3.05%
3.19%
5.11%
5.41%
4.26%
3.63%
2.80%
4.68%
4.51%
6.37%
5.47%
4.03%
1.82%
2.54%
3.73%
3.93%
3.20%
3.22%
3.47%
3.64%
2.98%
3.55%
4.02%
3.68%
4.33%
4.48%
3.47%
2.58%
1.52%
2.11%
2.52%
2.21%
3.62%
3.28%
3.81%
3.37%
3.58%
3.30%
3.68%
3.73%
3.46%
3.05%
3.05%
Fmt 4701
339940
339950
Sfmt 4725
424210
Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
424690
Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant
Wholesalers
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
424710
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
424610
424910
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers
(exceot Bulk Stations and Terminals)
Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424950
Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424720
20MYR4
2.58%
1.52%
2.11%
2.52%
2.21%
3.62%
3.28%
3.81%
3.37%
3.58%
3.30%
3.68%
3.73%
3.46%
0.98%
0.42%
0.28%
1.18%
1.86%
2.54%
2.07%
2.01%
1.10%
0.82%
0.11%
-0.44%
0.46%
0.10%
0.96%
0.98%
0.42%
0.28%
1.18%
1.86%
2.54%
2.07%
2.01%
1.10%
0.82%
0.11%
-0.44%
0.46%
0.10%
0.96%
1.52%
1.36%
1.68%
2.63%
2.74%
2.98%
2.31%
1.99%
2.12%
2.37%
4.76%
4.21%
4.19%
3.09%
2.71%
1.52%
1.36%
1.68%
2.63%
2.74%
2.98%
2.31%
1.99%
2.12%
2.47%
2.78%
2.23%
2.94%
2.76%
2.32%
2.78%
2.23%
2.94%
2.76%
2.32%
Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant
1.52% 1.36% 1.68% 2.63% 2.74% 2.98% 2.31% 1.99% 2.12%
2.47%
Wholesalers
(a) (Net Income (less Deficit) from IRS Table 1 [Returns with and without Net Income]/ Total Receipts from IRS Table 1 [Returns with and without Net Income]).
Note: IRS profit data are available at varying NAICS levels; Where an estimate was not available OSHA used the next-least granular NAICS with data available.
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health based on IRS, 2016, Document ID 0004.
424990
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-8: Estimated Profit Rates for Industries Affected by the Final Rule<•)
44185
ER20MY24.159</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44186
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-9: Estimated Total Revenues and Profits for Industries Affected by the Revisions to the HCS, by Establishment Size
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Petroleum Refineries
$564,989,119,296
$38,482,646,505
$43,959,961,688
$2,994,209,283
$162,140,346
$11,043,734
324121
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
$16,051,429,566
$1,107,071,965
$7,052,481,538
$486,411,791
$1,396,799,347
$96,337,675
324122
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Mfg.
$13,011,486,147
$897,406,146
$3,653,060,342
$251,952,680
$339,283,941
$23,400,516
324191
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Mfg.
$19,612,657,227
$1,336,005,706
$6,633,215,757
$451,851,781
$540,523,482
$36,820,225
324199
All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Mfg.
$5,305,641,530
$361,418,000
$2,657,788,167
$181,047,377
$158,652,770
$10,807,358
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
325110
Petrochemical Manufacturing
$71,573,798,420
$2,442,253,916
$3,659,008,422
$124,853,338
$60,624,988
$2,068,657
325120
325130
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
$416,633,613
$279,052,339
$994,180,801
$3,056,687,652
$33,923,615
$104,300,841
$130,578,433
$193,677,160
$4,455,621
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
$12,210,053,190
$8,178,034,130
325180
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
$39,555,120,764
$631,456,804
$21,546,682
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
$36,969,480,194
$14,719,722,613
$19,617,730,458
$502,269,000
325193
$1,349,706,886
$1,261,479,197
$669,399,698
$408,219,776
$13,929,348
$8,235,635,343
$281,017,818
$809,079,434
$27,607,553
$90,777,978
$3,097,542
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood
Chemical Manufacturing
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
325212
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
325194
325199
$6,608,687
$24,528,270,906
$836,958,035
$1,496,841,354
$51,075,488
$6,652,894,083
$29,067,585,548
$1,726,755,743
$1,240,697,602
$73,703,463
$11,341,788,771
$673,757,332
$5,560,652,947
$330,329,789
$346,949,549
$20,610,488
$9,438,755,096
$560,707,890
$3,044,666,867
$180,867,998
$129,870,134
$7,714,917
$7,516,577,865
$7,371,977,155
$730,224,121
$2,231,734,699
$216,809,636
$445,338,390
$716,176,381
$886,613,999
$86,133,203
$62,883,763
$43,263,948
$6,109,062
$6,524,881,780
325314
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
325320
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Mfg.
$17,589,850,557
$633,882,353
$1,708,827,260
$4,478,262,789
$5,124,392,930
$435,056,427
20MYR4
$3,179,730,222
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
$93,186,612,758
$111,992,427,793
325211
$497,826,988
$707,258,894
$467,677,961
325411
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
$14,667,072,169
$2,034,425,026
$7,604,961,980
$1,054,861,174
$703,448,129
$97,573,153
325412
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
$189,438,629,432
$14,404,900,211
$475,885,245
$2,205,989,708
$200,568,005
$305,986,131
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
$34,115,627,906
$3,430,867,757
$4,732,075,112
325413
$26,276,456,821
$1,998,059,950
325220
325311
325312
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
$68,709,127
$45,434,203
$27,820,179
$47,392,153,058
$6,573,621,585
$9,259,049,356
$1,284,294,610
$647,737,915
$89,845,758
325510
Biological Product (except Diagnostic)
Manufacturing
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
$31,466,389,652
$1,312,642,728
$11,087,244,588
$462,512,260
$1,713,427,745
$71,476,852
325520
Adhesive Manufacturing
$18,096,459,850
$754,906,638
$5,339,793,027
$222,753,248
$724,751,206
$30,233,510
325611
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
$3,747,210,330
$6,575,127,168
$811,624,216
$702,865,750
325612
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
$30,356,886,805
$6,982,891,985
$861,958,117
$4,181,099,162
$516,108,851
$465,492,370
$86,760,735
$57,459,707
325414
ER20MY24.160</GPH>
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments
Manufacturing
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
324110
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-9: Estimated Total Revenues and Profits for Industries Affected by the Revisions to the HCS, by Establishment Size
Jkt 262001
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
325620
325910
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
325920
325991
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
325992
PO 00000
326111
Frm 00045
326112
326113
Fmt 4701
326121
326122
326130
Sfmt 4725
326140
326150
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
326160
$9,179,976,693
$1,133,163,085
$3,065,370,876
$378,384,960
$178,093,078
$21,983,553
$5,962,787,330
$19,202,886,031
$2,370,376,559
$1,810,360,235
$223,468,257
Printing Ink Manufacturing
$48,305,711,210
$4,549,024,893
$230,691,977
$1,607,687,931
$81,529,716
$239,413,089
$12,141,213
Explosives Manufacturing
$2,950,164,188
$149,609,911
$14,302,910,074
$725,334,919
$693,174,902
$5,691,757,644
$35,152,564
$288,642,699
$49,933,397
$573,806,381
$29,099,100
$6,516,237,026
$330,454,029
$831,530,162
$42,168,891
$140,704,350
$7,135,455
$13,780,960,233
$353,564,046
$3,812,593,720
$97,815,830
$372,892,930
$9,566,934
$16,908,003,774
$433,791,414
$6,905,129,008
$177,157,855
$270,653,850
$6,943,890
$18,960,257,252
$486,443,989
$6,490,745,777
$166,526,447
$400,875,366
$10,284,851
$9,772,806,684
$12,950,209,374
$250,730,937
$332,250,318
$3,006,801,686
$77,142,445
$242,073,449
$6,210,632
$5,090,463,190
$130,600,824
$346,062,366
$8,878,569
$5,495,811,902
$141,000,443
$1,924,078,647
$49,364,124
$214,552,045
$5,504,543
$11,073,975,465
$284,113,698
$5,002,292,097
$128,338,708
$323,600,980
$8,302,300
$12,578,381,854
$322,710,719
$4,983,561,033
$127,858,144
$544,328,494
$13,965,281
$13,763,312,952
$353,111,288
$4,036,459,444
$103,559,324
$150,592,201
$3,863,591
$5,107,745,957
$115,986,293,418
$131,044,230
$2,975,742,073
$3,190,882,780
$53,131,238,757
$81,865,226
$1,363,134,021
$238,751,101
$4,678,627,783
$6,125,394
$120,034,783
$23,833,071,544
$403,723,728
$4,133,384,788
$70,018,064
$101,104,608
$1,712,676
$1,935,137,482
$32,780,538
$1,000,658,631
$16,950,800
$220,477,498
$3,734,810
$6,643,026,648
$112,530,501
$2,589,388,690
$43,863,321
$222,030,797
$3,761,122
Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical
Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and
Pre aration Manufacturin
Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including
Laminated} Manufacturing
Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except
Packaging) Manufacturing
Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Manufacturing
Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except
Packaging), and Shape Manufacturing
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
Urethane and Other Foam Product (except
Polystyrene) Manufacturing
Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
326191
326199
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
326211
Tire Manufacturing ( except Retreading)
326212
Tire Retreading
$2,532,242
20MYR4
326299
Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting
Manufacturing
Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical
Use
All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
327110
Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Mfg.
$2,645,196,393
$41,609,154
$1,337,553,762
$21,039,829
$267,360,823
$4,205,607
327120
Clay Building Material and Refractories Mfg.
$6,997,944,980
$110,078,243
$57,102,091
$395,235,836
$6,217,092
327211
Flat Glass Mfg.
$5,187,579,508
$146,875,896
$3,630,120,546
$656,715,335
$18,593,576
$62,267,200
$1,762,971
$4,142,806,131
$117,295,236
$1,691,789,270
$47,899,616
$207,207,815
$5,866,673
$5,955,648,705
$168,622,233
$418,420,544
$11,846,737
$24,117,972
$682,852
326220
326291
327212
327213
Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware
Manufacturin
Glass Container Manufacturing
$10,846,648,515
$4,307,683
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
325613
44187
ER20MY24.161</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44188
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-9: Estimated Total Revenues and Profits for Industries Affected by the Revisions to the HCS, by Establishment Size
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
327320
Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
327331
327332
Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturing
Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
327390
Other Concrete Product Manufacturing
327410
Lime Manufacturing
Gypsum Product Manufacturing
$2,857,924,564
$53,468,686
$865,109,167
$16,185,259
$31,125,544
$582,325
327420
$7,794,626,759
$145,829,059
$447,053,257
$8,363,884
$175,091,880
$3,275,780
327910
Abrasive Product Manufacturing
$5,975,599,555
$111,797,022
$2,021,424,195
$37,818,666
$292,134,504
$5,465,521
327991
Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing
$5,892,862,370
$110,249,098
$4,812,522,458
$90,037, I 04
$1,586,363,191
$29,679,144
327992
Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Mfg.
$5,372,406,995
$100,511,940
$1,769,433,795
$33,104,198
$132,189,310
$2,473,119
327993
Mineral Wool Manufacturing
$7,164,934,666
$134,048,199
$2,174,407,766
$40,680,824
$179,411,030
$3,356,587
$108,052,118,040
$1,341,213,035
$20,890,760,432
$259,309,680
$444,969,193
$5,523,246
$15,024,519,874
$312,759,731
$7,367,292,854
$153,362,141
$105,590,702
$2,198,042
$420,194,952
$5,525,809,632
$156,452,203
$654,768,471
$18,538,454
$10,648,613,615
$156,571,203
$1,470,724,087
$21,624,697
$127,333,263
$1,872,236
$39,799,326,235
$585,186,824
$20,717,511,691
$304,618,596
$3,586,065,405
$52,727,481
$5,418,582,863
$79,671,783
$3,291,709,756
$48,399,442
$486,482,538
$7,152,965
$1,988,848,996
$29,242,913
$1,139,522,325
$16,754,893
$87,336,057
$1,284,140
$14,671,597,768
$215,722,891
$8,682,164,472
$127,657,645
$1,369,068,605
$20,130,012
All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral
Product Manufacturin
331110
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
331221
Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from
Purchased Steel
Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
$8,526,720,600
$177,497,508
$4,972,953,187
$103,520,080
$270,241,311
$5,625,511
331222
Steel Wire Drawing
$6,320,821,549
$131,578,144
$3,612,084,969
$75,191,403
$164,181,203
$3,417,698
$4,061,390,323
$100,276,030
$1,088,654,321
$26,878,956
$26,820,959
$662,211
331314
Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum
Production
Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
$7,705,398,563
$190,246,866
$2,885,391,854
$71,240,540
$204,216,733
$5,042,126
331315
Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
$20,173,019,985
$488,414,212
$4,335,142,654
$104,959,262
$45,959,515
$1,112,738
331318
Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
$14,796,021,517
$365,314,876
$5,182,592,041
$127,958,584
$150,948,962
$3,726,941
$12,402,811,471
$258,184,622
$5,758,979,536
$119,882,492
$384,069,065
$7,995,020
$26,387,701,142
$549,302,765
$11,476,098,480
$238,893,589
$219,847,551
$4,576,483
$8,805,349,915
$183,297,629
$2,131,430,995
$44,369,191
$341,819,219
$7,115,521
$9,207,562,757
$191,670,341
$5,502,650,423
$114,546,587
$433,295,001
$9,019,738
331210
331313
331410
331420
Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting
and Refining
Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
331511
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum)
Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum)
Iron Foundries
$11,652,176,810
$550,352,766
$3,324,719,712
$157,032,348
$193,712,363
$9,149,375
331512
Steel Investment Foundries
$5,054,331,260
$238,724,938
$1,888,851,815
$89,213,787
$35,707,136
$1,686,511
331513
$4,645,543,651
$219,417,182
$1,763,331,460
$83,285,240
$141,887,422
$6,701,592
331523
Steel Foundries (except Investment)
Nonferrous Metal Die-Casting Foundries
$8,674,105,016
$409,693,207
$3,030,786,640
$143,149,373
$243,374,270
$11,494,994
331524
Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting)
$3,374,793,250
$159,397,410
$1,929,923,454
$91,153,673
$185,143,921
$8,744,672
331491
331492
ER20MY24.162</GPH>
$14,841,065,034
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
327310
Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased
Glass
Cement Manufacturing
327215
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-9: Estimated Total Revenues and Profits for Industries Affected by the Revisions to the HCS, by Establishment Size
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
$51,614,518,085
$3,784,573,568
$12,986,915,927
$952,250,269
$1,133,808,267
$83,135,152
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
$3,263,008,411
$11,456,275,670
$840,017,880
$1,842,494,560
$135,098,737
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
$44,501,343,055
$6,067,000,616
$444,855,653
$2,863,485,268
$209,961,675
$343,167,920
$25,162,382
339115
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
$7,653,760,457
Dental Laboratories
$250,178,784
$1,857,933,643
339910
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
$5,901,104,979
$8,106,516,294
$1,429,817,777
$4,103,332,771
$104,839,699
339116
$561,202,944
$432,691,552
339920
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
339930
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
339940
Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
339950
Sign Manufacturing
339991
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Mfg,
$12,672,706,713
339992
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
$2,394,085,265
339993
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
339994
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
339995
Burial Casket Manufacturing
339999
All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant
Wholesalers
424610 I Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes
Merchant Wholesalers
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant
424690
Wholesalers
424710 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant
424720
Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals)
424910 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424210
I
Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant
Wholesalers
424990 I Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant
Wholesalers
$300,872,028
$166,725,592
$18,344,064
$136,230,790
$52,815,940
$327,010,377
$4,133,091,237
$11,528,116,895
$465,035,006
$279,622,389
$1,101,462,640
$44,432,121
$1,881,976,976
$75,917,445
$6,931,778,350
$1,389,538,569
$56,052,873
$404,576,662
$16,320,299
$3,773,797,375
$152,231,965
$2,609,465,889
$105,263,765
$265,785,648
$10,721,580
$15,179,515,980
$612,329,522
$12,112,744,969
$488,618,435
$3,271,628,483
$131,974,874
$511,206,843
$2,905,995,145
$117,225,518
$474,333,716
$19,134,242
$96,575,483
$1,296,829,108
$52,313,048
$281,190,846
$11,343,014
$1,105,456,492
$44,593,230
$460,624,786
$18,581,235
$50,089,383
$2,020,566
$3,398,953,469
$137,111,062
$1,605,789,812
$64,776,275
$120,163,350
$4,847,293
$649,829,866
$26,213,617
$209,122,381
$8,435,829
$47,059,450
$1,898,341
$12,705,316,537
$512,522,297
$6,958,288,212
$280,691,776
$2,031,702,555
$81,957,255
$88,078,481,901
$3,056,526,001 I
$22,650,320,243
I
$786,018,235
$9,538,190,909 I
$291,312,157
I
$1,011,874,399,470 I
$37,196,508,248 I
I
$53,481,476,596 I
$1,633,412,923 I
$21,121,343,462 I
$240,052,181,069
$7,331,591,416
$56,137,224,375
$1,714,523,861
$22,653,633,421
$691,879,505
$646,542,781,628
$6,237,984,142
$125,662,478,049
$1,212,418,679
$22,113,348,900
$213,354,357
424950
I
I
$1,309,295,696
$645,080,831
I
$675,361,005,744
$6,516,028,581
$141,971,019,579
$1,369,767,004
$30,382,540,215
$293,137,298
$169,043,606,251
$4,586,156,656
$53,997,866,896
$1,464,963,285
$17,787,338,503
$482,570,874
$21,267,042,880
$494,008,349
$4,790,420,318
$111,275,820
$1,850,425,514
$42,983,204
$1,217,219,876 I
$30,363,527,905 I
$17,105,834,948 I
$397,348,391
$52,401,214,940 I
$705,308,978 I
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
339112
339113
339114
44189
ER20MY24.163</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44190
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.164</GPH>
$50,256,838,711,534 I $6,647,779,865,027 I $14,465,946,958,024 I $1,460,460,327,939 I $4,989,404,703,505 I $190,373,831,916
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health based on U.S. Census Bureau, 2022a (Document TD 0476); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022b
(Document ID 0477).
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-9: Estimated Total Revenues and Profits for Industries Affected by the Revisions to the HCS, by Establishment Size
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-10: Percentage of Establishments (or, for Training, Entities) Affected for Each Cost Provision in the Revisions to the HCS, by Industry
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
50%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
50%
50%
100%
324110 Petroleum Refineries
0%
0%
324121 Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
324122 Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
324191 Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
324199 All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
50%
0%
0%
50%
325120 fudustrial Gas Manufacturing
Frm 00049
100%
100%
0%
0%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
50%
0%
100%
325130 Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
100%
100%
325194 Cyclic Crude, futermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
Fmt 4701
325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Sfmt 4725
325311 Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
325314 Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
100%
100%
325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
100%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
100%
325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
325413 In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
100%
100%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
325414 Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing
325520 Adhesive Manufacturing
100%
100%
0%
0%
50%
50%
50%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
100%
100%
0%
0%
50%
50%
50%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
100%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
50%
0%
50%
0%
100%
325991 Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
100%
100%
325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
100%
PO 00000
Jkt 262001
100%
100%
325180 Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
325212 Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
325220 Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
325312 Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
20MYR4
325910 Printing Ink Manufacturing
325920 Explosives Manufacturing
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
211120 Crude Petroleum Extraction
211130 Natural Gas Extraction
44191
ER20MY24.165</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44192
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-10: Percentage of Establishments (or, for Training, Entities) Affected for Each Cost Provision in the Revisions to the HCS, by Industry
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
326130 Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape Manufacturing
326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing
100%
326160 Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
326211 Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
326212 Tire Retreading
326220 Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Sfmt 4725
326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing
326121 Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Manufacturing
326122 Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
Fmt 4701
0%
100%
Frm 00050
0%
0%
0%
PO 00000
Jkt 262001
326112 Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
100%
326191 Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
326291 Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use
326299 All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
327110 Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
327120 Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
327211 Flat Glass Manufacturing
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
20MYR4
327212 Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
327213 Glass Container Manufacturing
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
327215 Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass
327310 Cement Manufacturing
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
327320 Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
327331 Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturing
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
327390 Other Concrete Product Manufacturing
327410 Lime Manufacturing
0%
0%
327420 Gypsum Product Manufacturing
327910 Abrasive Product Manufacturing
0%
327991 Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing
0%
0%
327992 Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing
0%
327993 Mineral Wool Manufacturing
0%
0%
327999 All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
ER20MY24.166</GPH>
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
326111 Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-10: Percentage of Establishments (or, for Training, Entities) Affected for Each Cost Provision in the Revisions to the HCS, by Industry
Jkt 262001
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
331210 Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased Steel
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
331222 Steel Wire Drawing
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
331313 Alumina Refming and Primary Aluminum Production
331314 Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
331221 Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
0%
PO 00000
Frm 00051
331315 Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
331318 Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
0%
331410 Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
331524 Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting)
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
339112 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
339114 Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
339115 Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
339116 Dental Laboratories
339910 Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
339920 Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
339930 Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
339940 Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
100%
339950 Sign Manufacturing
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
Sfmt 4725
331512 Steel Investment Foundries
331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment)
331523 Nonferrous Metal Die-Casting Foundries
20MYR4
0%
0%
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
Fmt 4701
331420 Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
331491 Nonfer_rous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling, Drawing, and
Extrudm
331492 Secondary Smelti~g, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except
Copper and Alummum)
331511 Iron Foundries
0%
100%
331529 Other Nonferrous Metal Foundries (except Die-Casting)
339991 Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
339992 Musical Instrument Manufacturing
339993 Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
339994 Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
339995 Burial Casket Manufacturing
339999 All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
331110 Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
44193
ER20MY24.167</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44194
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
423450
423840
424210
424610
424690
424710
Medical, Dental, and Hospital Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers
Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations
424720
and Terminals)
424910 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health (Document ID 0481).
424950 Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424990 Other Miscellaneous Non durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
0%
0%
0%
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
ER20MY24.168</GPH>
Table VI-10: Percentage of Establishments (or, for Training, Entities) Affected for Each Cost Provision in the Revisions to the HCS, by Industry
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Jkt 262001
Firms
6,177,430
1.800%
Establishments
7,881,456
1.877%
147,832
152,337,433
2.819%
4,294,474
2,219,599,486
64.088%
1,422,492,422
195,649,073
15.193%
29,724,752
216
1.000%
2.16
Labels Being Revised Due to Chemical
Reclassification and Labels Revisions
Labels for Very Small Containers
Firms w/ Warehoused Labels that Change
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44195
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 revised released-forshipment 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, or packaged
containers to replace labels when new
hazards were identified.
Although OSHA expects that the
revisions to the HCS will reduce
injuries, illnesses, and fatalities, the
limited scope and nature of the changes
being finalized have led OSHA to a
determination that it cannot reasonably
quantify an estimate of how many
injuries, illnesses, and fatalities will be
prevented. As the agency noted in the
2012 FEA, any assessment of benefits
that are incremental to the original
94.467%
1,538,924
1,453,774
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022a (Document ID 0476); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022b (Document ID
0477); U.S. Census Bureau, 2022c (Document ID 0478); BLS, 2023 (Document ID 0482); U.S. DOL,
OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health (Document ID
0481).
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 FEA (for firms, establishments,
and employees, see Table VI-1; for labels and SDSs, see Table VI-5).
SDSs
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, the
revisions to the HCS finalized in this
current rulemaking are incremental and
minor. Accordingly, OSHA expects that
the 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
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
Rev. 7 will improve worker health and
safety by ensuring the provision of more
and better hazard information to
employers and workers. For example,
Relevant Employees
111,223
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
21:23 May 17, 2024
D. Health and Safety Benefits and
Unquantified Positive Economic Effects
As part of the rulemakings that
resulted in the 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 estimates from the 1983
rulemaking with those from the 1987
update, OSHA estimated that the HCS
would prevent 31,841 non-lost-workday
injuries and illnesses, 20,263 lostworkday injuries and illnesses, 6,410
chronic illnesses, and 4,260 fatalities
annually (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 1 percent of
the previously-estimated health and
safety benefits—that is, they would
result in the prevention of an additional
VerDate Sep<11>2014
ER20MY24.169</GPH>
Table VI-11: Summary oflndustries and Labels/SDSs Affected by OSHA's Revisions to
theHCSra
44196
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
estimated benefits, e.g., benefits
associated with minor improvements to
an existing standard, broadens the range
of uncertainty associated with the
original estimates (77 FR 17621).24 In
the NPRM, OSHA invited interested
parties to provide comments and
evidence on how the proposed revisions
to the HCS are likely to affect worker
safety and health.
NABTU commented that the
organization ‘‘strongly supports OSHA’s
proposal to improve elements of the
standard, as it is imperative to have
accurate information available to
workers on the hazards of the chemicals
to which they are exposed’’ (Document
ID 0334, p. 1). NIOSH commended
OSHA for proposing to update the HCS
to reflect revisions to the GHS and for
applying ‘‘sound reasoning’’ as the basis
for using Rev. 7 as the primary guidance
(Document ID 0281, Att. 2, p. 2). Also
voicing broad approval of the proposed
standard was the Ameren, who stated,
‘‘whenever worker knowledge is
increased on the hazards of working
with chemicals, such as is done in the
proposed revision to the HCS, worker
safety will be increased’’ (Document ID
0309, p. 5). Furthermore, Ameren
concurred with OSHA’s preliminary
assessment of the benefits of the
proposed standard, noting that it agreed
with OSHA that the proposed changes
would enhance the clarity and
accessibility of hazard information and
workers would receive better training
(Document ID 0309, p. 2).
OSHA received many other comments
supporting the positive impact of
specific provisions on worker safety.
Several commenters argued that the
proposed changes would reduce worker
safety and referred to specific proposed
changes (see, e.g., Document ID 0322,
Att. 1, p. 1; 0354, p. 1). OSHA has
addressed both kinds of comments and
explained why it disagrees with
commenters suggesting that the rule will
24 As described above, OSHA estimated that the
2012 revisions to the HCS would result in benefits
equal to 1 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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
negatively impact worker safety
throughout the relevant parts of Section
XIV., Summary and Explanation of the
Final Rule.
In addition to health and safety
benefits, OSHA expects that the
revisions to the HCS will result in other
positive economic effects. For example,
being better aligned with the GHS will
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 will 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.25 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 (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
25 The European Union (EU), Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand have also indicated that they are
proposing updates to align with Rev. 7 (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). For the history of
U.S. government support for adoption and
implementation of the GHS, see the 2012 Final HCS
Rule, Document ID OSHA–H022K–2006–0062–
0656, Section II. Events Leading to the Revised
Hazard Communication Standard (77 FR 17577).
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
expected to be developed. See Lead I,
647 F.2d at 1272.
OSHA has reviewed the requirements
that will be imposed by the final rule
and determined that compliance with
the final rule is technologically feasible
for all affected industries.
The revisions to OSHA’s HCS will
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
will mainly involve revisions to the
presentation of information and is not
expected to involve any technological
obstacles.
On the question of the technological
feasibility of compliance with the
proposed provisions for reclassification
criteria and the subsequent revisions to
SDSs and labels, ILMA expressed
concern about ‘‘whether software will
even be capable of adopting the
proposed rule changes. Currently, the
technology aims to make it easy to select
applicable fields for inclusion in the
final SDS, but under the proposed rule,
the software would likely need narrative
fields for explanation, something that is
not included in the widely-used
authoring programs’’ (Document ID
0460, Att. 1, p. 5). The agency believes
ILMA’s membership misunderstands
the extent of what was intended by the
addition of clarifying language in
paragraph (d), as discussed elsewhere.
Many commenters indicated a belief
that the information required on the
SDS would be much more extensive and
comprehensive than OSHA intends.
Because these revisions will not in fact
require a fundamental change to how
SDSs and labels are prepared, the
agency does not believe that the
available software is incapable of
generating compliant SDSs and labels.
Additionally, even if ILMA’s
understanding of the impact of these
revisions was correct, sample product
data sheets and SDSs submitted into the
record by NABTU (see, for example,
Document ID 0450, Atts. 2, 3, 4, 6, and
7) indicate that narrative text is
routinely provided in succinct form for
sections on hazard identification and
safety warning, and thus there should be
existing software capable of including
narrative content, contrary to ILMA’s
statement. Further, as an industry
partner with a large number of chemical
producers, importers, and distributors,
ILMA seemingly would have access to
a wide range of SDSs for chemicals
handled by ILMA members and would
therefore encounter multiple examples
of the use of narrative fields in SDS
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
production. Regardless, even if some
programs do not currently have this
feature, a requirement is not
technologically infeasible simply
because existing software programs are
not tailored to that requirement. See
Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1272. ILMA has not
demonstrated that technological barriers
prevent the development of compliant
software or otherwise hinder
compliance with the revised
requirements for reclassification criteria
on SDSs.
The revised requirements for the
labeling of very small containers, which
would eliminate full labeling
requirements for some containers with a
volume capacity of three ml or less, are
expected to address current feasibility
issues related to labeling these
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
rule will permit the container to bear
only the product identifier, which could
be etched onto the container itself.
Similarly, the revised released-forshipment provisions will 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 requested public comment on
any employer concerns about
technological feasibility associated with
the provisions for labeling very small
containers or addressing the relabeling
of containers that have been released for
shipment. No commenter challenged the
feasibility of the revised provisions. For
comments affirming the benefits of
adopting this new labeling flexibility,
see the section on paragraph (f) in
Section XIV, Summary and Explanation
of the Final Rule.
OSHA has determined that
compliance with all of the requirements
of the final rule can be achieved with
widely available technologies. No new
technologies are required for
compliance with the modifications to
the HCS. Therefore, OSHA finds that
there are no technological constraints
associated with compliance with any of
the provisions in this final rule.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
F. Compliance Costs and Cost Savings
I. Introduction
This section presents OSHA’s
estimates of the costs and cost savings
expected to result from the revisions to
the HCS. The estimated costs and cost
savings are based on employers
achieving full compliance with the new
requirements of the rule. They do not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
include prior costs and cost savings
associated with firms whose current
practices are already in compliance with
the revised requirements (where prior
compliance is possible).
The estimated costs and cost savings
resulting from the 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 changes
to Appendix B) and to conform to
language criteria in precautionary
statements and other mandatory
language (per changes to Appendices C
and D); (2) the cost of management
familiarization and other managementrelated costs (associated with all of the
revisions to the standard); (3) the cost of
training employees as necessitated by
the revisions to the HCS (see paragraph
(h)(1)); (4) the cost savings due to the
new released-for-shipment provision
(revisions to paragraph (f)(11)); and (5)
the cost savings from limiting labeling
requirements for certain very small
containers (paragraph (f)(12)). The first
three categories are considered to be
one-time costs and the last two
categories are cost savings that will
accrue to employers annually. Although
OSHA in the PEA preliminarily
determined that these were the only
elements of the revisions to the HCS
that were expected to result in more
than de minimis costs or cost savings,
the agency requested comments on
whether any other changes to the
standard could cause employers to incur
costs or obtain cost savings.
The discussion following this
introduction addresses public
comments on OSHA’s preliminary
analysis of compliance costs for each of
the five main cost categories listed
above, as well as a section on costs of
the proposed changes regarding trade
secrets, which OSHA received several
comments about.
The estimated compliance costs do
not include any indirect costs or
impacts that may result from the
reclassification or relabeling of
chemicals and products already subject
to the HCS, such as possible changes in
production or in demand for products.
Theoretically, such impacts, if any, with
regard to possible changes in the uses
and applications of affected chemicals,
could result in costs or cost savings. In
the PEA, OSHA requested input from
stakeholders on such changes but
received none. Therefore, no costs or
other impacts resulting from significant
changes in the use or application of
affected chemicals are assessed in this
FEA. This is consistent with the
determination OSHA made with regard
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44197
to reclassification costs for the 2012
final rule (77 FR 17625).
This FEA presents compliance costs
and cost savings on a consistent and
comparable basis across various
regulatory activities and expresses all
costs in annualized terms in the final
summation. Annualized costs and cost
savings represent the most appropriate
measure for assessing the longer-term
potential impacts of this rulemaking and
for purposes of comparing net costs
across diverse regulations with a
consistent metric. In addition,
annualized net costs are often used for
accounting purposes to assess the
cumulative net costs of regulations on
the economy or specific parts of the
economy across different regulatory
programs or across years.
As presented in this FEA (unless
otherwise specified), a seven-percent
discount rate was applied to costs and
cost savings arising in future years to
calculate the present value of these costs
and cost savings for the base year in
which the standard becomes effective,
and the same discount rate was then
applied to the total present value costs,
over a 10-year period, to calculate the
annualized cost.26 The economic effects
using a three-percent discount rate are
also provided in the Excel spreadsheets
that support this FEA, which can be
found in the docket (Document ID
0481).
For the purpose of calculating loaded
wage rates, OSHA did not include an
overhead labor cost in the FEA in
support of the 2012 HCS final standard.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has
since determined that it is appropriate,
in some circumstances, to account for
overhead expenses as part of the
methodology used to estimate the costs
and economic impacts of OSHA
regulations. For this FEA, in addition to
applying fringe benefits to hourly
(‘‘base’’) wages, OSHA also applied an
overhead rate when estimating the
marginal cost of labor in its primary cost
calculation.
26 OSHA annualized costs for this final rule over
a 10-year period in accordance with E.O. 13563,
which directs agencies ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated present and
future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.’’
In addition, OMB Circular A–4 states that
regulatory analysis should include all future costs
and benefits using a ‘‘rule of reason’’ to consider for
how long it can reasonably predict the future and
limit its analysis to this time period. The 10-year
annualization period is the one OSHA has
traditionally used in rulemakings. Note, however,
that OSHA used a 20-year annualization period for
the 2012 HCS final rule (77 FR 17625), but that was
because of the 5-year phase-in of some provisions.
This HCS final rule does not have any phase-in
provisions longer than 42 months, supporting
OSHA’s decision to use a 10-year annualization
period for this FEA. ).
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44198
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Overhead costs are indirect expenses
that cannot be tied to producing a
specific product or service. Common
examples include rent, utilities, and
office equipment; however, there is no
general consensus on the cost elements
that fit the definition of overhead in the
context of occupational safety and
health. The lack of a common definition
has led to a wide range of overhead
estimates. Consequently, the treatment
of overhead costs needs to be casespecific. For this FEA, OSHA has
adopted an overhead rate of 17 percent
of base wages, which is consistent with
the overhead rate and methodology used
for, among others: (1) sensitivity
analyses in the FEA in support of the
2017 final rule delaying the deadline for
submission of OSHA Form 300A data
(82 FR 55761, 55765); and (2) the FEA
in support of OSHA’s 2016 final
standard on Occupational Exposure to
Respirable Crystalline Silica (81 FR
16285, 16488–16492).27
To calculate the total labor cost for an
occupational category, OSHA added
together three components: base wage +
fringe benefits (45 percent of the base
wage) 28 + applicable overhead costs (17
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
27 This methodology was modeled after an
approach used by the EPA. More information on
this approach can be found at: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Wage Rates for Economic
Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program,
June 10, 2002 (Document ID 0046). This analysis
itself was based on a survey of several large
chemical manufacturing plants: Heiden Associates,
Final Report: A Study of Industry Compliance Costs
under the Final Comprehensive Assessment
Information Rule, Prepared for the Chemical
Manufacturers Association, December 14, 1989
(Document ID 0048).
28 In March 2023, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) reported: ‘‘Total employer compensation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
percent of the base wage). For example,
the median hourly wage of an
Occupational Health and Safety
Specialist is $37.77. Applying a fringe
markup of 45 percent (applied to the
base wage) and an overhead rate of 17
percent (applied to the base wage)
yields a fully-loaded hourly wage of
$61.18 ($37.77 × .450 = $17.00; $37.77
× 0.17 = $6.42; $37.77 + $17.00 + $6.42
= $61.18 (unrounded)). Using this
methodology, OSHA calculated the
fully-loaded labor cost for four
occupational categories: (1) Manager,
Standard Occupational Classification
(SOC) code 11–0000, $83.62; (2)
Logistics Personnel, SOC code 13–1081,
$60.37; (3) Production Worker, SOC
code 51–0000, $31.09; and (4)
Occupational Health and Safety
Specialist, SOC code 19–5011, $61.18.
(For further details, see Document ID
0481, tab ‘‘Wages’’.)
Table VI–12 shows the estimated
annualized compliance costs and cost
savings by cost category and by industry
sector. All costs and cost savings are
reported in 2022 dollars. As shown in
Table VI–12, the total annualized net
cost savings of compliance with the
final rule is estimated to be $29.8
million—consisting of about $5.1
million of annualized costs and $35.0
million of annual cost savings. Note that
costs for civilian workers averaged $42.48 per hour
worked in December 2022 . . . Wages and salaries
cost employers $29.32 while benefits cost
$13.17. . .’’ The fringe markup of 31 percent of
total compensation ($13.17/$42.48) is equivalent to
a benefits markup of 45.0 percent (technically
0.449, or 0.45 after rounding) in relation to the base
wage ($13.17/$29.32). (BLS, 2022b, Document ID
0471).
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
where tables in this FEA report
estimated annualized costs, as in Table
VI–12, cost savings appear as a negative
number.
As shown by the three-digit NAICS
Subsectors 325 (for Chemical
Manufacturing) and 424 (for Merchant
Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods) in
Table VI–12, most of the estimated
compliance costs and cost savings
associated with the final rule will be
incurred or realized by the chemical
manufacturing industry and its
distributors. However, the table also
shows that familiarization costs will be
spread across most manufacturing and
wholesale industries in the U.S.
economy subject to OSHA’s jurisdiction,
reflecting the fact that employee
exposures to hazardous chemicals occur
in many industry sectors.
For purposes of annualizing costs for
this FEA, OSHA estimated that all
compliance costs will be incurred in the
first year. This simplifying
methodological assumption may
upwardly bias the compliance costs for
chemical reclassification, revised
precautionary statements, management
familiarization, and training, insofar as
the final rule schedules compliance
dates in phases of 18 months, 24
months, 36 months, and 42 months after
the effective date. Nonetheless, despite
the simplifying assumption of an
immediate implementation of all
provisions in the final rule, OSHA
believes that its final determination of
economic feasibility and regulatory
flexibility certification is supported by
the rulemaking evidence.
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-12: Total Annualized Costs of Provisions in the Revised Standard, by Six-Digit NAICS for All Entities (7 Percent Discount Rate, 2022 Dollars)
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Petroleum Refineries
324122
324191
324199
$10,384
$16,525
$12,402
Fmt 4701
$0
$128,936
$0
$0
$186,386
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
$4,817
$0
$0
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
$29,285
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,240,097
$12,948
$25,315
$0
$0
$29,484
$21,923
$0
$0
$33,794
$0
$7,384
$0
$10,433
-$370,174
$15,785
$0
$0
$106,150
$169,862
$0
$24,468
$0
All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
$6,394
$1,812
$0
$1,233,703
$11,136
325110
Petrochemical Manufacturing
$2,004
$2,165
325120
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
$8,676
$3,195
325130
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
$3,049
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
325180
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
$15,575
$0
$12,623
$0
$0
-$398,372
325193
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
$6,638
$0
$9,147
$0
$0
325194
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing
$1,760
$0
$4,073
$0
$0
$5,832
325199
$21,455
$0
$49,962
$0
-$938,513
-$867,095
325211
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
$30,462
$0
$151,367
$0
$0
$181,829
325212
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
$3,545
$0
$3,252
$0
$0
$6,797
325220
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
$3,772
$0
$628
$0
$0
$4,400
$3,450
$0
$1,015
-$1,879,144
$0
-$1,874,680
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
$1,864
-$1,842,994
$11,110
-$1,631,220
$0
$0
-$1,840,868
$8,249
$0
$0
$262
325314
325320
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
$4,260
$4,129
$39,832
$0
325411
$12,161
$0
$34,953
$22,662
325412
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
$0
$0
325413
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
325414
Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
$7,692
$11,281
325510
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
$21,621
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
325311
325312
$34,034
$0
$146,119
$39,506
$7,243
$0
-$147,717
-$1,611,861
$48,221
-$112,894
-$172,402
$42,705
$0
-$13,109
$34,089
$0
-$7,866,597
-$43,130
-$24,607
$0
-$7,330,03 7
$0
$17,570
$497,370
$12,013
$9,047
$202,074
$12,095
$138,932
$0
$0
$0
$0
$223,133
$12,230
$7,883
$2,822
$7,572
$80,129
$0
$0
$2,444
$20,800
$0
$0
$0
$0
$95,585
$42,269
$20,183
$37,003
$159,758
$163,257
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
324110
324121
$200,741
44199
ER20MY24.170</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44200
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
325910
Printing Ink Manufacturing
$5,357
325920
Explosives Manufacturing
$1,864
$0
$1,937
325991
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
$9,904
$0
325992
Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
325998
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
326111
326112
Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
$50,176
$0
$0
$16,782
$0
$0
$55,533
$20,584
$0
$0
$18,497
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
$3,110
$0
$8,593
$4,385
$0
$0
$7,495
$22,387
$0
$106,978
$0
$0
$129,365
$2,265
$2,909
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,265
Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,909
326113
Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing
$3,073
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,073
326121
326122
Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Manufacturing
$0
$0
$0
$0
Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
$2,156
$2,909
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,156
$2,909
326130
Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape Manufacturing
$1,315
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,315
326140
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
$2,698
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,698
326150
Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing
$3,959
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,959
326160
Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
$3,360
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,360
326191
Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
$1,858
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,858
326199
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
$34,955
$0
$0
$0
$0
$34,955
326211
Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)
$1,505
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,505
326212
$1,474
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,474
326220
Tire Retreading
Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing
$1,579
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,579
326291
Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use
$2,600
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,600
326299
All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
$3,685
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,685
327110
Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
$1,986
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,986
327120
327211
Flat Glass Manufacturing
$0
$0
$0
$0
327212
$501
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$780
$1,723
327213
Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing
Glass Container Manufacturing
$780
$1,723
327215
Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass
$4,841
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,841
$1,087
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20,948
327310
Cement Manufacturing
327320
Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
$2,829
$20,948
$2,829
$501
$1,087
327331
Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturing
$3,127
Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
$1,039
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,127
327332
327390
Other Concrete Product Manufacturing
$8,807
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,807
327410
Lime Manufacturing
327420
Gypsnm Product Manufacturing
$566
$1,026
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$566
$1,026
$1,039
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
ER20MY24.171</GPH>
Table VI-12: Total Annualized Costs of Provisions in the Revised Standard, by Six-Digit NAICS for All Entities (7 Percent Discount Rate, 2022 Dollars)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-12: Total Annualized Costs of Provisions in the Revised Standard, by Six-Digit NAICS for All Entities (7 Percent Discount Rate, 2022 Dollars)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,058
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,058
327992
Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing
$1,191
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,191
327993
Mineral Wool Manufacturing
$1,309
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,309
327999
All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
$2,023
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,023
331110
PO 00000
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Tron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased Steel
$3,944
331210
$2,051
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,051
331221
Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
$1,239
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,239
331222
$1,361
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,361
331313
Steel Wire Drawing
Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production
$209
$0
$0
$0
$0
$209
331314
Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
$610
331315
Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$610
$906
331318
$1,964
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,964
331410
Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining
$754
331420
Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
$1,768
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,768
331491
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
331511
Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and
Aluminum
Iron Foundries
331512
Steel Investment Foundries
331513
Steel Foundries (except Investment)
331492
$906
$1,352
$3,944
$754
$1,374
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,374
$1,106
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,106
$2,324
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,324
$980
$0
$0
$0
$0
$980
$1,076
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,076
20MYR4
331523
Nonferrous Metal Die-Casting Foundries
$2,467
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,467
331524
Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting)
$1,575
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,575
331529
Other Nonferrous Metal Foundries (except Die-Casting)
$1,189
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,189
339112
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
$31,168
$0
$9,340
$0
$0
$40,508
339113
$32,414
$0
$13,861
$0
$0
$46,275
339114
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
$7,605
$3,770
$9,242
$2,819
$0
$0
339116
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
Dental Laboratories
$0
$0
$11,375
339115
$0
$0
$57,641
$0
$34,664
$0
$0
$92,305
339910
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
$22,448
$0
$13,203
$0
$0
$35,651
339920
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
$23,424
$0
$11,685
$0
$0
$35,109
339930
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
$6,115
$0
$3,557
$0
$0
$9,672
339940
Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
$6,394
$0
$3,242
$0
$0
$9,636
339950
Sign Manufacturing
$73,626
$0
$40,858
$0
$0
$114,484
$12,061
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
$1,352
Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing
Frm 00059
Abrasive Product Manufacturing
327991
Jkt 262001
21:23 May 17, 2024
327910
44201
ER20MY24.172</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44202
$0
$5,158
$0
$0
$20,994
$0
$4,098
$0
$0
$11,599
339993
339994
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
$7,500
$1,742
$0
$0
$0
$2,514
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
$3,702
$0
$772
$1,383
$0
$0
$5,085
339995
Burial Casket Manufacturing
$1,420
$0
$0
$0
$2,119
339999
All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
$38,329
$0
$699
$20,997
$0
$0
$59,325
Sfmt 4700
424210
Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers
$38,684
$0
$0
$0
$0
$38,684
424610
Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers
$8,437
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,437
424690
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
$30,160
$0
$0
$0
$0
$30,160
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
424710
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
$13,870
$0
$0
$0
$0
$13,870
$7,833
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,833
$27,701
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$15,678,794
$5,307
$28,668
$0
$0
$0
Fmt 4701
$15,837
Frm 00060
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
PO 00000
Jkt 262001
339991
339992
20MYR4
ER20MY24.173</GPH>
424950
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and
Terminals)
Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424990
Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
424720
424910
-$4,359,744
$0 -$15,651,093
$0 -$4,354,437
$0
$28,668
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health (Document ID 0481).
[a] Figures in this column present the sum of the costs for chemical reclassification and requirements in the appendices to the standard addressing precautionary statements and other mandatory
language.
Note: Figures reported for individual NATCS code and cost category may not add to totals due to rounding.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-12: Total Annualized Costs of Provisions in the Revised Standard, by Six-Digit NAICS for All Entities (7 Percent Discount Rate, 2022 Dollars)
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
II. Estimation of Compliance Costs and
Cost Savings
The remainder of this section explains
how OSHA calculated the estimated
compliance costs and cost savings
arising from the final rule by describing
the data and methodology used and
addresses relevant comments from
stakeholders.
As explained above, the major
elements of the revisions to the HCS
that involve compliance costs or cost
savings are: (1) the cost of revising SDSs
and labels for select hazardous
chemicals to reflect chemical
reclassifications (per changes to
Appendix B) and to conform to language
criteria in precautionary statements and
other mandatory language (per changes
to Appendices C and D); (2) the cost of
management familiarization and other
management-related costs necessary to
ensure compliance with the revised
standard (associated with all of the
revisions to the standard); (3) the cost of
training employees as necessitated by
the changes to the HCS (see HCS 2012
paragraph (h)(1)); (4) cost savings from
the new released-for-shipment provision
(revisions to paragraph (f)(11)); and (5)
cost savings from limiting labeling
requirements for certain very small
containers (new paragraph (f)(12)).
The estimated compliance costs and
cost savings presented in this analysis of
the revisions to the HCS are based partly
on analysis conducted in support of the
2012 HCS final rule (77 FR 17605–
17683) and partly on new analysis
prepared with the assistance of OSHA’s
contractor, ERG.
The estimated costs of compliance
with most provisions of the final rule
involve wages paid for the labor hours
required to fulfill the requirements. In
some cases, compliance could be
achieved by purchasing services or
products in lieu of paying employees
directly. The estimated compliance
costs are intended to capture the
resources required for compliance
regardless of how individual
establishments may choose to achieve
compliance.
With the exception of the provisions
addressing precautionary statements
and other mandatory language, for this
cost analysis OSHA estimated a baseline
compliance of zero percent. The
agency’s estimate of baseline
compliance for the revisions in
Appendices C and D addressing
precautionary statements and other
mandatory language are discussed
below in the section titled Revisions to
SDSs and Labels Due to Revised
Precautionary Statements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
III. Costs Associated With
Reclassifications and Revisions to Safety
Data Sheets and Labels
The revisions to the HCS will not
change the existing requirement for
firms that sell hazardous chemicals to
employers to provide information about
the associated hazards. Information
must be presented in an SDS in the
format specified in the standard, and
some information must also be
presented on product labels. The final
rule will require affected chemical
manufacturers to revise SDSs and labels
for select hazardous chemicals to reflect
chemical reclassifications (Appendix B)
and to conform to language criteria in
precautionary statements and other
mandatory language (Appendices C and
D).
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. Therefore, there is a
regular cycle of change for these
documents (see the FEA of the 2012
final rule (77 FR 17634–17637) for a
discussion of factors that compel
employers to update SDSs and labels
voluntarily). OSHA received comments
from the American Cleaning Institute
(ACI) indicating that a longer
compliance window would facilitate
companies only needing to make one
round of revisions to their labels
because if a company knows they
already need to make one revision to an
SDS or label within a certain window of
time they will make all changes at the
same time, thereby reducing costs
(Document ID 0424, Tr. 53–54). As
explained in the paragraph (j)
discussion in Section XIV., Summary
and Explanation of the Final Rule),
OSHA is extending the phase-in period
beyond what the agency proposed in the
NPRM.
Also similar to the rule in 2012,
OSHA anticipates that many firms have
implemented or are beginning to
implement hazard reclassifications, SDS
revisions, software modifications, and
other changes associated with this
proposed rule, because these provisions
are generally anticipated to be adopted
as part of the implementation of the
GHS in countries and regions around
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44203
the world and Canada has already
amended the HPR to align with Rev. 7.
Since some other countries are already
implementing the GHS, companies in
the U.S. that ship to those countries are
already having to comply with the GHS
for products being exported (77 FR
17636).
The final rule requires limited
changes to some SDSs and labels. Given
the phase-in period for the changes to
the standard,29 which OSHA has
extended from what was proposed in
the NPRM, the agency expects that
chemical manufacturers and importers
will be able to phase in revisions to
their labels and SDSs in accordance
with the normal cycle of change, and
therefore will not need to replace
existing labels or SDSs.
OSHA has, however, estimated costs
for the time it will take to update the
electronic files that will be used to
generate new SDSs and labels in
accordance with the revisions to the
HCS. OSHA developed cost estimates
based on the methodology used in its
FEA in support of the 2012 HCS final
rule (77 FR 17634–17637). The
estimated compliance costs represent
the incremental costs that will be
incurred to achieve compliance with the
final rule. These estimated costs will be
in addition to the costs that already
need to be incurred to comply with
applicable requirements of the 2012
HCS that remain in place and represent
the time it will take to identify the
changes that need to be made to the
relevant computer files (i.e., the files
that are used to generate SDSs and
labels) and then to make those changes.
Producers of affected chemicals
already had an obligation under the
2012 HCS, which continues unchanged
in this final rule, to ensure that the
information provided in their SDSs and
labels is accurate and current
(paragraphs (f)(2) and (g)(5)). They also
are generally required to revise SDSs
and labels in accordance with new
information regarding hazards that may
be associated with their products
29 The final standard requires that the revisions
become effective 60 days after publication
(paragraph (j)(1)); chemical manufacturers,
importers, and distributors evaluating substances
comply with all modified provisions within
eighteen months after the effective date (paragraph
(j)(2)(i)); employers updating alternative labeling,
hazard communication programs, and training for
substances comply with all modified provisions
within two years after the effective date (paragraph
(j)(2)(ii)); chemical manufacturers, importers, and
distributors evaluating mixtures comply with all
modified provisions within three years after the
effective date (paragraph (j)(3)(i)); and employers
updating alternative labeling, hazard
communication programs, and training for mixtures
comply with all modified provisions within three
and a half years (paragraph (j)(3)(ii)).
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44204
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
(paragraphs (f)(11) and (g)(5)). For every
affected product that is newly created,
reformulated, mixed with new
ingredients, modified with new or
different types of additives, or has any
changes made in the proportions of the
ingredients used, chemical
manufacturers and importers are
required, under the 2012 HCS and this
final rule, to review the available hazard
information (paragraph (d)(2)), to
classify the chemical in accordance with
applicable hazard criteria (paragraph
(d)(1)), and to develop corresponding
SDSs (paragraph (g)) and labels
(paragraph (f)). OSHA is not estimating
costs for activities already required;
rather, the agency is estimating costs for
activities that will be newly conducted
in conformance with the proposed
revisions to chemical reclassifications
(Appendix B) and language criteria in
precautionary statements and other
mandatory language (Appendices C and
D).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
IV. Revisions to SDSs and Labels Due to
Chemical Reclassification
In the PEA, OSHA identified the
NAICS industries involved in the
manufacture of aerosols, desensitized
explosives, or flammable gases and
affected by the proposed requirements
for chemical reclassification. Of course,
not all chemicals covered in these
NAICS industries are aerosols,
desensitized explosives, or flammable
gases. In the PEA, OSHA estimated that
approximately 50 percent of the SDSs
(or more specifically, 50 percent of the
electronic templates (files) that are used
to produce SDSs and labels) 30 in these
NAICS industries would be affected by
the proposed requirements for aerosols,
desensitized explosives, and flammable
gases.
OSHA in the PEA derived the number
of directly affected electronic files for
SDSs and labels by applying the 50
percent factor to the overall number of
affected SDSs (electronic files). For
example, in NAICS 211130, the overall
number of affected SDSs (technically,
the number of electronic files) was
15,810 (Table VI–5 in the PEA).
Applying a factor of 50 percent, OSHA
estimated the number of SDSs
(electronic files) that would be directly
affected by the reclassification provision
as 7,905. All of the preliminary
estimates of directly affected SDSs
(electronic files) were similarly derived
30 In this section OSHA uses the terms ‘‘SDSs’’
and ‘‘SDSs and labels’’ interchangeably because the
agency’s understanding is that one electronic file is
used, from which both SDSs and labels can be
generated, and therefore there is not a separate
calculation of the number of electronic files for
labels.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
from Table VI–5 (in the PEA), but only
those NAICS industries with affected
SDSs (electronic files) were reported in
the PEA.
The estimated compliance costs
associated with the reclassification of
hazards and related changes to SDSs
and labels are directly related to the
number of chemicals for which
electronic files will need to be updated
in order to prepare updated SDSs and
labels. OSHA developed estimates of the
number of potentially affected SDSs for
each of the industries producing the
corresponding chemicals and products
(based on estimates of the total number
of SDSs (and the supporting electronic
files) by industry as shown in Table VI–
5). In the PEA, OSHA expected that
downstream users, distributors, and
wholesalers would continue to rely on
SDSs and labels provided by
manufacturers to fulfill their obligations
under the OSHA standard and would
not incur costs associated with chemical
reclassification under the proposed
revisions to the HCS. It was OSHA’s
understanding that this has been the
practice for decades, and no comments
in the record challenged that
understanding.
In the PEA, OSHA presented
preliminary estimates of the amount of
time the agency expected it will take to
update electronic files for SDSs and
labels under the proposed revisions to
the standard. OSHA believed that the
estimates provided in the PEA were
reasonable because they reflected only
the incremental time needed to identify
affected labels and SDSs (electronic
files) and to update electronic files
through modification of the templates
that are used to prepare labels and
SDSs, without allocating costs to any
time that would be spent updating files
in the absence of any revisions to the
HCS.
OSHA also believed that the
estimated time to update SDSs and
labels (electronic files) used in this
analysis represented a reasonable
average for most chemicals. In the FEA
in support of the 2012 HCS final rule
(77 FR 17635–17637), OSHA estimated
that a Health and Safety Specialist
would spend between three and seven
hours per SDS requiring
reclassification—with smaller entities,
having fewer SDSs, incurring larger
costs per SDS. The revisions to the HCS
in this final rule are significantly more
limited in scope than the 2012 final
rule, with fewer affected hazard
categories and more limited changes;
however, they still present
opportunities for scale efficiencies in
reclassification. As a result, OSHA
estimated that a Health and Safety
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Specialist would spend about 25
percent as much time to reclassify a
chemical as OSHA estimated for the
2012 HCS rule—depending on
establishment size, from 0.75 hours to
1.75 hours per SDS (electronic file)
requiring reclassification (1.75 hours per
SDS for establishments with fewer than
100 employees; 1.25 hours per SDS for
establishments with 100–499
employees; and 0.75 hours per SDS for
establishments with 500 or more
employees).31 At a loaded hourly wage
(including overhead) of $58.00 for a
Health and Safety Specialist, this
resulted in unit costs in the PEA of
$101.51, $72.51, and $43.50 per SDS for
small, medium, and large
establishments, respectively.
Multiplying these unit costs by the
estimated number of affected chemicals
(i.e., electronic files) and summing the
totals yielded an undiscounted one-time
estimated cost of $6.4 million for
affected employers to comply with this
provision. Annualizing this one-time
cost using a seven percent discount rate
over a ten-year period results in
estimated annualized costs of
approximately $915,095. OSHA invited
public comments on its preliminary
projection that 50 percent of the
electronic files for SDSs and labels
would be affected in these industries
and the other preliminary assumptions
and unit estimates presented in the PEA
and described above.
OSHA received some comments on its
general analysis in this section. NACD
characterized the updates to SDSs as ‘‘a
major undertaking for chemical
manufacturers and distributors’’ and
further noted, ‘‘[t]aking into account not
only the actual updates to these
documents by vendors or company
personnel, but also company staff
review time, supply chain
communications, and training, NACD
members estimate that the cost of
updating a single SDS ranges from $400
to nearly $1600’’ (Document ID 0465, p.
2).
As noted earlier in this FEA, ILMA
surveyed its members on impacts of the
proposed standard. On the question of
the incremental costs of updating SDSs,
ILMA submitted the following summary
of survey responses. They noted that, of
16 respondents, 12 indicated they
authored 400 or more SDSs (one
company reported between 7,000 and
8,000), and that they estimated the cost
31 Note that OSHA estimated no baseline
compliance for chemical manufacturers already
having revised electronic files to reflect reclassified
chemicals as specified in the proposed rule; the
current HCS does not allow SDSs or labels to
display chemical classifications that are not in
conformance with the current rule.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
of updating each SDS as $400–600.
They also stated that ‘‘Some
respondents to the survey noted that,
while updates to labels and SDS occur
on a regular basis, these updates usually
involve editorial changes made to
incorporate information such as name
changes. Therefore . . . the $400–$600
cost estimate to review each and every
SDS needs to be included as
incremental costs, as those costs would
not be part of the companies’ ‘routine’
compliance costs’’ (Document ID 0444,
Att. 1, pp. 1–2).
In their comments, the North
American Insulation Manufacturers
Association (NAIMA) described the
contractual arrangements and
operational practices typically
conducted by their members when there
arises the need for updating SDSs and
labels. In particular, they noted that
every time a change is made to a label,
the manufacturer must redesign the
entire label to make sure it all fits on the
packaging, which is expensive, and
some label printers still use printing
plates which need to be replaced. They
also noted that they spent time
reviewing materials received from
contractors and getting labels translated
into other languages, and that there
were often costly delays in receiving
packaging materials. They argued that
OSHA needed to account for these costs
(Document ID 0461, pp. 3–4). Several
commenters discussed costs of labels
specifically. The American Coatings
Association (ACA) testified that member
employers would incur substantial
additional expense to update labels if
the proposed revisions were published
as the final rule and stated that members
had indicated costs between $300,000
and $800,000 to update their labels
alone. They also noted that disposal of
existing labels can be two to three
percent of labeling costs and that small
businesses cannot absorb these costs as
operating expenses (Document ID 0425,
Tr. 109–110). Similarly, Ameren stated
‘‘Ameren would incur an additional cost
for having to re-print and replace
current labels based on the new OSHA
changes. The cost is estimated at $5
[m]illion and would take over two years
to complete’’ (Document ID 0309, p. 5).
OSHA notes that ACA and Ameren did
not provide details underlying their
estimates so the magnitude and severity
of the cost increase cannot be evaluated
by OSHA without further information
on baseline costs and company revenue
that factor into these estimates.
Moreover, the final standard does not
include the proposed requirement that a
released-for-shipment date appear on
the label, which will lower the labeling
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
costs for manufacturers, importers, and
distributors compared to what they
anticipated at the time comments were
submitted.
The Sporting Arms and Ammunition
Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI)
voiced concerns similar to those of ACA
with regard to labeling costs and noted
the costs of new printing plates and
disposal of existing labels, particularly
for manufacturers who may have as
many as 4,000 products that need to go
through this process (Document ID
0423, Att. 1, Tr. 84). Hach also noted
skepticism regarding the idea that these
costs could be absorbed under the
normal costs of business, partly due to
the limited space on their labels
(Document ID 0425, Tr. 102). Hach
further commented on the costs of the
proposed rule by providing information
on its cost data for SDS templates
provided by a software service vendor.
They provided data on two different
vendors, one of which cost $230,000 to
purchase, $120,000 in annual
maintenance costs for global regulatory
updates and another $1,100 for annual
maintenance specific to SDSs for the
United States. The other vendor cost
$60,215 for the initial implementation
of the templates and $100,825 for an
annual license (Document ID 0427, p.
2).
OSHA does not agree with these
commenters’ arguments that the
preliminary cost analysis did not
account for the costs for new or updated
printing plates, the disposal of existing
labels, and other operational changes
associated with the proposed revisions
to the reclassification requirements in
HCS. As noted earlier, OSHA’s
understanding is that in many cases
responsible parties would have needed
to update their SDSs and labels within
the extended compliance time frame
even if there were no updates to the
HCS, and therefore some of these costs
(such as label disposal and new printing
plates) would already be incurred. The
agency expects that responsible parties
will fold the HCS updates into those
standard updating cycles so that they
only need to incur these costs once and
this means the HCS updates are not
creating those costs. Therefore, OSHA is
not persuaded that the compliance
burden described by the stakeholders
discussed above will exceed the
customary and usual business practices
or the business practices expected
during the implementation timeline
prescribed in final paragraph (j) for
chemical employers affected by the final
rule and is thus not taking additional
costs for those issues. OSHA is,
however, adjusting the time it expects it
to take responsible parties to update the
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44205
electronic SDS and label files, partly
based on the content of these comments
(see discussion below).
OSHA also received several
comments expressing concerns
regarding the economic costs of the
proposed language in paragraph (d)(1).
The United States Beet Sugar
Association, the National Grain and
Feed Association, the North American
Millers Association, Corn Refiners
Association, the National Oilseed
Processors Association, and the United
States Chamber of Commerce (USBSA et
al.) stated that the proposed language in
(d)(1) would ‘‘greatly increase the cost
of chemical classification’’ (Document
ID 0325, p. 9). The American Chemistry
Council (ACC) surveyed their
membership to identify and characterize
current practices on communicating
hazards within their industry. Based on
that information, ACC stated that OSHA
had failed to account for hazard
classification costs associated with the
proposed revisions to paragraph (d)(1),
including the large number of SDSs that
would need to be changed, the amount
of time required to produce the SDSs,
and the software costs associated with
needing new or updated technology to
comply. They argued that this could
cost manufacturers and importers
millions of dollars (Document ID 0468,
pp. 3–5). The ACC survey results
included statements from their
membership with estimates about the
time and costs associated with the
proposed paragraph (d)(1), including an
estimate that it would take about 16
hours to update each SDS and about 50
percent of products would require
communication with customers to
ascertain downstream uses, which
would result in an additional 17,500–
70,000 hours of work. Concern was also
expressed that this would cover as many
as 5,000–7,000 products that were not
previously within the scope of the HCS
(Document ID 0468, p. 10).
The NAIMA expressed concerns
about the proposed implementation
schedule and the costs of compliance
moving forward under the proposed
language in paragraph (d)(1).
Specifically, they noted ‘‘it appears that
every newly discovered hazard of the
substance identified by a chemical
manufacturer’s ongoing investigation of
downstream hazards would trigger the
three- and six-month updating
provisions of the HCS for SDSs and
labels, which could lead to a continuous
series of reclassifications triggering
those updating requirements’’ and
argued that ‘‘[e]ach SDS revision
cascading down would incur costs
which do not seem to have been
adequately accounted in OSHA’s cost-
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44206
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
benefit analysis’’ (Document ID 0461, p.
2).
The American Composite
Manufacturers Association (ACMA)
stated that the proposed changes to
paragraph (d)(1) would result in
upstream chemical suppliers needing to
perform a hazard analysis similar to
what is required under OSHA’s Process
Safety Management of Highly
Hazardous Chemicals (PSM) standard
and that ‘‘[t]he [process hazard analyses
(PHAs)] that would be required by
OSHA’s proposed change to
1910.1200(d)(1) would extend to every
hazardous chemical in the U.S. and
would cover every use of a flammable
liquid or gas as a fuel.’’ They also noted
that ‘‘[a]ccording to EPA, the TSCA
chemical inventory contains 86,557
chemicals of which 41,864 are active.
Any reasonably chosen ratio of the
number of active hazardous chemicals
in the EPA inventory to the 110 HHCs
covered by the PSM standard suggests
the costs of compliance with OSHA’s
proposed change to 1910.1200(d)(1)
would be enormous’’ (Document ID
0318, p. 8). OSHA notes that ACMA also
asserted in their comment that the
proposed language in paragraph (d)(1) is
economically infeasible but did not
provide financial data to corroborate the
assertion. As explained in Section G of
this FEA, OSHA has determined based
on the record evidence that the
requirements of this final rule are
economically feasible.
The Plastics Industry Association
(PLASTICS) also likened the proposed
language in paragraph (d)(1) to PHAs
and discussed the associated burden of
collecting the process safety information
for ‘‘nearly one million hazardous
chemical products . . . previously
estimated . . . to be in U.S. workplaces’’
as well as the need to determine
foreseeable emergencies, ‘‘some of
which may produce new chemicals’’
(Document ID 0314, Att. 1, p. 12)
(footnote omitted). They indicated that
such a requirement would require
upstream suppliers to hire personnel to
collect the necessary information as
well. They argued that OSHA needed to
incorporate the costs of this provision
and stated that OSHA had not done so
(Document ID 0314, Att. 1, pp. 10–12).
They stated that ‘‘[f]or a chemical with
broad applications, classifying it to
include all of the classified hazards of
every downstream reaction, and then
creating an SDS to cover all of these
issues would be a monumental,
infeasible and counterproductive task.’’
(Document ID 0467, p. 21). ACC’s
survey of its members also discussed the
role of PHAs in company operations and
the rigorous procedures necessary to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
develop and communicate such
analyses (Document ID 0468, pp. 6–7).
In the Summary and Explanation for
paragraph (d), OSHA responds to the
concerns voiced by stakeholders about
the scope of paragraph (d) and the
comparisons to PHAs. In its response,
OSHA states that it did not intend for
an upstream supplier or manufacturer to
identify and classify every single hazard
associated with the downstream use of
chemicals, only those where the
manufacturer knows or can reasonably
anticipate the chemical’s uses. OSHA
has changed the language in paragraph
(d)(1) from the proposed language in the
NPRM to clarify this scope and
concludes that many of the comments
discussing the economic ramifications
of this proposed language were based on
this misunderstanding of what OSHA
intended SDS and label preparers to do.
In response to the comments on
OSHA’s preliminary unit cost estimates
for chemical reclassification on SDSs
and labels in relation to paragraph
(d)(1), the agency has reviewed the
preliminary number of affected SDSs
and labels and the preliminary time
estimates for updating and expanding
the use of SDSs and labels.
As noted earlier, OSHA in the PEA
derived the number of directly affected
electronic files for SDSs and labels by
applying the 50 percent factor to the
overall number of affected SDSs
(electronic files) from Table VI–5. None
of the public criticisms quoted above
specifically referenced the 50 percent
factor. Many of the commenters
indicated that they believed the HCS
updates to paragraph (d)(1) would
impact many more SDSs than OSHA
accounted for in its PEA but, as OSHA
states in the Summary and Explanation
for paragraph (d), this requirement
already existed under the 2012 HCS and
the language in paragraph (d) is merely
a clarification of the existing
requirements. Because many
commenters misinterpreted the scope of
what OSHA was proposing, the agency
does not believe these comments are
representative of the number of SDSs
that will need to be updated and the
agency does not take costs associated
with clarifications that do not change
the underlying requirements of the
standard. Therefore, for this FEA OSHA
has maintained the percentage factor of
affected SDSs and labels estimated in
the PEA at 50 percent and the industries
it expects will be impacted by
reclassification requirements.
As discussed earlier in this section,
OSHA presented in the PEA estimates of
the amount of time it will take to update
electronic files for SDSs and labels
under the proposed revisions to the
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
standard. OSHA’s estimates in the PEA
reflected the agency’s initial assessment
of the incremental time needed to
identify affected labels and SDSs
(electronic files) and to update
electronic files through modification of
the templates that are used to prepare
labels and SDSs, without allocating
costs to any time that would be spent
updating files in the absence of any
revisions to the HCS.
In the FEA in support of the 2012
HCS final rule (77 FR 17635–17637),
OSHA estimated that a Health and
Safety Specialist would spend between
three and seven hours per SDS requiring
reclassification—with smaller entities,
having fewer SDSs, incurring larger
costs per SDS. The revisions to the HCS
in this final rulemaking are significantly
more limited in scope than the 2012
final rule, with fewer affected hazard
categories and more limited changes;
nonetheless, based on public comments,
OSHA recognizes that affected
employers may face adjustments to their
schedule for updating SDSs and labels
due to chemical reclassification. OSHA
also recognizes based on comments that
it may have underestimated in the 2012
HCS FEA and the 2021 PEA the time
and costs associated with identifying
hazards from downstream uses. While
those costs have already been incurred
for all existing products because this is
an existing requirement, OSHA
recognizes that for the products
undergoing reclassification (aerosols,
flammable gases, and desensitized
explosives), these costs will be incurred
again and is therefore adjusting upwards
its time estimates. As a result, OSHA in
this FEA estimates that a Health and
Safety Specialist would spend about 30
percent (increased from 25 percent in
the PEA) as much time to reclassify a
chemical as OSHA estimated for the
2012 HCS rule—depending on
establishment size, from 0.90 hours to
2.10 hours per SDS (electronic file)
requiring reclassification (2.10 hours per
SDS for establishments with fewer than
100 employees; 1.50 hours per SDS for
establishments with 100–499
employees; and 0.90 hours per SDS for
establishments with 500 or more
employees).32 At a loaded hourly wage
(including overhead) of $61.18 for a
Health and Safety Specialist, this would
result in unit costs of $128.48, $91.77,
and $55.06 per SDS for small, medium,
and large establishments, respectively.
32 Note that OSHA estimated no baseline
compliance for chemical manufacturers already
having revised electronic files to reflect reclassified
chemicals as specified in the final rule; the current
HCS does not allow SDSs or labels to display
chemical classifications that are not in conformance
with the current rule.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Multiplying these unit costs by the
estimated number of affected chemicals
(i.e., electronic files) and summing the
totals yields an undiscounted one-time
estimated cost of $8.2 million for
affected employers to comply with this
provision. Annualizing this one-time
cost using a 7 percent discount rate over
a 10-year period results in estimated
annualized costs of approximately
$1,168,932 for reclassification in
accordance with the criteria specified in
the revisions to the HCS.
OSHA does not agree, however, with
commenters who argued that the
proposed language in paragraph (d)(1)
would create burdens that are cost
prohibitive. First, as discussed, the
requirement to classify based on
downstream hazards already existed
and OSHA is simply clarifying that
requirement by adding this language to
paragraph (d)(1). Additionally, OSHA
received comments and testimony from
several entities regarding existing SDSs
that include information about
downstream hazards and companies
that maintain product stewardship
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
programs to address these issues.
NABTU cited field observation of
companies who routinely include on
SDSs and labels information on
reasonably anticipated downstream use
of products: ‘‘[i]t is . . . worth noting
that there are companies producing
building materials that are responsibly
anticipating the downstream uses of
their products and creating product
stewardship programs aimed at
improving recognition and control of
hazards during the life cycle of their
products. Where it is reasonable to
assume that manufacturers can
anticipate their products’ ‘normal
conditions of use,’ it is equally
reasonable—and critically important—
to require those manufacturers to
include the attendant chemical reaction
hazard information on their SDSs and
labels, and to do so in a consistent
manner’’ (Document ID 0464, p. 5).
NIOSH stated that they are aware of
more manufacturers developing this
type of product stewardship to inform
downstream users (Document ID 0423,
Tr. 39; 0456, Att. 2, p. 2). ACC also
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44207
submitted information on several
product stewardship programs their
organization undertakes to inform
downstream users of potential hazards
that may result upon use of their
chemicals (Document ID 0468, p. 5).
ACC product stewardship resources
include technical and regulatory data
sheets, literature, product handling
guidelines, site visits, and special
instructions for safe handling of
materials of more concern (Document ID
0468, p. 5).
These comments highlight the
significant and ongoing stewardship
initiatives among chemical producers,
importers, and distributors and
substantiate OSHA’s preliminary
judgment of the economic feasibility of
the revised HCS standard. Therefore, in
OSHA’s view, the modest adjustment to
the preliminary unit cost estimate in
this FEA reflects, in approximate terms,
current industry practices in the
reclassification of chemical hazards on
SDSs and labels.
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Natural Gas Extraction
Petroleum Refineries
Petrochemical Manufacturing
325120
325320
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
325412
325510
50%
50%
50%
50%
1,323
2.10
$128.48
$169,920
$24,193
125
40
2.10
2.10
$128.48
$128.48
$16,060
$5,139
$2,287
$732
51
2.10
2.10
$128.48
$128.48
$6,553
$49,916
$933
$7,107
2.10
2.10
$128.48
$128.48
$213,283
$202,362
$30,367
$28,812
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
50%
50%
50%
389
1,660
1,575
325520
325611
Adhesive Manufacturing
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
50%
50%
540
1,160
2.10
2.10
$128.48
$128.48
$69,381
$149,041
$9,878
$21,220
325612
325613
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
50%
50%
296
148
2.10
2.10
$128.48
$128.48
$38,031
$18,951
$5,415
$2,698
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
Explosives Manufacturing
50%
50%
698
18
8,022
2.10
2.10
2.10
$128.48
$128.48
$128.48
$89,682
$2,313
$1,030,631
$12,769
$329
$146,739
325620
325920
Subtotal
50%
593
2.10
$128.48
$76,127
$10,839
Petroleum Refineries
Petrochemical Manufacturing
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
50%
50%
50%
2.10
2.10
$128.48
$128.48
$11,564
$7,709
$1,646
$1,098
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
50%
50%
90
60
11
218
2.10
2.10
$128.48
$128.48
$1,349
$27,945
$192
$3,979
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
50%
50%
985
2,190
2.10
2.10
$128.48
$128.48
$126,556
$281,379
$18,019
$40,062
1,650
20MYR4
Natural Gas Extraction
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
211130
325520
325611
Adhesive Manufacturing
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
325612
325613
325620
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
325120
325320
325412
325510
325920
Subtotal
Explosives Manufacturing
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
-
765
548
180
1,890
2.10
2.10
$128.48
$128.48
$211,998
$98,290
$30,184
$13,994
2.10
2.10
2.10
$128.48
$128.48
$128.48
$70,345
$23,127
$242,834
$10,016
$3,293
$34,574
35
9,213
2.10
$128.48
$4,497
$640
2.10
$128.48
$1,183,719
$168,535
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
211130
324110
325110
324110
325110
ER20MY24.174</GPH>
44208
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-13: Total Costs Associated with Chemical Reclassifications and Related Revisions to Safety Data Sheets and Labels under the Revisions
to the HCS (2022 Dollars)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-13: Total Costs Associated with Chemical Reclassifications and Related Revisions to Safety Data Sheets and Labels under the Revisions
to the HCS (2022 Dollars)
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Petrochemical Manufacturing
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
325320
325412
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
325510
325520
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
Adhesive Manufacturing
325611
325612
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
50%
50%
50%
325613
325620
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
50%
50%
325920
Explosives Manufacturing
50%
Fmt 4701
Subtotal
50%
50%
150
23
1.50
1.50
1.50
$91.77
$91.77
$91.77
1.50
1.50
$91.77
$91.77
1,325
1,150
1.50
1.50
1.50
$91.77
$91.77
$91.77
475
2,275
1.50
1.50
$91.77
$91.77
480
1,410
8,625
1,890
$13,766
$2,065
$1,960
$294
$44,052
$129,401
$6,272
$18,424
$791,551
$173,453
$112,699
$24,696
$121,601
$105,540
$17,313
$15,027
$43,593
$208,786
$6,207
$29,726
250
1.50
$91.77
$22,943
$3,267
-
19,500
1.50
$91.77
$1,789,593
$254,798
Sfmt 4725
50%
50%
6,050
9,450
0.90
0.90
$55.06
$55.06
$333,140
$520,358
$47,432
$74,087
325110
325120
Petrochemical Manufacturing
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
50%
50%
2,118
2,145
0.90
0.90
$55.06
$55.06
$116,599
$118,113
$16,601
$16,817
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
50%
50%
50%
1,326
4,225
0.90
0.90
0.90
$55.06
$55.06
$55.06
$73,015
$232,647
$10,396
$33,124
Adhesive Manufacturing
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
50%
50%
0.90
0.90
$55.06
$55.06
$1,294,701
$597,999
$184,336
$85,142
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
50%
50%
0.90
0.90
$55.06
$55.06
$330,386
$194,102
$47,040
$27,636
0.90
0.90
0.90
$55.06
$55.06
$55.06
$107,376
$225,764
$15,288
$32,144
$61,947
$8,820
$4,206,148
$598,861
20MYR4
Natural Gas Extraction
Petroleum Refineries
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
211130
324110
325320
325412
325613
325620
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
325920
Explosives Manufacturing
325510
325520
325611
325612
50%
50%
-
Subtotal
23,513
10,860
6,000
3,525
1,950
4,100
1,125
76,386
211130
Natural Gas Extraction
50%
8,738
1.22
$74.40
$650,081
$92,557
324110
325110
325120
325320
Petroleum Refineries
Petrochemical Manufacturing
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
50%
50%
10,340
2,368
2,229
2,412
0.96
0.99
0.94
1.32
$58.99
$60.49
$609,930
$143,213
$128,080
$194,928
$86,840
$20,390
$18,236
$27,753
50%
50%
$57.46
$80.82
44209
ER20MY24.175</GPH>
50%
50%
50%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
325110
325120
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44210
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
Adhesive Manufacturing
Sfmt 4700
325611
325612
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
325613
325620
325920
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
Explosives Manufacturing
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
Fmt 4701
325412
325510
325520
20MYR4
ER20MY24.176</GPH>
50%
50%
50%
50%
8,280
35,903
14,940
50%
9,250
5,519
50%
50%
50%
2,753
8,963
1,428
1.39
1.17
$84.77
$71.58
1.15
1.24
1.21
$70.47
$75.60
$73.94
1.15
1.40
$70.13
$85.58
$64.22
1.05
Total
113,121
1.19
$72.58
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health (Document ID 0481).
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
$701,887
$2,569,993
$1,052,831
$99,933
$365,909
$149,899
$699,318
$408,018
$99,567
$58,093
$193,047
$767,065
$91,701
$27,485
$109,213
$13,056
$8,210,091
$1,168,932
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-13: Total Costs Associated with Chemical Reclassifications and Related Revisions to Safety Data Sheets and Labels under the Revisions
to the HCS (2022 Dollars)
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
V. Revisions to SDSs and Labels Due to
Revised Precautionary Statements, etc.
The revisions to the HCS require
establishments to revise their electronic
templates for SDSs and labels to
conform to formatting and language
criteria in precautionary statements and
other mandatory language specified in
Appendices C and D. Under the changes
to the standard, affected establishments
must update labels and SDSs for select
hazardous chemicals to include updated
signal word(s), hazard statement(s),
pictogram(s), and precautionary
statement(s) for each hazard class and
associated hazard category (see
paragraphs (f) and (g)). The modification
of SDSs and labels under the revisions
in Appendices C and D involves
conforming to formatting and language
standards, but does not require any
testing, studies, or research. As
previously stated, OSHA believes that
chemical manufacturers and importers
generally review, revise, and update
their electronic templates for SDSs and
labels periodically, such that there is a
regular cycle of change for these
documents.33 The changes to the
appendices require only limited changes
to the electronic content of SDSs and
labels, and, as explained previously and
in the PEA, OSHA expects that the
phase-in period for the changes to the
standard will allow chemical
manufacturers and importers to take
advantage of the normal cycle of change
to phase in the revisions to their labels
and SDSs, and therefore that it will not
be necessary to replace existing labels or
SDSs. OSHA also believes that the
extended phase-in period will
accommodate the need for the purchase
of software packages or renewal of
licenses for SDSs and labels, impacts
noted by ILMA at the public hearings
(Document ID 0404, Att. 1, p. 2).
The estimated compliance costs for
revising electronic templates for SDSs
and labels to conform to formatting and
language criteria in precautionary
statements and other mandatory
language specified in the revisions to
Appendices C and D represent the
incremental costs that will be incurred
to achieve compliance with the final
changes to the appendices. In the PEA,
OSHA estimated that the time needed to
revise electronic templates for labels
and SDSs to comply with the proposed
revisions to Appendices C and D would
vary by establishment size and would be
equal to 10 percent of the unit time
(from three to seven hours per SDS
33 See discussion in the preamble to the 2012 HCS
final rule (77 FR 17634).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
(electronic template)) estimated in the
2012 FEA (77 FR 17635–17637), as the
changes the proposed revisions would
require are relatively minor in
comparison to the types of changes
costed in 2012.34 OSHA estimated that
Health and Safety Specialists would
spend 0.7 hours per SDS (electronic
template) in small establishments with
fewer than 100 employees; 0.5 hours per
SDS in medium establishments with
100 to 499 employees; and 0.3 hours per
SDS in large establishments with 500 or
more employees to comply with the
proposed mandatory changes to
Appendices C and D.
As in the FEA for the 2012 HCS final
rule, OSHA anticipates that some
manufacturers, particularly larger ones
heavily involved in international trade,
are more likely because of their size to
have created SDSs and labels that need
to be GHS-compliant and therefore are
likely to have already adopted the
mandatory language proposed in
Appendices C and D. For the affected
NAICS industries, OSHA estimates
baseline compliance rates of 75 percent
for establishments with 500 or more
employees, 25 percent for
establishments with 100 to 499
employees, 5 percent for establishments
with 20 to 99 employees, and 1 percent
for establishments with fewer than 20
employees.35 These baseline
compliance rates are the same ones
OSHA used in the 2012 FEA (77 FR
17636).
Multiplying the number of affected
SDSs (electronic files) by the unit cost
of Health and Safety Specialists, and
accounting for the relevant noncompliance rates,36 results in an
34 By comparison, the 2012 rule changes included
completely revised SDS formats, the addition of
pictograms, and various other revisions for specific
SDS sections and chemical designations. Note that
there are no estimated new software costs
associated with the proposed revisions to the
standard, as there were for the 2012 final rule,
because OSHA expects that the necessary software
is already in place in those larger firms for which
the software is economically justified.
35 As noted above, because the current HCS does
not allow SDSs or labels to display chemical
classifications that are not in conformance with the
current rule, OSHA estimated no baseline
compliance for chemical manufacturers already
having revised electronic files to reflect reclassified
chemicals as specified in the proposed rule. With
respect to the mandatory language proposed in
Appendices C and D, however, SDSs and labels
could present standards stricter than seen under
previous GHS revisions (for example, if mandatory
language is adopted internationally by consensus)
and still remain in conformance with the current
HCS standard. Therefore, baseline compliance can
be non-zero for industry practices involving use of
precautionary statements and other mandatory
language.
36 That is, mathematically, (1—the relevant
baseline compliance rate). Estimated noncompliance rates are shown in Column 6 of Table
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44211
estimated total one-time cost of $18.9
million associated with revising SDSs
and labels to conform to the proposed
appendix language on precautionary
statements and other mandatory
language. Annualizing this one-time
cost using a seven percent discount rate
over a 10-year period results in
estimated annualized costs of
approximately $2.7 million for affected
employers to revise SDSs and labels to
comply with the proposed revisions to
Appendices C and D.
OSHA requested comments on the
preliminary unit cost estimates and
other underlying assumptions for the
preliminary cost analysis of revisions to
the mandatory appendices. There were
no comments specifically addressing the
unit cost estimates and other
methodological assumptions underlying
OSHA’s preliminary cost estimate.
Earlier in this FEA, OSHA responds to
the comments voiced by commenters
about label costs specifically. To the
extent that new precautionary
statements are needed on labels due to
reclassification, OSHA believes it has
incorporated those costs into its upward
adjustment of the costs of
reclassification and will not double
count those costs by also increasing its
estimate of costs for updating
precautionary statements and other
mandatory language. Thus, for this final
analysis of the incremental compliance
costs associated with the mandatory
appendices, OSHA applied the unit
labor time and baseline compliance
assumptions from the PEA, and,
combined with fully-loaded 2022 wage
rates, generated final cost estimates, by
NAICS category. As noted earlier, these
estimated costs are in addition to the
costs that are already incurred to
comply with applicable requirements of
the existing HCS.
NACD questioned OSHA’s
preliminary time allocation to the
employer class sizes (small, medium
and large companies) in the estimation
of costs. NACD cited an estimate for a
member company that has ‘‘10,000 SDSs
to review to meet the new standard and
4,000 to update. Even at OSHA’s .7
hours per SDS, that is 16 months of
dedicated work’’ (Document ID 0329, p.
11). Additionally, they stated that
‘‘OSHA’s estimates are only somewhat
realistic if a company has in-house SDS
authoring software and has maintained
formulas and data used in classification.
If updated formulas or other data need
to be obtained . . . these documents
will take significantly longer to update.’’
Alternatively, they noted that if
VI–14 by employment size for each affected NAICS
industry.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44212
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
companies use a vendor, they will likely
be charged between $400 and $800 for
the production of an SDS and label for
a single product (Document ID 0329, p.
11).
To the extent that NACD is concerned
that some chemical distributors may
need additional time to comply, either
with additional in-house staff or with
contractors, OSHA has updated the final
rule to provide for eighteen to thirty-six
months (depending on the nature of the
chemical compound) following
publication of the rule for chemical
distributors to implement compliance
with all modified provisions. To the
extent that NACD is arguing that OSHA
has underestimated the in-house labor
costs for updating SDSs and labels, they
have only argued that OSHA has
possibly underestimated for a subset of
companies and has not provided data on
how OSHA could differentiate which
companies this would be true for or how
significant they think OSHA’s
underestimates are, so OSHA is unable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
to evaluate this claim. And finally, to
the extent that NACD is arguing that the
vendor prices will result in higher costs
than the agency estimates, as OSHA has
previously stated it believes that
updates are going to be folded into the
normal cycle of updates for which
companies would also use these
contractors so the full cost of a
contractor producing an SDS or label is
not attributable to the HCS updates as
NACD suggests.
Table VI–14 shows the estimated
costs associated with modifications to
electronic templates for SDSs and labels
to conform to formatting and language
criteria in precautionary statements and
other mandatory language specified in
the revisions to Appendices C and D by
NAICS industry and establishment size.
The NAICS industries listed in Columns
1 and 2 of Table VI–14 are those that
OSHA expects will need to update SDSs
and labels under the revisions to
Appendices C and D. The industries
included are the ones OSHA identified
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
as incurring costs for SDSs in the FEA
in support of OSHA’s 2012 HCS final
rule (77 FR 17644–17650). The
estimated costs associated with the
revisions to the appendices are directly
related to the number of SDSs (or, in
other words, the number of electronic
templates) affected. These numbers
were previously derived and presented
in Tables VI–5, VI–6, and VI–7.
The estimates of total costs in Table
VI–14 are included within a broader
cost category shown earlier in the
aggregate costs presented in Table VI–
12. Column 5 of Table VI–12 displays,
by NAICS code, the combined
annualized cost estimates for
reclassifying chemicals (from Table VI–
13) and revising SDSs and labels to be
consistent with the precautionary
statements and other language specified
in the revisions to the mandatory
appendices (from Table VI–14).
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-14: Total Costs Associated with Revisions to Appendix Language on Precautionary Statements and Other Mandatory Language (2022 Dollars)
Crude Petroleum Extraction
211130
Natural Gas Extraction
324110
Petroleum Refineries
$42.83
99%
$818,312
$116,509
0.7
$42.83
99%
$112,147
$15,967
250
0.7
$42.83
99%
$10,600
$1,509
2,440
0.7
$42.83
99%
$103,455
$14,730
570
25,600
0.7
$42.83
99%
$24,168
$3,441
0.7
$42.83
99%
$1,085,429
$154,541
340
0.7
$42.83
99%
$14,416
$2,052
$483
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
324122
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
324191
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
324199
All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
325110
Petrochemical Manufacturing
80
0.7
$42.83
99%
$3,392
325120
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
102
0.7
$42.83
99%
$4,325
$616
325130
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
416
0.7
$42.83
99%
$17,638
$2,511
325180
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
604
0.7
$42.83
99%
$25,609
$3,646
325193
85
0.7
$42.83
99%
$3,604
$513
133
0.7
$42.83
99%
$5,639
$803
325199
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical
Manufacturing
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
1,988
0.7
$42.83
99%
$84,290
$12,001
325211
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
1,760
0.7
$42.83
99%
$74,623
$10,625
118
0.7
$42.83
99%
$5,003
$712
38
0.7
$42.83
99%
$1,611
$229
109
0.7
$42.83
99%
$4,622
$658
Frm 00071
324121
PO 00000
0.7
2,645
Jkt 262001
19,300
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
325212
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
325220
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
325311
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
325312
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
325314
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
325320
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
325411
10
0.7
$42.83
99%
$424
$60
484
0.7
$42.83
99%
$20,521
$2,922
777
1,985
0.7
$42.83
99%
$32,944
$4,691
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
0.7
$42.83
99%
$84,163
$11,983
325412
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
3,320
0.7
$42.83
99%
$140,767
$20,042
325413
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
950
0.7
$42.83
99%
$40,280
$5,735
325414
Biological Product ( except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
417
0.7
$42.83
99%
$17,681
$2,517
325510
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
3,150
0.7
$42.83
99%
$133,559
$19,016
325520
Adhesive Manufacturing
1,080
0.7
$42.83
99%
$45,792
$6,520
325611
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
2,320
0.7
$42.83
99%
$98,367
$14,005
325612
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
592
0.7
$42.83
99%
$25,101
$3,574
325613
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
325620
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
295
0.7
$42.83
99%
$12,508
$1,781
1,396
0.7
$42.83
99%
$59,190
$8,427
325910
Printing Ink Manufacturing
495
0.7
$42.83
99%
$20,988
$2,988
325920
Explosives Manufacturing
36
0.7
$42.83
99%
$1,526
$217
44213
ER20MY24.177</GPH>
325194
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
211120
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
368
0.7
$42.83
99%
$15,603
$2,222
325992
Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation
Manufacturing
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
366
0.7
$42.83
99%
$15,518
$2,209
3,600
0.7
$42.83
99%
$152,638
$21,732
689
0.7
$42.83
99%
$29,213
$4,159
339113
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
1,149
0.7
$42.83
99%
$48,717
$6,936
339114
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
447
0.7
$42.83
99%
$18,953
$2,698
325998
PO 00000
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
339116
Dental Laboratories
339910
339920
339930
339940
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
442
Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
329
4,931
Frm 00072
Jkt 262001
339115
Fmt 4701
240
0.7
$42.83
99%
$10,176
$1,449
4,796
0.7
$42.83
99%
$203,348
$28,952
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
1,797
0.7
$42.83
99%
$76,192
$10,848
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
1,280
0.7
$42.83
99%
$54,271
$7,727
0.7
$42.83
99%
$18,741
$2,668
0.7
$42.83
99%
$13,949
$1,986
0.7
$42.83
99%
$209,072
$29,767
0.7
$42.83
99%
$11,405
$1,624
Sign Manufacturing
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
339950
339991
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
269
339992
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
495
0.7
$42.83
99%
$20,988
$2,988
339993
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
71
0.7
$42.83
99%
$3,010
$429
339994
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
92
0.7
$42.83
99%
$3,901
$555
339995
Burial Casket Manufacturing
339999 All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Subtotal
60
0.7
$42.83
99%
$2,544
$362
2,555
0.7
$42.83
99%
$108,331
$15,424
97,861
0.7
$42.83
99%
$4,149,265
$590,762
$27,284
20MYR4
211120
Crude Petroleum Extraction
4,710
0.7
$42.83
95%
$191,633
211130
Natural Gas Extraction
1,185
0.7
$42.83
95%
$48,213
$6,865
324110
Petroleum Refineries
180
0.7
$42.83
95%
$7,324
$1,043
324121
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
4,170
0.7
$42.83
95%
$169,663
$24,156
324122
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
1,050
0.7
$42.83
95%
$42,721
$6,082
324191
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
63,000
0.7
$42.83
95%
$2,563,247
$364,949
324199
All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
240
0.7
$42.83
95%
$9,765
$1,390
$4,882
$695
$854
$122
325110
Petrochemical Manufacturing
120
0.7
$42.83
95%
325120
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
21
0.7
$42.83
95%
325130
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
390
0.7
$42.83
95%
$15,868
$2,259
325180
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
564
0.7
$42.83
95%
$22,947
$3,267
325193
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
710
0.7
$42.83
95%
$28,887
$4,113
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
325991
339112
ER20MY24.178</GPH>
44214
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-14: Total Costs Associated with Revisions to Appendix Language on Precautionary Statements and Other Mandatory Language (2022 Dollars)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
150
0.7
$42.83
95%
$6,103
$869
325199
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical
Manufacturing
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
2,070
0.7
$42.83
95%
$84,221
$11,991
325211
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
6,050
0.7
$42.83
95%
$246,153
$35,047
325212
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
175
0.7
$42.83
95%
$7,120
$1,014
325220
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
28
0.7
$42.83
95%
$1,139
$162
325311
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
38
0.7
$42.83
95%
$1,546
$220
325194
PO 00000
Frm 00073
325312
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
325314
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
325320
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
325411
325412
IO
0.7
$42.83
95%
$407
$58
500
435
0.7
$42.83
95%
$20,343
$2,896
0.7
$42.83
95%
$17,699
$2,520
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
1,040
0.7
$42.83
95%
$42,314
$6,025
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
1,970
0.7
$42.83
95%
$80,152
$11,412
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
325413
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
860
0.7
$42.83
95%
$34,990
$4,982
325414
Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
280
0.7
$42.83
95%
$11,392
$1,622
325510
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
4,380
0.7
$42.83
95%
$178,207
$25,373
325520
Adhesive Manufacturing
3,300
0.7
$42.83
95%
$134,265
$19,116
325611
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
1,530
0.7
$42.83
95%
$62,250
$8,863
325612
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
1,095
0.7
$42.83
95%
$44,552
$6,343
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
325613
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
360
0.7
$42.83
95%
$14,647
$2,085
325620
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
3,780
0.7
$42.83
95%
$153,795
$21,897
325910
Printing Ink Manufacturing
1,000
0.7
$42.83
95%
$40,686
$5,793
325920
Explosives Manufacturing
95%
$2,848
$405
20MYR4
70
475
0.7
$42.83
0.7
$42.83
95%
$19,326
$2,752
260
0.7
$42.83
95%
$10,578
$1,506
6,570
0.7
$42.83
95%
$267,310
$38,059
446
0.7
$42.83
95%
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
339112
Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation
Manufacturing
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
$18,146
$2,584
339113
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
684
0.7
$42.83
95%
$27,830
$3,962
339114
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
92
0.7
$42.83
95%
$3,743
$533
339115
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
100
0.7
$42.83
95%
$4,069
339116
Dental Laboratories
660
0.7
$42.83
95%
$26,853
$579
$3,823
339910
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
314
0.7
$42.83
95%
$12,776
$1,819
339920
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
412
0.7
$42.83
95%
$16,763
$2,387
339930
339940
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
106
122
0.7
$42.83
95%
$4,313
$614
0.7
$42.83
95%
$4,964
$707
325998
Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
44215
325991
325992
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
ER20MY24.179</GPH>
Table VI-14: Total Costs Associated with Revisions to Appendix Language on Precautionary Statements and Other Mandatory Language (2022 Dollars)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44216
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
339950
Sign Manufacturing
1,402
0.7
$42.83
95%
$57,042
$8,122
339991
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
270
0.7
$42.83
95%
$10,985
$1,564
339992
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
124
0.7
$42.83
95%
$5,045
$718
339993
339994
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
30
0.7
$42.83
95%
$1,221
$174
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
78
0.7
$42.83
95%
$3,174
$452
Burial Casket Manufacturing
26
0.7
$42.83
95%
$1,058
$151
339999 All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Subtotal
728
0.7
$42.83
95%
$29,620
2,835
0.5
$30.59
75%
$65,045
$9,261
1,545
0.5
$30.59
75%
$35,448
$5,047
$30,974
$4,410
$438,794
$62,474
..
339995
211120
Crude Petroleum Extraction
211130
Natural Gas Extraction
Sfmt 4725
324110
Petroleum Refineries
324121
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
324122
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
324191
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
324199
All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
325110
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
1,350
0.5
$30.59
75%
19,125
0.5
$30.59
75%
1,875
0.5
$30.59
75%
$43,019
$6,125
120,000
0.5
$30.59
75%
$2,753,219
$391,996
1,875
300
0.5
$30.59
75%
$43,019
$6,125
Petrochemical Manufacturing
0.5
$30.59
75%
$6,883
$980
325120
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
45
0.5
$30.59
75%
$1,032
$147
325130
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
330
0.5
$30.59
75%
$7,571
$1,078
1,264
0.5
$30.59
75%
$29,001
$4,129
720
0.5
$30.59
75%
$16,519
$2,352
120
0.5
$30.59
75%
$2,753
$392
3,450
0.5
$30.59
75%
$79,155
$11,270
13,706
0.5
$30.59
75%
$314,464
$44,773
250
0.5
$30.59
75%
$5,736
$817
325180
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
325193
325199
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical
Manufacturing
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
325211
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
325212
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
325220
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
58
0.5
$30.59
75%
$1,331
$189
325311
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
24
0.5
$30.59
75%
$551
$78
325312
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
325314
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
325320
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
325411
325412
325194
30
0.5
$30.59
75%
$688
$98
1,290
0.5
$30.59
75%
$29,597
$4,214
960
0.5
$30.59
75%
$22,026
$3,136
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
1,080
0.5
$30.59
75%
$24,779
$3,528
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
2,820
0.5
$30.59
75%
$64,701
$9,212
325413
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
3,400
0.5
$30.59
75%
$78,008
$11,107
325414
Biological Product ( except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
410
0.5
$30.59
75%
$9,407
$1,339
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
ER20MY24.180</GPH>
Table VI-14: Total Costs Associated with Revisions to Appendix Language on Precautionary Statements and Other Mandatory Language (2022 Dollars)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-14: Total Costs Associated with Revisions to Appendix Language on Precautionary Statements and Other Mandatory Language (2022 Dollars)
Jkt 262001
325612
325613
325620
325910
PO 00000
325920
325991
Frm 00075
325992
325998
339112
Fmt 4701
339113
339114
Sfmt 4725
339115
339116
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
339910
339920
339930
339940
339950
339991
20MYR4
339992
339993
339994
339995
339999
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
17,250
0.5
$30.59
75%
$395,775
$56,349
Adhesive Manufacturing
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
3,780
2,650
2,300
0.5
0.5
0.5
$30.59
$30.59
$30.59
75%
75%
75%
$86,726
$60,800
$12,348
$8,657
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
950
4,550
0.5
0.5
$30.59
$30.59
75%
75%
$52,770
$21,796
$7,513
$3,103
Printing Ink Manufacturing
Explosives Manufacturing
8,722
$30.59
$30.59
$30.59
75%
75%
75%
$104,393
$200,113
$14,863
$28,492
500
520
0.5
0.5
0.5
$11,472
$11,931
$1,633
$1,699
105
0.5
$30.59
75%
$2,409
$343
8,175
0.5
$30.59
75%
$187,563
$26,705
530
765
0.5
0.5
$30.59
$30.59
75%
75%
$12,160
$17,552
$1,731
$2,499
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
130
70
0.5
0.5
$30.59
$30.59
75%
75%
$2,983
$1,606
$425
$229
Dental Laboratories
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
300
135
420
0.5
0.5
0.5
$30.59
$30.59
$30.59
75%
75%
75%
$6,883
$3,097
$980
$441
$1,372
80
145
0.5
0.5
$30.59
$30.59
75%
75%
$3,327
$261
$474
845
230
0.5
0.5
$30.59
$30.59
75%
75%
$19,387
$5,277
$2,760
$751
100
40
0.5
0.5
$30.59
$30.59
75%
75%
$327
$131
95
45
0.5
0.5
$30.59
$30.59
75%
75%
$2,294
$918
$2,180
380
232,674
0.5
0.5
$30.59
$30.59
75%
75%
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation
Manufacturing
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
Sign Manufacturing
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
Burial Casket Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Subtotal
211120
211130
324122
ER20MY24.181</GPH>
$1,032
$8,719
$310
$147
$1,241
$5,338,354
$760,062
Crude Petroleum Extraction
14,525
0.3
$18.35
25%
$66,651
$9,490
Natural Gas Extraction
Petroleum Refineries
12,100
18,900
0.3
0.3
$18.35
$18.35
25%
25%
$55,523
$86,726
$7,905
$12,348
104,850
13,500
0.3
0.3
$18.35
$18.35
25%
25%
$481,125
$61,947
$68,501
$8,820
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
44217
324110
324121
$9,636
$1,835
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
325510
325520
325611
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44218
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-14: Total Costs Associated with Revisions to Appendix Language on Precautionary Statements and Other Mandatory Language (2022 Dollars)
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
493,194
0.3
$18.35
25%
$2,263,121
$322,217
All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
2,400
0.3
$18.35
25%
$11,013
$1,568
325110
Petrochemical Manufacturing
4,235
0.3
$18.35
25%
$19,433
$2,767
325120
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
4,290
0.3
$18.35
25%
$19,686
$2,803
325130
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
2,350
0.3
$18.35
25%
$10,783
$1,535
325180
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
2,420
0.3
$18.35
25%
$11,105
$1,581
325193
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical
Manufacturing
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
3,320
0.3
$18.35
25%
$15,234
$2,169
3,075
0.3
$18.35
25%
$14,110
$2,009
22,500
0.3
$18.35
25%
$103,246
$14,700
325194
325199
93,250
0.3
$18.35
25%
$427,896
$60,923
1,085
0.3
$18.35
25%
$4,979
$709
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
72
0.3
$18.35
25%
$330
$47
Fmt 4701
325311
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
90
0.3
$18.35
25%
$413
$59
325312
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
70
0.3
$18.35
25%
$321
$46
325314
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
1,650
0.3
$18.35
25%
$7,571
$1,078
325320
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
2,652
0.3
$18.35
25%
$12,169
$1,733
325411
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
1,725
0.3
$18.35
25%
$7,916
$1,127
Sfmt 4725
Frm 00076
325211
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
325212
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
325220
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
325412
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
325413
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
325414
Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
325510
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
47,025
325520
Adhesive Manufacturing
21,720
0.3
$18.35
325611
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
12,000
0.3
$18.35
325612
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
7,050
0.3
$18.35
25%
$17,896
$2,548
$37,627
$5,357
0.3
$18.35
25%
$38,775
$5,521
0.3
$18.35
25%
$124,198
$17,683
2,700
0.3
$18.35
25%
$12,389
$1,764
0.3
$18.35
25%
$215,784
$30,723
25%
$99,667
$14,190
25%
$55,064
$7,840
$32,350
$4,606
325613
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
3,900
0.3
$18.35
25%
325620
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
8,200
0.3
$18.35
25%
325910
Printing Ink Manufacturing
19,750
0.3
$18.35
25%
$90,627
$12,903
325920
Explosives Manufacturing
2,250
0.3
$18.35
25%
$10,325
$1,470
325991
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
2,940
0.3
$18.35
25%
$13,491
$1,921
325992
Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation
Manufacturing
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
500
0.3
$18.35
25%
$2,294
$327
31,350
0.3
$18.35
25%
$143,856
$20,482
1,325
0.3
$18.35
25%
$6,080
710
0.3
$18.35
25%
$3,258
$866
$464
325998
339112
339113
ER20MY24.182</GPH>
8,450
27,066
I Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
324191
324199
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-14: Total Costs Associated with Revisions to Appendix Language on Precautionary Statements and Other Mandatory Language (2022 Dollars)
Jkt 262001
339910
339920
339930
339940
PO 00000
339950
339991
339992
Frm 00077
339993
339994
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
Dental Laboratories
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
Sign Manufacturing
175
0.3
$18.35
25%
860
1,390
0.3
0.3
0.3
$18.35
$18.35
25%
25%
25%
145
305
20
115
0.3
0.3
$18.35
$18.35
25%
25%
$665
$1,400
$92
$528
$114
$562
$908
$95
$199
$13
Fmt 4701
$18.35
$18.35
$1,468
$8,558
$75
$209
$1,218
0.3
0.3
$18.35
$18.35
25%
25%
$459
$275
$65
$39
0.3
0.3
$18.35
$18.35
25%
25%
$459
$275
$65
$39
320
1,865
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
100
60
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
Burial Casket Manufacturing
100
60
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
$18.35
$18.35
$803
$3,946
$6,378
25%
25%
25%
0.3
0.3
0.3
339995
339999
All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Subtotal
175
0.3
$803
$114
0.3
$18.35
$18.35
25%
1,004,879
25%
$4,611,089
$656,515
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Crude Petroleum Extraction
41,370
0.5
$33.40
83%
$1,141,641
$162,544
211130
324110
Natural Gas Extraction
Petroleum Refineries
17,475
20,680
0.4
0.3
$24.80
$19.66
58%
33%
$251,331
$135,624
$35,784
$19,310
324121
324122
324191
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
130,585
16,995
701,794
0.3
0.4
43%
46%
0.4
$21.39
$22.04
$23.54
52%
$1,193,037
$171,855
$8,665,016
$169,862
$24,468
$1,233,703
324199
325110
All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
Petrochemical Manufacturing
4,855
4,735
0.4
0.3
$26.00
$20.16
62%
36%
$78,213
$34,591
$11,136
$4,925
325120
325130
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
4,458
3,486
4,852
0.3
0.4
0.4
$19.15
$25.17
$25,897
$51,861
$3,687
$7,384
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical
Manufacturing
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
4,835
0.4
$27.43
$24.20
30%
59%
67%
55%
$88,662
$64,245
$12,623
$9,147
3,478
0.3
$20.77
40%
$28,606
$4,073
30,008
114,766
1,628
0.4
0.4
0.4
$23.07
$21.48
$24.64
51%
$350,912
$1,063,136
$22,838
$49,962
$151,367
$3,252
0.5
0.5
$30.22
325194
325199
325211
325212
325220
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
196
325311
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
261
$33.26
43%
57%
74%
82%
$4,412
$628
$7,131
$1,015
44219
211120
325180
325193
ER20MY24.183</GPH>
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
339114
339115
339116
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
70%
65%
$1,840
$78,033
$84,838
$262
$11,110
$12,079
5,830
16,560
0.5
0.5
$33.32
$28.26
82%
69%
$159,172
$324,394
$22,662
$46,186
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
32,276
3,807
0.3
0.4
$21.02
$24.15
41%
55%
$277,476
$50,869
$39,506
$7,243
325510
325520
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
Adhesive Manufacturing
71,805
29,880
$23.86
$23.49
$131,461
$52,174
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
18,500
11,037
54%
52%
59%
$923,324
$366,450
325611
325612
0.4
0.4
0.4
$276,482
$154,773
$39,365
$22,036
325613
325620
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
5,505
17,926
$66,847
$355,005
$9,518
$50,545
325910
325920
Printing Ink Manufacturing
Explosives Manufacturing
$352,414
$26,171
$50,176
$3,726
325991
325992
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation
Manufacturing
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
120
3,924
4,824
325411
325412
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
325413
325414
325998
339112
339113
339114
339115
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
0.4
0.4
0.4
$25.20
$24.65
$23.38
$28.53
57%
52%
29,967
2,856
0.5
0.4
0.3
$23.14
$21.41
69%
51%
43%
4,303
1,231
0.4
0.5
$24.63
$31.84
57%
79%
$60,351
$30,800
$8,593
$4,385
49,695
0.4
$25.38
60%
$751,367
$106,978
2,990
0.5
74%
$65,600
$9,340
3,308
0.6
0.6
$29.81
$34.75
844
1,270
7,146
20MYR4
$97,356
$13,861
$3,770
$2,819
$37.55
$40.65
61%
91%
95%
$26,481
$19,797
$243,463
$92,730
$34,664
$13,203
$35.87
$25.58
85%
87%
2,391
0.4
0.6
0.7
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
2,417
648
0.6
0.7
$37.61
$40.56
90%
95%
$82,070
$24,981
$11,685
$3,557
339940
339950
Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
Sign Manufacturing
711
7,498
0.6
0.7
$36.37
$40.40
88%
95%
$22,768
$286,970
$3,242
$40,858
339991
339992
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
2,634
819
201
0.4
0.6
$24.43
$38.35
56%
92%
$5,158
$4,098
0.5
0.5
$33.09
$32.94
82%
81%
$36,226
$28,786
$5,424
$9,713
0.5
0.7
$32.26
80%
95%
$4,910
$40.50
$147,472
$699
$20,997
339116
339910
339920
339930
339995
339999
Dental Laboratories
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
Burial Casket Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
365
191
3,838
$772
$1,383
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
60%
0.5
0.4
$25.49
$28.51
$26.94
325312
325314
325320
339993
339994
ER20MY24.184</GPH>
44220
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-14: Total Costs Associated with Revisions to Appendix Language on Precautionary Statements and Other Mandatory Language (2022 Dollars)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health (Document ID 0481).
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VI-14: Total Costs Associated with Revisions to Appendix Language on Precautionary Statements and Other Mandatory Language (2022 Dollars)
44221
ER20MY24.185</GPH>
44222
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VI. Management Familiarization and
Other Management-Related Costs
In order to implement the new
requirements in the HCS or determine
whether they need to implement any of
the revisions to the standard, all
employers currently covered by the
standard will need to become familiar
with the updates OSHA is making in
this final rule. The nature and extent of
the familiarization required will vary
depending on the employer’s business.
In the 2012 HCS final rule (77 FR
17637–17638), OSHA estimated that
eight hours of time per manager, or an
equivalent cost, would be associated
with the necessary familiarization and
implementation of revisions to hazard
communication programs in affected
establishments in the manufacturing
sector.37 This final rule requires some
changes to hazard communication
programs in affected establishments, but
those changes are significantly less
extensive than those required by the
2012 rule. Therefore, OSHA believes
that much less time will be needed for
familiarization and implementation
under this rule than was necessary
under the 2012 rule.
For the present rule, OSHA in the
PEA estimated that management
familiarization time would vary by
establishment size and would also vary
depending on whether an establishment
would simply be familiarizing itself
with the revised standard or would also
need to take further action because it
would be affected by one or more of the
revisions to the standard. Above in
Section VI.C, Profile of Affected
Industries, Establishments, and
Employees, Table VI–10 presents, by
NAICS industry, the percentage of
establishments (and for training,
entities) expected to be affected by rule
familiarization and whether those
establishments or entities will incur
additional costs or no additional costs—
that is, whether those establishments or
entities will incur additional costs for
revising SDSs/labels or for training
employees as a result of the final rule.38
In terms of manufacturing
establishments that would have costs in
addition to management familiarization
costs, OSHA in the PEA estimated that
there are 38,018 small establishments
(those with fewer than 20 employees),
11,273 medium establishments (those
37 Larger employers were estimated to have
greater familiarization costs for the 2012 HCS final
rule because they have more managers.
38 Wholesalers in NAICS 424910 and NAICS
424950 are not expected to incur costs for revising
SDSs/labels or for training employees, but OSHA
expects that they will be affected by the provisions
of the proposed rule that are anticipated to result
in cost savings.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
with 20 to 499 employees), and 394
large establishments (those with 500 or
more employees). In terms of
establishments that would not have
costs other than management
familiarization costs, OSHA estimated
in the PEA that there are 79,500 small
establishments, 22,657 medium
establishments, and 467 large
establishments; their only costs
associated with this final standard
would be as a result of rule
familiarization.39
To estimate unit costs, OSHA in the
PEA first considered establishments that
would incur costs, in addition to rule
familiarization costs, because of the
proposed rule. As noted earlier, for the
2012 FEA OSHA applied a Manager
hourly wage to estimate familiarization
costs (Document ID 0005, Section VI,
pp. 17612–17613, 17623; Document ID
0029). For the PEA, because the new
requirements are significantly less
extensive than those in the 2012 rule,
OSHA expected that the employer will
delegate to a Health and Safety
Specialist the responsibility for
management familiarization of the new
requirements found within this
proposed standard. OSHA invited
public comment on the agency’s
preliminary assumptions for estimating
the cost of management familiarization.
As discussed above in the section on the
revised hazard classification provisions,
commenters tended to focus on the
overall effect of the proposed standard
on labor efforts required to update SDS
software and labels. For example, in
response to a request for comment on
costs for management familiarization in
relation to the proposed rule, Ameren
stated that it did not agree with OSHA’s
assumptions on the cost of management
familiarization but based that statement
on the time required to train all of the
employees, which is a separate cost that
OSHA accounts for (Document ID 0309,
p. 8).
CISC, however, disagreed with
OSHA’s preliminary assessment of the
unit time burden for management
familiarization and specifically noted
that the estimate of 4 hours, 1 hour, and
.25 hours for large, medium, and small
establishments that are not chemical
manufacturers respectively were too low
and particularly for small entities who
were unlikely to employ a safety and
health specialist and therefore would
need more time for familiarization
(Document ID 0335, p. 2).
39 Note that the numbers of small, medium, and
large establishments reported above are derived in
the ‘‘Rule Fam’’ tab of the OSHA spreadsheets in
support of this proposed rule (see Document ID
0049).
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
In estimating costs for establishments
that would incur costs in addition to
rule familiarization costs, for small
establishments OSHA preliminarily
estimated management familiarization
costs of 0.5 hours of a Health and Safety
Specialist’s labor time. For medium
establishments, OSHA in the PEA
estimated two hours of a Health and
Safety Specialist’s labor time. For large
establishments, OSHA estimated eight
hours of a Health and Safety Specialist’s
labor time for the purpose of estimating
costs of management familiarization.
Multiplying these labor burdens by the
loaded hourly wage of $58.00 resulted
in preliminary management
familiarization costs per establishment
of $29.00, $116.01, and $464.04 for
small, medium, and large
establishments, respectively.
For this FEA, based on the evidence
submitted by commenters regarding the
complexity of some of the updates, as
well as the need for managers to
understand the substantive revisions to
the Appendices, OSHA believes that it
would be appropriate to double the
preliminary time estimates for
management familiarization for
employers affected by other provisions
in the revised standard. Therefore, for
small establishments, OSHA in this FEA
estimates management familiarization
costs of one hour of a Health and Safety
Specialist’s labor time. For medium
establishments, OSHA in this FEA
estimates four hours of a Health and
Safety Specialist’s labor time. For large
establishments, OSHA estimates 16
hours of a Health and Safety Specialist’s
labor time for the purpose of estimating
costs of management familiarization.
Multiplying these labor burdens by the
loaded hourly wage of $61.18 results in
final management familiarization costs
per establishment of $61.18, $244.73,
and $978.92 for small, medium, and
large establishments, respectively.
For establishments that would not
incur other costs as a result of the
proposed rule (below, these employers
are termed ‘‘indirectly affected
establishments’’), OSHA in the PEA
estimated that rule familiarization will
take half as long as the time estimated
in the PEA for establishments that
would incur other costs under the
proposed rule. In those cases,
management will not need to devote as
much time to considering (or making
compliance decisions about) the
provisions in the proposed rule that are
expected to result in costs, and they
would primarily need to familiarize
themselves with the rule only to the
extent of understanding that they did
not fall within the scope of the changes
being made. Therefore, OSHA adopted
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44223
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
estimates of 0.25 hours, 1 hour, and 4
hours of a Health and Safety Specialist’s
labor time for small, medium, and large
establishments, respectively. CISC’s
comment on the estimate of hours
required for indirectly affected
establishments did not provide evidence
to support the argument that OSHA’s
understanding of these management
familiarization costs was incorrect
because they did not provide
information about how many small
entities might not employ a Safety and
Health Specialist, what person other
than a Health and Safety Specialist
would perform the work, or how long it
would take them, nor did they explain
how downstream users would be more
directly impacted by any of the
proposed changes, so OSHA has left
unchanged the preliminary perestablishment labor burden estimates for
indirectly affected establishments.
Multiplying the labor burdens by the
loaded hourly wage of $61.18 results in
management familiarization costs per
establishment of $15.30 for small
establishments, $61.18 for medium
establishments, and $244.73 for large
establishments.
These management familiarization
costs per establishment are multiplied
by the relevant number of small,
medium, and large establishments,
resulting in an estimated undiscounted
one-time familiarization cost of $8.0
million. Annualizing this one-time cost
using a seven percent discount rate over
a 10-year period results in an estimate
of annualized costs of $1.1 million.
Table VI–15 presents the detailed unit
values factoring into OSHA’s estimate of
management-related costs. The
distribution of these managementfamiliarization costs by NAICS code is
displayed in Column 3 of Table VI–12.
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
Table VI-15: Total Costs Associated with Management Familiarization with the Revisions to the HCS {by
Establishment Size, 2022 Dollars
Total Establishments
Wage
35,114
$61.18
11,353
$61.18
404
$61.18
1.00
4.00
16.00
$61.18
$2,148,368
$305,879
$2,778,426
$395,585
Total Establishments
77,572
22,891
498
Wage
$61.18
$61.18
$61.18
Hours
Unit Cost Per Establishment
0.25
$15.30
1.00
$61.18
4.00
$244.73
$1,186,515
$1,400,532
$168,933
$199,404
Hours
Unit Cost Per Establishment
Total One-Time Cost
Total Annualized Cost (7%)
Total One-Time Cost
Total Annualized Cost (7%)
$244.73
Total Establishments
112,686
34,244
Total One-Time Cost
$3,334,883
$4,178,959
46,871
$978.92
$395,485 $5,322,279
$56,308 $757,773
100,961
$121,876 $2,708,923
$17,352
$385,690
902
147,832
$517,360 $8,031,202
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VII. Costs Associated With Training
Employees
In the PEA, OSHA estimated the
incremental costs to train health and
safety personnel who are covered by the
HCS and are already trained in
accordance with the 2012 standard but
would need to receive additional
training to become familiar with the
updates to SDSs and labels for impacted
aerosols, desensitized explosives, and
flammable gases. This analysis is
described below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
OSHA preliminarily concluded that
these would be the only training costs
associated with the revisions to the
HCS. The agency requested comments
on this determination and received
comments, from NACD, indicating that
they believed OSHA should include
training costs for retraining workers
across all areas (Document ID 0329, p.
11).
As OSHA noted in the PEA, however,
OSHA did not estimate any training
costs for users of aerosols, desensitized
explosives, or flammable gases in the
workplace because the agency does not
believe that these users would need to
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
dedicate more than a trivial amount of
time to training associated with the
reclassification of these chemicals. This
is because the hazards associated with
these chemicals have not changed; the
only thing that is changing under the
revisions to the HCS is the way the
hazards are classified. For example,
users of pyrophoric gases should
already have received training on the
fire- and explosive-related hazards
associated with these chemicals,
whereas health and safety personnel
who are processing the inputs to the
gases upstream or reviewing revised
SDSs and labels for the first time may
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.186</GPH>
Total Annualized Cost (7%)
$474,812
$594,990
$73,660 $1,143,462
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health (Document ID 0481).
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44224
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
need additional training to learn about
the hazards. At most, downstream users
might require notification of a change in
the classification of those chemicals.
Similarly, even though ‘‘desensitized
explosives’’ is a new hazard
classification, the explosion hazards
were and are well-known and should
have been included in prior hazard
training. For example, should the water
or other wetting solution dry out, an
explosion could occur. In this case, even
the hazard pictogram (flames) remains
unchanged. For this final analysis of
costs for training, OSHA declines to add
costs for retraining because such
additional time would double-count the
costs associated with both (1) the
baseline training already assigned costs
in the 2012 FEA and (2) the incremental
training estimated in this FEA.
Therefore, OSHA does not agree with
NACD that it should take costs for all
the workers who are required to receive
training under the HCS.
OSHA also received a comment from
NAIMA indicating that ‘‘NAIMA and its
members conduct training, but the cost
would not be in more training, but in
the review of the training materials to
make certain that the different changes
are captured in the training materials’’
(Document ID 0461, p. 3). OSHA notes
that, as indicated in Table VI–16 below,
the agency has already incorporated the
cost for the preparation of training
materials and has used an estimate of
2.5 hours of labor for a safety and health
specialist to develop the materials
necessary for instructing personnel on
chemical hazards communicated
through the revised standard.
OSHA considered whether some
increase in user training might be
required for some aerosols, since a small
portion of these may not currently be
classified as either flammable aerosols
or gas under pressure; as noted in the
discussion of Appendix B in Section
XIV., Summary and Explanation of the
Final Rule, such aerosol containers
differ from pressurized gas cylinders in
terms of container characteristics and
failure mechanisms. Training for nonflammable aerosols might include their
revised classification and hazard
avoidance measures (such as: keep away
from heat, hot surfaces, sparks, open
flames and other ignition sources; no
smoking; do not pierce or burn, even
after use). However, based on
observation of the industry over time,
OSHA believes that aerosols that are
neither flammable nor fall under gases
under pressure are fairly uncommon
and, therefore, OSHA preliminarily
concluded that the total user training
time required for non-flammable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
aerosols not under pressure would also
be negligible.
As discussed above, under the final
rule, some health and safety personnel
who are covered by, and are already
trained in accordance with, the existing
standard will need to receive additional
training to become familiar with the
updates to SDSs and labels for impacted
aerosols, desensitized explosives, and
flammable gases. OSHA expects that the
incremental training costs for these
employees to become familiar with the
revisions to the HCS will be small. In
certain cases, affected employers will be
able to integrate the necessary training
into existing training programs and
related methods of distributing safety
and health information to employees;
those employers would not incur any
meaningful additional costs.
In the PEA, OSHA estimated that each
affected chemical manufacturing firm 40
would need to devote 2.5 hours of a
Health and Safety Specialist’s time to
preparing new training under the
proposed rule, and that each affected
logistics or production worker would
spend 12 minutes receiving the training.
Multiplying these unit time estimates by
the respective hourly wage and by the
number of affected firms (2,754), the
number of affected logistics managers
(1,179), and the number of affected
production workers (76,447) yielded a
preliminary undiscounted one-time cost
of $843,940. Annualizing this one-time
cost using a seven percent discount rate
over a 10-year period resulted in
estimated annualized costs of $120,158.
OSHA invited interested parties to
provide comments on the preliminary
total cost estimates and the assumptions
underlying them. Specifically, the
agency requested comments on its
preliminary conclusions regarding
training time for users of reclassified
chemicals.
Ameren described the scope of their
organization’s current GHS training
program and outlined the impact of the
proposed training requirements in
OSHA’s 2021 NPRM. They estimated
that for their corporation, which has
9,231 employees, the total spent on
training would be approximately
$3,000,000 and it would take one year
to update all of their training materials.
This estimate was based on an
assumption that they would need to
retrain all of their employees, including
on the combustible dust provisions and
the labels on small containers
(Document ID 0309, p. 4).
40 OSHA anticipates that, in practice, training
would be organized more efficiently at the
corporate (firm) level than at the establishment
level.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
As discussed above, however, OSHA
has concluded that the training times
necessary for informing workers will be
trivial because they will not need to be
trained on fundamental changes to
hazards. The information Ameren
provided only indicated that they
thought they needed to train all of their
workers on all of the changes but did
not provide estimates of how much time
each worker would need to spend on
receiving such training under their
assumptions, and therefore their
comment is difficult to compare with
OSHA’s assumption that only a trivial
amount of time will be spent on training
based on these updates for users of
chemicals. Similarly, NAIMA briefly
commented on the compliance burden
imposed by the proposed training
requirements, stating workers would
need to be trained on the new hazard
class and hazard categories and that
OSHA needed to account for these costs
(Document ID 0338, p. 4). In response,
OSHA notes that this FEA accounts for
the incremental compliance burden
imposed by the proposed training
requirements and that NAIMA did not
elaborate further on the costs of
employee training, nor did the
association provide any quantitative
details on the expected cost burden that
would allow comparison with the
estimates in the PEA.
Therefore, because stakeholders in
this rulemaking provided few if any
details on specific changes in OSHA’s
preliminary estimate of incremental
training costs necessary to align with
employer expectations of changes to
training programs, and because these
expectations are based on an incorrect
assumption about the amount of
training required, the agency has no
basis in the record to depart from its
preliminary estimate of incremental
training costs and believes that it
adequately reflects the real-world
changes among affected employers.
Multiplying the labor burden for each
labor category by the loaded hourly
wages of $61.18 for a Health and Safety
Specialist, $60.37 for logistics
personnel, and $31.09 for production
workers, results in unit costs of $152.96,
$12.07, and $6.22, respectively.
As shown in Table VI–16, expressed
in 2022 dollars, the incremental onetime undiscounted final training costs
are expected to total $0.96 million and,
annualized over ten years, incremental
final training costs are expected to total
$136,953 at a 7 percent discount rate.
The unit values that factored into
OSHA’s estimate of training costs are
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
shown in Table VI–16.41 The
distribution of these training costs by
44225
NAICS code is displayed in Column 4
of Table VI–12.
Table VI-16: Training Costs Associated with the Revisions to the HCS Standard (2022 Dollars)
In paragraph (f)(11) of the 2012 HCS,
chemical manufacturers, importers,
distributors, or employers who become
newly aware of any significant
information regarding the hazards of a
chemical must revise the labels for the
chemical within six months of
becoming aware of the new information
and ensure that labels on containers of
hazardous chemicals shipped thereafter
contain the new information. In the
NPRM, OSHA proposed to modify
paragraph (f)(11) such that chemicals
that have been released for shipment
and are awaiting future distribution
need not be relabeled; however, if the
manufacturer or importer opts not to
relabel the chemicals they must provide
an updated label for each individual
container with each shipment.
Relatedly, OSHA also proposed in the
NPRM to add new paragraph (f)(1)(vii)
to require the inclusion of a released for
shipment date on labels on shipped
containers.
OSHA anticipated that these proposed
modifications to paragraph (f)(11) would
provide cost savings to manufacturers
and distributors of certain products—
those with large (and typically
infrequent) production runs and lengthy
shelf lives (often five years or longer)
that, during production, are labeled,
boxed, palletized, and shipped, and
then go through the distribution chain
usually without the chemical contents,
packaging, or label being disturbed.
OSHA invited public comment on the
agency’s preliminary determination that
the proposed modifications to paragraph
(f)(11) would generate cost savings and
on its preliminary analysis of the factors
that would contribute to the cost
savings. Specifically, in its preliminary
determination of technological
feasibility, OSHA invited public
comment ‘‘on any employer concerns
associated with . . . the proposed
provision addressing the relabeling of
containers that have been released for
shipment.
In the PEA, OSHA identified six
industries (four manufacturing and two
wholesale) that it expected would be
impacted by the proposed modifications
to paragraph (f)(11).42 These are
primarily fertilizer manufacturers, paint
manufacturers, and wholesalers of
related farm and paint supplies. OSHA
invited comments on whether other
industries are potentially affected by
this proposed modification to paragraph
(f)(11) and whether there might be other
health or economic effects of this
proposed modification that OSHA had
not considered in its proposal.
The Society of Chemical
Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA)
supported proposed (f)(11) and noted
that ‘‘SOCMA . . . believes it will
significantly reduce the compliance
burdens for chemicals that have been
released for distribution’’ (Document ID
0447, p. 3).
Ameren commented that it ‘‘would
incur an additional cost for having to reprint and replace current labels based
on the new OSHA changes. The cost is
estimated at $5 Million and would take
over two years to complete’’ (Document
ID 0309, p. 6). The National Propane
Gas Association (NPGA) also addressed
the cost associated with the addition of
a released for shipment date. They
indicated that there are at least 40
million propane gas cylinders that are
up to 20 pounds and another 10 million
tanks and cylinders that range from 33.5
to 420 pounds. They estimated that the
cost of updating all the labels to add a
released for shipment date would be
about $55 million, with a $1 cost per
label for the smaller size tanks and a
cost of $1.50 per label for the larger
tanks (Document ID 0440, pp. 1–2).
Carbide Industries LLC also indicated
concerns with the requirement to add a
release for shipment date and noted that
‘‘the additional cost to chemical
manufacturers, importers, or
distributors of implementing and
complying with [the] proposed
requirement will be significant in many
cases (Document ID 0290, p. 1).
Industrial Minerals Association—North
America (IMA–NA) stated their belief
that ‘‘[t]his exemption, while wellmeaning will not alleviate any burden to
manufacturers’’ because of the released
for shipment date requirement’’
(Document ID 0363, pp. 7–8).
In response to these and other
comments discussed in the discussion
of paragraph (f) in Section XIV.,
Summary and Explanation of the Final
Rule, OSHA has removed the proposal
to include a released for shipment date,
41 The estimated number of affected firms,
logistics managers and production workers are
derived in Document ID 0481, tab ‘‘Training’’. The
affected number of firms (3,469) can also be
calculated by matching the NAICS codes with
training costs from Table VI–12 with the number of
affected firms in the identical NAICS codes in Table
VI–1 and multiplying by 50 percent (only 50
percent are estimated to require training).
42 In principle, pesticide manufacturers would
also be affected by the revision to the standard, but
pesticide labeling in the United States is covered by
the U.S. EPA under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).
For that reason, any cost savings due to OSHA’s
proposed revisions to paragraph (f)(11) would not
apply to manufacturers in NAICS 325320: Pesticide
and other agricultural chemical manufacturing.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VIII. Cost Savings Associated With the
New Released for Shipment Provisions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.187</GPH>
Affected Firms
2,891
2,891
1,461
80,756
83,106
Employees Needing Training
Wage
$61.18
$60.37
$31.09
Hours
2.5
0.2
0.2
2.9
Unit Cost
$152.96
$12.07
$6.22
$171.25
Total One-Time Cost
$442,198
$17,635
$502,066
$961,899
Total Annualized Cost (7%)
$62,959
$2,511
$71,483
$136,953
Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health (Document ID 0481).
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44226
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
and therefore the costs that these
commenters highlight for needing to
update all labels to include the release
for shipment date will not be incurred.
Commenters also expressed concerns
about the costs of this provision that
indicated they did not understand the
provision is optional. ACI argued that
‘‘Complying with these proposed
requirements could slow the release of
products, needlessly complicate the
timing of shipments, and cause
confusion on labels with a process that
has an unclear safety outcome. These
requirements could also cascade down
to the storage and distribution chain
causing logistical burdens and
additional labor costs’’ (Document ID
0319, p. 2). NACD stated that the
impacts of the proposed requirement to
send printed labels with each shipment
‘‘would be prohibitively expensive’’ and
that tracking shipments on label status
is ‘‘not feasible.’’ NACD further stated
that ‘‘[e]xtensive new programming and
software would be needed to handle
this’’ (Document ID 0465, p. 3).
The language that was proposed and
is being finalized in paragraph (f)(11)
only creates a new option for companies
to comply with the HCS. If they want to,
they can choose not to relabel chemicals
that have been released for shipment, in
which case they would have to provide
an updated label with the shipment
(although the label no longer includes
the proposed requirement for the release
for shipment date). OSHA believes that
this revision to the proposed regulatory
text addresses comments about the
feasibility of this provision. However, if
the company believes that choosing to
not relabel their chemicals before
shipment would, as ACI indicated, slow
the release of products or create
additional labor costs, or would be
prohibitively expensive, as NACD
suggested, then they can simply choose
to relabel the chemicals before they are
shipped, as is already allowed by the
standard. OSHA believes that these
companies are rational actors who will
choose to relabel their shipments if
choosing the option to not relabel would
be more expensive. Regardless of
whether the company chooses to relabel
or not, they would need to create an
updated label, just as they do under the
2012 HCS, so the creation of the label
itself is not a new cost. Therefore,
OSHA is not accounting for additional
costs when these companies have the
option to continue complying with the
HCS as they have and therefore will not
face an increase in compliance costs
above their current baseline.
For the PEA, the first factor used to
estimate the cost savings resulting from
the proposed changes to paragraph
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
(f)(11) was the avoided economic loss
for affected manufacturers or
wholesalers who would otherwise have
to relabel products being held in
storage. To estimate the potential
economic loss avoided, OSHA relied on
comments submitted to the agency by
the Council of Producers & Distributors
of Agrotechnology (CPDA) on April 21,
2017 (Document ID 0006). The CPDA
comments included a summary of cost
estimates associated with relabeling
non-pesticide agricultural chemical
products in distribution. Those
estimates were obtained from an
industry survey and were based on the
following unit costs: shipping costs to
move product out of and back into the
warehouse (for off-site package opening
and replacement); relabeling space per
square foot per month; safety equipment
and training per employee involved in
relabeling; labor and materials to break
down pallets and shrink-wrap and redo
product packaging in new plastic bags;
and labor and materials to move liquid
to new containers and dispose of old
containers (Document ID 0006, pp. 4–6).
For OSHA’s purposes, the critical
costing information from CPDA was the
estimate of summary relabeling costs
presented as a percentage of the value
of the products requiring relabeling.
According to the CPDA survey results,
these summary costs range from 1.5
percent to 204 percent of the value of
the product, depending on product type
(e.g., liquid versus dry), container type
(plastic bags, etc.), and the volume and
value of the product (Document ID
0006, p. 8). As a practical matter, OSHA
expects that manufacturers and
wholesalers would simply discard a
product rather than incur relabeling
costs in excess of the value of the
product. Of course, there may be some
disposal costs for the discarded
material, but there may also be some
salvage value for the improperly-labeled
product. If one assumes that the
disposal cost and the salvage value are
relatively minor and, on net, offset each
other, then the upper limit on the
relabeling costs for any product would
be approximately 100 percent of the
value of the product. With an effective
range of labeling costs from 1.5 percent
to 100 percent of the value of the
product, OSHA estimated, without
further information on the distribution
of the costs, that the average labeling
cost would be approximately 50 percent
of the value of the products requiring
relabeling. While this cost estimate as a
percentage of the value of the product
was developed from data on relabeling
non-pesticide agricultural chemical
products in distribution, OSHA
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
assumed that this same estimate would
also apply to relabeling paints and
related chemical products in
distribution.
The agency invited comments on this
assumption. No commenters addressed
specifically the estimate of 50 percent of
product value as a measure of cost
savings. As discussed above, several
commenters broadly criticized OSHA’s
preliminary analysis of costs for
paragraph (f)(11) for omitting substantial
administrative and handling expenses
but did not provide specific data with
which OSHA could evaluate these
purported costs. Based on professional
judgment in evaluating these comments,
OSHA is not convinced that it has
underestimated costs associated with
the provision and has decided to leave
unchanged the preliminary productvalue cost savings of 50 percent for the
final cost analysis of paragraph (f)(11).
The agency anticipates that the above
clarification of the intent of paragraph
(f)(11) along with the discussion on
(f)(11) in Section XIV., Summary and
Explanation of the Final Rule, will
address any misconceptions concerning
additional compliance burden imposed
by final paragraph (f)(11).
The 50 percent average cost savings
estimate would apply only to those
products that previously required
relabeling and are likely to take
advantage of this option under (f)(11). In
order to estimate the expected cost
savings for all products in the NAICS
codes affected by the revisions to
paragraph (f)(11), OSHA also needed to
estimate three other factors (in addition
to the average cost savings of 50
percent): (1) what percentage of the
products in these NAICS industries
would be warehoused for more than six
months; (2) what percentage of products
warehoused for more than six months
would, under the 2012 HCS, be
relabeled in any particular year due to
a manufacturer becoming newly aware
of significant information regarding the
hazards of the product; and (3) the
percentage of all products in the NAICS
industries that are covered by the HCS.
OSHA was unable to identify data
relevant to factors (1) and (2) above and
instead worked with its contractor, ERG,
to develop estimates of both of these
factors. For (1) above, OSHA expected
that the percentage of products
warehoused for more than six months
would be quite low because it is
expensive to hold inventory over long
periods of time. Therefore, OSHA
estimated that just 5 percent of the
products in the six NAICS industries
potentially impacted by the proposed
modifications to paragraph (f)(11) would
be warehoused for more than six
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
months. For (2) above, OSHA
anticipated that manufacturer-initiated
relabeling would be rare and estimated
that only 1 percent of products
warehoused for more than six months
would be relabeled in any particular
year due to a manufacturer-initiated
labeling change. OSHA invited
comments on the preliminary estimates
described above and received no
comments specifically on the estimates.
For factor (3) above, OSHA assumed
that 100 percent of the products in the
four NAICS manufacturing industries
are covered by the HCS.43 For the two
wholesale industries, however, a
substantial portion of the covered
products do not qualify as hazardous
chemicals covered by the HCS or are not
subject to the HCS labeling
requirements. For NAICS 424910: Farm
Supplies Merchant Wholesalers, a
significant majority of the wholesale
supplies are non-fertilizers, such as
grains (e.g., alfalfa, hay, livestock feeds)
and nursery stock (e.g., plant seeds and
plant bulbs) that are not subject to the
HCS. Based on data from the 2012
Economic Census,44 ERG estimated that
41.7 percent of the wholesale supplies
in NAICS 424910 would be fertilizers
affected by the proposed released-forshipment provision (Document ID 0049,
tab ‘‘RF Shipment’’). For NAICS 424950:
Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant
Wholesalers, some proportion of the
wholesale supply consists of non-paints
and non-chemicals, such as wallpaper
and painting supplies such as
paintbrushes, rollers, and spray-painting
equipment. Based on data from the 2012
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
43 A review of the products covered under the
manufacturing NAICS codes reveals they are all, or
almost all, chemicals.
44 2012 Economic Census of the United States,
Table EC1242SLLS1—Wholesale Trade: Subject
Series—Product Lines: Product Lines Statistics by
Industry for the U.S. and States: 2012 (Document
ID 0043).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Economic Census, ERG estimated that
77.6 percent of the wholesale supplies
in NAICS 424950 would be paints and
related chemicals affected by the
proposed released-for-shipment
provision (Document ID 0049, tab
‘‘Variables’’). OSHA used ERG’s
estimates to develop the expected cost
savings attributable to the proposed
revisions to paragraph (f)(11). The
agency invited comments on the
preliminary estimates of factor (3) in the
cost model and received no comments
specifically on the estimates.45
For this FEA, OSHA updated factor
(3) to reflect the affected product line
sales data (as a percentage of total sales)
reported in the 2017 Economic Census
for the two affected NAICS industries in
the wholesale sector. OSHA estimated
that 37.1 percent of the wholesale
supplies in NAICS 424910 would be
fertilizers affected by the released-forshipment provision. For NAICS 424950,
OSHA estimated that 82.0 percent of the
wholesale supplies would be paints and
related chemicals affected by the
released-for-shipment provision.46
45 Under the revisions to paragraph (f)(11), when
relabeling is not required for chemicals that have
been released for shipment, the chemical
manufacturer or importer would still be required to
provide an updated label for each individual
container with each shipment. However, the
manufacturer and importer already had to provide
an updated label under the 2012 HCS, so this is not
a new cost.
46 2017 Economic Census for Wholesale Trade:
All Sectors: Industry by Products for the U.S. and
States. (Series EC1700NAPCSINDPRD) Release
Date: December 16, 2021. (Document ID 0479).
According to the census data for wholesale trade,
OSHA derived an estimate of 37.1 percent of
wholesale agricultural chemicals and fertilizers that
are affected by the released-for-shipment provision
for NAICS 424910 Farm Supplies Merchant
Wholesalers—derived as product line sales as a
percentage of total sales of all establishments for
North American Product Code System code
4004550015 Other agricultural chemicals and
fertilizers. For NAICS 424950 Paint, Varnish, and
Supplies Merchant Wholesalers, based on the
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44227
Column 3 of Table VI–18 shows the
average product value (revenue) for each
of the six NAICS industries that OSHA
expects will be affected by the
modification to paragraph (f)(11).47 And
Column 4 of Table VI–18 shows the
number of affected firms (entities) for
each of these six NAICS industries.48
Column 5 of Table VI–18 shows the
estimated loss avoided due to the
released-for-shipment provision for each
of these six NAICS industries as a
percentage of that industry’s revenues.
That percentage is the product of the
four factors estimated above: (1) the
costs of relabeling as a percentage of the
value of the products requiring
relabeling; (2) the percentage of the
products in these NAICS industries that
will be warehoused for more than six
months; (3) the percentage of products
warehoused for more than six months
that would have required generation of
a new label in any particular year due
to a manufacturer-initiated labeling
change; and (4) the percentage of all
products in the NAICS industries
covered by the HCS.
Table VI–17 presents, by NAICS
industry, these four factors and the
calculated percentage loss in revenue
OSHA anticipates will be avoided under
the revised released-for-shipment
provision.
wholesale trade census data, OSHA estimated that
82.0 percent of wholesale paints and related
chemicals are affected by the released-for-shipment
provision (merchant wholesalers product line sales
as a percentage of total sales of all establishments
for NAPCS products codes 4004875003
Architectural coatings, enamels, primers, stains,
solvents, and lacquers; 4004875006 Industrial/
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) coatings;
and 4005485012 Special purpose coatings,
including automotive, refinish, marine, and traffic
coatings). (Document ID 0481, tab ‘‘Variables’’)
47 Derived for each NAICS by dividing Column 3
of Table VI–9 (total industry revenues) by Column
7 of Table VI–1 (number of affected firms).
48 Obtained from Column 7 of Table VI–1.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44228
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Table VI-17: Calculation of the Percentage Loss Avoided Due to the Released-For-Shipment Provision
Nitrogenous Fertilizer
50%
5%
1%
100%
0.025%
Manufacturin
Phosphatic Fertilizer
50%
5%
1%
100%
0.025%
325312
Manufacturin
Fertilizer (Mixing Only)
325314
50%
5%
1%
100%
0.025%
Manufacturin
Paint and Coating
50%
5%
1%
100%
0.025%
325510
Manufacturin
Farm Supplies Merchant
50%
5%
1%
37.1%
0.009%
424910
Wholesalers
Paint, V amish, and
424950 Supplies Merchant
50%
5%
1%
82.0%
0.021%
Wholesalers
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health (Document ID 0481).
325311
The estimated cost savings for each of
the six affected industries arising from
the modifications to paragraph (f)(11)
then is simply the product of Columns
3, 4, and 5 in Table VI–18. Summing the
cost savings for each of the six
industries yields an estimated annual
cost savings of $33.3 million.
Table VI-18: Cost Savings Associated with the Released-for-Shipment Provision (2022 Dollars)
325311 Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
325312 Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
325314 Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
$45,555,017
$167,544,935
$17,587,282
165
44
371
0.025%
0.025%
0.025%
$1,879,144
$1,842,994
$1,631,220
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Cost Savings Associated With the New
Provisions for Labels on Very Small
Containers
Proposed new paragraph (f)(12),
which addresses the labeling of small
and very small containers, limits
labeling requirements for chemical
manufacturers, importers, or
distributors where they can demonstrate
that it is not feasible to use pull-out
labels, fold-back labels, or tags to
provide the full label information as
required by paragraph (f)(1). As
specified in paragraph (f)(12)(ii),
manufacturers, importers, and
distributors would be able to use an
abbreviated label (requiring only the
product identifier, pictogram(s), signal
word, chemical manufacturer’s name
and phone number, and a statement that
the full label information is provided on
the immediate outer package) on
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
containers with a volume capacity of
100 ml or less—referred to as ‘‘small
containers’’ in this FEA. As specified in
paragraph (f)(12)(iii), manufacturers,
importers, and distributors would need
to put only the product identifier on
containers with a volume capacity of 3
ml or less—referred to as ‘‘very small
containers’’ in this FEA—if they can
demonstrate that any label would
interfere with the normal use of the
container.
Following publication of the 2012
updates to the HCS, stakeholders
requested that OSHA clarify its
enforcement policy on labels for small
containers. In response, through letters
of interpretation, OSHA adopted
practical accommodations that
specified: (1) the minimum information
required for a label on the immediate
container of the shipped chemical; and
(2) the minimum information required
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.189</GPH>
In the PEA OSHA requested
comments on the reasonableness of the
agency’s preliminary cost estimate for
the proposed revision to paragraph
(f)(11) and the assumptions underlying
it (including the various factor
percentage estimates listed in Table VI–
17). Ameren agreed that there are
‘‘potential cost savings’’ resulting from
the revision to (f)(11) (Document ID
0309, p. 11) and SOCMA agreed that
this would ‘‘reduce the compliance
burdens’’ (Document ID 0447, p. 3); no
other commenters addressed this issue.
Therefore, OSHA’s estimate of cost
savings shown in Table VI–18 reflects,
in the agency’s view, a reasonable
determination of the impacts of final
paragraph (f)(11).
ER20MY24.188</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing
$32,845,918
0.025%
$7,866,597
958
424910 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
$34,435,446
4,909
0.009%
$15,678,794
Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant
424950
$22,176,270
0.021%
$4,359,744
959
Wholesalers
Total
7,406
$33,258,495
Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health (Document ID 0481).
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
for the outer packaging of shipped small
containers (see, e.g., Document ID 0170;
0174; 0200). Paragraph (f)(12)(ii) in this
final rule incorporates the
accommodations for small containers
described in these letters of
interpretation. However, the letters of
interpretation did not contain any
guidance unique to very small
containers, which are now covered by
paragraph (f)(12)(iii).
For costing purposes, OSHA in the
PEA estimated that no cost savings will
arise from proposed paragraph (f)(12)(ii)
(small containers); OSHA expected that
employers are already benefitting from
the practical accommodations on the
labeling of small packages described in
the aforementioned letters of
interpretation. OSHA invited public
comments on that preliminary
determination and the magnitude of any
cost savings that should be attributed to
proposed paragraph (f)(12)(ii). OSHA
received no comments on either of the
two questions pertaining to the agency’s
preliminary determination of current
practical benefits and zero cost savings
associated with paragraph (f)(12)(ii).
In the PEA, OSHA estimated cost
savings under proposed paragraph
(f)(12)(iii) for manufacturers, importers,
and distributors of very small containers
(volume capacity of 3 ml or less) where
the use of any label (even an abbreviated
label as specified in proposed paragraph
(f)(12)(ii)) would interfere with the
normal use of the container and only the
product identifier would be required.
OSHA preliminarily determined that
affected manufacturers would fall in
only a few NAICS industries: Other
Basic Chemical Manufacturing,
Inorganic and Organic (NAICS 325180
and 325199, respectively) and
Pharmaceutical and Medical
Manufacturing (NAICS 3254—
encompassing 6-digit NAICS 325411,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
325412, 325413, and 325414). As shown
in Table VI–19 in the PEA, OSHA
estimated that there are approximately
63.5 million labels on very small
containers in these six 6-digit NAICS
manufacturing industries that could be
affected by that part of the proposed
rule.49
Even in these six NAICS industries,
however, OSHA in the PEA expected
that manufacturers would not be able to
take advantage of proposed paragraph
(f)(12)(iii) in all cases because that
provision applies only when the
manufacturer, importer, or distributor
can demonstrate that it is not feasible to
use pull-out labels, fold-back labels, or
tags containing the full label
information and that even an
abbreviated label would interfere with
the normal use of the container. Of the
63.5 million potentially affected labels
on very small containers, OSHA
estimated in the PEA that for only 40
percent of them, or for an estimated
total of 25.4 million very small
containers, would manufacturers fall
under proposed paragraph (f)(12)(iii)
(see Column 5 of Table VI–19 and,
equivalently, Column 7 of Table VI–5 in
the PEA).
Manufacturers with containers falling
under paragraph (f)(12)(iii) could expect
to obtain cost savings from avoided
labeling costs on very small containers
(with only the product identifier
required) versus the labeling costs of
abbreviated labels (requiring the
product identifier, pictogram(s), signal
word, manufacturer’s name and phone
number, and a statement that the full
label information is provided on the
immediate outer packaging). In the PEA,
OSHA estimated an incremental unit
49 The number of very small containers in
Column 3 of Table VI–19 for each of these six
NAICS industries was obtained from Column 4 of
Table VI–5, both in the PEA and in this FEA.
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44229
cost savings of $0.051 per label for very
small containers.50 That unit cost
savings was expected to be net of the
cost of providing a full label on the
immediate outer package (containing a
set of very small containers) per
paragraph (f)(12)(iv)(A). OSHA
requested public comment on the
agency’s preliminary estimate ($0.051)
of unit cost savings for paragraph
(f)(12)(iii). OSHA did not receive any
comments objecting to the preliminary
estimate of unit cost savings; therefore,
updating the preliminary estimate to
2022 dollars, the agency estimates unit
cost savings of $0.058 per label for
paragraph (f)(12)(iii).
As shown in Table VI–19, multiplying
the number of affected labels by the unit
cost savings of $0.058 per label for very
small containers yields estimated
annual cost savings of $1.7 million.
50 The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers
Association of the United States provided to OSHA
(in a letter dated April 27, 2018) (Document ID
0257) a summary of survey results obtained from
member companies concerning how they might
benefit from relaxed OSHA labeling requirements
on small containers. Those results included an
estimate of $0.85 per label for small capacity
containers compliant with the 2012 HCS. However,
this estimate applies to expensive labels—such as
pull-out labels, fold-back labels, and fullinformation tags—and therefore is not applicable to
the cost savings associated with using only the
product identifier in lieu of the abbreviated labeling
specified in proposed paragraph (f)(12)(ii). In the
PEA, OSHA stated that it is likely that most of the
cost savings reported from the Flavor and Extract
Manufacturers Association survey would be
attributable to the expensive types of labels. Based
on the unit cost data provided by the Flavor and
Extract Manufacturers Association, OSHA
estimated a unit cost savings of $0.05 in 2018
dollars for the use of labels with the minimum
information—the product identifier—required for
very small containers (versus abbreviated labels).
Updating the 2018 estimate to 2019 dollars using
the BEA (2020) implicit price deflator for Gross
Domestic Product, OSHA in the PEA derived an
estimate of $0.05087 (or rounding, $0.051) in cost
savings per label (with the unrounded estimate
used in the analysis).
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44230
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Table VI-19: Estimated Cost Savings Associated with Abbreviated Labels on Very Small Containers under the Revised
HCS Standard 2022 Dollars
325180 Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
325413 In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
17,279,396
40%
6,911,758
$398,372
40,707,962
6,407,215
16,283,185
2,562,886
$938,513
$147,717
7,477,924
40%
40%
40%
2,991,169
$172,402
568,621
40%
227,448
$13,109
325414 Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
1,870,764
40%
748,305
$43,130
Total
74,311,881
40%
29,724,752
$1,713,243
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health (Document ID 0481).
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
IX. Concentration Ranges
In addition to the five categories
discussed above where significant costs
or cost savings are expected, OSHA
received comments on a set of
provisions addressing concentration
ranges in relation to confidential
business information that, in OSHA’s
final assessment, will not create
significant economic impacts.
IMA–NA expressed concern that
compliance with paragraph (i) will
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
impose labeling costs that were not
recognized in OSHA’s economic
analysis because ‘‘it will take
considerable time and money to realign
product lines with the new ranged
approach to CBI’’ (Document ID 0363, p.
6). The Vinyl Institute warned that ‘‘a
significant anti-competitive impact on
the market’’ could result from toonarrow prescribed concentration ranges
(Document ID 0369, Att. 2, p. 9). ILMA
also predicted that the concentration
range requirement would create market
disruptions, noting that the majority of
its members who responded to ILMA’s
survey indicated that overly narrow
concentration ranges would erode
competitive advantage (Document ID
0460, Att. 2, p. 2). Ameren
recommended that the final rule allow
combinations of concentration ranges
across all conceivable percentages
because such flexibility would
potentially yield cost savings
(Document ID 0309, p. 13).
In response to stakeholder concerns
about the loss of competitive advantage
through the reverse engineering of
confidential information on chemical
concentration ranges, OSHA’s final set
of requirements in paragraph (i)
prescribe reasonably narrow
concentration ranges that may be used
in combination to preserve trade secrets.
OSHA believes that final paragraph (i)
strikes a responsible balance between
averting significant economic impacts
among affected employers and the
disclosure of sufficient information on
the chemical properties of commercial
products to communicate workplace
hazards. And because stakeholders
provide no evidence demonstrating that
loss of CBI and trade secrets were likely
outcomes under any scenarios that
incorporate OSHA’s final set of
requirements in paragraph (i), the
agency foresees no additional significant
costs. In response to comments that it
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
will take time to update labels to align
with this provision, OSHA expects that
many companies have already created
labels that align with Canada’s system
and therefore will have already aligned
their labels with these ranges. IMA–NA
also did not provide any suggestion of
what the costs might be in order to do
such updating for companies that have
not already aligned with Canada, so
OSHA does not have any basis for
incorporating an estimate of time
needed for compliance. Additionally,
because it is optional for companies to
claim trade secrets and therefore to use
these ranges, companies that are
concerned about costs can simply
choose not to claim trade secrets and
not incur costs related to this provision.
X. Sensitivity Analysis
In this section, OSHA presents the
results of a sensitivity analysis to
demonstrate how robust the estimates of
net cost savings are to changes in
various cost parameters. In this analysis,
OSHA made a series of isolated changes
to individual cost input parameters in
order to determine their effects on the
agency’s estimates of annualized net
cost savings, with a seven-percent
discount rate as the reference point. The
agency has conducted these calculations
for informational purposes only.
The methodology and calculations
underlying the cost estimates associated
with this rulemaking are generally
linear and additive in nature. Thus, the
sensitivity of the results and
conclusions of the analysis will
generally be proportional to isolated
variations in a particular input
parameter. For example, if the estimated
time that employees will need to devote
to attending new training doubles, the
corresponding labor costs would double
as well.
OSHA evaluated a series of such
changes in input parameters to test
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.190</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
In the PEA, OSHA invited interested
parties to provide comments on the
preliminary cost estimates for the
proposed paragraph (f)(12) and the
assumptions underlying them.
Elsewhere in the NPRM, the agency
requested comments on the feasibility
of, and any cost savings associated with,
the proposed provisions for the labeling
of small and very small containers and
whether the proposed labeling
requirements would be adequate to
provide for safe handling and storage of
chemicals in small containers. Ameren
noted the costs of needing to re-print
and replace current labels but stated,
‘‘experience [within Ameren] indicates
there is potential cost savings associated
with the proposed provisions for the
labeling of small containers (both 100
ml and 3 ml and less). . . . Ameren
agrees that the proposed labeling
requirements would be adequate to
provide for safe handling and storage of
chemicals in small containers’’
(Document ID 0309, p. 12). OSHA infers
from Ameren’s comment and the
absence of any opposing comments that
the proposed labeling requirement
(paragraph (f)(12)) for small containers
could, and in OSHA’s estimation likely
will, provide cost savings. Therefore,
OSHA’s final estimate of cost savings for
paragraph (f)(12)(iii) is $1.7 million, as
reported above and shown in Table VI–
19.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
whether and to what extent the general
conclusions of this FEA held up. OSHA
considered changes to input parameters
that affected only costs and cost savings
and determined that each of the
sensitivity tests on cost parameters had
only a very minor effect on total costs
or net costs. On the whole, OSHA found
that the conclusions of the analysis are
robust, as changes in any of the cost
input parameters still show significant
net cost savings for the final rule. The
results of the individual sensitivity tests
are summarized and are described in
more detail in Table VI–20.
In the first of these sensitivity tests,
OSHA reduced from 1 percent to 0.5
percent its estimate of the percentage of
products warehoused for more than six
months that require relabeling in any
particular year. The effect of this change
would be to reduce by 50 percent the
estimated cost savings associated with
the revised released-for-shipment
provision. Table VI–20 shows that the
estimated net cost savings from the final
rule would decline by $16.6 million
annually, from $29.8 million to $13.2
million annually, or by about 56
percent.
In a second sensitivity test, OSHA
reversed the first sensitivity test, that is,
the agency increased from 1 percent to
2 percent the percentage of products
warehoused for more than six months
that require relabeling in any particular
year. The effect of this change would be
to increase by 100 percent the estimated
cost savings associated with the
released-for-shipment provision. Table
VI–20 shows that the estimated net cost
savings from the final rule would
increase by $33.3 million annually, from
$29.8 million to $63.1 million annually,
or by about 112 percent.
In a third sensitivity test, OSHA
reduced from 40 percent to 20 percent
the percentage of very small containers
that would be affected by revised
paragraph (f)(12). As shown in Table
VI–20, if OSHA’s estimates of other
input parameters remained unchanged,
the estimated net cost savings from the
final rule would decline by $0.9 million
annually (after rounding), from $29.8
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
million to $29.0 million annually, or by
about three percent.
In a fourth sensitivity test, OSHA
applied the same rule familiarization
costs to all firms regardless of whether
they are affected by other provisions of
this final rule, i.e., OSHA did not reduce
estimated familiarization time for firms
that are not affected by other parts of the
standard. The effect of this change
would be to raise compliance costs for
100,961 establishments in
manufacturing and wholesale trade; the
estimated net cost savings from the final
rule would be reduced by a little under
$1.2 million annually, from $29.8
million to $28.7 million annually, or by
about four percent.
In a fifth sensitivity test, OSHA
doubled the estimated labor hours
assigned to revising SDSs and labels due
to the reclassification of chemicals and
revised mandatory language in the
appendices of the HCS (from Tables VI–
13 and VI–14). The effect of this change
would be to double labor costs for the
affected six-digit NAICS industries;
estimated net cost savings would be
reduced by $3.9 million annually, from
$29.8 million to $26.0 million, or by
about 13 percent.
In a sixth sensitivity test, OSHA
excluded overhead costs from the fully
loaded hourly wage rates used
throughout the PEA. Overhead costs
were not applied in the 2012 FEA and
this sensitivity test provides consistency
with the treatment of overhead in the
2012 analysis. The effect of this change
would be to remove the factor of 17
percent of base wages from the hourly
costs for the four job categories used in
the cost analysis. Applying this change,
the estimated net cost savings from the
final rule would increase by $0.5
million annually, or by about two
percent, resulting in a total estimate of
annualized net cost savings of $30.4
million.
Not part of this table but discussed in
the Introduction and Summary of this
FEA, the agency examined the effect of
lowering the discount rate for
annualizing costs from seven percent to
three percent. Lowering the discount
rate to three percent would yield
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44231
annualized net cost savings of $30.7
million, approximately $908,000 more
in annual cost savings than the net cost
savings at a seven percent discount rate.
XI. Regulatory Alternatives
This section discusses two regulatory
alternatives to the changes OSHA is
promulgating in this final standard: (1)
removing the changes to paragraph
(f)(12) regarding labeling of very small
containers, which would eliminate cost
savings for manufacturers, importers,
and distributors that label such
containers; and (2) removing the
changes to paragraph (f)(11) regarding
labeling of containers that have been
released for shipment, which would
eliminate cost savings for
manufacturers, importers, and
distributors that have such containers.
In Table VI–20, each regulatory
alternative is described and analyzed
relative to the final rule. Midpoint
estimates are presented in all cases.
Under Regulatory Alternative (1)
(elimination of changes related to
labeling of very small containers), cost
impacts total $1.7 million (5.7 percent
of baseline cost savings), resulting in a
reduction of estimated annualized net
cost savings to a total of $28.1 million
(after rounding). Under Regulatory
Alternative (2) (elimination of changes
related to labels on packages that have
been released for shipment), cost
impacts on manufacturers, distributors,
and importers total $33.3 million (112
percent of baseline cost savings),
resulting in an overall estimate of
annualized net costs of $3.4 million.
In summary, these regulatory
alternatives would result in a reduction
of cost savings—a significant reduction
in the case of the second alternative
(resulting in positive, but modest,
overall net costs). Neither alternative,
however, would alter the agency’s
determination of economic feasibility
for the proposed revisions to the HCS as
a whole. Nor would these alternatives
result in a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities (see
Section VI.G., Economic Feasibility and
Impacts).
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44232
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Table VI-20: Sensitivity Tests and Regulatory Alternatives - Impacts on Net Cost Savings
7 Percent Discount Ra 2022 Dollars
Final Rule - OSHA's midpoint estimate
Reduce from 1 percent to 0.5 percent the
percentage of products warehoused for
more than six months that would require
relabelin inan articular ear
Increase from 1 percent to 2 percent the
percentage of products warehoused for
more than six months that would require
relabelin in an articular ear
Reduce from 40% to 20% the percentage
of very small containers that would be
affected by revised paragraph (f)(12)
NIA
$0
0.0%
$29,829,412
Halves cost savings associated with
proposed released-for-shipment
provision
-$16,629,247
-55.7%
$13,200,164
Doubles cost savings associated with
proposed released-for-shipment
provision
$33,258,495
111.5%
$63,087,906
Halves cost savings for affected firms
-$856,622
-2.9%
$28,972,790
Rule familiarization time would not be
reduced for firms that are not affected by
any other cost provisions; it would be
identical to rule familiarization time for
those that are affected by other provisions
Raises costs for the 30,927
establishments in NAICS 31-33Manufacturing, and the 70,034
establishments in NAICS 42 Wholesale Trade not affected by other
rovisions
-$1,157,069
-3.9%
$28,672,342
Doubles labor hours for the
reclassification of chemicals and
compliance with the new mandatory
language in the appendices to the final
standard
Doubles labor costs for the
approximately 13 six-digit NAICS
industries affected by changes to
Appendices B, C, and D
-$3,861,911
-12.9%
$25,967,500
Excludes overhead costs from fully
loaded hourly wage rates
For the four job categories in the cost
model, overhead costs (17 percent of
base wages) are not applied and
estimated wage rates are
correspondingly lower
$539,669
1.8%
$30,369,080
Remove the provisions that result in cost Eliminates cost savings for affected
-$1, 713,243
$28, 116, 168
-5.7%
savin s for ve small labels
em lo ers
Eliminate the released-for-shipment
Eliminates cost savings for affected
-$33,258,495
-111.5%
-$3,429,083
rovisions and associated cost savin s
em lo ers
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health (Document ID 0481, tab
"Tables").
G. Economic Feasibility and Impacts
This section presents OSHA’s analysis
of the economic impacts of the final rule
and an assessment of economic
feasibility. A separate analysis of the
potential economic impacts on small
entities (as defined in accordance with
SBA criteria) and on very small entities
(those with fewer than 20 employees) is
presented in the following section as
part of the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Screening Analysis, conducted in
accordance with the criteria laid out in
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
A standard is economically feasible
‘‘if it does not threaten massive
dislocation to, or imperil the existence
of, [an] industry.’’ Lead I, 647 F.2d at
1265 (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted). To determine whether a
rule is economically feasible, OSHA
begins with two screening tests to
consider minimum threshold effects of
the rule under two extreme cases: (1) a
scenario in which all costs are passed
through to customers in the form of
higher prices (consistent with a price
elasticity of demand of zero); and (2) a
scenario in which all costs are absorbed
by the firm in the form of reduced
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
profits (consistent with an infinite price
elasticity of demand).
In profit-earning entities, compliance
costs can generally be expected to be
absorbed through a combination of
increases in prices and reductions in
profits. The extent to which the impacts
of cost increases affect prices or profits
depends on the price elasticity of
demand for the products or services
produced and sold by the entity.
The price elasticity of demand refers
to the relationship between changes in
the price charged for a product and the
resulting changes in the demand for that
product. A larger price elasticity of
demand implies that an entity or
industry is less able to pass increases in
costs through to its customers in the
form of a price increase and must absorb
more of the cost increase through a
reduction in profits.
If the price elasticity of demand is
zero, and all costs can be passed to
customers in the form of higher prices,
the immediate impact of the rule would
be observed in the form of increased
industry revenues. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, OSHA
generally considers a standard to be
economically feasible for an industry
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
when the annualized costs of
compliance are less than a threshold
level of one percent of annual revenues.
Common-sense considerations indicate
that potential impacts of such a small
magnitude are unlikely to eliminate an
industry or significantly alter its
competitive structure, particularly since
most industries have at least some
ability to raise prices to reflect increased
costs and normal price variations for
products typically exceed three percent
a year.51 Of course, OSHA recognizes
that even when costs are within this
range, there could be unusual
circumstances requiring further
analysis.
If, however, there is infinite price
elasticity of demand, and all costs are
absorbed by affected firms, the
immediate impact of the rule would be
observed in reduced industry profits.
OSHA uses the ratio of annualized costs
to annual profits as a second check on
economic feasibility. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, OSHA
generally considers a standard to be
51 OSHA, 2016, Silica FEA Chapter VI: Economic
Feasibility Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility
Determination, pp. VI–20 to VI–23, and Table VI–
3 (Document ID 0045).
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.191</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
471
471
$186,386
$16,051,429,566
$1,107,071,965
0.00%
0.02%
324122 Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
110
ll0
$29,285
$13,0ll,486,147
$897,406,146
0.00%
0.00%
324191 Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
324199 All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
240
240
$1,240,097
$19,612,657,227
$1,336,005,706
0.01%
0.09%
63
63
$12,948
$5,305,641,530
$361,418,000
0.00%
0.00%
Fmt 4701
325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing
325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing
Sfmt 4725
31
31
$29,484
$71,573,798,420
$2,442,253,916
0.00%
0.00%
78
78
$33,794
$12,210,053,190
$416,633,613
0.00%
0.01%
325130 Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
103
103
$10,433
$8,178,034,130
$279,052,339
0.00%
0.00%
325180 Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
376
376
-$370,174
$39,555,120,764
$1,349,706,886
0.00%
-0.03%
117
ll7
$15,785
$36,969,480,194
$1,261,479,197
0.00%
0.00%
49
49
$5,832
$8,235,635,343
$281,017,818
0.00%
0.00%
608
608
-$867,095
$93,186,612,758
$3,179,730,222
0.00%
-0.03%
856
856
$181,829
$111,992,427,793
$6,652,894,083
0.00%
0.00%
325212 Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
137
137
$6,797
$11,341,788,771
$673,757,332
0.00%
0.00%
325220 Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
114
114
$4,400
$9,438,755,096
$560,707,890
0.00%
0.00%
325311 Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
325312 Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
325314 Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
165
44
165
44
-$1,874,680
$7,516,577,865
$730,224,121
-0.02%
-0.26%
-$1,840,868
$7,371,977,155
$716,176,381
-0.02%
371
371
-$1,611,861
$6,524,881,780
$633,882,353
-0.02%
-0.26%
-0.25%
184
184
$48,221
$17,589,850,557
$1,708,827,260
0.00%
325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
597
597
-$112,894
$14,667,072,169
$2,034,425,026
0.00%
0.00%
-0.01%
1,117
l,ll7
$42,705
$189,438,629,432
$26,276,456,821
0.00%
0.00%
189
189
$34,089
$14,404,900,211
$1,998,059,950
0.00%
0.00%
276
276
-$24,607
$47,392,153,058
$6,573,621,585
0.00%
0.00%
325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing
958
958
-$7,330,037
$31,466,389,652
$1,312,642,728
~0.02%
~0.56%
325520 Adhesive Manufacturing
401
401
$223,133
$18,096,459,850
$754,906,638
0.00%
0.03%
325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
631
631
$163,257
$30,356,886,805
$3,747,210,330
0.00%
0.00%
428
428
$95,585
$6,982,891,985
$861,958,117
0.00%
0.01%
325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
108
108
$42,269
$9,179,976,693
$1,133,163,085
0.00%
0.00%
325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
325413 In~ Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
325414 Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
44233
monetized in this FEA (although most
or all will enjoy non-monetized benefits,
e.g., in foreign trade). To examine the
economic impacts of the revisions to the
standard for those affected
establishments that obtain no monetized
cost savings from any of the final
changes to the HCS, OSHA estimated
the ratio of compliance costs to
revenues and the ratio of compliance
costs to profits using only gross positive
costs (i.e., costs exclusive of cost
savings) as the numerator in the ratio.
Table VI–22 presents this part of the
agency’s screening analysis.
20MYR4
325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
Cyclic Crude, Intennediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical
Manufacturin12:
325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
325194
Costs and Cost Savings, of this preamble
were compared with industry revenues
and profits to provide a measure of
potential economic impacts. Table VI–
21 presents data on revenues and profits
for each affected industry sector at the
six-digit NAICS industry level, along
with the corresponding estimated
annualized costs of compliance in each
sector. Potential impacts in the table are
represented by the ratios of compliance
costs to revenues and compliance costs
to profits.
The nature of the revisions to the HCS
is such that all affected firms will incur
some costs, but only a small subset will
derive the cost savings that are
Frm 00091
Determination, pp. VI–20 to VI–23, and Table VI–
5 (Document ID 0045).
PO 00000
324121 Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Jkt 262001
economically feasible for an industry
when the annualized costs of
compliance are less than a threshold
level of ten percent of annual profits.
This is a fairly modest threshold level,
given that normal year-to-year variations
in profit rates in an industry can exceed
40 percent or more.52
In order to assess the nature and
magnitude of the economic impacts
associated with compliance with the
proposed rule, OSHA developed
quantitative estimates of the potential
economic impact of the requirements on
each of the affected industry sectors.
The estimated costs of compliance
presented in Section VI.F., Compliance
21:23 May 17, 2024
52 OSHA, 2016, Silica FEA Chapter VI: Economic
Feasibility Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility
VerDate Sep<11>2014
ER20MY24.192</GPH>
Table VI-21: Screening Analysis for Entities Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate (2022 Dollars)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44234
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
325910 Printing Ink Manufacturing
325920 Explosives Manufacturing
325991 Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
325998
Frm 00092
326111 Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
326112 Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Mfg.
326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Mfg.
326121 Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Manufacturing
326122 Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
Fmt 4701
326140
Sfmt 4725
326160
326191
326199
326211
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
326212
326220
326291
326299
20MYR4
ER20MY24.193</GPH>
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation
Manufacturine:
326130
326150
Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape
Manufacturine:
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene)
Manufacturing
Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)
Tire Retreading
Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing
Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use
All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
3271 IO Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
327120 Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
327211 Flat Glass Manufacturing
Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing
Glass Container Manufacturing
Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass
Cement Manufacturing
Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
327331 Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturing
327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
327212
327213
327215
327310
327320
162
162
53
347
53
347
$55,533
$20,584
$18,497
$4,549,024,893
$2,950,164,188
$14,302,910,074
$230,691,977
$149,609,911
$725,334,919
163
163
$7,495
$6,516,237,026
$330,454,029
1,072
1,072
$129,365
$29,164,373,220
$1,478,995,406
$2,265
$2,909
$3,073
$13,780,960,233
$16,908,003,774
$18,960,257,252
$353,564,046
$433,791,414
$486,443,989
$2,156
$2,909
$9,772,806,684
$12,950,209,374
$250,730,937
$332,250,318
$1,315
$5,495,811,902
$141,000,443
262
262
310
388
324
256
310
388
324
256
213
213
306
306
$2,698
$11,073,975,465
$284,113,698
459
459
$3,959
$12,578,381,854
$322,710,719
194
298
4,965
84
194
298
4,965
84
240
186
240
186
336
549
336
549
546
356
546
356
103
103
404
$3,360
$13,763,312,952
$353,111,288
$1,858
$34,955
$1,505
$1,474
$5,107,745,957
$115,986,293,418
$23,833,071,544
$1,935,137,482
$131,044,230
$2,975,742,073
$403,723,728
$32,780,538
$1,579
$2,600
$3,685
$6,643,026,648
$10,846,648,515
$13,476,207,926
$112,530,501
$183,738,356
$228,282,154
$1,986
$2,829
$780
$1,723
$2,645,196,393
$6,997,944,980
$5,187,579,508
$4,142,806,131
$5,955,648,705
$14,841,065,034
$41,609,154
$110,078,243
$146,875,896
$117,295,236
$168,622,233
$420,194,952
$10,648,613,615
$39,799,326,235
$5,418,582,863
$156,571,203
$585,186,824
$79,671,783
$1,988,848,996
$29,242,913
37
895
404
37
895
88
2,022
88
2,022
$1,087
$20,948
407
407
89
89
$3,127
$1,039
$501
$4,841
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-21: Screening Analysis for Entities Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate (2022 Dollars)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
327410 Lime Manufacturing
327420 Gypsum Product Manufacturing
327910 Abrasive Product Manufacturing
PO 00000
327991 Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing
327992 Ground or Treated Mineral aod Earth Maoufacturing
327993 Mineral Wool Manufacturing
327999
All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product
Manufacturini
Frm 00093
■+EH
IEE+
331110 Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
33
119
244
33
119
244
$566
$1,026
$1,352
$2,857,924,564
$7,794,626,759
$5,975,599,555
$53,468,686
$145,829,059
$111,797,022
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1,954
151
165
1,954
151
165
$7,058
$1,191
$1,309
$5,892,862,370
$5,372,406,995
$7,164,934,666
$110,249,098
$100,511,940
$134,048,199
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
270
270
$2,023
$7,188,491,466
$134,488,921
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
312
312
$3,944
$108,052,118,040
$1,341,213,035
209
209
$2,051
$15,024,519,874
$312,759,731
175
186
175
186
37
64
67
199
37
64
$1,239
$1,361
$209
$610
$8,526,720,600
$6,320,821,549
$4,061,390,323
$7,705,398,563
$177,497,508
$131,578,144
$100,276,030
$ 190,246,866
67
199
118
151
118
151
$906
$1,964
$754
$1,768
$20,173,019,985
$14,796,021,517
$12,402,811,471
$26,387,701,142
$488,414,212
$365,314,876
$258,184,622
$549,302,765
226
226
$1,374
$8,805,349,915
$183,297,629
169
260
169
260
95
164
95
164
$1,106
$2,324
$980
$1,076
$191,670,341
$550,352,766
$238,724,938
$219,417,182
344
281
344
281
239
239
$2,467
$1,575
$1,189
$9,207,562,757
$11,652,176,810
$5,054,331,260
$4,645,543,651
$8,674,105,016
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
1,099
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
339116 Dental Laboratories
339910 Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
l,622
1,099
1,622
533
324
5,142
533
324
5,142
1,987
1,987
331210
331221
331222
331313
331314
331315
331318
331410
331420
331491
331492
331511
331512
331513
331523
331524
331529
339112
339113
339114
339115
Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased
Steel
Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
Steel Wire Drawing
Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production
Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
Aluminum Sheet Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining
Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling,
Drawing. and Extruding
Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal
Iron Foundries
Steel Investment Foundries
Steel Foundries (except Investment)
Nonferrous Metal Die-Casting Foundries
Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting)
Other Nonferrous Metal Foundries (except Die-Casting)
$3,374,793,250
$3,457,042,315
$409,693,207
$159,397,410
$163,282,177
$40,508
$46,275
$51,614,518,085
$44,501,343,055
$3,784,573,568
$3,263,008,4 l l
$11,375
$12,061
$6,067,000,616
$7,653,760,457
$5,901,104,979
$444,855,653
$561,202,944
$432,691,552
$8, I 06,516,294
$327,010,377
$92,305
$35,651
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.01%
0.00%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-21: Screening Analysis for Entities Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate (2022 Dollars)
44235
ER20MY24.194</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44236
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
339940 Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
339950 Sign Manufacturing
$9,672
$1,881,976,976
$75,917,445
0.00%
0.01%
413
413
$9,636
$3,773,797,375
$152,231,965
0.00%
0.01%
Frm 00094
5,741
5,741
$114,484
$15,179,515,980
$612,329,522
0.00%
0.02%
339991 Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
475
475
$20,994
$12,672,706,713
$511,206,843
0.00%
0.00%
339992 Musical Instrument Manufacturing
576
576
$11,599
$2,394,085,265
$96,575,483
0.00%
0.01%
99
99
$2,514
$1,105,456,492
$44,593,230
0.00%
0.01%
155
155
$5,085
0.00%
79
$2,119
$137,111,062
$26.213.617
0.00%
79
$3,398,953,469
$649.829.866
0.00%
0.01%
7,207
7,207
$38,684
$1,071,874,399,470
$37,196,508,248
0.00%
0.00%
2,046
2,046
$8,437
$53,481,476,596
$1,633,412,923
0.00%
0.00%
339993 Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
339994 Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
Burial Casket Manufacturing
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.195</GPH>
IIndustrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424210 Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers
424610
Plastics Materials and Basic Fonns and Shapes Merchant
Wholesalers
424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
5,804
5,804
$30,160
$240,052,181,069
424710 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers
424720
(exceot Bull< Stations and Terminals)
424910 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
2,172
2,172
$13,870
$646,542,781,628
424950 Paint, Vamish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424990 Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
Total
I
I
$7,331,591,416
0.00%
0.00%
$6,237,984,142
0.00%
0.00%
1,830
1,830
$7,833
$675,361,005,744
$6,516,028,581
0.00%
0.00%
4,909
4,909
-$15,651,093
$169,043,606,251
$4,586,156,656
.Q.01%
-0.34%
959
959
-$4,354,437
$21,267,042,880
$494,008,349
-0.02%
-0.88%
10,285
10,285
$28,668
$52,401,274,940
$1,217,219,876
0.00%
0.00%
6,177,430
111,223
-$29,829,412
$50,256,838,711,534
$6,647,779,865,027
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health (Document ID 0481).
Note: "Affected" firms are based on the maximum number affected by any one provision of the rule.
I
0.00%
I
0.00%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-21: Screening Analysis for Entities Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate (2022 Dollars)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
471
471
$186,386
$16,051,429,566
$1,107,071,965
0.00%
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
110
110
$29,285
$13,011,486,147
$897,406,146
0.00%
0.00%
324191
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
240
240
$1,240,097
$19,612,657,227
$1,336,005,706
0.01%
0.09%
63
63
$12,948
$5,305,641,530
$361,418,000
0.00%
0.00%
31
31
$29,484
$71,573,798,420
$2,442,253,916
0.00%
0.00%
78
103
78
$33,794
$12,210,053,190
$416,633,613
0.00%
0.01%
103
$10,433
$8,178,034,130
$279,052,339
0.00%
0.00%
376
376
$28,199
$39,555,120,764
$1,349, 706,886
0.00%
0.00%
117
117
$15,785
$36,969,480,194
$1,261,479,197
0.00%
0.00%
49
49
$5,832
$8,235,635,343
$281,017,818
0.00%
0.00%
608
608
$71,417
$93,186,612,758
$3,179,730,222
0.00%
0.00%
856
856
$181,829
$111,992,427,793
$6,652,894,083
0.00"/o
0.00%
137
137
$6,797
$11,341,788,771
$673,757,332
0.00"/o
0.00"/o
114
114
$4,400
$9,438,755,096
$560,707,890
0.00%
0.00"/o
165
165
$4,465
$7,516,577,865
$730,224,121
0.00"/o
0.00%
324199
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
324122
Sfmt 4725
324121
325130
325110
325120
325180
325193
325194
325199
325211
325212
325220
325311
Petrochemical Manufacturing
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Mfg.
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
0.02%
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-22: Screening Analysis for Entities Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate
(Exclusive of Cost Savings, 2022 Dollars)
44237
ER20MY24.196</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44238
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00096
325998
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
Adhesive Manufacturing
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
Printing Ink Manufacturing
Explosives Manufacturing
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Mfg.
326111
326112
Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Mfg.
325314
325320
325411
325412
325413
325414
325510
325520
325611
325612
325613
Fmt 4701
325620
Sfmt 4725
325992
325910
325920
325991
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
326113
326121
326122
326130
326140
326150
326160
326191
20MYR4
326199
326211
326212
326220
326291
326299
ER20MY24.197</GPH>
Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
371
371
$19,360
$6,524,881,780
$633,882,353
184
597
1,117
189
276
958
401
631
428
108
1,010
162
53
347
163
1,072
184
$48,221
$17,589,850,557
$1,708,827,260
0.00%
0.00%
597
$34,823
$14,667,072,169
$2,034,425,026
0.00%
0.00%
1,117
$215,106
$189,438,629,432
$26,276,456,821
0.00%
0.00%
189
$47,198
0.00%
$18,523
$1,998,059,950
$6,573,621,585
0.00%
276
$14,404,900,211
$47,392,153,058
0.00%
0.00%
958
$536,560
$31,466,389,652
$1,312,642,728
0.00%
0.04%
401
$223,133
$18,096,459,850
$754,906,638
0.00%
0.03%
631
$163,257
$30,356,886,805
$3,747,2!0,330
0.00%
0.00%
428
$95,585
$6,982,891,985
$861,958,117
0.00%
0.01%
262
3!0
!08
$42,269
$9,179,976,693
$1,133,163,085
0.00%
0.00%
1,010
$200,741
$48,305,711,210
$5,962,787,330
0.00%
0.00%
162
$55,533
$4,549,024,893
$230,691,977
0.00%
0.02%
53
347
$20,584
$2,950,164,188
$149,609,911
0.00%
0.01%
$18,497
$14,302,9!0,074
$725,334,919
0.00%
0.00%
163
$7,495
$6,516,237,026
$330,454,029
0.00%
0.00%
1,072
$129,365
$29,164,373,220
$1,478,995,406
0.00%
0.01%
262
310
$2,265
$13,780,960,233
$353,564,046
$2,909
$16,908,003,774
$433,791,414
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Unlarninated Plastics Film and Sheet ( except Packaging) Mfg.
388
388
$3,073
$18,960,257,252
$486,443,989
Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Mfg.
Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Mfg.
Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape Mfg.
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Mfg.
Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)
Tire Retreading
Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing
Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use
All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
324
324
$2,156
$9,772,806,684
$250,730,937
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
256
256
$2,909
$12,950,209,374
$332,250,318
0.00%
213
213
$1,315
$5,495,811,902
$141,000,443
0.00%
0.00%
306
459
306
459
$2,698
$11,073,975,465
$284,113,698
0.00%
0.00%
$3,959
$12,578,381,854
$322,710,719
0.00%
0.00%
194
194
$3,360
$13,763,312,952
$353,111,288
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
298
298
$1,858
$5,107,745,957
$131,044,230
0.00%
4,965
4,965
$34,955
$115,986,293,418
$2,975,742,073
0.00%
0.00%
84
84
$1,505
$23,833,071,544
$403,723,728
0.00%
0.00%
240
240
$1,474
$1,935,137,482
$32,780,538
0.00%
0.00%
186
$1,579
$6,643.026,648
$112,530,501
0.00%
0.00%
336
186
336
$2,600
$!0,846,648,515
$183,738,356
0.00%
0.00%
549
549
$3,685
$13,476,207,926
$228,282,154
0.00%
0.00%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-22: Screening Analysis for Entities Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate
(Exclusive of Cost Savings, 2022 Dollars)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
I 3271IO IPottery, Ceramics, and PIUffibing FiXture Manufacturing
PO 00000
Frm 00097
327120
327211
Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
Flat Glass Manufacturing
327212
327213
327215
327310
327320
Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing
Glass Container Manufacturing
Fmt 4701
327331
327332
327390
3274IO
327420
Sfmt 4725
3279IO
327991
327992
327993
327999
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
3311IO
3312IO
331221
331222
331313
331314
20MYR4
331315
331318
331410
331420
331491
331492
331511
331512
Glass Product Manufacturiug Made of Purchased Glass
Cement Manufacturing
Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturiug
Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
Other Concrete Product Manufacturing
Lime Manufacturing
Gypsum Product Manufacturing
Abrasive Product Manufacturing
Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing
Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing
Mineral Wool Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Mfg.
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased Steel
Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturiug
Steel Wire Drawing
Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production
Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining
Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling,
Drawin!!. and Extrudin!!
Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal
Iron Fmmdries
Steel Investment Foundries
•6~
356
356
l03
103
404
404
080
$2,829
$780
$1,723
1--
$2,645,196,393
$41,609,154
$6,997,944,980
$5,187,579,508
$4, 142,806, 131
$5,955,648,705
$14,841,065,034
$110,078,243
$146,875,896
$117,295,236
$168,622,233
$420,194,952
$10,648,613,615
$39,799,326,235
$5,418,582,863
$1,988,848,996
$156,571,203
$585,186,824
$79,671,783
$29,242,913
$14,671,597,768
$2,857,924,564
$7,794,626,759
$5,975,599,555
$215, 722,89 l
$53,468,686
$145,829,059
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$111,797,022
$110,249,098
$100,511,940
$134,048,199
$134,488,921
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$1,341,213,035
$312,759,731
$177,497,508
$131,578,144
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$501
$4,841
$1,087
$20,948
407
89
1,504
407
89
1,504
$3,127
$1,039
33
119
33
119
244
1,954
151
244
1,954
151
165
270
165
270
312
312
209
175
186
37
64
209
175
186
37
64
67
199
118
151
67
199
118
151
226
226
$1,374
$8,805,349,915
$183,297,629
169
260
95
169
260
95
$1,106
$9,207,562,757
$11,652,176,810
$191,670,341
$3,944
$2,051
$1,239
$1,361
$209
$610
$906
$1,964
$754
$1,768
$2,324
$980
$5,892,862,370
$5,372,406,995
$7,164,934,666
$7,188,491,466
$!08,052,118,040
$15,024,519,874
$8,526,720,600
$6,320,821,549
$4,061,390,323
$7,705,398,563
$20,173,019,985
$14,796,021,517
$12,402,811,471
$26,387,701,142
$5,054,331,260
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
37
895
88
2,022
$1,352
$7,058
$1,191
$1,309
$2,023
1
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
37
895
88
2,022
$8,807
$566
$1,026
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$100,276,030
$190,246,866
$488,414,212
$365,314,876
$258,184,622
$549,302,765
$550,352,766
$238,724,938
1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-22: Screening Analysis for Entities Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate
(Exclusive of Cost Savings, 2022 Dollars)
44239
ER20MY24.198</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44240
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
331523
INonferrous Metal Die-Casting Foundries
PO 00000
Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting)
331529 Other Nonferrous Metal Foundries (except Die-Casting)
331524
I
3441
281
344 I
281
$2,467 I
$8,674,105,016 I
$409,693,207 I
$1,575
$3,374,793,250
$159,397,410
0.00%
239
239
$1,189
$3,457,042,315
$163,282,177
0.00%
0.00%
1,099
1,099
$40,508
$51,614,518,085
$3,784,573,568
0.00%
0.00%
1,622
1,622
$46,275
$44,501,343,055
$3,263,008,411
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
l
0.00%
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
339113
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
339114
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
533
533
$11,375
$6,067,000,616
$444,855,653
0.00%
0.00%
339115
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
324
324
$12,061
$7,653,760,457
$561,202,944
0.00%
0.00%
339116
5,142
5,142
$92,305
$5,901,104,979
$432,691,552
0.00%
0.02%
1,987
1,987
$35,651
$8, I 06,516,294
$327,010,377
0.00%
0.01%
339920
Dental Laboratories
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
1,569
1,569
$35,109
$11,528,116,895
$465,035,006
0.00%
0.01%
339930
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
507
507
$9,672
$75,917,445
0.00%
0.01%
339940
Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
339950
339991
339992
Sign Manufacturing
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
339993
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
339994
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
339995
Burial Casket Manufacturing
339112
339910
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
413
413
$9,636
$1,881,976,976
$3,773,797,375
$152,231,965
0.00%
0.01%
5,741
5,741
$114,484
$15,179,515,980
$612,329,522
0.00%
0.02%
475
475
$20,994
$12,672,706,713
$511,206,843
0.00%
0.00%
576
576
$11,599
$2,394,085,265
$96,575,483
0.00%
0.01%
99
99
$2,514
$1,105,456,492
$44,593,230
0.00%
0.01%
155
155
$5,085
$3,398,953,469
$137,111,062
0.00%
0.00%
79
79
$2,119
$649,829,866
$26,213,617
0.00"/4
0.01%
7,207
7,207
$38,684
$1,071,874,399,470
$37,196,508,248
0.00"/4
0.00"/4
2,046
2,046
$8,437
$53,481,476,596
$1,633,412,923
0.00"/o
0.00%
5,804
5,804
$30,160
$240,052,181,069
$7,331,591,416
2,172
$13,870
$646,542,781,628
$6,237,984,142
0.00"/4
0.00"/,
0.00%
2,172
1,830
1,830
$7,833
$675,361,005,744
$6,516,028,581
0.00"/o
0.00"/4
0.00"/4
0.00"/4
Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424210
424610
424690
424710
424720
Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers
Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant
Wholesalers
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except
424910
Bulle Stations and Terminals)
Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424950
Pain~ Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
4,909
4,909
$27,701
$169,043,606,251
$4,586,156,656
0.00"/4
959
959
$5,307
$21,267,042,880
$494,008,349
0.00"/4
0.00%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
ER20MY24.199</GPH>
Table VI-22: Screening Analysis for Entities Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate
(Exclusive of Cost Savings, 2022 Dollars)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Jkt 262001
0.00%
0.00%
I
o.oo•
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
20MYR4
44241
experiencing any significant reduction
in revenues or profits. For example, for
NAICS 324191: Petroleum Lubricating
Oil and Grease Manufacturing, even if
zero cost savings are obtained and gross
positive costs reach OSHA’s estimated
total ($1,240,097; see Table VI–22),
revenue impacts (0.0063 percent,
rounded to 0.01 percent) and profit
impacts (0.092 percent, rounded to 0.1
percent) fall well below OSHA’s
screening criteria associated with
economic feasibility concerns. OSHA
therefore concludes that the final rule is
economically feasible. To supplement
OSHA’s determination of economic
feasibility, the agency conducted a final
regulatory flexibility screening analysis,
discussed immediately below.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
specific to their own country or
economic union. For this reason,
affected domestic establishments should
not be susceptible to a loss of domestic
market share resulting from the
competition of foreign commercial
entities not bound by the requirements
of the HCS or similar GHS requirements.
Given the small increases in prices
potentially resulting from compliance
with the revisions to the HCS in any
particular industry, and the lack of
readily available substitutes for the
products and services provided by the
covered industry sectors, demand is
expected to be sufficiently inelastic in
each affected industry to enable entities
to substantially offset compliance costs
through minor price increases without
0
111,223
I sso,256,s3s,111,s34 I s6,647,779,s6s,021 I
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health (Document ID 0481).
Note: "Affected" firms are based on the maximum number affected by any one provision of the rule.
1
Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
0,285
10,285
$28,668
$52,401,274,940
I
$1,211,219,876
0.00%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
21:23 May 17, 2024
In the case of costs incurred due to
the requirements of the revisions to the
HCS, all businesses within each of the
covered industry sectors will be subject
to the same requirements. Thus, to the
extent potential price increases
correspond to costs associated with
achieving compliance with the revised
standard, the elasticity of demand for
each entity will approach that faced by
the industry as a whole.
Furthermore, hazardous chemicals
distributed in the United States will
have to be in compliance with the
updated provisions, and chemical
producers and users in most advanced
economies will be operating under
comparable GHS-based requirements
VerDate Sep<11>2014
ER20MY24.200</GPH>
Table VI-22: Screening Analysis for Entities Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate
(Exclusive of Cost Savings, 2022 Dollars)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44242
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
H. Final Regulatory Flexibility Screening
Analysis and FRFA Certification
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601–612), as amended in 1996,
requires the preparation of a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
for rules where there would be a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small firms.
Under the provisions of the law, each
such analysis shall contain:
1. A statement of the need for, and
objectives of, the rule;
2. A statement of the significant issues
raised by the public comments in
response to the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, a statement of the
assessment of the agency of such issues,
and a statement of any changes made in
the proposed rule as a result of such
comments;
3. The response of the agency to any
comments filed by the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in response to the
proposed rule, and a detailed statement
of any change made to the proposed rule
in the final rule as a result of the
comments;
4. A description of and an estimate of
the number of small entities to which
the rule will apply or an explanation of
why no such estimate is available;
5. A description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping and other
compliance requirements of the rule,
including an estimate of the classes of
small entities which will be subject to
the requirements and the type of
professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record; and
6. A description of the steps the
agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small
entities consistent with the stated
objectives of the applicable statutes,
including a statement of the factual,
policy, and legal reasons for selecting
the alternative adopted in the final rule
and why each one of the other
significant alternatives to the rule
considered by the agency which affect
the impact on small entities was
rejected.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act further
states that the required elements of the
FRFA may be performed in conjunction
with or as part of any other agenda or
analysis required by any other law if
such other analysis satisfies the relevant
provisions (5 U.S.C. 605(a)).
As explained below, OSHA has
determined that the final rule will not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
and therefore a FRFA is not required by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Nonetheless, OSHA has prepared a
voluntary Final Regulatory Flexibility
Screening Assessment (FRFSA) to
assure the regulated community that the
agency has considered the impacts of
the final rule on small entities. While a
full understanding of OSHA’s analysis
and conclusions with respect to costs
and economic impacts on small
businesses requires a reading of the
complete FEA and its supporting
materials, this voluntary FRFSA will
summarize the key aspects of OSHA’s
analysis as they affect small businesses
and includes a description of the impact
of the rule on small entities, which is
not required under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
I. Final Regulatory Flexibility Screening
Assessment
(A). Description of the impact of the
rule on small entities.
To determine whether the final
revisions to the HCS will have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
OSHA evaluated the impact of
compliance costs on the revenues and
profits of small entities in affected
industries. As discussed previously, the
final rule will impose costs on impacted
industries for training; for
reclassification of aerosols, desensitized
explosives, and flammable gases; and
for becoming familiar with the final
changes to the standard. The rule will
also result in cost savings to the extent
it limits employers’ duties with respect
to the labeling of some very small
containers and provides more flexible
relabeling requirements for packaged
chemicals released for shipment.
Although the phase-in periods for
evaluation and training on the hazards
of chemical substances and mixtures
under the final rule range from eighteen
months to forty-two months, as an
analytical simplification for this FEA,
OSHA has estimated costs as one-time
costs that will be incurred during the
first year after the rule is promulgated.
In addition, as mentioned above, there
will be annual cost savings due to the
flexibilities introduced in the provision
related to the labeling of very small
containers and in the released-forshipment provision.
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Tables VI–23 and VI–24 present
OSHA’s screening analysis of the impact
of compliance costs and cost savings on
revenues and profits of small and very
small entities. Tables VI–25 and VI–26
present OSHA’s screening analysis of
impacts on revenues and profits for
small and very small entities under the
scenario that zero cost savings are
realized, i.e., only positive costs are
incurred by affected employers. OSHA’s
screening criteria for determining
whether there are significant economic
impacts on small firms assesses
whether, for small entities in any given
industry, the annualized costs exceed
one percent of revenues or five percent
of profits.53
The total annualized cost savings
resulting from the revisions to the HCS
for small entities and very small entities
are estimated to be approximately $25.5
million and $1.6 million, respectively
(see Tables VI–23 and VI–24). To assess
the economic impact of the final rule on
small entities and very small entities,
OSHA calculated the ratios of
compliance costs to profits and to
revenues. These ratios are presented for
each affected industry in Tables VI–23
(small entities) and VI–24 (very small
entities). Those tables show that in no
industries do the annualized costs of the
revisions to the standard exceed one
percent of annual revenues or five
percent of annual profits, either for
small entities or for very small entities.
Similarly, under a cost scenario
exclusive of cost savings (shown in
Tables VI–25 and VI–26), in no
industries do the annualized costs of the
final rule exceed one percent of annual
revenues or five percent of annual
profits. Because no adverse revenue and
profit impacts are expected to result
from this revision to the HCS, OSHA
certifies that the final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
53 OSHA’s screening criteria underlying the
determination of significant economic impacts were
developed in accordance with published guidelines
for implementation of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act amendment to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act; E.O.s 12866, 13563,
and 13771; and the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. For a recent example of the application of these
screening criteria, see the FEA and FRFA for the
Final Rule for Occupational Exposure to Respirable
Crystalline Silica, Chapter VI: Economic Feasibility
Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
Document ID 0045.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
Frm 00101
324122 Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
324191 Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
324199 I All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
Fmt 4701
325110
325120
325130
325180
Sfmt 4725
325193
325194
325199
325211
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
325212
325220
325311
325312
325314
325320
325411
325412
20MYR4
325413
325414
325510
325520
325611
325612
325613
325620
Petrochemical Manufacturing
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
Cyclic Crude, Intennediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Mfg.
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
Biological Product ( except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
Adhesive Manufacturing
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
421
421
95
211
52
95
211
52
15
64
15
64
90
310
103
32
90
310
103
32
530
771
530
771
112
90
150
112
90
150
35
353
165
567
1,045
35
353
165
567
1,045
167
231
924
345
167
231
924
345
605
409
92
981
605
409
92
981
$41,378
$16,553
$7,052,481,538
$3,653,060,342
$486,411,791
$251,952,680
$956,415
$7,122
$6,633,215,757
$2,657,788,167
$451,851,781
$181,047,377
$8,874
$3,659,008,422
$124,853,338
$5,023
$7,288
-$128,530
$994,180,801
$3,056,687,652
$14,719,722,613
$19,617,730,458
$33,923,615
$104,300,841
$502,269,000
$10,600
$2,601
-$195,922
$141,178
$5,392
$809,079,434
$24,528,270,906
$29,067,585,548
$5,560,652,947
$669,399,698
$27,607,553
$836,958,035
$1,726,755,743
$330,329,789
$3,325
-$554,235
-$220,347
-$1,105,980
$3,044,666,867
$2,231,734,699
$886,613,999
$4,478,262,789
$180,867,998
$216,809,636
$86,133,203
$435,056,427
$37,330
-$44,861
$130,861
$5,124,392,930
$7,604,961,980
$34,115,627,906
$3,430,867,757
$9,259,049,356
$497,826,988
$1,054,861,174
$4,732,075,112
$475,885,245
$1,284,294,610
$68,967
$143,883
$11,087,244,588
$5,339,793,027
$6,575,127,168
$462,512,260
$222,753,248
$811,624,216
$86,469
$31,035
$187,738
$4,181,099,162
$3,065,370,876
$19,202,886,031
$516,108,851
$378,384,960
$2,370,376,559
$31,049
$4,405
-$7,120,082
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.21%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-0.02%
-0.02%
-0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-0.06%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
-0.03%
0.00%
0.01%
-0.02%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
-0.26%
-0.26%
-0.25%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
-1.54%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.03%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-23: Screening Analysis for SBA-Defined Small Entities Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate (2022 Dollars)
44243
ER20MY24.201</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44244
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
325920
325991
325992
PO 00000
325998
326111
Frm 00102
326112
326113
326121
326122
Fmt 4701
326130
326140
326150
326160
326191
Sfmt 4725
326199
326211
326212
326220
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
326291
326299
327110
327120
327211
327212
327213
20MYR4
327215
327310
327320
327331
327332
327390
327410
327420
Explosives Manufacturing
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Mfg.
Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Mfg.
Unlarninated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Mfg.
Unlarninated Plastics Profile Shape Mfg.
Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Mfg.
Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape Mfg.
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Mfg.
Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)
Tire Retreading
Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing
Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use
All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
Flat Glass Manufacturing
Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing
Glass Container Manufacturing
Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass
Cement Manufacturing
Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturing
Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
Other Concrete Product Manufacturing
Lime Manufacturing
Gypsum Product Manufacturing
38
306
151
38
306
151
$10,104
$10,122
$6,639
$693,174,902
$5,691,757,644
$831,530, 162
$35,152,564
$288,642,699
$42,168,891
980
980
$57,488
$10,970,657,349
$1,694
$2,081
0.03%
0.00%
0.02%
$556,348,381
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$3,812,593,720
$6,905,129,008
$6,490,745,777
$97,815,830
$177,157,855
$166,526,447
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$3,006,801,686
$5,090,463,190
$1,924,078,647
$5,002,292,097
$77,142,445
$130,600,824
$49,364,124
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$1,680
$29,756
$4,983,561,033
$4,036,459,444
$3,190,882,780
$53,131,238,757
$127,858,144
$103,559,324
$81,865,226
$1,363,134,021
$797
$1,093
$1,124
$2,145
$4,133,384,788
$1,000,658,631
$2,589,388,690
$3,847,583,240
$70,018,064
$16,950,800
$43,863,321
$65,176,687
$2,964
$4,697,901,564
$79,580,776
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
233
233
273
347
289
222
273
347
289
222
182
182
$981
282
$2,115
415
181
290
4,693
282
415
181
290
4,693
70
224
167
70
224
167
306
492
306
492
534
326
91
388
29
534
326
91
388
29
$1,902
$2,073
$1,337,553,762
$3,630,120,546
$21,039,829
$57,102,091
0.00%
0.00%
$541
0.00%
0.00%
861
$4,207
$462
$12,155
$2,357
$623
$18,593,576
$47,899,616
$11,846,737
$156,452,203
$21,624,697
0.00%
861
$656,715,335
$1,691,789,270
$418,420,544
$5,525,809,632
$1,470,724,087
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
$20,717,511,691
$3,291,709,756
$1,139,522,325
$304,618,596
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$8,682,164,472
$127,657,645
$865,109,167
$447,053,257
$ I 6, 185,259
$8,363,884
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
73
73
1,958
1,958
382
382
83
83
1,451
1,451
24
109
24
109
$2,351
$1,802
$1,797
$2,814
$1,669
$1,610
$217
$7,467
$216
$584
$128,338,708
$48,399,442
$16,754,893
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
ER20MY24.202</GPH>
Table VI-23: Screening Analysis for SBA-Defined Small Entities Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate (2022 Dollars)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
$6,929
PO 00000
327992
327993
327999
Frm 00103
331110
331210
331221
331222
331313
331314
331315
Fmt 4701
331318
331410
331420
Sfmt 4725
331491
331492
331511
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
331512
331513
331523
331524
331529
339112
339113
20MYR4
339114
339115
339116
339910
339920
339930
339940
339950
Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing
Mineral Wool Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Mfg.
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased Steel
Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
Steel Wire Drawing
Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production
Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refming
Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling,
Drawin,g, and Extrudin,g
Secondary Smelting, Refming, and Alloying ofNonferrous Metal
Iron Foundries
Steel Investment Foundries
Steel Foundries (except Investment)
Nonferrous Metal Die-Casting Foundries
Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting)
Other Nonferrous Metal Foundries (except Die-Casting)
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
Dental Laboratories
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
Sign Manufacturing
$4,812,522,458
$1,769,433,795
$90,037,104
$33,104,198
$2,174,407,766
$2,074,876,712
$40,680,824
$38,818,705
$20,890,760,432
$7,367,292,854
$4,972,953,187
$3,612,084,969
$1,088,654,321
$259,309,680
$153,362,141
$103,520,080
$75,191,403
$26,878,956
$606
$1,164
$2,885,391,854
$4,335,142,654
$5,182,592,041
$5,758,979,536
$71,240,540
$104,959,262
$127,958,584
$119,882,492
$11,476,098,480
201
$1,104
$2,131,430,995
151
231
151
231
88
145
309
88
145
309
$923
$1,867
$827
$5,502,650,423
$3,324,719,712
$1,888,851,815
267
225
267
225
$850
$1,810
$1,452
$1,122
$1,763,331,460
$3,030,786,640
$1,929,923,454
$1,444,968,241
$83,285,240
$143,149,373
$91,153,673
$68,248,387
1,029
1,562
1,029
1,562
522
306
5,126
1,972
1,549
522
306
5,126
1,972
1,549
$33,720
$43,062
$10,923
$12,986,915,927
$11,456,275,670
$2,863,485,268
$952,250,269
$840,017,880
$209,961,675
503
401
5,708
503
401
5,708
$8,058
$82,695
$34,630
$34,033
$9,584
$1,429,817,777
$4,103,332,771
$4,133,091,237
$6,93 I, 778,350
$1,389,538,569
$104,839,699
$300,872,028
$166,725,592
$279,622,389
$56,052,873
$9,265
$112,006
$2,609,465,889
$12,112,744,969
$105,263,765
$488,618,435
123
152
239
123
152
239
$741
$1,027
$1,324
281
175
154
281
175
154
166
27
52
166
27
52
$2,714
$1,557
$987
$1,120
56
172
103
129
56
172
103
129
201
$128
$407
$660
$1,383
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$238,893,589
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$44,369,191
0.00%
0.00%
$114,546,587
$157,032,348
$89,213,787
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.03%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.01%
0.02%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-23: Screening Analysis for SBA-Defined Small Entities Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate (2022 Dollars)
44245
ER20MY24.203</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44246
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
Frm 00104
339993
339994
339995
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
I Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
I
I
Burial Casket Manufacturing
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
$11,210
$1,296,829,108
$52,313,048
76
$2,230
$3,902
$1,848
$460,624,786
$1,605,789,812
$209,122,381
$18,581,235
$64,776,275
$8,435,829
6,918
6,918
$24,953
$88,078,481,901
$3,056,526,007
0.00%
0.00%
1,923
1,923
$6,554
$21,121,343,462
$645,080,831
0.00%
0.00%
5,508
1,929
5,508
1,929
$19,162
$8,640
$56,137,224,375
$125,662,478,049
$1,714,523,861
$1,212,418,679
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
570
92
143
570
92
143
76
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
0.02%
0.00%
Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424210
424610
424690
424710
Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers
Plastics Materials and Basic Fonns and Shapes Merchant
Wholesalers
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Tenninals
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except
1,671
1,671
$5,559
$141,971,019,579
$1,369,767,004
0.00%
0.00%
4,722
4,722
910
10,022
910
10,022
-$15,064,794
-$4, 133,942
$53,997,866,896
$4,790,420,318
$30,363,527,905
$1,464,963,285
$111,275,820
-0.03%
-0.09%
-1.03%
-3.72%
$705,308,978
0.00%
0.00%
6,059,071
106,017 -$25,461,059 $14,465,946,958,024
Total
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Drrectorate of Standards and Gwdance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health (Docwnent ID 0481).
$1,460,460,327,939
424720
424910
424950
424990
Bulk Stations and Terminals)
Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
Note: "Affected" firms are based on the maximum number affected by any one provision of the rule.
20MYR4
ER20MY24.204</GPH>
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$26,780
I
0.00%
I
0.00%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-23: Screening Analysis for SBA-Defined Small Entities Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate (2022 Dollars)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00105
324121 Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
324122 Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
324191 Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
324199 All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
Fmt 4701
325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing
325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing
325130 Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
Sfmt 4725
325180 Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical
325194
Manufacturino325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
325211
325212
325220
325311
325312
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
325314 Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
20MYR4
325413 In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
325414 Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
240
57
126
32
8
240
57
126
32
$16,855
$1,396,799,347
$96,337,675
0.00%
$3,937
$155,656
$339,283,941
$540,523,482
$158,652,770
$23,400,516
$36,820,225
$10,807,358
0.00%
I
0.02%
0.03%
0.00%
I
0.42%
0.02%
$2,068,657
$4,455,621
$6,608,687
$21,546,682
0.00%
0.07%
0.06%
0.04%
-0.01%
0.03%
$2,349
151
16
8
51
52
151
16
$1,382
$2,598
$2,964
-$1,398
$661
$60,624,988
$130,578,433
$193,677,160
$631,456,804
$408,219,776
$13,929,348
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
19
19
$968
$90,777,978
$3,097,542
0.00%
283
283
352
59
38
109
10
241
111
397
662
93
139
629
215
-$600
$13,691
$1,226
$1,496,841,354
$1,240,697,602
$346,949,549
$129,870,134
$51,075,488
$73,703,463
$20,610,488
$7,714,917
0.00%
0.00%
$445,338,390
$62,883,763
$707,258,894
$43,263,948
$6,109,062
$68,709,127
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-0.02%
-0.02%
-0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
-0.25%
-0.25%
-0.25%
$14,073
$8,357
$61,893
$6,380
$3,139
$467,677,961
$703,448,129
$2,205,989,708
$200,568,005
$647,737,915
$45,434,203
$97,573,153
$305,986, 131
$27,820, 179
$89,845,758
0.00%
0.00%
0.03%
0.01%
0.02%
295
59
$15,063
$5,700
$1,713,427,745
$724,751,206
$702,865,750
$465,492,370
$178,093,078
$71,476,852
$30,233,510
$86,760,735
$57,459,707
$21,983,553
-0.02%
464
-$367,469
$20,882
$44,773
51
52
352
59
38
109
10
241
111
397
662
93
139
629
325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing
325520 Adhesive Manufacturing
325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
215
464
325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
295
59
$560
-$109,727
-$15,573
-$171,785
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
-0.51%
0.07%
0.05%
0.03%
0.03%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-24: Screening Analysis for Very Small Entities (Fewer than 20 Employees) Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate
2022 Dollars
44247
ER20MY24.205</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44248
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
325910 Printing Ink Manufacturing
325920 Explosives Manufacturing
325991 Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation
Manufactunnil
HHMI
NH
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
326191 Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
3262ll Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)
326212 Tire Retreading
326220 Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing
326291 Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use
326299 All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
327ll0 Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
327120 Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
3272ll Flat Glass Manufacturing
327212 Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing
20MYR4
Glass Container Manufacturing
Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass
Cement Manufacturing
Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
327331 Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturing
327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
ER20MY24.206</GPH>
98
18
18
184
184
120
120
$3,851
$926
$3,824
$3,272
$239,413,089
$49,933,397
$573,806,381
$140,704,350
$12,141,213
$2,532,242
$29,099,100
$7,135,455
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.03%
0.04%
0.01%
719
719
$28,004
$1,466,261,747
$74,357,655
0.00%
0.04%
ll5
108
189
115
$250
$235
$412
$9,566,934
$6,943,890
$10,284,851
0.00%
0.00%
151
113
151
113
$329
$248
$372,892,930
$270,653,850
$400,875,366
$242,073,449
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.05%
t
326ll 1 Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
326ll2 Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
326ll3 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing
326121 Unlarninated Plastics Profile Shape Manufacturing
326122 Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape
326130
Manufactunng
326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing
326160 Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
327213
327215
327310
327320
98
108
189
$346,062,366
$6,210,632
$8,878,569
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Ill
111
$242
$214,552,045
$5,504,543
0.00%
0.00%
149
149
67
171
2,682
43
$146
$375
$5,852
$94
$8,302,300
$13,965,281
$3,863,591
0.00%
221
$323,600,980
$544,328,494
$150,592,201
0.00%
221
67
171
2,682
43
$324
$481
$305
$196
$333
$634
$6,125,394
$120,034,783
$1,712,676
$3,734,810
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
140
$238,751,101
$4,678,627,783
$101,104,608
$220,477,498
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$222,030,797
$254,295,991
$481,285,766
$3,761,122
$4,307,683
$8,152,809
$267,360,823
$395,235,836
$62,267,200
$207,207,815
$24, ll 7,972
$654,768,471
$4,205,607
$6,217,092
$1,762,971
$5,866,673
$682,852
$18,538,454
$127,333,263
$3,586,065,405
$486,482,538
$1,872,236
$52,727,481
$7,152,965
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$87,336,057
$1,284,140
0.00%
140
90
153
291
291
448
448
181
181
57
325
20
653
49
1,234
225
49
90
153
57
325
20
653
49
1,234
225
49
$978
$394
$124
$710
$44
$1,424
$109
$2,798
$512
$107
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-24: Screening Analysis for Very Small Entities (Fewer than 20 Employees) Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate
2022 Dollars
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
327410 Lime Manufacturing
327420 Gypsum Product Manufacturing
327910 Abrasive Product Manufacturing
327991 Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing
327992 Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing
327993 Mineral Wool Manufacturing
327999 All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
331110
331210
331221
331222
Iron aod Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased Steel
Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
Steel Wire Drawing
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
Alwnina Refining and Primary Aluminwn Production
Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Almninmn
Alwninwn Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
Other Aluminwn Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
331410 Nouferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining
331420 Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Alwninwn) Rolling, Drawing, and
331491
Extrudin•
Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal
331492
I (exceot Cooner and Aluminwn)
331511 Iron Foundries
331512 Steel Investment Foundries
331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment)
331313
331314
331315
331318
331523 Nonferrous Metal Die-Casting Foundries
331524 Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting)
331529 Other Nonferrous Metal Foundries (except Die-Casting)
20MYR4
339112
339113
339114
339115
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Ophthahnic Goods Manufacturing
339116 Dental Laboratories
339910 Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
12
91
147
1,541
64
87
167
174
70
77
87
19
20
30
76
64
41
12
91
147
1,541
64
87
167
174
70
77
87
19
20
$28
$198
$320
$3,369
$139
$192
$368
$379
$152
$168
$189
$41
$44
$65
$166
$139
$31,125,544
$175,091,880
$292, 134,504
$1,586,363,191
$132,189,310
$582,325
$3,275,780
$5,465,521
$29,679,144
$2,473,119
$179,411,030
$334,453,360
$3,356,587
$6,257,262
$444,969,193
$5,523,246
$105,590,702
$270,241,311
$164,181,203
$26,820,959
$204,216,733
$2,198,042
$5,625,511
$3,417,698
$45,959,515
$150,948,962
$384,069,065
$662,211
$5,042,126
$1,112,738
$3,726,941
$7,995,020
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
41
$89
$219,847,551
$4,576,483
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
142
$311
$341,819,219
$7,115,521
0.00%
0.00%
82
82
$185
$433,295,001
$9,019,738
0.00%
0.00%
101
24
101
$220
$52
$161
$193,712,363
$35,707,136
$141,887,422
$9,149,375
$1,686,511
$6,701,592
0.00%
0.00%
$243,374,270
$185,143,921
$163,655,489
$11,494,994
$8,744,672
$7,729,736
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
140
$364
$318
$305
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
689
1,138
689
1,138
$10,161
$16,945
$1,133,808,267
$1,842,494,560
$83,135,152
$135,098,737
0.00%
0.00%
447
240
4,792
447
$343,167,920
$250,178,784
$1,857,933,643
$25,162,382
$18,344,064
4,792
$6,592
$3,539
$70,730
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.03%
0.02%
1,795
1,795
$26,502
$1,309,295,696
142
73
167
146
140
30
76
64
24
73
167
146
240
$136,230,790
$52,815,940
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.05%
0.05%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-24: Screening Analysis for Very Small Entities (Fewer than 20 Employees) Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate
2022 Dollars
44249
ER20MY24.207</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44250
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
339930 Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
339940 Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
339950 Sign Manufacturing
Frm 00108
339991 Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
339992 Musical Instrument Manufacturing
339993 Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
339994 Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
Burial Casket Manufacturing
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.208</GPH>
442
442
320
4,918
269
495
320
4,918
269
495
71
90
59
71
5,903
1,630
5,903
4,725
1,226
4,725
90
$6,519
$4,852
$404,576,662
$265,785,648
$16,320,299
$10,721,580
$72,721
$3,967
$7,300
$1,047
$1,357
$3,271,628,483
$474,333,716
$281,190,846
$50,089,383
$120,163,350
$131,974,874
$19,134,242
$11,343,014
$2,020,566
$4,847,293
$12,934
$3,656
$22,650,320,243
$9,538,190,909
$786,018,235
$291,312,157
$10,514
$2,811
$22,653,633,421
$22,113,348,900
$691,879,505
$213,354,357
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.04%
0.05%
0.06%
0.02%
0.06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.05%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
59
Medical, Dental, and Hospital Equipment and Supplies Merchant
Wholesalers
Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424210 Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers
424610 Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers
424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
424710 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk
1,630
1,226
424720
Stations and Terminals)
424910 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
1,319
1,319
$2,907
$30,382,540,215
$293,137,298
0.00%
0.00%
3,952
3,952
424950 Paint, Vamish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424990 Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
758
9,352
758
9,352
-$1,640,988
-$377,569
$17,787,338,503
$1,850,425,514
$482,570,874
$42,983,204
-0.01%
-0.02%
-0.34%
-0.88%
$20,469
$17,105,834,948
$397,348,391
0.00%
0.01%
Total
5,395,869
83,952 -$1,625,090 $4,989,404,703,505 $190,373,831,916
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards aud Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health (Document ID 0481).
Note: "Affected" frrms are based on the maximum number affected by any one provision of the rule.
I
0.00%
I
0.00%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-24: Screening Analysis for Very Small Entities (Fewer than 20 Employees) Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate
2022 Dollars
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00109
324121
324122
324191
324199
Fmt 4701
325110
325120
325130
Sfmt 4725
325180
325193
325194
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
325199
325211
325212
325220
325311
325312
325314
325320
325411
20MYR4
325412
325413
325414
325510
325520
325611
325612
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
421
421
$41,378
$7,052,481,538
$486,411,791
0.00%
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
95
211
52
95
211
52
$16,553
$956,415
$7,122
$3,653,060,342
$6,633,215,757
$2,657,788, 167
$251,952,680
$451,851,781
$181,047,377
0.00%
0.01%
0.21%
0.00%
0.00%
15
64
15
64
90
310
103
32
$3,659,008,422
$994,180,801
$3,056,687,652
$124,853,338
$33,923,615
$104,300,841
0.00%
90
310
103
32
$8,874
$5,023
$7,288
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
530
771
112
530
771
112
$19,717
$10,600
$2,601
$51,110
$141,178
$14,719,722,613
$19,617,730,458
$809,079,434
$24,528,270,906
$29,067,585,548
$502,269,000
$669,399,698
$27,607,553
$836,958,035
$1,726,755,743
90
150
90
150
$5,392
$3,325
$3,699
35
353
165
$330,329,789
$180,867,998
$216,809,636
$86,133,203
567
1,045
35
353
165
567
1,045
$5,560,652,947
$3,044,666,867
$2,231,734,699
$886,613,999
$4,478,262,789
$5,124,392,930
$7,604,961,980
$34,115,627,906
$435,056,427
$497,826,988
$1,054,861,174
$4,732,075,112
167
231
924
167
231
924
0.10%
345
605
409
$475,885,245
$1,284,294,610
$462,512,260
$222,753,248
$811,624,216
0.00%
345
605
409
$3,430,867,757
$9,259,049,356
$11,087,244,588
$5,339,793,027
$6,575,127,168
0.00%
0.00%
0.03%
0.02%
$4,181,099,162
$516,108,851
0.00%
0.02%
Petrochemical Manufacturing
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Mfg.
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manu.fucturing
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
Adhesive Manufacturing
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
$1,306
$13,586
$37,330
$31,731
$161,908
$34,171
$12,832
$467,325
$68,967
$143,883
$86,469
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-25: Screening Analysis for SBA-Defined Small Entities Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate (Exclusive of Cost
Savings, 2022 Dollars)
44251
ER20MY24.209</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44252
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
a,C=:::ill
981
$3,065,370,876 !
$187,738
$21,112
$19,202,886,031
$1,607,687,931
$378,384,960 1
$2,370,376,559
$81,529,716
$693,174,902
$5,691,757,644
$831,530,162
$10,970,657,349
$35,152,564
$288,642,699
$42,168,891
$556,348,381
980
980
$10,104
$10,122
$6,639
$57,488
326111
326112
326113
Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Mfg.
Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Mfg.
233
273
347
233
273
347
$1,694
$2,081
$2,351
$3,812,593,720
$6,905,129,008
$6,490,745,777
$97,815,830
$177,157,855
$166,526,447
326121
326122
326130
326140
Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Mfg.
Plastics Pipe aod Pipe Fitting Mfg.
Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape Mfg.
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
289
222
182
282
289
222
182
282
$1,802
$1,797
$981
$2,115
$3,006,801,686
$5,090,463,190
$1,924,078,647
$5,002,292,097
$77,142,445
$130,600,824
$49,364,124
$128,338,708
326150
326160
326191
Urethaoe aod Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Mfg.
Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)
415
181
290
4,693
415
181
290
4,693
$2,814
$1,669
$1,680
$29,756
70
224
167
326299
306
492
306
492
$797
$1,093
$1,124
$2,145
$127,858,144
$103,559,324
$81,865,226
$1,363,134,021
$70,018,064
Tire Retreading
Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing
Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use
All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
70
224
167
$4,983,561,033
$4,036,459,444
$3,190,882,780
$53,131,238,757
$4,133,384,788
$2,964
$1,000,658,631
$2,589,388,690
$3,847,583,240
$4,697,901,564
$16,950,800
$43,863,321
$65,176,687
$79,580,776
327110
327120
Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
534
326
534
326
$1,902
$2,073
$1,337,553,762
$3,630,120,546
327211
327212
327213
327215
Flat Glass Manufacturing
Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing
Glass Container Manufacturing
Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass
Cement Manufacturing
Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
91
388
29
861
91
388
29
861
$656,715,335
$1,691,789,270
73
1,958
382
73
1,958
$541
$1,610
$217
$4,207
$462
$12,155
$21,039,829
$57,102,091
$18,593,576
$47,899,616
$418,420,544
$5,525,809,632
$1,470,724,087
$20,717,511,691
$11,846,737
$156,452,203
$21,624,697
$304,618,596
382
$2,357
$3,291,709,756
$48,399,442
Frm 00110
325998
Explosives Manufacturing
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, aod Chemical Maoufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Mfg.
Sfmt 4725
145
38
306
151
981
145
38
306
151
Fmt 4701
PO 00000
325910
325920
325991
325992
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
Printing Ink Manufacturing
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.210</GPH>
326199
326211
326212
326220
326291
327310
327320
327331
Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturing
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.03%
0.03%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-25: Screening Analysis for SBA-Defined Small Entities Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate (Exclusive of Cost
Savings, 2022 Dollars)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
1
PO 00000
327332
327390
327410
Frm 00111
327420
327910
327991
327992
327993
1
"<:Soncrete-P-ipe-rvianuracttiing·-Other Concrete Product Manufacturing
Lime Manufacturing
Gypsum Product Manufacturing
Abrasive Product Manufacturing
Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing
1,451
24
~
1,451
24
109
233
1,931
123
152
109
233
1,931
s;J;J:i9:S225:is •r
$7,467
$216
$584
$1,189
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
$8,682,164,472
$865,109,167
$447,053,257
$2,021,424,195
$4,812,522,458
$16,754,893 1
$127,657,645
$16,185,259
$8,363,884
$37,818,666
$90,037,104
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
$1,769,433,795
$2,174,407,766
$2,074,876,712
$33,104,198
$40,680,824
$38,818,705
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$20,890,760,432
$7,367,292,854
$4,972,953,187
$3,612,084,969
$259,309,680
0.00%
0.00%
$153,362,141
$103,520,080
$75,191,403
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$1,088,654,321
$2,885,391,854
$4,335,142,654
$5,182,592,041
$26,878,956
$71,240,540
$104,959,262
$127,958,584
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$5,758,979,536
$11,476,098,480
$119,882,492
$238,893,589
20MYR4
327999
All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Mfg.
239
239
$6,929
$741
$1,027
$1,324
3311 IO
331210
331221
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased Steel
Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
281
175
154
281
175
154
$2,714
$1,557
$987
166
27
52
166
27
52
56
172
103
129
56
172
103
129
$1,120
$128
$407
$660
$1,383
$606
$1,164
201
201
$1,104
$2,131,430,995
$44,369,191
0.00%
0.00%
151
151
231
88
145
231
88
145
$923
$1,867
$5,502,650,423
$3,324,719,712
$114,546,587
$157,032,348
309
267
225
$1,888,851,815
$1,763,331,460
$3,030,786,640
$1,929,923,454
$1,444,968,241
$89,213,787
$83,285,240
$143,149,373
$91,153,673
$68,248,387
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
309
267
225
$827
$850
$1,810
$1,452
$1,122
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1,029
1,562
1,029
1,562
$33,720
$43,062
522
306
522
306
$10,923
$8,058
$12,986,915,927
$11,456,275,670
$2,863,485,268
$952,250,269
$840,017,880
$209,961,675
$1,429,817,777
$104,839,699
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
331222
331313
331314
331315
331318
331410
331420
331491
Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing
Mineral Wool Manufacturing
Steel Wire Drawing
Alumina Refming and Primary Aluminum Production
Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining
Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
Nouferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling,
331492
Drawing, and Extruding
Secondary Smelting, Refming, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal
331511
331512
331513
331523
Iron Foundries
Steel Investment Foundries
Steel Foundries (except Investment)
Nonferrous Metal Die~Casting Foundries
331524
331529
Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting)
Other Nonferrous Metal Foundries (except Die-Casting)
339112
339113
339114
339115
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
123
152
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-25: Screening Analysis for SBA-Defined Small Entities Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate (Exclusive of Cost
Savings, 2022 Dollars)
44253
ER20MY24.211</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44254
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00112
339910
339920
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
1,972
1,549
1,972
339930
339940
339950
339991
339992
Doll, Toy, and Grune Manufacturing
Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
Sigu Manufacturing
503
401
5,708
434
503
Fmt 4701
339993
339994
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
Burial Casket Manufacturing
1,549
401
5,708
434
570
570
92
143
76
92
143
76
$4,133,091,237
$6,931,778,350
$1,389,538,569
$2,609,465,889
$12,112,744,969
$166, 725,592
$279,622,389
$56,052,873
$!05,263,765
$488,618,435
$9,612
$11,210
$2,905,995,145
$1,296,829,108
$460,624,786
$1,605,789,812
$117,225,518
$52,313,048
$18,581,235
$64,776,275
$209,122,381
$2,230
$3,902
$1,848
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.01%
0.02%
0.00%
0.01%
0.02%
$8,435,829
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.02%
Sfmt 4725
Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers
Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant
20MYR4
1,923
1,923
$6,554
$21,121,343,462
$645,080,831
0.00%
0.00%
5,508
1,929
5,508
$19,162
$56,137,224,375
$1,714,523,861
1,929
$8,640
$125,662,478,049
$1,212,418,679
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1,671
1,671
$5,559
$141,971,019,579
$1,369,767,004
0.00%
0.00%
4,722
4,722
$1,464,963,285
$111,275,820
$705,308,978
0.00%
910
10,022
$53,997,866,896
$4,790,420,318
$30,363,527,905
0.00%
910
10,022
$16,743
$3,042
$26,780
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6,059,071
106,017
$3,758,489 $14,465,946,958,024
Total
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Drrectorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory AnalyS1s-Health (Document ID 0481 ).
$1,460,460,327,939
424610
424690
4247!0
424720
4249!0
424950
424990
Wholesalers
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Tenninals
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except
Bulk Stations and Terminals)
Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
Pain~ Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
Note: "Affected" firms are based on the maximum number affected by any one provision of the rule.
ER20MY24.212</GPH>
$34,630
$34,033
$9,584
$9,265
$112,006
I
0.00%
I
0.01%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-25: Screening Analysis for SBA-Defined Small Entities Affected by tbe Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate (Exclusive of Cost
Savings, 2022 Dollars)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00113
324121
324122
324191
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
Fmt 4701
324199
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
325110
325120
325130
Petrochemical Manufacturing
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
Sfmt 4725
325180
325193
325194
325199
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
325211
325212
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood
Chemical Manufacturin!!
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments
Manufacturine
240
57
126
240
57
126
32
32
8
51
52
8
51
52
151
16
151
16
$16,855
$1,396,799,347
$3,937
$155,656
$2,349
$339,283,941
$540,523,482
$158,652, 770
$96,337,675
$23,400,516
$36,820,225
$10,807,358
0.00%
0.00%
0.03%
0.02%
0.00%
0.02%
$1,382
$2,598
$2,964
$4,962
$60,624,988
$130,578,433
$193,677,160
$631,456,804
$2,068,657
$4,455,621
$6,608,687
$21,546,682
0.00%
0.07%
0.06%
0.04%
$661
$408,219,776
$13,929,348
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.03%
0.02%
0.42%
19
19
$968
$90,777,978
$3,097,542
0.00%
283
283
$51,075,488
$73,703,463
$20,610,488
0.03%
352
59
$1,496,841,354
$1,240,697,602
$346,949,549
0.00%
352
59
$14,475
$13,691
$1,226
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.01%
20MYR4
38
38
$560
$129,870,134
$7,714,917
0.00%
0.01%
325311
325312
325314
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
109
10
241
109
10
241
$1,608
$147
$5,030
$445,338,390
$62,883,763
$707,258,894
$43,263,948
$6,109,062
$68,709,127
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
325320
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical
ManufacturinP-
Ill
111
$14,073
$467,677,961
$45,434,203
0.00%
0.03%
397
662
93
$15,441
$63,900
$703,448,129
$2,205,989,708
$97,573,153
$305,986,131
0.02%
0.02%
$6,562
$3,728
$60,888
$27,820,179
$89,845,758
$71,476,852
0.02%
215
464
215
464
$20,882
$44,773
$200,568,005
$647,737,915
$1,713,427,745
$724,751,206
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
139
629
397
662
93
139
629
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.09%
0.07%
0.05%
325220
325411
325412
325413
325414
325510
325520
325611
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
Adhesive Manufacturing
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
$702,865,750
$30,233,510
$86,760,735
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-26: Screening Analysis for Very Small Entities (Fewer than 20 Employees) Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate
44255
ER20MY24.213</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44256
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
325613
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
325620
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
325910
Printing Ink Manufacturing
PO 00000
325920
Explosives Manufacturing
325991
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
Frm 00114
325998
325992
326111
326112
Fmt 4701
326113
326121
326122
Sfmt 4725
326130
326140
-Ill-
Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
Plastics Packaging Fihn and Sheet (including
Laminated) Manufacturine
Unlaminated Plastics Fihn and Sheet (except
Packrurin•\ Manufacturin•
Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Manufacturing
Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging),
and Shane Manufacturing
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
$5,700
$178,093,078
$21,983,553
0.00%
$1,810,360,235
$223,468,257
0.00%
0.02%
$3,851
$239,413,089
$12,141,213
0.00"/o
0.03%
$926
$49,933,397
$2,532,242
0.00"/o
0.04%
184
98
18
184
$3,824
$573,806,381
$29,099,100
0.00"/o
0.01%
120
120
$3,272
$140,704,350
$7,135,455
0.00"/o
0.05%
719
719
$28,004
$1,466,261,747
$74,357,655
0.00%
0.04%
115
115
$250
$372,892,930
$9,566,934
0.00"/o
0.00"/o
108
108
$235
$270,653,850
$6,943,890
0.00"/o
0.00"/o
98
18
189
189
$412
$400,875,366
$10,284,851
0.00"/o
0.00"/o
151
$329
$242,073,449
$6,210,632
0.00"/o
0.01%
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
113
113
$248
$346,062,366
$8,878,569
0.00"/o
0.00"/o
111
111
$242
$214,552,o45
$5,504,543
0.00"/o
0.00"/o
149
149
$324
$323,600,980
$8,302,300
0.00"/o
0.00"/o
221
221
$481
$544,328,494
$13,965,281
0.00"/o
0.00"/o
67
67
171
2,682
$146
$150,592,201
$3,863,591
0.00"/o
0.00"/o
$375
$238,751,101
$6,125,394
0.00"/o
0.01%
$5,852
$4,678,627,783
$120,034,783
0.00"/o
0.00"/o
$94
$101,104,608
$1,712,676
0.00"/o
0.01%
326191
Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
171
326199
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
2,682
326211
Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)
43
326212
Tire Retreading
326220
Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing
326291
Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use
153
326299
All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
20MYR4
327120
327212
Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture
Manufacturine
Clay Building Material and Refractories
Manufacturin•
Flat Glass Manufacturing
Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware
Manufacturin"'
0.03%
151
326160
327110
59
697
$35,498
Urethane and Other Foam Product (except
Polvstvrene) ManufacturinP
Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
326150
327211
ER20MY24.214</GPH>
Photographic Fihn, Paper, Plate, and Chemical
Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and
Priaration Manufacturinl.
59
697
43
140
$305
$220,477,498
$3,734,810
0.00"/o
0.01%
$196
$222,030,797
$3,761,122
0.00"/o
0.01%
$333
$254,295,991
$4,307,683
0.00"/o
0.01%
291
90
153
291
$634
$481,285,766
$8,152,809
0.00"/o
0.01%
448
448
$978
$267,360,823
$4,205,607
0.00"/o
0.02%
181
181
$394
$395,235,836
$6,217,092
0.00%
0.01%
57
57
$124
$62,267,200
$1,762,971
0.00"/o
0.01%
325
325
$710
$207,207,815
$5,866,673
0.00"/o
0.01%
140
90
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-26: Screening Analysis for Very Small Entities (Fewer than 20 Employees) Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
327310
Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased
Glass
Cement Manufacturing
327215
PO 00000
327320
Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
327331
Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturing
327332
Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
327390
Other Concrete Product Manufacturing
653
653
$1,424
$654,768,471
$18,538,454
0.00%
0.01%
49
49
1,234
225
$109
$127,333,263
$1,872,236
0.00%
0.01%
$2,798
$3,586,065,405
$52,727,481
0.00%
$512
$486,482,538
$7,152,965
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
1,234
225
Frm 00115
327410
Lime Manufacturing
12
327420
Gypsum Product Manufacturing
91
327910
Abrasive Product Manufacturing
147
49
958
12
91
147
327991
Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing
1,541
327992
Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing
64
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
327993
Mineral Wool Manufacturing
327999
All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product
Manufacturinll!
331110
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
1111 I
49
958
$107
$87,336,057
$1,284,140
0.00%
0.01%
$2,106
$1,369,068,605
$20,130,012
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
$28
$31,125,544
$582,325
0.00"/o
$198
$175,091,880
$3,275,780
0.00%
0.01%
$320
$292,134,504
$5,465,521
0.00"/o
0.01%
1,541
$3,369
$1,586,363,191
$29,679,144
0.00%
0.01%
$139
$132,189,310
$2,473,119
0.00%
0.01%
87
64
87
$192
$179,411,030
$3,356,587
0.00"/o
0.01%
167
167
$368
$334,453,360
$6,257,262
0.00"/o
0.01%
174
174
$379
$444,969,193
$5,523,246
0.00"/o
0.01%
70
70
$152
$105,590,702
$2,198,042
0.00"/o
0.01%
77
77
87
19
$168
$270,241,311
$5,625,511
0.00"/o
$189
$164,181,203
$3,417,698
0.00"/o
$41
$26,820,959
$662,211
0.00"/o
0.00"/o
0.01%
0.01%
$44
$204,216,733
$5,042,126
0.00"/o
0.00%
$65
$45,959,515
$1,112,738
0.00%
0.01%
$166
$150,948,962
$3,726,941
0.00"/o
0.00%
1111
20MYR4
331221
Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from
Purchased Steel
Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
331222
Steel Wire Drawing
331313
331314
Alumina Refming and Primary Aluminum Production
87
19
Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
20
331315
Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
30
331318
Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
76
20
30
76
Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and
Refinin2
Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
64
64
$139
$384,069,065
$7,995,020
0.00"/o
0.00%
41
41
$89
$219,847,551
$4,576,483
0.00"/o
0.00%
142
142
$311
$341,819,219
$7,115,521
0.00%
0.00"/o
82
82
$185
$433,295,001
$9,019,738
0.00%
0.00"/o
IOI
101
24
73
167
146
$220
$193,712,363
$9,149,375
0.00"/o
0.00"/o
$52
$35,707,136
$1,686,511
0.00"/o
0.00"/o
$161
$141,887,422
$6,701,592
0.00"/o
0.00"/o
$364
$243,374,270
$11,494,994
0.00"/o
0.00%
$318
$185,143,921
$8,744,672
0.00"/o
0.00%
331210
331410
331420
331511
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum)
Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of
Nonferrous Metal (excent Cooner and Aluminum)
Iron Foundries
331512
Steel Investment Foundries
331513
331523
Steel Foundries (except Investment)
Nonferrous Metal Die-Casting Foundries
167
331524
Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting)
146
331491
331492
24
73
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-26: Screening Analysis for Very Small Entities (Fewer than 20 Employees) Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate
44257
ER20MY24.215</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44258
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
339112
PO 00000
339113
339114
339115
339116
Frm 00116
339910
339920
339930
339940
339950
Fmt 4701
339991
339992
339993
339994
689
689
$10,161
$1,133,808,267
$83,135,152
0.00%
1,138
1,138
$16,945
$1,842,494,560
$135,098,737
0.00%
0.00%
447
447
$6,592
$343,167,920
$25,162,382
240
240
$3,539
$250,178,784
$18,344,064
0.00%
4,792
4,792
$70,730
$1,857,933,643
$136,230, 790
0.00%
1,795
1,795
$26,502
$1,309,295,696
$52,815,940
0.00%
1,278
1,278
$18,877
$1,101,462,640
$44,432,121
0.00%
442
442
$6,519
$404,576,662
$16,320,299
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.03%
0.02%
0.05%
0.05%
0.04%
0.04%
0.05%
0.06%
0.02%
0.06%
0.05%
0.03%
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
320
320
$4,852
$265,785,648
$10,721,580
0.00%
4,918
4,918
$72,721
$3,271,628,483
$131,974,874
0.00%
269
269
$3,967
$474,333,716
$19,134,242
0.00%
495
495
$7,300
$281,190,846
$11,343,014
0.00%
71
71
$1,047
$50,089,383
$2,020,566
0.00%
90
$1,357
$120,163,350
$4,847,293
0.00%
59
90
59
5,903
5,903
$12,934
$22,650,320,243
$786,018,235
0.00%
0.00%
1,630
1,630
$3,656
$9,538,190,909
$291,312,157
0.00%
0.00%
4,725
4,725
$10,514
$22,653,633,421
$691,879,505
0.00%,
0.00%
1,226
1,226
$2,811
$22,113,348,900
$213,354,357
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$885
Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424210
424610
424690
424710
424720
424910
424950
424990
ER20MY24.216</GPH>
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
Dental Laboratories
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
Sign Manufacturing
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
Burial Casket Manufacturing
Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers
Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes
Merchant Wholesalers
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant
Wholesalers
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Tenninals
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant
Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals)
Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant
Wholesalers
1,319
1,319
$2,907
$30,382,540,215
$293,137,298
0.00%
3,952
3,952
$8,787
$17,787,338,503
$482,570,874
0.00%
0.00%
758
758
$1,768
$1,850,425,514
$42,983,204
0.00%
0.00%
9,352
9,352
$20,469
$17,105,834,948
$397,348,391
0.00%
0.01%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
21:23 May 17, 2024
Table VI-26: Screening Analysis for Very Small Entities (Fewer than 20 Employees) Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
20MYR4
44259
rule in the final rule as a result of the
comments.
No comments were filed by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA in
response to the proposed rule.
(D) A statement of the significant
issues raised by the public comments in
response to the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, a statement of the
assessment of the agency of such issues,
and a statement of any changes made in
the proposed rule as a result of such
comments.
Significant issues raised by public
comments in relation to the PEA were
addressed earlier in this FEA, within
discussion of the preliminary cost
analysis and revisions (if any) to the
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
training about 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. For further discussion on
the need for this revision to the HCS,
see Section IV., Need and Support for
the Revised Hazard Communication
Standard, earlier in this preamble.
(C) The response of the agency to any
comments filed by the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in response to the
proposed rule, and a detailed statement
of any change made to the proposed
Note: "Affected" fmns are based on the maximum number affected by any one provision of the rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
21:23 May 17, 2024
(B) Statement of the need for, and
objectives of, the rule.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
ER20MY24.217</GPH>
Table VI-26: Screening Analysis for Very Small Entities (Fewer than 20 Employees) Affected by the Revisions to the HCS With Costs Calculated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44260
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
preliminary cost analysis in response to
public comments.
(E) A description of and an estimate
of the number of small entities to which
the rule will apply or an explanation of
why no such estimate is available.
As shown above in Table VI–2, OSHA
estimates that 114,585 establishments
within 106,017 private (business) firms/
enterprises defined as small by the SBA
will be affected by the final rule.
As shown above in Table VI–3, OSHA
estimates that 84,754 very small
establishments (fewer than 20
employees) within 83,952 private
(business) firms/enterprises identified
as very small will be affected by the
final rule.
(F) A description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping and other
compliance requirements of the rule,
including an estimate of the classes of
small entities which will be subject to
the requirements and the type of
professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
This final standard revises the HCS
by, among other things, updating the
criteria for classification of certain
chemical and physical hazards,
simplifying the requirements for
providing updated labels and labels for
small containers, strengthening the
awareness of hazard information related
to the contents of SDSs, and
modernizing definitions. The preamble
to the final standard provides a
comprehensive description of, and
further detail regarding, the compliance
requirements of the rulemaking.
Small business enterprises in Mining,
Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction,
Manufacturing, and Wholesale Trade
who import, produce, distribute, or
otherwise come into contact with
hazardous chemicals will be subject to
the requirements of the final standard.
For details on the affected NAICS
industries and the number of affected
small business enterprises (firms), see
Section VI.C., Profile of Affected
Industries, Establishments, and
Employees in this FEA.
All affected establishments must have
a written hazard communication
program explaining how the
establishment meets the criteria of the
standard with respect to labeling, SDSs,
and worker information and training as
discussed under paragraph (e) of the
standard.
Chemical manufacturers and
importers must evaluate chemicals
produced in their workplaces or
imported by them to classify the
chemicals in accordance with the
standard. For each chemical, the
chemical manufacturer or importer must
determine the hazard classes, and,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
where appropriate, the category of each
class that apply to the chemical being
classified. Employers are not required to
classify chemicals unless they choose
not to rely on the classification
performed by the chemical
manufacturer or importer for the
chemical to satisfy this requirement. A
description of the types of entities
subject to the new and revised
requirements, and the types of
professional skills necessary for
compliance with the requirements, is
presented in the relevant sections of this
economic analysis; the corresponding
unit time burdens are summarized
below. These costs would apply only to
those businesses not already in
compliance with the revisions.
Costs associated with chemical
reclassifications and related revisions to
safety data sheets and labels; Health and
Safety Specialist, fully loaded hourly
wage of $61.18:
• Medium establishments (100–499
employees): an average of 1.5 hours per
SDS,
• Small establishments (1–99
employees): an average of 2.1 hours per
SDS.
Costs associated with revisions to
appendix language on precautionary
statements and other mandatory
language; Health and Safety Specialist:
• Medium establishments (100–499
employees): an average of 0.5 hours per
SDS,
• Small establishments (1–99
employees): an average of 0.7 hours per
SDS.
Costs associated with management
familiarization with the revisions to the
HCS; Health and Safety Specialist:
• Medium directly affected
establishments (20–499 employees): an
average of 4.0 hours per establishment,
• Medium indirectly affected
establishments (20–499 employees): an
average of 1.0 hours per establishment,
• Small directly affected
establishments (1–19 employees): an
average of 1.0 hours per establishment,
• Small indirectly affected
establishments (1–19 employees): an
average of 0.25 hours per establishment.
Training costs associated with the
revisions to the HCS; Mining,
Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction,
and Manufacturing Sectors, per affected
firm:
• 2.5 hours, Health and Safety
Specialist, fully loaded hourly wage of
$61.18;
• 0.2 hours, Logistics Personnel, fully
loaded hourly wage of $60.37;
• 0.2 hours, Production Worker, fully
loaded hourly wage of $31.09.
Cost savings associated with the
released-for-shipment provision, small
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
firms in fertilizer and paint
manufacturing, and small wholesalers of
related farm and paint supplies:
• Percentage loss avoided ranging
from 0.009 percent to 0.025 percent,
applied to average product value.
Cost savings associated with
abbreviated labels on very small
containers, small firms in six
manufacturing industries within NAICS
325—Chemical Manufacturing:
• Cost savings of $0.058 per label for
very small containers multiplied by the
number of affected labels.
(G) A description of the steps the
agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small
entities consistent with the stated
objectives of the applicable statutes,
including a statement of the factual,
policy, and legal reasons for selecting
the alternative adopted in the final rule
and why each one of the other
significant alternatives to the rule
considered by the agency which affect
the impact on small entities was
rejected.
As was the case with the 2012 HCS,
OSHA in this final rule has published
an implementation schedule (paragraph
(j) Dates) that minimizes the impacts on
small employers. The final rule requires
that chemical manufacturers, importers,
and distributors, and employers
evaluating substances be in compliance
with all modified provisions of the HCS
no later than eighteen months after the
effective date of the final rule
(paragraph (j)(2)(i)) and that chemical
manufacturers, importers, and
distributors, and employers evaluating
mixtures must be in compliance with all
modified provisions of the HCS no later
than thirty-six months after the effective
date of the final rule (paragraph (j)(3)(i)).
Finally the final rule requires that all
employers, as necessary, update any
alternative workplace labeling used
under paragraph (f)(6) of this section,
update the hazard communication
program required by paragraph (h)(1),
and provide any additional employee
training in accordance with paragraph
(h)(3) for newly identified physical
hazard, or health hazards or other
hazards covered under this section no
later than twenty-four months after the
effective date of the final rule for
substances and forty-two months after
the effective date for mixtures
(paragraphs (j)(2)(ii) and (j)(3)(ii)).
Taking into consideration all of the
information received from the public
during the comment periods and in
hearing testimony, as well as the results
of the economic analysis that examine
the effects of different compliance dates
on the overall costs of compliance,
OSHA believes the implementation
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
schedule published in this final rule
sets a proper balance between employee
safety and the economic interests of
small business enterprises.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
A. Overview
OSHA is publishing a final rule to
revise the HCS, 29 CFR 1910.1200,
which contains collections of
information that are subject to review by
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., and OMB regulations at 5 CFR part
1320. This rule is revising and updating
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).
On February 16, 2021, OSHA
published an NPRM (86 FR 9576) to
modify the HCS to align with Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060), to address issues
that arose during the implementation of
the 2012 update to HCS, and to better
align with other U.S. agencies and
international trading partners, while
improving the effectiveness of the
standard. The NPRM proposed to revise
the OMB-approved information
collection requirements contained in the
HCS. Specifically, OSHA proposed to
(1) clarify that under paragraph (d)(1)
the chemical manufacturer or importer
must 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
related to release for shipment that
allows chemical manufacturers,
importers, and distributors to provide
updated labels with each shipment
instead of relabeling; and (5) add new
provisions allowing more limited
labeling for small containers in
paragraph (f)(12). On February 16, 2021,
the agency prepared and submitted to
OMB an Information Collection Request
(ICR) for the 2021 proposed rule for
review in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
3507(d).
B. Solicitation of Comments
In accordance with the PRA (44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)), OSHA solicited
public comments on the collection of
information contained in the NPRM.
OSHA encouraged commenters to
submit their comments on the
information collection requirements
contained in the proposed rule under
docket number OSHA–2019–0001,
along with their comments on other
parts of the proposed rule. In addition
to generally soliciting comments on the
collection of information requirements,
the proposed rule indicated that OSHA
and OMB were particularly interested in
comments that addressed the following:
• Whether the proposed collections of
information are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information is useful;
• The accuracy of the OSHA’s
estimate of the burden (time and cost)
of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the compliance
burden on regulated entities, including
through the use of appropriate
automated or other technological
techniques for collecting and
transmitting information.
On August 4, 2021, OMB issued a
Notice of Action (NOA) stating, ‘‘Terms
of the previous clearance remain in
effect. Prior to publication of the final
rule, the agency should provide to OMB
a summary of all comments received on
the proposed information collection and
identify any changes made in response
to these comments’’ (see https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202102-1218002).
The agency received numerous public
comments in response to the NPRM
during the initial comment period. In
addition, OSHA held public hearings on
the proposal from September 21–23,
2021, where the agency heard testimony
from stakeholders (see Document ID
0423; 0424; 0425). Participants who
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44261
filed notices of intention to appear at
the hearing were permitted to submit
additional evidence and data relevant to
the proceedings for a period of 60 days
following the hearing. The record
remained open for the submission of
final briefs, arguments, and summations
until December 22, 2021. OSHA
received additional post-hearing
comments.
OSHA received one comment from
Ameren specifically on the proposed
ICR, which stated that they agree with
the collection of information
requirements listed in Table 1—
Collection of Information Requirements
Being Revised in the Hazard
Communication Standard in the NPRM,
although they noted that ‘‘[t]his does not
necessarily indicate that Ameren agrees
with these as a change to the HCS’’
(Document ID 0309, p. 3).
The comments submitted in response
to the rest of the proposed rule and the
hearing proceedings resulted in
modifications to the provisions
containing collections of information.
OSHA considered these responses and
resulting modifications when preparing
the revised ICR for the final rule.
Summaries of comments received on the
NPRM and OSHA’s responses are found
in Sections VI., Final Economic
Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, and Section XIV., Summary
and Explanation of the Final Rule, in
this preamble.
OSHA submitted the final ICR
concurrent with the publication of this
final rule, containing the full analysis
and description of the burden hours and
costs associated with the final rule, to
OMB for approval. A copy of this ICR
will be available to the public at https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202002-1218-002
(this link will become active on the day
following publication of this notice). At
the conclusion of OMB’s review, OSHA
will publish a separate notice in the
Federal Register to announce the
results.
C. Summary of 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 (29 CFR 1910.1200).
2. Description of the ICR: The final
rule revises the currently approved
Hazard Communication ICR and
changes the existing collection of
information requirements currently
approved by OMB.
3. Brief Summary of the Information
Collection Requirements:
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44262
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
This final rule revises and clarifies the
collection of information contained in
the existing ICR. Specifically, OSHA is
(1) modifying the language in paragraph
(d)(1) to clarify what hazards are
required to be classified; (2) adding
language to paragraph (f)(1) providing
that hazards identified and classified
under subparagraph (d)(1)(ii) do not
have to be addressed on labels of
shipped containers; (3) revising
paragraph (f)(5) by adding two new
provisions related to bulk shipments of
chemicals; (4) revising paragraph (f)(11)
to include a provision that adds
flexibility related to updating labels for
products already released for shipment;
(5) adding paragraph (f)(12) to provide
new labeling requirements for small
containers; (6) clarifying the language in
paragraph (g)(2); and (10); and (7)
adding language in paragraph (i) to
include requirements for how
concentrations and concentration ranges
can be claimed as trade secrets on SDSs.
See Table VII.1.
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Section number and
title
§1910.1200(d)(l) Hazard classification.
Final Rule collection of information
Currently approved collection of
information requirements
requirements
§ 1910.1200(d)(1) requires chemical
§1910.1200(d)(l) requires chemical
manufacturers and importers to
manufacturers and importers to evaluate
evaluate and classify the chemicals
and classify chemicals produced in their
produced in their workplaces or
workplaces or imported by them to
imported by them to classify the
classify the chemicals prescribed in this
chemicals as prescribed in this section. section. Chemical manufacturers or
Chemical manufacturers or importers
importers are required to determine the
are required to determine the
applicable hazard classes, and category
applicable hazard classes, andcategory of each class that apply for each
of each class that apply for each
chemical being classified OSHA is
chemical being classified. Employers requiring that the hazard classification
are only required to classify chemicals include any hazards associated with the
when they choose not to rely on the
chemical's intrinsic properties including:
a change in the chemical's physical
classification from the chemical
manufacturer or importer for the
form andchemical reactions products
chemical.
from known or reasonably anticipated
uses or applications. Employers are only
required to classify chemicals when they
choose not to rely on the classification
from the chemical manufacturer or
importer to comply with paragraph
(d)(l).
§1910.1200(1)(1) Labels on shipped
containers.
§ 1910.1200(!) (1) requires chemical
manufacturers, importers, or
distributors to ensure that each
container of hazardous
chemicals leaving the workplace is
labeled, tagged, or marked. Hazards
not otherwise classified (HNOC) do
not require labeling. Labels, tags or
container marks must have the
appropriate label elements, which
include: Product identifier;Signal
word;
Hazard statement(s);
Pictogram(s); Precautionary
statement(s); and, Name, address, and
telephone number of the chemical
manufacturer, importer, or other
responsible party.
§ 1910.1200(!) (1) requires chemical
manufacturers, importers, or distributors
to ensure that each container of
hazardous chemicals leaving the
workplace is labeled, tagged, or marked.
Hazards not otherwise classified
(HNOC) and hazards identified and
classified under (d)(l)(ii) do not require
labeling. Labels, tags or container marks
must have the appropriate label elements,
which include: Product identifier; Signal
word; Hazard statement(s); Pictogram(s);
Precautionary statement(s); and, Name,
US. address, and US. telephone number
of the chemical manufacturer, importer,
or other responsible party.
§1910.1200 (t)(5) Transportation.
§1910.1200(1)(5) requires chemical
manufacturers, importers, or
distributors to label, tag or mark each
§1910.1200(1)(5) requires chemical
manufacturers, importers, or distributors
to label, tag, or mark each container of
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.218</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Table VII.I - Collection of Information Requirements Being Revised in the Hazard
Communication Standard
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
container of hazardous chemicals
leaving the workplace as required by
this section in a manner which does
not conflict with the requirements of
the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 5101 et
seq.) and regulations issued under that
Act by the Department of
Transportation.
44263
hazardous chemicals leaving the
workplace as required by this section in a
manner which does not conflict with the
requirements of the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 5101 et
seq.) and regulations issued under that
Act by the Department of Transportation.
Bulk shipment labels for hazardous
chemicals must be either on the
immediate container, transmitted with
the shipping papers or the bills oflading
or, transmitted by-technological or
electronic means (if agreed to by
receiving entity) so that workers on the
receiving end have immediate access in
printedform,.
Label pictograms that are specified
under Appendix C. 4 are not required
when a pictogram is required by the
Department of Transportation under
Title 49 ofthe Code ofFederal
Regulations to be on a shipped
container,.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
§1910.1200(/)(11)-requires chemical
manufacturers, importers, distributors,
or employers to revise the labels for
chemicals within six months of
becoming aware of new hazard
information for a chemical. This
applies to labels on containers in the
warehouse, recently shipped,
Chemical that are not currently
produced or imported, require updated
labels prior to the chemical being
shipped or introduced into the
workplace again.
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
§ 1910.1200(/) (11) requires chemical
manufacturers, importers, distributors, or
employers to revise the labels for
chemicals within six months of
becoming aware of new hazard
information for the chemical. For
chemicals released for shipment but still
in a holding facility prior to future
distribution, chemical manufacturers,
importers, distributors, or employers can
opt not to relabel those containers; but in
that case they must either provide the
updated label for each individual
container with each shipment or, upon
agreement of the receiving entity,
transmit the labels by electronic or
other technological means.
Chemicals that are not currently
produced or imported, require updated
labels prior to the chemical being
shipped or introduced into the workplace
again.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.219</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
§1910.1200(1)(11) Release for Shipment
44264
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
§1910.1200 (f)(12) Small container
labeling.
§1910.1200(j)(J2)-Small container
labeling applies to situations where:
chemical manufacturers, importers, or
distributors demonstrating the use pullout labels, fold-back labels, or tags
containing the fall label information
required by (/)(1) ofthis section is not
feasible.
[none]
The following information is required for
containers less than or equal to 100 ml
capacity, : product identifier;
pictogram(s); signal word; chemical
manufacturer's name and phone number;
and a statement that the full label
information for the hazardous chemical
is provided on the immediate outer
package.
The following information is required for
containers less than or equal to 3 ml
capacity, for chemical manufacturers,
importers, or distributors demonstrating
that any label interferes with the normal
use ofthe container: the product
identifier on the container (minimum
information requirement with no label).
(iv) The following information must be
on the immediate outer package for all
small containers covered by paragraph
(j}(12)(ii) or (iii) of this section::
the full label information required by
paragraph (j}(l) ofthis section for each
hazardous chemical in the immediate
outer package. The label must not be
removed or defaced, as required by
paragraph (j}(9) ofthis section; A
statement that the small container(s)
inside must be stored in the immediate
outer package bearing the complete label
when not in use.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
§1910.1200(g)(2) requires that
chemical manufacturers or importers
prepare the safety data sheet in
English (but additional languages for
SDSs are also allowed) Tue SDS must
include at least section numbers and
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
§1910.1200(g)(2) requires that chemical
manufacturers or importers ensure that
the safety data sheet is in English
(additional languages are also allowed).
The SDS must include at least the section
numbers and headings, and the
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.220</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
§1910.1200(g)(2)
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
§1910.1200(i)(l)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
information associated under each
heading, in the order listed under
AnnendixD.
§1910.1200(g)(J0) - Safety data sheets
may be kept in any form, including as
operating procedures, and may be stored
in such a way to cover groups of
hazardous chemicals in a work area
where it may be more appropriate to
address the hazards of a process rather
than individual hazardous chemicals.
However, the employer shall ensure that
in all cases the required information is
provided for each hazardous chemical,
and is readily accessible during each
work shift to employees when they are in
their work area(s).
§1910.1200(i)(1)allows chemical
manufacturers, importers, or employers to
withhold specific chemical identity, (e.g. the
chemical name, other specific identification of
a hazardous chemical), or the exact percentage
(concentration) and/or concentration range of
the substance in a mixture, from section 3 of
the safety data sheet, if: trade secret claim for
withheld information is supported; hazardous
information, properties and effects of the
chemical are disclosed on the safety data
sheet; the safety data sheet indicates that the
specific chemical identity and/or
concentration or concentration range of
composition is being withheld as a trade
secret; If the concentration or concentration
range is being claimed as a trade secret, then
the safety data sheet provides the ingredient's
concentration as one of the prescribed ranges in
paragraphs (i)(l)(iv)(A) through (M) of this
section. The full concentration ranges from
0.1 % to 100% with subranges as narrow as
0.9% to as broad as 30%; the narrowest
prescribed concentration range possible
must used. . Two ranges can be
combined if they do not fit into one
range, and the range falls between the
prescribed ranges in (A) - (G).
Manufacturers may provide a range
narrower than those prescribed in
(i)(J)(v).
The specific chemical identity and exact
concentration or concentration range is
made available to health professionals,
employees, and designated
representatives.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.221</GPH>
§1910.1200(g)(l 0)
headings, and associated information
under each heading, in the order listed
under Annendix D.
§1910.1200(g)(J0) - Safety data sheets
may be kept in any form, including
operating procedures, and may be
designed to cover groups of hazardous
chemicals in a work area where it may
be more appropriate to address the
hazards of a process rather than
individual hazardous chemicals.
However, the employer shall ensure
that in all cases the required
information is provided for each
hazardous chemical, and is readily
accessible during each work shift to
employees when they are in their work
area(s).
§ 191 0. l 200(i)(l) allows chemical
manufacturers, importers, or
employers to withhold the specific
chemical identity, (e.g. the chemical
name, other specific identification of a
hazardous chemical), or the exact
percentage (concentration) of the
substance in a mixture, from the safety
data sheet, if: a trade secret claim for
withheld information can be
supported; hazardous information,
properties and effects of the chemical
are disclosed on the safety data sheet;
the safety data sheet indicates that the
specific chemical identity and/or
percentage of composition is being
withheld as a trade secret; and, the
specific chemical identity and
percentage is made available to health
professionals, employees, and
designated representatives.
44265
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
§1910.1200(i)(2)
§1910.1200(i)(3)
§ 191 0. l 200(i)(2) requires that when a
treating physician or nurse has
determined that a medical emergency
exists the chemical manufacturer,
importer, or employer must
immediately disclose the specific
necessary information such as
chemical identity or percentage
composition of a trade secret chemical
to the treating physician or nurse,
regardless of trade secret claim.
Chemical manufacturers, importers, or
employers may require a written
statement of need and confidentiality
agreement, , as soon as circumstances
permit.
§1910.1200(i)(3) sets out the
requirements that chemical
manufacturers, importers, or
employers need to follow for nonemergency situations. This includes
disclosure, upon request, of specific
withheld information regarding the
chemical identity or percentage
composition, , to a health professional
(i.e., physician, industrial hygienist,
toxicologist, epidemiologist, or
occupational health nurse) providing
medical or other occupational health
services to exposed employee(s), and
to employees or designated
representatives, if:
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
1. OMB Control Number: 1218–0072.
2. Affected Public: Business or other
for-profit.
3. Number of Respondents: 5,580,906.
4. Frequency of Responses: Varies.
5. Number of Reponses: 98,762,005.
6. Average Time per Response: Varies.
7. Estimated Annual Total Burden
Hours: 7,206,569.
8. Estimated Annual Total Cost
(Operation and maintenance):
$69,207,596.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VIII. Federalism
OSHA reviewed this final rule
according to the Executive Order on
Federalism (E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43255,
Aug. 10, 1999), which requires that
Federal agencies, to the extent possible,
refrain from limiting State policy
options, consult with States before
taking actions that would restrict State
policy options, and take such actions
only when clear constitutional and
statutory authority exists and the
problem is of national scope. E.O. 13132
permits preemption of State law only as
provided by Congress or where State
law conflicts with Federal law. Federal
agencies must limit preemption of State
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
(i)(2) requires that when a treating
PLHCP determines that a medical
emergency exists the chemical
manufacturer, importer, or employer
must immediately disclose the specific
necessary information such as chemical
identity or percentage composition of a
trade secret chemical to that treating
PLHCP, regardless of trade secret
claims. Chemical manufacturers,
importers, or employers may require a
written statement of need and
confidentiality agreement, , as soon as
circumstances permit.
§1910.1200(i)(3) sets out the
requirements that chemical
manufacturers, importers, or employers
need to follow in non-emergency
situations. This includes disclosure,
upon request of,a specific withheld
information regarding the chemical
identity or exact concentration or
concentration range, to a health
professional (e.g. PLHCP, industrial
hygienist, toxicologist, or
epidemiologist) providing medical or
other occupational health services to
exposed employee(s), and to employees
or designated representatives, if:
law to the minimum level necessary to
achieve the objectives of the statute
pursuant to which the regulations are
promulgated.
Under section 18 of the OSH Act, 29
U.S.C. 667, Congress expressly provides
that States and U.S. territories may
adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for
the development and enforcement of
occupational safety and health
standards. OSHA refers to States that
obtain Federal approval for such OSHAapproved occupational safety and health
plans as ‘‘State Plans.’’ Occupational
safety and health standards developed
by State Plans must be at least as
effective in providing safe and healthful
employment and places of employment
as the Federal standards and, when
applicable to products that are
distributed or used in interstate
commerce, must be required by
compelling local conditions and not
unduly burden interstate commerce. 29
U.S.C. 667(c)(2). Subject to these
requirements, State Plans are free to
develop and enforce under State law
their own occupational safety and
health standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
In States without OSHA-approved
State Plans, Congress expressly provides
for OSHA standards to preempt State
occupational safety and health
standards in areas addressed by the
Federal standards. In these States, this
final rule limits State policy options in
the same manner as every standard
promulgated by OSHA. In States with
OSHA-approved State Plans, this final
rule does not significantly limit State
policy options to adopt equally effective
or stricter standards.
OSHA previously concluded that
promulgation of the HCS complies with
E.O. 13132 (77 FR 17687) and reaffirms
that finding with respect to this final
rule.
IX. State Plans
When Federal OSHA promulgates a
new standard or more stringent
amendment to an existing standard,
OSHA-approved State Plans must either
amend their standards to reflect the new
standard or amendment or show OSHA
why such action is unnecessary, e.g.,
because an existing State standard
covering this area is ‘‘at least as
effective’’ as the new Federal standard
or amendment. 29 CFR 1953.5(a). State
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
ER20MY24.222</GPH>
44266
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Plans must adopt the Federal standard
or complete their own standard within
six months of the promulgation date of
the final Federal rule.
The 22 States and territories with
OSHA-approved occupational safety
and health plans that cover public and
private-sector employees are Alaska,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana,
Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
Another seven states and territories
have OSHA-approved occupational
safety and health plans that cover State
and local government employees only:
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
and the Virgin Islands.
This final rule updates the HCS to
conform with updates to the GHS,
improve alignment with other U.S.
agencies and international trading
partners, and address certain
implementation concerns. This rule will
increase worker protection by
improving the quality and consistency
of information provided to employers
and employees regarding chemical
hazards and protective measures.
OSHA received one comment relevant
to the relationship between State Plans
and Federal OSHA from the California
Department of Public Health/Hazard
Evaluation System and Information
Service (Cal/HESIS). Cal/HESIS
proposed that State Plans such as
California be allowed to require
manufacturers that sell chemicals in
their states or territories to classify
chemicals as carcinogens or
reproductive or developmental toxicants
when the chemical is listed as such by
a state or territory body (such as
California’s Prop 65 list) and disclose
this information on SDSs (Document ID
0313, p. 8). OSHA disagrees with this
suggestion. As the agency discussed
regarding State Plan amendments to
their hazard communication standards
in the 2012 HCS ‘‘OSHA intends to
closely scrutinize amendments to
previously approved State hazard
communication standards submitted
under current or future State plans to
ensure equal or greater effectiveness,
including assurance that any additional
requirements do not conflict with, or
adversely affect, the effectiveness of the
national application of OSHA’s
standard. OSHA must also determine in
its review whether any State plan
standard provisions that differ from the
Federal provisions, when applicable to
products distributed or used in
interstate commerce, are ‘‘required by
compelling local conditions and do not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
unduly burden interstate commerce.’’
OSH Act section 18(c), 29 U.S.C.
667(c).’’ (77 FR 17687).
The key benefit in aligning the HCS
with the GHS in 2012 was to provide a
uniform and consistent method for
classification and dissemination of the
information on the label and the SDS
(77 FR 17605). Allowing states to
develop their own classification criteria,
which could lead to vastly different and
potentially contradictory information on
the labels, would diminish and
eliminate significant portions of those
benefits. In 2012 stakeholders agreed
that a dual system would undermine the
benefits of aligning with the GHS (77 FR
17583). OSHA also finds that if State
Plans were allowed to require different
elements on labels and SDSs from state
to state that this could disrupt and
unduly burden interstate commerce as it
could mean that manufacturers would
need to develop different labels and
SDSs depending upon the state.
Therefore, State Plans must adopt
comparable provisions within six
months of publication of the final rule.
X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
OSHA reviewed this final rule
according to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1501 et seq., and E.O. 13132 (64 FR
43255, Aug. 10, 1999). As discussed
above in Section VI., Final Economic
Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, OSHA has concluded that this
final rule will not impose a Federal
mandate on the private sector in excess
of $100 million (adjusted annually for
inflation) in expenditures in any one
year.
As noted above in Section IX., State
Plans, OSHA’s standards do not apply
to State and local governments except in
States that have elected voluntarily to
adopt a State Plan approved by the
agency. Consequently, this proposal
does not meet the definition of a
‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandate.’’
See 2 U.S.C. 658(5).
For the reasons discussed above in
Section VI., Final Economic Analysis
and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, the
changes to the HCS would not require
tribal governments to expend, in the
aggregate, $100 million or more in any
one year for their commercial activities.
Therefore, for the purposes of the
UMRA, OSHA certifies that this final
rule would not mandate that State,
local, or tribal governments adopt new,
unfunded regulatory obligations of, or
increase expenditures by the private
sector by, more than $100 million in any
year.
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44267
XI. Protecting Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23,
1997), requires that Federal agencies
submitting covered regulatory actions to
OMB’s Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review
pursuant to E.O. 12866 provide OIRA
with (1) an evaluation of the
environmental health or safety effects
that the planned regulation may have on
children, and (2) an explanation of why
the planned regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the agency. E.O. 13045
defines ‘‘covered regulatory actions’’ as
rules that are likely to (1) be
economically significant under E.O.
12866 (now amended by E.O. 14094)
(i.e., a rulemaking that has an annual
effect on the economy of $200 million
or more, or would adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities), and (2)
concern an environmental health risk or
safety risk that an agency has reason to
believe may disproportionately affect
children. In this context, the term
‘‘environmental health risks and safety
risks’’ means risks to health or safety
that are attributable to products or
substances that children are likely to
come in contact with or ingest (e.g.,
through air, food, water, soil, or product
use).
OIRA has determined that this final
rule is not significant under Section
3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as amended (see
Section VI., Final Economic Analysis
and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis) and
that the environmental health and safety
risks addressed through this final rule
do not present a disproportionate risk to
children as set forth in E.O. 13045.
XII. Environmental Impacts
OSHA has reviewed this final rule
according to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the
regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (40 CFR part
1500), and DOL’s NEPA procedures (29
CFR part 11). In the NPRM, OSHA
preliminarily determined that the
proposed regulatory changes would
have no impact on air, water, or soil
quality; plant or animal life; or the use
of land or aspects of the external
environment and thus would have no
significant environmental impacts (86
FR 9687). No commenter challenged
this determination. Based on its review
of the final rule, OSHA has determined
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44268
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
that the regulatory changes will have no
impact on air, water, or soil quality;
plant or animal life; the use of land; or
aspects of the external environment and
the final rule will therefore have no
significant environmental impact.
XIII. Consultation and Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
OSHA reviewed this final rule in
accordance with E.O. 13175 (65 FR
67249, Nov. 6, 2000) and determined
that it does not have tribal implications
as defined in that order. The final rule
will not have substantial direct effects
on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes (see E.O.
13175 § 1(a)).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
XIV. Summary and Explanation of the
Final Rule
This section of the preamble explains
OSHA’s changes to the HCS (29 CFR
1910.1200). OSHA proposed to align
this update of the HCS with the GHS
Rev. 7 (Document ID 0060), where
appropriate. The agency had
preliminarily decided to base most of
the GHS alignment on Rev. 7 for several
reasons, even though Rev. 8 was issued
in July 2019 (Document ID 0065). First,
OSHA had preliminarily determined
that there were sufficient significant
updates to the GHS to warrant the
initiation of the rulemaking process and
OSHA began its work to update the
standard prior to the release of Rev. 8.
Second, the U.S.’s major trading
partners (including Canada, Europe, and
Australia) have or are preparing to align
with Rev. 7 (Document ID 0172;
Document ID 0168; Document ID 0176).
While the proposal was largely based on
Rev. 7, OSHA asked for comment on
adopting some of the most
consequential changes from Rev. 8 in
the Issues and Options section (86 FR
9691–9694).
In addition, OSHA proposed several
changes that were unrelated to
alignment with the GHS but were
intended to address specific issues that
have arisen since the 2012 rulemaking
to revise the HCS and to provide better
alignment with international trading
partners, without lowering the
protections provided by the standard.
OSHA received numerous comments
on which GHS revision to align with in
this rulemaking and received
overwhelming support from
commenters for its proposal to update to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Rev. 754 54 (See, e.g., Document ID 0293,
p. 1; 0327, pp. 1–2; 0359, p. 7; 0339, p.
1; 0323, p. 1; 0281, Att. 2, p. 2; 0358,
p. 2). The most prevalent reasons given
for supporting the update to Rev. 7 were
better alignment with international
trading partners, especially Health
Canada’s HPR, and improvements in
hazard communications such as
updating and adding additional hazard
classes with the updates to the GHS.
Specifically, Givaudan and the
Household & Commercial Products
Association (HCPA) supported
alignment with Rev. 7 in order to
increase consistency between OSHA’s
HCS and Health Canada’s HPR
(Document ID 0293, p. 1; 0327, pp. 1–
2). Similarly, Dow Chemical (Dow)
supported alignment with Rev. 7 on the
basis that OSHA’s proposed update
would improve alignment with major
trading partners (Document ID 0359, p.
7). Hach and the Dangerous Goods
Advisory Council (DGAC) also
supported the update to Rev. 7 to better
align with trading partners (Document
ID 0323, p. 1; 0339, p. 1).
Only two commenters objected to
OSHA’s proposal to align with Rev. 7.
Toby Threet stated that OSHA should
not adopt Rev. 7 because the agency
should strive to align as closely as
possible with other countries in order to
meet the goal of GHS harmonization and
argued that OSHA has not shown that
the majority of other countries have
aligned with Rev. 7, both because (1) at
the time OSHA issued the NPRM
several countries were preparing to
align with Rev. 7 but had not yet
(Canada, Europe, Australia, and New
Zealand) and (2) OSHA failed to
consider whether this would align with
other, potentially more major, trading
partners (such as China, Russia, Brazil,
and India) (Document ID 0279, pp. 1–2).
OSHA disagrees with this comment.
As indicated in the NPRM, Canada,
Europe, Australia, and New Zealand all
announced their intention to update
their regulations to Rev. 7 (86 FR 9694).
The U.S.’s closest trading partner,
Canada, updated the HPR to align with
Rev. 7 on January 4, 2023 (see https://
www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/
services/environmental-workplacehealth/occupational-health-safety/
workplace-hazardous-materialsinformation-system/amendmentshazardous-products-regulations.html),
and the European Union (EU) updated
its Classification, Labelling, and
Packaging (CLP) regulation in 2023 as
54 Comments regarding specific adoption of
particular provisions are discussed in the
appropriate sections of the Summary and
Explanation.
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
well (see https://echa.europa.eu/newhazard-classes-2023). OSHA works
diligently with our UN partners through
the UNSCEGHS to address stakeholder
concerns regarding the timing of
updates across U.S. international
trading partners. However, given the
lengthy and complex process of
regulatory development, exact timelines
are difficult to manage. Nevertheless,
OSHA does not believe that there will
be meaningful differences in timing of
updates between the international
trading partners as OSHA’s compliance
deadline will allow stakeholders
extended time to comply with the
updated standard. The compliance dates
for the HCS are discussed in more detail
in the Summary and Explanation for
paragraph (j).
Additionally, Brazil and Russia are
currently in the process of aligning with
Rev. 7, further indicating that this is the
correct revision for OSHA to align with.
China is using the fourth version of the
GHS and therefore is currently not
aligned with OSHA’s HCS. India has not
yet implemented the GHS and does not
participate at the UNSCEGHS. OSHA
does not believe it is acceptable to
postpone its rulemaking until all trading
partners, particularly those that have
never adopted the GHS, adopt Rev. 7 as
this would result in OSHA not updating
the HCS for an indefinite period of time,
meanwhile depriving U.S. workers of
these important protections. While
OSHA strives to align with major
trading partners that are similarly
committed to maintaining a harmonized
GHS system where possible, the
agency’s primary mission is to protect
workers.
ASSP also stated that OSHA should
not align with GHS Rev. 7. They
suggested that the agency should align
with Rev. 8 because it is a newer version
(Document ID 0284, p. 1). ASSP went on
to state that updating to Rev. 7 would
result in OSHA continuing to play
‘catch-up’ since the European Union’s
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation,
and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)
regulation is updated every two years.
OSHA notes that currently Health
Canada HPR and the EU CLP have
updated to Rev. 7, so the agency does
not agree that the United States is falling
behind its trading partners (Document
ID 0176; 0172).
Other commenters expressed
concerns about deviating from a single
version of the GHS, either due to
incorporating elements of another
revision or due to incorporating
elements that differed from the GHS
altogether. Several commenters noted
that they disapproved of selectively
adopting elements of Rev. 8, and two of
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
these commenters noted that this was
because selective adoption would cause
misalignment with trading partners
(Document ID 0323, p. 2; 0423, Tr. 105;
0359, p. 7; 0368, p. 11). However,
Ameren noted that adopting specific
provisions from Rev. 8 ‘‘could improve
worker safety now in lieu of waiting
until the next revision of the HCS’’
(Document ID 0309, p. 14). While OSHA
strives to align with trading partners
where possible, OSHA’s primary
mission is to protect workers. Therefore,
OSHA has concluded that some
elements of Rev. 8 improve the safety of
workers and the clarity of information
being communicated and is adopting
those provisions instead of their Rev. 7
equivalent.
Other stakeholders indicated that
OSHA should not include changes that
are not included in the GHS. The
International Carbon Black Association
(ICBA) supported alignment with Rev.
7, but opposed adding the sections of
the proposal, such as the requirement to
classify hazards based on downstream
use, that went beyond GHS obligations
because they felt this would lead to
misalignment with international trading
partners (Document ID 0291, p. 6). ACC
provided similar comments and stated
that ‘‘we strongly urge OSHA to pull
directly from the UN GHS wherever
possible, while retaining flexibility for
existing provisions that provide similar
levels of protection’’ (Document ID
0347, p. 4). NAIMA supported aligning
with the GHS, but noted that ‘‘[t]here
are also proposals from OSHA that have
nothing to do with the GHS but will
create heavy and unprecedented
burdens upon all industries subject to
the HCS’’ and stated that they did not
support such changes (Document ID
0338, p. 1). These commenters provided
greater specificity about their opposition
to specific proposals that differ from
Rev. 7, and OSHA discusses these
specific comments in detail in the
corresponding sections in the Summary
and Explanation below.
OSHA received several comments
asking the agency to completely
withdraw the proposal or repropose it
with significant changes due to
concerns about the proposed rule
decreasing worker protections
(Document ID 0305, p. 1; 0312, p. 7;
0322, Att. 1, p. 1; 0344, p. 4; 0350, p.
1; 0354, p. 1). OSHA disagrees with the
conclusion that this rule will decrease
worker protections; as the agency has
stated, and as discussed throughout the
Summary and Explanation below, it
expects this update of the HCS to
improve worker safety by incorporating
new hazard classes and categories,
improving and streamlining
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
precautionary statements, and providing
additional clarification of existing
regulatory requirements. Therefore,
OSHA is moving forward with finalizing
the update to the HCS in this
rulemaking. To the extent these
commenters raised concerns about
worker safety with respect to specific
provisions, those comments are
addressed in their respective sections of
the Summary and Explanation.
Finally, OSHA received a variety of
non-substantive comments pointing out
minor errors such as missing
punctuation or European spelling
differences. OSHA has updated the
regulatory text to incorporate these
minor changes where appropriate, but
does not discuss non-substantive edits
in the Summary and Explanation below.
A. Discussion of Incorporation by
Reference
OSHA is updating the agency’s
incorporation by reference section, 29
CFR 1910.6, to include the national and
international consensus standards listed
below. Where OSHA has updated
consensus standards, OSHA does not
intend to require chemicals already
classified using an earlier version of a
consensus standard to be reclassified
and has retained earlier versions of the
consensus standards in the text of the
standard where relevant to avoid
suggesting retesting is necessary (for the
U.N. Recommendations on the
Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual
of Tests and Criteria, this is reflected in
the use of a generic citation where either
Rev. 4 or Rev. 6 is acceptable, and a
specific citation to Rev. 6 where there is
new material included and only Rev. 6
is acceptable to use). OSHA believes
that requiring the reclassification of
chemicals based on updated test
methods could result in unnecessary
economic impacts and create
unnecessary confusion for stakeholders.
OSHA had considered alternative ways
to clarify this in the final regulatory text,
for instance by including a provision in
the DATES section of the rule stating that
chemicals classified based on older test
methods, prior to the effective date of
the rule, do not need to be reclassified,
and invited comments on this topic (86
FR 9694). OSHA received one comment
from Ameren on this issue (Document
ID 0309, p. 14), which is addressed in
the Summary and Explanation for
Appendix B. OSHA has decided to not
make the change to the DATES section
but rather to retain references to the
older versions of the consensus
standards where relevant and has
clarified this matter in the relevant
portions of the Summary and
Explanation for Appendix B.
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44269
In the NPRM, OSHA requested
comment on whether it should update
all of the consensus standards and
received no comments on that particular
question. ASTM International (ASTM)
submitted a comment indicating that
they believe OSHA should, in the
future, update all references to
consensus standards in bulk through the
Federal Register, as the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) does (Document
ID 0307, pp. 2–3). OSHA has decided to
only add or update the references that
the agency proposed, rather than
updating all existing references to
consensus standards in the regulatory
text and Appendix B, but will consider
the approach suggested by ASTM in a
future rulemaking. OSHA is finalizing
the proposed references to the
consensus standards as proposed with
one exception: DOD pointed out that
one of OSHA’s proposed citations to
consensus standards was incorrect and
OSHA has updated the reference
throughout the final rule (Document ID
0299, p. 3).
OSHA is finalizing its decision to
incorporate by reference the materials
below. Each standard is available for
purchase through the publication
agencies listed below.
The following standards appear in the
amendatory text of this document and
were previously approved for appendix
B to § 1910.1200: ASTM D56–05; ASTM
D3278–96, ASTM D3828–07a, ASTM
D93–08, ASTM D86–07a, ASTM D240–
02 (Reapproved 2007), ASTM D1078–
05, ISO 1056:1996(E) ISO 1056–2:2005,
ISO 13943:2000(E/F), NFPA 30B, UN
ST/SG/AC.10/Rev.4.
• ADR 2019, European Agreement
Concerning the International Carriage of
Dangerous Goods by Road, Annex A,
January 1, 2019.
This standard describes test methods,
units of measurement, definitions, and
applicable standards and regulations for
determining fluidity of liquids for
classification purposes.
Æ United Nations: https://
shop.un.org/product/18246?v=22452 r.
• ASTM D 4359–90 (reapproved
2019), Standard Test Method for
Determining Whether a Material is a
Liquid or a Solid, Approved July 1,
2019.
This standard covers test methods
used to determine whether a viscous
material is a liquid or a solid for
regulatory purposes and was developed
under internationally recognized
principles established in ‘‘Decision on
Principles for the Development of
International Standards, Guides and
Recommendations’’ by the World Trade
Organization Technical Barriers to
Trade (TBT) Committee. The standard
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44270
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
only addresses test methods for the
specified purpose of determining state
of a material and is not intended to
address all safety concerns associated
with use of the material being tested.
Æ ASTM International: https://
astm.org/Standard/standards-andpublications.html.
• DIN 51794:2003–05, Determining
the ignition temperature of petroleum
products, May 2003.
This standard specifies test methods
for determining the ignition temperature
of flammable gases and liquids, as well
as petroleum products and their
mixtures at temperatures between 75 °C
and 650 °C. The ignition temperature is
a measurement of a flammable
substance’s tendency to ignite when in
contact with hot objects. The standard
also provides guidance for classification
purposes.
Æ German Institute for
Standardisation (DIN): https://din.de/
en/about-standards/buy-standards.
• IEC 60079–20–1, Explosive
atmospheres—Part 20–1: Material
characteristics for gas and vapor
classification—Test methods and data,
Edition 1.0, 2010–01 This standard
describes test methods for measurement
of the maximum experimental safe gaps
of a gas- or vapor- air mixture under
normal conditions of temperature and
pressure in order to make a
determination of appropriate safety
equipment as well as describes test
methods for use in the determination of
auto-ignition temperature of a
chemically pure vapor or gas. This
standard also provides guidance for
classifying gases and vapors for
explosive potential.
Æ International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC): https://
webstore.ansi.org/standards/iec/
iec6007920ed2010.
• ISO 817:2014(E), Refrigerants—
Designation and safety classification,
Third Edition, 2014–04–15.
This standard provides guidance for
determining the lowest temperature a
substance can spontaneously ignite
under normal atmospheric conditions
without an external source of ignition,
such as a spark or flame. The standard
also provides guidance for classification
of these materials for safety purposes.
The standard was developed under
internationally recognized principles
established in ‘‘Decision on Principles
for the Development of International
Standards, Guides and
Recommendations’’ by the World Trade
Organization Technical Barriers to
Trade (TBT) Committee.
Æ ISO: https://iso.org/store.html.
Æ ISO 10156:2017(E), Gases and Gas
Mixtures—Determination of Fire
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Potential and Oxidizing Ability for the
Selection of Cylinder Valve Outlets,
Fourth Edition, 2017–07.
This standard provides test methods
for determining the flammability of a
gas or gas mixture and determining
whether a gas or gas mixture is more or
less oxidizing than air under
atmospheric conditions. The standard
also provides guidance for classifying
gases or gas mixtures and for
determining the appropriate selection of
gas cylinder valve outlets. The standard
was developed under internationally
recognized principles established in
‘‘Decision on Principles for the
Development of International Standards,
Guides and Recommendations’’ by the
World Trade Organization Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
Æ International Organization for
Standardization (ISO): https://iso.org/
store.html.
• UN ST/SG/AC.10/11/Rev.6, UN
Recommendations on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and
Criteria, Sixth Revised Edition,
copyright 2015.
This standard provides test methods,
classification procedures, and criteria
for classification of explosives, selfreactive substances, organic peroxides,
and other various hazards (e.g.,
flammability of aerosols, desensitized
explosives, flammable solids, liquids,
oxidizing solids and liquids, corrosive
to metals).
Æ United Nations: https://unece.org/
info/Transport/Dangerous-Goods/pub/
2581.
OSHA is making all documents
available for review by the public in
accordance with the agency’s policies
regarding availability of documents.
Copies of the standards are available for
purchase from the issuing organizations
at the addresses or through the other
publisher contact information listed in
§ 1910.6 of the amendatory text in this
document. In addition, these standards
are available for inspection at any
Regional Office of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), or at the OSHA Docket Office,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW, Room N–
3508, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
202–693–2350 (TTY number: 877–889–
5627). Due to copyright issues, OSHA
cannot post consensus standards on the
OSHA website or through
regulations.gov.
B. Discussion of Regulatory Text
(a) Purpose
Paragraph (a)(1) of the HCS states that
‘‘[t]he purpose of this section is to
ensure that the hazards of all chemicals
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
produced or imported are classified, and
that information concerning the
classified hazards is transmitted to
employers and employees.’’ In the 2012
HCS, paragraph (a)(1) explained that the
requirements of the standard were
intended to be consistent with Rev. 3.
The NPRM proposed to change the
reference from Rev. 3 to Rev. 7. As
stated in the introduction to the
Summary and Explanation, revisions
included in this final rule primarily
serve to align the HCS with Rev. 7, with
the exception of selected provisions
which either align with Rev. 8 or do not
relate to the GHS. OSHA is therefore
finalizing paragraph (a)(1) to update the
reference to the GHS to ‘‘Revision 7,’’
replacing ‘‘Revision 3.’’ In addition,
OSHA is inserting ‘‘primarily’’ before
‘‘Revision’’ because the agency is
finalizing some of the proposed changes
from Rev. 8.
(b) Scope and Application
Paragraph (b) of the HCS specifies the
scope and application of the rule,
including the chemicals that are (and
are not) covered by the standard. This
final rule modifies paragraph (b)(6)(x) of
the 2012 HCS, which excludes nuisance
particulates from coverage under the
HCS under certain circumstances.
Specifically, OSHA is modifying
paragraph (b)(6)(x) to clarify that
nuisance particulates are excluded from
the scope of the standard when the
chemical manufacturer or importer can
establish they do not pose any physical
hazard, health hazard, or other hazards
covered under the HCS.
Paragraph (b)(6)(x) of the 2012 HCS
stated that the standard does not apply
to nuisance particulates ‘‘where the
chemical manufacturer or importer can
establish that they do not pose any
physical or health hazard covered under
this section.’’ However, this could be
interpreted as excluding hazards not
otherwise classified (HNOC), which is
not OSHA’s intent. Therefore, in the
NPRM OSHA proposed a slight revision
to this provision to make clear that
nuisance particulates are excluded if
they do not pose any physical hazard,
health hazard, or other hazards (i.e.,
HNOC) covered by the standard (86 FR
9696). This proposed change was
intended to clarify that all hazards
covered by the standard must be
considered when evaluating nuisance
particulates. OSHA’s proposal did not
alter the requirement, first adopted in
1994, that nuisance particulates are
excluded if they pose no hazard.
OSHA received no comments
specifically regarding the addition of
HNOC to this provision. However,
OSHA received comments regarding
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
paragraph (b)(6)(x) as a whole
(Document ID 0325, pp. 12–13; 0397,
pp. 12–13; 0279, p. 13). USBSA et al.
commented that OSHA’s proposal to
add ‘‘other hazards’’ to the existing text
of paragraph (b)(6)(x) would
‘‘contravene the burden-of-proof
provision of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 556(d)’’ 55
(Document ID 0325, pp. 12–13; 0397,
pp. 12–13). USBSA et al. argued that
OSHA’s proposed change would
improperly place the burden of proof on
manufacturers and importers to
determine whether nuisance
particulates present ‘‘other hazards’’
under the HCS, in order to meet the
requirements of (b)(6)(x) for when
nuisance particulates may be excluded
from the scope of the HCS (Document ID
0325, p. 12).
Similarly, Toby Threet commented
that paragraph (b)(6)(x) requires the
manufacturer or importer to establish
the absence of a hazard and suggested
that OSHA should revise the paragraph
to exclude nuisance particulates where
the chemical manufacturer or importer
can establish that they are not classified
as a physical hazard, health hazard, or
any other hazards covered under the
HCS. According to Threet, ‘‘the
requirement to ‘establish’ the absence of
a hazard’’ suggests that OSHA is
intending to mandate testing, which the
HCS does not require (Document ID
0279, p. 13).
OSHA disagrees with these
comments. First, both comments pertain
to aspects of paragraph (b)(6)(x) that
have been part of the HCS since 1994
and that OSHA’s proposed change does
not affect. Regardless, contrary to
USBSA et al.’s contention, paragraph
(b)(6)(x) does not improperly shift the
burden of proof onto the chemical
manufacturer or importer. As USBSA et
al. recognized, courts considering
similar language in other OSHA
standards have rejected the same
argument. They have done so based on
the well-established principle that the
party seeking to claim an exemption
from a legal requirement bears the
burden of demonstrating it applies. See
Triumph Constr. Corp. v. Sec’y of Labor,
885 F.3d 95, 98 (2d Cir. 2018); Harry C.
Crooker & Sons v. OSHRC, 537 F.3d 79,
86 (1st Cir. 2008). Paragraph (b)(6)(x) is
such an exemption (see 59 FR 6154
(stating in promulgation the provision
that ‘‘the burden of proof for this
55 The ‘‘burden of proof’’ provision to which
USBSA et al. referred is located in 5 U.S.C. 556,
which applies to federal agency hearings. See 5
U.S.C. 556(a). The provision states, in pertinent
part, ‘‘Except as otherwise provided by statute, the
proponent of a rule or order has the burden of
proof.’’ 5 U.S.C. 556(d).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
exemption belongs to the manufacturer
or importer’’)).
Likewise, contrary to Threet’s
assertion, paragraph (b)(6)(x) does not
establish testing requirements or
otherwise affect methods of
classification under the HCS, as OSHA
made clear when promulgating the
provision in 1994 (59 FR 6126 (‘‘The
hazard evaluation process for nuisance
particulates is not any different than for
any other chemical.’’)). Therefore, the
suggestion to change the words ‘‘do not
pose’’ to ‘‘are not classified’’ is
unnecessary and OSHA declines to
adopt it. OSHA’s addition of ‘‘other
hazards’’ to this paragraph is merely
clarifying that nuisance particulates also
must not pose an HNOC. Because the
revision will clarify OSHA’s original
intent and ensure that nuisance
particulates posing a combustible dust
hazard or an HNOC are properly
addressed by the standard, OSHA is
finalizing paragraph (b)(6)(x) as
proposed.
OSHA received several additional
comments that are related to paragraph
(b), but that are outside the scope of this
rulemaking. An anonymous submitter
commented that they support the rule
and stated that ‘‘all chemical labels
should follow the same guidelines and
get approved before being used [in] an
. . . establishment or put on a shelf’’
(Document ID 0296). OSHA interprets
this comment as supporting its
proposal, but to the extent that the
commenter was suggesting that OSHA
should apply the HCS to all chemicals
in the United States or that it should
approve the labels before they are
placed on chemicals, these suggestions
are outside the scope of this rule
because they would involve
fundamental changes to the HCS that
OSHA has not proposed and in some
cases does not have the authority to do.
NAIMA commented that the HCS
should apply to all labels within the
U.S. Specifically, NAIMA commented
that OSHA should not cede labeling
authority for products regulated by
other agencies and should not allow
states to create additional requirements
for labelling or classification
requirements (Document ID 0338, pp.
11–12). Both of these suggestions are
outside the scope of this rulemaking as
the agency did not propose anything
related to these issues. Additionally,
OSHA only has jurisdiction to address
the occupational hazards posed by
chemicals and, even in that sphere, is in
some cases preempted from enforcing
safety and health standards where other
Federal agencies exercise statutory
authority (see 29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1)).
OSHA cannot mandate how other
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44271
agencies address labeling issues under
their jurisdiction, and it already
exercises its authority over State Plans
in order to ensure that no states create
requirements that conflict with the HCS.
OSHA received several comments on
pesticide labels and SDSs and consumer
product labeling (e.g., Document ID
0275; 0343, pp. 3–4; 0331, pp. 2–3;
0407, p. 9; 0341; 0340, pp. 3–4). As
discussed in the 2012 HCS, OSHA and
EPA have worked together to provide
guidance to the regulated communities
on preparing labels and SDSs for
pesticide products (77 FR 17696–
17697). In addition, consumer product
labeling is outside of OSHA’s
jurisdiction. Since OSHA did not
propose to address these issues in the
NPRM, these comments are out of scope
for this rulemaking and the agency
declines to take any of the requested
actions.
(c) Definitions
Paragraph (c) of the HCS provides
definitions for terms used throughout
the rest of the HCS. Paragraph (c) is
designed to increase stakeholders’
comprehension of requirements under
the HCS and improve compliance with
the standard. Many of the definitions in
paragraph (c) align with the GHS, but
some are unique to the HCS. For
definitions that are specifically related
to individual health and physical
hazards please see Appendices A and B.
In the NPRM, OSHA proposed
modifications to three existing
definitions in paragraph (c), the
addition of definitions for eight new
terms, and the deletion of one
definition. OSHA proposed
modifications to: exposure or exposed,
hazardous chemical, and physical
hazard. The eight new terms proposed
were: bulk shipment, combustible dust,
gas, immediate outer package, liquid,
physician or other licensed health care
professional (PLHCP), released for
shipment, and solid. OSHA proposed to
delete the definition of pyrophoric gas.
For the reasons discussed in the
remainder of this section, OSHA is
finalizing the definitions of bulk
shipment, exposure or exposed, gas,
hazardous chemical, immediate outer
package, physician or other licensed
health care professional (PLHCP),
released for shipment, and solid as
proposed. In addition, OSHA is
eliminating the definition of pyrophoric
gas as proposed. The agency is
finalizing the definitions of combustible
dust, liquid, and physical hazard with
changes from the NPRM based on
comments the agency received. These
definitions are discussed below in
alphabetical order.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44272
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Bulk shipment. OSHA proposed
adding a definition of the term bulk
shipment to the standard. The proposed
definition stated that bulk shipment
means any hazardous chemical
transported where the mode of
transportation (vehicle) comprises the
immediate container (i.e., contained in
tanker truck, rail car, or intermodal
container). This definition clarifies
paragraph (f)(5)(ii), which OSHA
proposed in the NPRM to explain that
labels for bulk shipments need not be
placed on the immediate container but
may instead be transmitted with the
shipping papers or bills of lading or by
other technological or electronic means,
as long as the label is immediately
available to workers in printed form at
the receiving end of the shipment. The
proposed definition also distinguishes
OSHA’s bulk shipment requirements
from the DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) requirements for bulk
packaging (49 CFR parts 100–185).
OSHA received multiple comments
on this proposed definition. The
Fragrance Creators Association (FCA)
requested clarification as to whether the
proposed definition of bulk shipment
would encompass intermediate bulk
containers (IBCs). An IBC is ‘‘a rigid or
flexible portable packaging, other than a
cylinder or portable tank, which is
designed for mechanical handling’’ (49
CFR 171.8), typically holding 110–350
gallons (Document ID 0345, p. 5).
According to FCA, these IBCs are
commonly placed into inventory as-is,
and therefore should be labeled to
ensure employee health and safety
(Document ID 0345, pp. 5–6). OSHA
intends the definition of ‘‘bulk
shipment’’ to apply only when the mode
of transportation is the immediate
container, such as a tanker truck, rail
car, or intermodal container. Therefore,
IBCs do not fall within OSHA’s
definition of a bulk shipment.
DGAC, Interested Parties for
Hazardous Materials Transportation
(IPHMT), NACD, and NPGA suggested
that OSHA should adopt DOT’s
definition of ‘‘bulk packaging’’
(Document ID 0339, pp. 1–2; 0423, Tr.
62; 0336, pp. 3–4; 0329, pp. 2–3; 0423,
Tr. 124; 0465, pp. 2–3; 0364, pp. 6–7;
0423, Tr. 229). DOT defines ‘‘bulk
packaging’’ as: ‘‘a packaging, other than
a vessel or a barge, including a transport
vehicle or freight container, in which
hazardous materials are loaded with no
intermediate form of containment. A
Large Packaging in which hazardous
materials are loaded with an
intermediate form of containment, such
as one or more articles or inner
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
packagings, is also a bulk packaging.
Additionally, a bulk packaging has:
(1) A maximum capacity greater than
450 L (119 gallons) as a receptacle for
a liquid;
(2) A maximum net mass greater than
400 kg (882 pounds) and a maximum
capacity greater than 450 L (119 gallons)
as a receptacle for a solid; or
(3) A water capacity greater than 454
kg (1000 pounds) as a receptacle for a
gas as defined in § 173.115 of this
subchapter.’’ 49 CFR 171.8.
NACD expressed concern that
OSHA’s proposed definition of ‘‘bulk
shipment’’ would conflict with DOT’s
definition of ‘‘bulk packaging’’
(Document ID 0329, pp. 2–3; 0465, pp.
2–3; 0423, Tr. 124). DGAC stated that
the definition of bulk shipment ‘‘should
be similar or identical to those
contained in the DOT regulations in
Section 171 of the Hazardous Materials
Regulations . . . [because] many of the
packaging described as bulk are used for
international movement of hazardous
materials, but they’re also used as a
containment system in manufacturing.
So to have different definitions would
create problems’’ (Document ID 0423,
Tr. 62). NPGA and IPHMT suggested
that OSHA incorporate the DOT
definition, on the basis that
incorporation would provide clarity on
requirements for bulk shipments where
both HCS and DOT’s Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR)
requirements apply; would offer
uniformity in the training and education
of workers on the types of containers
and the required information to be
displayed for bulk shipments; and
would allow for updates to the
definition of bulk shipment without
requiring revision to the HCS
(Document ID 0336, pp. 3–4; 0364, pp.
6–7). They also noted that the definition
of bulk shipment needed to be ‘‘clear
between the agencies’’ in order to codify
the joint DOT and OSHA policy from a
2016 guidance document regarding
labeling of bulk chemical shipments
(Document ID 0244).
OSHA disagrees with these
comments. The agency intends for its
definition of bulk shipment to differ
from DOT’s definition of bulk
packaging, as DOT’s definition would
not adequately support OSHA’s
requirements in HCS paragraph (f)(5)(ii).
OSHA’s use of the term bulk shipment
solely refers to situations where the
mode of transportation is also the
immediate container, while DOT’s
definition for bulk packaging
encompasses a broader range of forms of
packaging, including those with an
intermediate form of containment such
as 55-gallon drums or super sacks
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(flexible intermediate bulk containers)
which can hold over a ton of material.
OSHA only intends to create an
exception in (f)(5)(ii) for shipments that
do not have intermediate forms of
packaging. Thus, adopting the DOT
definition would not align with OSHA’s
intent and would provide less
information to workers. The guidance
created with DOT in 2016 does not
conflict with this interpretation and a
single definition is not required in order
to codify it, as suggested by NPGA and
IPHMT. That guidance uses the terms
bulk shipment and bulk packaging
correctly to refer to each agency’s
separate definitions and does not use
the terms interchangeably. Therefore,
OSHA is declining to adopt the
suggestion that the agency incorporate
or otherwise align with the DOT
definition for bulk packaging and is
finalizing the definition of bulk
shipment as proposed.
Combustible dust. OSHA proposed
adding a definition of the term
combustible dust to the HCS. In the
2012 update to the HCS, OSHA
included combustible dust under the
definition of hazardous chemical, but
did not provide a separate definition of
the term. At that time, OSHA did not
include a definition of combustible dust
because the agency was considering a
separate combustible dust rulemaking,
OSHA had already begun work at the
GHS on a definition for combustible
dust, and the UNSCEGHS was also
considering combustible dust
classification and communication issues
(see 77 FR at 17705). Additionally,
OSHA explained that it had previously
provided considerable guidance on the
nature and definition of combustible
dust in a variety of materials, including
OSHA’s Hazard Communication
Guidance for Combustible Dusts (77 FR
17704). Since the 2012 rulemaking,
however, OSHA has not promulgated a
combustible dust standard and the
UNSCEGHS has adopted a definition for
combustible dust.
Rev. 7 defines combustible dust as
‘‘finely divided solid particles of a
substance or mixture that are liable to
catch fire or explode on ignition when
dispersed in air or other oxidizing
media’’ (Document ID 0060). In the
NPRM, OSHA preliminarily determined
that the definition developed in the
GHS was consistent with existing OSHA
guidance on combustible dust hazards
and proposed adopting this definition
(86 FR 9697; Document ID 0190; 0255).
In addition, OSHA has other standards
that use the term combustible dust but
do not define the term (e.g., Grain
Handling Facilities, 29 CFR 1910.272).
In the NPRM, OSHA preliminarily
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
determined that the proposed definition
was consistent with uses of the term in
other standards (86 FR 9696). While
OSHA still believes the final definition
to be consistent with other standards’
use of the term, the agency wishes to
clarify its position should
inconsistencies arise or become evident.
Where the term combustible dust is
used but not defined in another
standard, and where OSHA has
guidance specific to that standard, that
guidance, rather than the HCS
definition, is the relevant interpretive
source.
OSHA received comments from ACC,
API, and DGAC supporting the
proposed addition of a combustible dust
definition consistent with Rev. 7
(Document ID 0347, pp. 26–27; 0316, p.
2; 0339, p. 1). The agency also received
several critical comments. First, several
commenters believed that the proposed
definition for combustible dust was
confusing, ambiguous, and too broad
(Document ID 0287, pp. 2–4; 0325, pp.
3–4; 0329, p. 3; 0369, Att. 2, pp. 2–3).
For example, the Vinyl Institute found
the proposed text ‘‘is ambiguous and
confusing, is provided without context,
appears to be inconsistent with accepted
scientific practice and OSHA guidance,
and may conflict with the existing HCS
classification for flammable solids’’
(Document ID 0369, p. 2).
Several commenters stated that they
or their member companies are
accustomed to relying on National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA)
standards to provide a clear and welldefined definition of combustible dust,
including testing procedures, and would
prefer for OSHA to adopt or align with
NFPA’s definition. PLASTICS stated
that OSHA has, in the past, referenced
NFPA standards that define combustible
dust as ‘‘[a] finely divided combustible
particulate solid that presents a flashfire hazard or explosion hazard when
suspended in air or the process-specific
oxidizing medium over a range of
concentrations.’’ PLASTICS argued that
this definition ‘‘clearly state[s] it is
necessary to perform testing to
determine if a material is a combustible
dust and specify the design and energy
levels of the igniters to be used’’
(Document ID 0314, p. 15). NACD noted
that OSHA’s proposed definition is
broader than the NFPA definition and
that chemical distributors who import
products ‘‘need to be able to provide
their foreign suppliers with clear
parameters and test methods so they can
objectively determine whether or not
their material is a combustible dust’’
(Document ID 0329, p. 3). The American
Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)
and the American Wood Council (AWC)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
jointly submitted a comment that their
members ‘‘have comfortably relied on
the well-established, harmonized
definition of that term contained in the
NFPA combustible dust standards,
which specifies the tests to be
performed on the material’’ (Document
ID 0287, pp. 3–4). AF&PA, AWC and
PLASTICS also commented that while
the GHS references the ISO/IEC 80079–
20–2 standard for combustible dust, the
GHS definition, and therefore also the
proposed HCS definition, for
combustible dust are inconsistent with
the current ISO/IEC and NFPA
standards (Document ID 0287, pp. 3–4;
0314, pp. 15–16). PLASTICS further
commented that the benefits of
harmonization with the GHS on the
definition of combustible dust would be
limited since combustible dust is not a
classified hazard in the GHS and is only
recognized under Canada’s Workplace
Hazardous Materials Information
System (WHMIS) (Document ID 0314, p.
16).
Several of these commenters
requested that OSHA either align its
proposed definition with NFPA’s
definition or finalize the HCS without
adding a definition for combustible
dust, effectively allowing employers to
continue using the NFPA definition
(Document ID 0314, pp. 15–16; 0369, p.
3; 0287, pp. 3–4).
OSHA disagrees with commenters’
suggestion to adopt the NFPA definition
in lieu of the agency’s proposed
definition for combustible dust. OSHA
acknowledges that the wording in the
GHS is not precisely the same as the
definition in the ISO/IEC testing method
consensus standard or the NFPA
definition. However, the ISO/IEC
method was the starting point for the
definition in the GHS and the UN
Subcommittee modified it to ensure that
it was compatible with other consensus
standards and would cover various
conditions under which a dust could
deflagrate. Similarly, OSHA proposed a
broad definition with the intention of
providing classifiers with a general
understanding of the intrinsic properties
of the category described. This
definition, along with others in
paragraph (c), is not intended to provide
the detailed descriptions and/or test
methods required to classify materials,
which are instead provided through
guidance materials and consensus
standards. This is consistent with other
hazards included in the HCS and GHS,
for which the HCS and GHS provide a
general definition and also provide
further criteria or guidance on how to
determine if a chemical exhibits this
hazard.
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44273
Additionally, the NFPA definition
indicates that specific tests would be
required to determine explosibility.
Adopting the NFPA definition in its
entirety would be contrary to the
general HCS principle that the standard
does not require the label and SDS
preparer to conduct testing. OSHA is
aware that NFPA standards address
combustible dust hazards in NFPA 652
as well as other NFPA consensus
standards and believes that the agency’s
proposed definition of combustible dust
is compatible with NFPA standards,
even though it does not replicate them.
Classifiers can therefore continue to rely
on the NFPA standards to determine
whether a material is a combustible
dust.
Several stakeholders also provided
comments on specific terms used in
OSHA’s proposed definition which
differ from the terms used by NFPA.
AF&PA and AWC commented that
‘‘catch fire’’ is undefined and could be
conflated with ‘‘ignition’’ (Document ID
0287, pp. 3–4). PLASTICS also stated
that OSHA’s phrase ‘‘catch fire’’ is
unclear, in part because it suggests that
ignition energy levels are irrelevant,
whereas NFPA standards use and define
the term ‘‘flash-fire’’ instead (Document
ID 0314, pp. 15–16). The Vinyl Institute
commented that ‘‘catch fire’’ could be
interpreted as meaning ignition or
resulting in a self-sustaining
propagation, which could be confused
with flammable solid (Document ID
0369, Att. 2, pp. 2–3). USBSA et al.
similarly commented that the use of the
phrase ‘‘catch fire’’ in OSHA’s
definition of combustible dust would
cause an overlap between the proposed
category of combustible dust and the
existing category of flammable solids
(Category B.7 in Appendix B). As a
result of this overlap, a substance might
be classified as a combustible dust
because of a flammability hazard (rather
than because of an explosion hazard)
and also classified as a flammable solid
for the same reason (Document ID 0325,
pp. 3–4; 0425, Tr. 15). USBSA et al.
concluded that OSHA should adopt
criteria that permit manufacturers to
distinguish between the categories of
‘‘combustible dust’’ and ‘‘flammable
solids’’ (Document ID 0325, p. 4).
OSHA agrees with the comments that
the phrase ‘‘catch fire’’ is insufficiently
clear. Accordingly, OSHA has
eliminated the phrases ‘‘are liable to
catch fire’’ and ‘‘on ignition’’ and
replaced ‘‘catch fire’’ with ‘‘pose a flashfire hazard,’’ similar to NFPA standards
652 and 654 (Document ID 0433; 0457).
However, OSHA disagrees that the
definition will cause confusion between
the category of combustible dust and the
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44274
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
separate category of flammable solids,
which have very specific classification
criteria and clear test methods for
determining flammability. To the extent
that there is overlap between the
classifications, this is because
flammable solids are one type of
combustible dust. Even so, it is
important to identify both hazards
because they can occur under different
conditions. For further discussion on
flammable solids, please see the
Summary and Explanation for
Appendix B.7.
USBSA et al. also commented on the
word ‘‘explode,’’ stating that it ‘‘is
inaccurate and misleading’’ (Document
ID 0325, p. 4). USBSA et al. noted that,
of the elements needed for an explosion
(fuel, ignition source, oxygen,
dispersion of dust particles in sufficient
quantity and concentration, and
confinement of the dust cloud), several
were missing from the proposed
definition. USBSA et al. stated that
without confinement as a criterion, the
proper term is ‘‘deflagrate’’ instead of
‘‘explode.’’ USBSA et al. went on to
state that OSHA should include the
NFPA confinement and particle size
criteria of less than 500 microns in the
HCS definition of combustible dust
(Document ID 0325, pp. 4–6; 0425, Tr.
15–17).
OSHA agrees that ‘‘explode’’ was not
sufficiently clear in the proposed
definition. In order to provide clarity
and consistency with the NFPA
definition of combustible dust, as
commenters requested, OSHA has
replaced the term ‘‘explode’’ with
‘‘explosion hazard’’ which refers to
when solid particulates are dispersed in
air or an oxidizing media. It is the
oxidizing media that is especially
important for the explosion hazard to be
present (Document ID 0433; 0457).
Additionally, deflagration is a type of
explosion hazard, as indicated by the
NFPA definition of explosion hazard,
and therefore OSHA believes that it is
more appropriate to use the broader
term ‘‘explosion hazard’’ here, rather
than USBSA et al.’s suggested
‘‘deflagration.’’ Also, to be consistent
with the NFPA definition and the term
‘‘explosion hazard’’ OSHA is making a
corresponding change of the term
‘‘particle’’ to ‘‘particulate’’ in the HCS
definition of combustible dust.
OSHA disagrees, however, with
USBSA et al.’s suggestion to include
criteria for confinement and particle
size because these criteria are not
appropriate to OSHA’s purpose in
providing the definition of combustible
dust. While OSHA agrees that certain
conditions must apply before a
combustible dust explosion can occur,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
OSHA does not believe the confinement
and particle size criteria should be part
of the HCS definition, which OSHA has
written to include intrinsic properties of
combustible dusts but not the
conditions required for their ignition.
OSHA has taken a similar approach to
defining other physical hazards in the
HCS. For example, the definition of
flammable liquids (Appendix B.6)
includes the flash point, which is an
intrinsic property of a material. For a
flammable liquid to ignite, several
conditions, such as vapor layer and
source of ignition, are needed, but these
are not properties of the material that
render it intrinsically flammable and are
therefore excluded from OSHA’s
definition. Such conditions are
important to evaluating the risk of
ignition in handling and use, but not to
identifying whether a liquid is itself
flammable. Similarly, in the case of
combustible dust, confinement is a
condition wholly external to the
material itself, and the particle size of
the material does not determine whether
it can ignite (even though it is relevant,
together with other factors including the
confinement area, to the likelihood of
ignition). Therefore, OSHA has chosen
not to add confinement and particle size
to the HCS definition of combustible
dust.
ACC recommended that OSHA place
‘‘measurable parameters around the
definition or specify that it is ideally
meant for organic and metal dusts’’
(Document ID 0347, p. 26). OSHA has
determined that it is neither necessary
to add more specific parameters to the
definition of combustible dust nor
helpful to limit it as ACC proposes.
OSHA and NFPA have both provided
guidance documents that outline how to
determine if a dust is combustible as
well as lists of materials that are
commonly considered combustible.
Moreover, combustible dust hazards are
not limited to organic and metal dusts,
so to limit the definition as ACC
suggests would potentially result in
some chemicals that pose combustible
dust hazards not being labeled as such.
Dow commented that the agency
should make a clear distinction between
the definition of combustible dust and
the phrase ‘‘explosible dust’’ as it is
used in Appendix C.4.31 (Document ID
0359, p. 5). OSHA intends these terms
to be interchangeable and uses both
terms in its own guidance products. For
further discussion on this issue please
see the Summary and Explanation for
Appendix C.4.31.
USBSA et al. also asked OSHA to
clarify that the definition of combustible
dust is for hazard communication
purposes only and is not for other
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
regulatory purposes. As OSHA stated
earlier, the proposed definition is
sufficiently broad to be consistent with
uses of the term in other standards (86
FR 9696) and would not be the primary
source for interpreting those existing
standards when the agency has
guidance specific to those standards.
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
asked OSHA to include a statement
addressed to its compliance officers in
the preamble of this rule acknowledging
that a product labeled as posing a
combustible dust hazard may not
necessarily be combustible in a
particular workplace (Document ID
0360, pp. 7–8). As EEI points out, OSHA
has repeatedly stated that the
determination of a hazard for
classification purposes does not
necessarily indicate risk in any
particular workplace. However, OSHA
addresses compliance issues and
instructions to its compliance officers in
other documents and therefore will not
use the preamble of this rule to address
this issue.
For the reasons discussed above,
OSHA is finalizing the definition of
combustible dust as proposed with the
following modifications: the phrases
‘‘liable to catch fire’’ and ‘‘ignition’’ are
replaced with ‘‘pose a flash-fire hazard’’;
the term ‘‘explode’’ is replaced with
‘‘explosion hazard’’; and the term
‘‘particles’’ is changed to ‘‘particulates.’’
The final version defines combustible
dust as ‘‘finely divided solid
particulates of a substance or mixture
that pose a flash-fire hazard or
explosion hazard when dispersed in air
or other oxidizing media.’’ While these
modifications represent departures from
the GHS definition, the agency believes
the definition as finalized best
effectuates the purpose of the HCS by
remaining consistent with the intent of
the GHS definition while addressing the
Vinyl Institute and others’ concerns,
discussed above, that OSHA’s original
definition was confusing, ambiguous,
and overly broad (Document ID 0287,
pp. 2–4; 0325, pp. 3–4; 0329, p. 3; 0369,
Att. 2, pp. 2–3).
Exposure or exposed. OSHA proposed
revising the definition of exposure or
exposed. The definition in the 2012
HCS provided, in relevant part, that
exposure or exposed means that an
employee is subjected in the course of
employment to a chemical that is a
physical or health hazard. In the NPRM,
OSHA proposed revising the definition
to mean that an employee is subjected
in the course of employment to a
‘‘hazardous chemical,’’ rather than to ‘‘a
chemical that is a physical or health
hazard,’’ to clarify that the HCS covers
the hazards of all hazardous chemicals,
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
including those considered to be
HNOCs. OSHA received no comments
on this proposed revision, and is
therefore finalizing the definition of
exposure or exposed as proposed.
Gas, liquid, and solid. OSHA
proposed to include three new
definitions for the terms gas, liquid, and
solid. The agency proposed including
these terms to align with Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060). Although not
included in the GHS definitions of these
terms, OSHA also proposed adding the
temperature in equivalent degrees
Fahrenheit and pressure in equivalent
pounds per square inch (PSI) to the new
HCS definitions of gas and liquid
because those measurements are more
commonly used in the U.S.
OSHA proposed defining gas and
liquid to be consistent with Rev. 7.
Furthermore, in accordance with Rev. 7,
OSHA proposed including, as part of
the definition of liquid, that a viscous
substance or mixture for which a
specific melting point could not be
determined ‘‘shall be subjected to
ASTM 4359–90 . . . or to the test for
determining fluidity (penetrometer test)
prescribed in section 2.3.4 of Annex A
of the European Agreement concerning
the International Carriage of Dangerous
Goods by Road (ADR) . . .’’ Finally,
OSHA proposed adopting the GHS
definition of solid as a substance or
mixture not meeting the definitions of
liquid or gas.
The agency proposed to include these
definitions to improve clarity and
ensure consistency in hazard
communication and classification both
domestically and internationally. The
agency believes that defining these
terms in the standard will clarify
provisions under Appendices B and D
for classification of hazardous chemicals
and preparation of SDSs. OSHA
indicated in the proposal that it did not
anticipate that these new definitions
would impact other existing standards
for construction or general industry.
OSHA requested comments on its
proposal to include these definitions in
this update.
OSHA received multiple comments
on the specific proposed definitions for
gas, liquid and solid. NIOSH supported
the definitions, indicating that aligning
with the GHS definitions would provide
transparent, consistent, and clear
language that is universally understood
and would facilitate hazard
communication and inform risk
management decisions across multiple
scenarios (Document ID 0456, Att. 2, p.
2). API, Michele Sullivan, and DGAC
also supported aligning the definitions
with the GHS (Document ID 0316, p. 2;
0339, p. 1; 0366, p. 2; 0423, Tr. 62).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Ameren supported the new definitions
and noted that OSHA should
consistently implement these and other
definitions in the NPRM in all affected
OSHA standards (Document ID 0309, p.
15). OSHA discusses the impact of this
final rule on other OSHA standards
further below.
Since no commenters objected to the
proposed definition of gas, OSHA is
finalizing it as proposed.
OSHA received two comments that
were critical of the definition of liquid.
Specifically, PLASTICS and Toby
Threet both commented that the phrase
‘‘shall be subjected to’’ in the proposed
definition seemed to indicate OSHA
was requiring testing even though the
HCS has never required testing to
comply with the standard (Document ID
0314, p. 16; 0279, p. 14).
OSHA agrees with these commenters
that the proposed language implies a
testing requirement and needs
clarification. Since it was first
promulgated in 1983, the HCS has
required that manufacturers, importers,
distributors, and employers evaluate the
chemical hazards in the workplace and
communicate those hazards to workers,
but has not required testing in order to
meet the provisions of the standard (48
FR 53280, 53290). The HCS specifies in
paragraph (d)(2) that there is no
requirement to test a chemical for
hazard classification purposes.
Moreover, the GHS specifically states, in
Chapter 1.3.2.4.1, that it ‘‘does not
include requirements for testing
substances or mixtures’’ (Document ID
0060, p. 19).
To clarify OSHA’s intention on testing
for this provision, Threet recommended
removing the phrase ‘‘shall be subjected
to’’ from the definition and to state
instead that either of the cited testing
methods ‘‘can establish whether a
viscous substance or mixture is a liquid
if a specific melting point cannot be
determined’’ (Document ID 0279, p. 14).
OSHA agrees that these revisions are
more consistent with the agency’s intent
and is amending the definition of liquid
to include these revisions. Additionally,
OSHA did not provide the PSI
conversion for the first time the value
101.3 kPa is used. OSHA is inserting
14.69 PSI with 101.3 kPa in parentheses
in the midsection of the definition so
that it reads: ‘‘. . . which is not
completely gaseous at 68 °F (20 °C) and
at a standard pressure of 14.69 PSI
(101.3 kPa) . . .’’ Accordingly, this final
rule defines a liquid as shown in the
amendatory text of this final rule.
Finally, OSHA received one
additional comment on the definition of
solid beyond the supportive comments
noted above. PLASTICS suggested
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44275
revising the proposed definition to
recognize plasma as an additional state
of matter. PLASTICS noted that plasma
is ‘‘a generally accepted state of matter
generated in certain lighting and has
both cutting and arc welding
applications’’ (Document ID 0314, pp.
16–17).
OSHA does not believe that revising
the proposed definition of solid would
serve OSHA’s purpose in adding the
term, which was to clarify the HCS and
align with the GHS (86 FR 9697). The
GHS and the HCS do not define or use
the term plasma. The terms in paragraph
(c) include those that are relevant to the
GHS and the HCS, are needed for
comprehension of provisions within the
standard, and improve global
harmonization (77 FR 17697). Since the
term plasma is not defined in the GHS,
is not referenced in the GHS definitions
of gas, liquid, or solid, and is not related
to any physical hazard covered under
the HCS, the agency declines to revise
the proposed definition of solid to
recognize plasma as a state of matter.
OSHA notes that, insofar as the physical
properties of the material noted by
PLASTICS as ‘‘plasma’’ in lighting,
cutting, and arc welding meet the
criteria of one of these definitions, they
would be covered under the relevant
hazard classes.
For the reasons discussed above,
OSHA is finalizing the definitions of gas
and solid as proposed and is revising
the term liquid to incorporate the
changes suggested by commenters.
Hazardous chemical. OSHA proposed
updating the definition of hazardous
chemical to delete a reference to
pyrophoric gas because OSHA proposed
classifying pyrophoric gas as a physical
hazard in the flammable gas hazard
class (see discussion in the Summary
and Explanation for Appendix B.2).
OSHA received one comment, from
Ameren, stating that the revised
definition is acceptable (Document ID
0309, p. 15). No commenter opposed the
revision. The agency is therefore
finalizing the definition of hazardous
chemical as proposed.
Immediate outer package. OSHA
proposed to add a definition for
immediate outer package. In this final
rule, paragraph (f)(12) (discussed in
more detail in the Summary and
Explanation for paragraph (f)) relaxes
labeling requirements for small
containers, but still requires complete
label information on the immediate
outer package. For example, in the case
of a kit, the container would be
whatever surrounds the chemical itself
(e.g., a vial), and the immediate outer
package would be the first box or
package surrounding the container.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44276
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
OSHA received several comments in
support of the proposed definition. Both
Ameren and SAAMI supported the
definition as proposed and SAAMI
commended the agency for providing
better harmonization with DOT
(Document ID 0309, p. 15; 0294, p. 3;
0412, p. 2). DGAC supported the
proposed definition as it provides
clarity to the regulation and should
enhance compliance with the standard
(Document ID 0339, p. 1). No
commenter opposed the proposed
definition. OSHA is therefore finalizing
the definition of immediate outer
package as proposed.
Physical hazard. OSHA proposed to
update the definition of physical
hazard. The proposed definition also
explicitly stated that ‘‘[t]he criteria for
determining whether a chemical is
classified as a physical hazard are
detailed in Appendix B’’. The proposal
included two substantive changes to the
previous definition: (1) it moved the
reference to aerosols out of the
parenthetical following the word
‘‘flammable’’; and (2) it added a
reference to desensitized explosives.
These proposed revisions reflect the
new hazard classes proposed for
aerosols and desensitized explosives in
Appendix B to align with Rev. 7 (see the
Summary and Explanation for
Appendix B). OSHA received one
comment, from Ameren, indicating the
revised definition is acceptable
(Document ID 0309, p. 15). No
commenter opposed the revised
definition. Therefore OSHA is finalizing
the definition of physical hazard as
proposed with two minor technical
amendments: OSHA is changing the
contents of the parentheticals following
‘‘flammable’’ and ‘‘oxidizers’’ to read
‘‘. . . flammable (gases, liquids, or
solids) . . .’’ and ‘‘. . . oxidizers (gases,
liquids, or solids) . . .’’ for grammatical
consistency with each other.
Physician or other licensed health
care professional (PLHCP). OSHA
proposed adding a definition of
physician or other licensed health care
professional (PLHCP) to the standard.
The new definition is necessary in light
of OSHA’s proposal to replace the
phrase ‘‘physician and nurse’’ in
paragraph (i) with the term PLHCP to be
consistent with other OSHA standards
that use the term PLHCP and to better
reflect current medical practices. That
change is also discussed in the
Summary and Explanation for
paragraph (i). The proposed definition
of PLHCP is consistent with the way the
agency has defined that term in all
health standards promulgated since the
bloodborne pathogen standard, 29 CFR
1910.1030, in 1991. One commenter,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Ameren, indicated that the definition is
appropriate because it is already used in
other OSHA standards and reduces
confusion with other OSHA standards
(Document ID 0309, p. 15). No
commenter opposed the proposed
definition. OSHA is therefore finalizing
the definition of physician or other
licensed health care professional
(PLHCP) as proposed.
Pyrophoric gas. OSHA proposed
deleting the definition for pyrophoric
gas from paragraph (c) in conjunction
with its proposals to delete the reference
to pyrophoric gas from the HCS
definition of hazardous chemical and
add the definition of pyrophoric gas to
Appendix B.2, discussed earlier in this
section of the Summary and
Explanation. OSHA received one
comment from Ameren indicating the
change was acceptable (Document ID
0309, p. 15). No commenter opposed the
change. OSHA is therefore deleting the
definition of pyrophoric gas from
paragraph (c).
Released for shipment. OSHA
proposed to add a new definition,
released for shipment, to mean ‘‘a
chemical that has been packaged and
labeled in the manner in which it will
be distributed or sold.’’ This is a new
term OSHA proposed for use in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(11) related to
updating labels when new hazard
information becomes available. This
definition is similar, but not identical
to, the definition used by the EPA’s
Pesticide Registration and Classification
Procedures regulation, 40 CFR 152.3.
EPA defines a product as released for
shipment ‘‘when the producer has
packaged and labeled it in the manner
in which it will be distributed or sold,
or has stored it in an area where
finished products are ordinarily held for
shipment.’’ OSHA did not propose to
include chemicals that are stored in an
area where finished products are
usually held but have not been
packaged and labeled in the HCS
definition of released for shipment
because there do not appear to be any
feasibility issues with ensuring that
such chemicals are labeled with the
most updated information. The agency
requested comments on whether the
proposed definition is appropriate for
application to the HCS. In addition,
OSHA was interested in understanding
whether the slight differences between
OSHA’s and EPA’s definitions would
pose any compliance issues for entities
dealing with both OSHA and EPA
labeling requirements.
OSHA received several comments on
the proposed definition of released for
shipment. SOCMA supported the
proposed definition (Document ID 0447,
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
p. 3). The Vinyl Institute also supported
the definition, commenting that it
reflects the realities of manufacturing
operations by recognizing the
occurrence of delayed or returned
manufactured shipments (Document ID
0369, Att. 2, pp. 8–9).
A few other commenters were
concerned that the proposed definition
would cause confusion. Tom Murphy
commented that workers may
misunderstand the intention of the
proposed definition; for example, the
proposed language could be interpreted
by workers as meaning products that
had passed quality control testing, were
correctly packaged for shipment, were
‘‘approved for presentation to the
customers,’’ and were ready to move
into inventory (Document ID 0277, p. 2).
Murphy suggested that ‘‘packaged for
shipment’’ may be a better term and
would reduce misinterpretation by
workers (Document ID 0277, p. 2). ACC
similarly commented that released for
shipment might be misunderstood to
mean that the package ‘‘has met the
business need or logistics criteria’’ and
is ready for shipment, and suggested
that OSHA adopt ‘‘packaged for
shipment’’ or ‘‘labeled for shipment’’
instead (Document ID 0347, p. 9).
NACD recommended that OSHA
reconsider including this definition,
which they commented could create
confusion and uncertainty as to whether
the label must state ‘‘released for
shipment.’’ Similar to other
commenters, NACD noted that many
products may be packaged and labeled
but are still awaiting a final quality
control check, third-party testing, or
customer approval (Document ID 0329,
p. 3; 0465, p. 3).
OSHA has decided not to adopt these
suggestions for several reasons. First,
the suggested changes would misalign
the agency and EPA’s terms.
Specifically, under EPA’s regulation,
released for shipment is defined as
product or stock that is packaged and
labeled in a manner in which it will be
distributed or sold, and the producer or
distributor must provide the pesticide
label to the receiver before or at the time
of distribution (40 CFR part 152.3).
Many of the regulated entities who are
affected by OSHA’s proposal to add a
definition of released for shipment are
also required to comply with EPA’s
regulations, and OSHA does not want to
cause confusion for parties who must
comply with both, so OSHA finds that
the proposed changes are not necessary
and would be contrary to OSHA’s
purpose for including this definition.
Moreover, OSHA disagrees that the
definition will result in confusion. In
response to NACD’s comments, OSHA
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
does not intend for the manufacturer,
importer, or distributor to include the
phrase ‘‘released for shipment’’ on the
label. The definition is only provided in
paragraph (c) to help classifiers and
other stakeholders understand the
meaning of paragraph (f)(11).
Furthermore, as is discussed in the
Summary and Explanation for
paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(11), OSHA is
eliminating the proposed requirement
for the released for shipment date to be
included on the label. Therefore, it is
unnecessary for manufacturers to use
the date of manufacture as a stand in for
that term, as suggested by NACD. OSHA
believes this clarification that the phrase
‘‘released for shipment’’ is not intended
to be printed on the label (or anywhere
on the package) may also relieve
commenters’ concerns that the phrase
‘‘released for shipment’’ will be
confused with readiness for shipment in
a business or logistical sense by
individuals working in facilities where
packages are stored for shipment.
Toby Threet commented that the
‘‘date of labeling and the date of release
for shipment are the same thing, under
OSHA’s definition’’ (Document ID 0279,
p. 15). Since the agency is eliminating
the proposed requirement to include the
released for shipment date on the label,
no such confusion should arise from the
definition that OSHA proposed for
released for shipment.
After considering the comments and
testimony submitted, OSHA has
determined that the definition for
released for shipment should be
retained in the final rule and should use
the term ‘‘released’’ in order to align
with EPA’s definition of released for
shipment in its Pesticide Registration
and Classification Procedures
regulation, 40 CFR 152.3. Therefore,
OSHA is finalizing the definition of
released for shipment as proposed.
OSHA also received a few comments
not related to any specific proposed
definition. API commented that in
general ‘‘any definitions used should
align with the GHS’’ (Document ID
0316, p. 2). API stated that if a GHS
definition is not available then the term
should not be used. Alternatively, they
suggested that if OSHA uses a term that
is not taken directly from the GHS, then
OSHA should ‘‘be transparent that the
definition has not yet been harmonized
in GHS and could change once
harmonized’’ (Document ID 0316, p. 2).
OSHA disagrees that only terms from
the GHS should be used in the HCS. The
OSHA HCS regulatory framework
existed well before the GHS. While
OSHA has aligned with the hazard
classes of the GHS and most provisions
in the annexes of the GHS that apply to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
occupational situations, the HCS
includes additional provisions to inform
and protect workers while providing a
consistent framework for businesses
regulated under the HCS. In addition,
OSHA has been clear in both the NPRM
and this final rule about the extent to
which each definition aligns with the
GHS.
OSHA also received a comment from
PRINTING United Alliance (PRINTING)
requesting the addition of a definition
for ‘‘injurious corrosive material’’
(Document ID 0357, pp. 4–5). This is a
term that appears in OSHA’s Medical
Services and First Aid standard at 29
CFR 1910.151(c), not in the HCS.
PRINTING expressed difficulty
ascertaining which chemicals are
‘‘injurious corrosive materials’’ that
require provision of eye wash or
flushing stations pursuant to 29 CFR
1910.151(c) and asked OSHA to add a
definition to the HCS similar to that
used by Michigan Occupational Safety &
Health Administration (MIOSHA) in a
guidance document related to eyewash
facilities (Document ID 0357, pp. 4–5).
However, the HCS is not an appropriate
location for a definition of ‘‘injurious
corrosive material’’ because that term is
not used in the HCS. Therefore, the
agency will not be including this
definition in the update to the HCS.
OSHA also received a comment from
IMA–NA stating that OSHA should
‘‘align any definition of nanomaterials
in the HCS to the EPA’s definition’’
(Document ID 0363, pp. 5–6). While
OSHA has addressed particle
characteristics, including particle size,
in the context of Section 9 of the SDS
in Appendix D (see Summary and
Explanation for Appendix D), the
agency has not proposed to add a
definition of nanomaterials to the HCS
and finds this comment to be outside
the scope of this rulemaking.
Finally, as indicated above, OSHA
received one general comment on the
potential impact of several of the new or
revised definitions on other standards.
While Ameren commented that the
definitions are generally acceptable,
they also commented that they believed
these new and revised definitions
would impact other OSHA standards,
contrary to OSHA’s assertion, and that
OSHA needed to ensure that for several
of the new and revised definitions they
were consistently implemented in other
OSHA standards. Specifically, they
cited potential impacts on 29 CFR
1910.120, Hazardous waste operations
and emergency response, and 29 CFR
1926.1101, Asbestos. However, Ameren
did not provide any specifics as to how
these two standards might be impacted.
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44277
Many of the terms that OSHA is
adding or updating in this final rule are
not used in the standards referenced by
Ameren. Of the terms Ameren cited,
only gas and liquid are used in 29 CFR
1910.120 and 29 CFR 1926.1101. In both
standards, the terms are used in a very
different way in contexts that make
clear what is meant by the term gas or
liquid. For instance, the term gas is used
to modify the word meter (1910.120
(c)(6)(ii)) and used in reference to gas
leakage in chemical protective suits
(1910.120 (g)(4)(iii)). OSHA is not
convinced that there will be any
confusion on what is meant by the terms
gas or liquid in these cases.
As stated above in the discussion
under the combustible dust definition,
while OSHA indicated in the proposal
that it did not anticipate that these new
definitions would conflict with or
otherwise impact other existing
standards for construction or general
industry, the agency notes that where
the same term is used but not defined
in another standard, and where OSHA
has guidance specific to that standard,
that guidance, rather than the HCS
definition, is the relevant interpretive
source.
(d) Hazard Classification
Paragraph (d)(1) of the HCS outlines
the requirements for chemical
manufacturers and importers to evaluate
the hazards of chemicals that are in the
workplace or being imported to
determine the hazard classes, and where
appropriate, the category of each class
that apply to the chemical being
classified.
In the NPRM, OSHA proposed two
changes to paragraph (d)(1). OSHA
proposed to revise the second sentence
of paragraph (d)(1) to read that for each
chemical, the chemical manufacturer or
importer shall determine 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 (emphasis added to
indicate the proposed new language).
The intent of the language that OSHA
proposed was to simply reiterate the
scope language currently in paragraph
(b)(2) and OSHA’s longstanding position
that hazard classification must cover
hazards associated with normal
conditions of use and foreseeable
emergencies. As OSHA explained in its
compliance directive for the HCS
(Document ID 0007), for example,
known intermediates, by-products, and
decomposition products that are
produced during normal conditions of
use or in foreseeable emergencies must
be addressed in the hazard
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44278
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
classification. OSHA also proposed to
add a new sentence to paragraph (d)(1)
stating that the hazard classification
shall include any hazards associated
with a change in the chemical’s physical
form or resulting from a reaction with
other chemicals under normal
conditions of use.
OSHA believed adding this language
to be necessary because there had been
some confusion about whether chemical
reactions that occur during normal
conditions of use must be considered
during classification and whether this
information should be placed on the
label and/or the SDS. This issue has
arisen, for instance, when multiple
chemicals are sold together with the
intention that they be mixed together
before use. For example, epoxy syringes
contain two individual chemicals in
separate sides of the syringe that are
mixed under normal conditions of use.
The intent of this proposed new
language was to ensure that
manufacturers and importers
understood what information should be
on the label (hazards associated with the
chemical as shipped, including changes
in physical form) versus what belonged
on the SDS (all hazard information
including information on hazards
created through downstream use), and
OSHA accordingly proposed a change in
paragraph (f)(1) as well to reflect the
new language in (d)(1). In addition, the
proposed new language better aligns
with international trading partners’
label requirements under REACH and
WHMIS and provides consistency on
where this information is located so
workers can easily find the information.
OSHA received several comments
agreeing on the need for clarification
about the requirements related to
classification of hazards resulting from
downstream uses. NABTU agreed that
OSHA’s clarification on the hazards
covered under (d)(1) would help
workers find information more quickly
and minimize mistakes, as well as aid
in training, because it would improve
consistency in the location of
information (Document ID 0425, Tr. 37).
Additionally, NABTU provided several
examples where hazards created by
chemical reactions as part of the
intended use of the product were not
being conveyed consistently and, in
some cases, not at all (see, e.g.,
Document ID 0450, Att. 2, p. 5). NABTU
provided safety data sheets for spray
foams, epoxies, and cement where a
chemical reaction occurs in downstream
workplaces following the
manufacturer’s instructions. The
information on the SDSs for these
chemicals does not differentiate the
hazards of the original chemical versus
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
the hazards the worker might be
exposed to through prescribed use of the
product (see, e.g., Document ID 0450,
Att. 2, p. 5). Additionally, California’s
Department of Industrial Relations,
Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (Cal/OSHA) provided the
example of a hair smoothing product
used in professional hair salons where
the intended use of the product created
different hazards due to chemical
reactions (formation of formaldehyde
during use which caused various
adverse health effects) than the hazards
associated with the original chemical. In
this case, these hazards were not
identified on either the label or the SDS
(Document ID 0451, pp. 3–4). Without
this information, downstream users are
unaware of the potential exposures and
therefore do not have the information
necessary to adequately protect
themselves. NIOSH also supported the
change and said that it would be helpful
for worker safety and health (Document
ID 0281, Att.1, p. 6).
However, OSHA also received
numerous comments indicating that
OSHA’s proposed language could be
misunderstood and cause confusion on
what would be required under
paragraph (d)(1). Many of these
commenters opposed inclusion of the
proposed language as written. Based on
the comments received, as explained
further below, OSHA is modifying the
proposed language to more clearly
articulate OSHA’s intent for the scope of
this requirement as well as to better
distinguish between hazards associated
with the chemical as shipped and
hazards associated with downstream
use. Specifically, OSHA is deleting the
phrase ‘‘under normal conditions of use
and foreseeable emergencies.’’ The
agency is adding at the end of (d)(1) the
phrase ‘‘The hazard classification shall
include any hazards associated with the
chemical’s intrinsic properties
including:’’ and then adding two
subparagraphs, (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii).56
New paragraph (d)(1)(i) reads, ‘‘a change
in the chemical’s physical form and;’’
and new paragraph (d)(1)(ii) reads,
‘‘chemical reaction products associated
with known or reasonably anticipated
uses or applications.’’ OSHA is also
changing the language in paragraph
(f)(1) to clarify that hazards identified
and classified under new paragraph
(d)(1)(ii) will not be required to appear
on a product’s label (see the Summary
and Explanation for paragraph (f)(1)).
56 Throughout this section and in the regulatory
text, OSHA refers to the ‘‘intrinsic’’ properties of
chemicals. OSHA considers this to be synonymous
with ‘‘inherent’’ properties, a term used by some
commenters and in the original HCS.
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Changes in Appendix D clarify that
hazards identified and classified under
both paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii)
must be included in Section 2 of the
product’s SDS. As stated above, OSHA
considers the language, as finalized, to
be a rephrasing of the language
proposed in the NPRM to more clearly
articulate OSHA’s intent and not a
substantive change from what OSHA
originally intended in the NPRM or the
preexisting requirement to incorporate
downstream uses. The rest of the section
therefore still relies on previous
guidance and statements OSHA made
regarding ‘‘normal conditions of use and
foreseeable emergencies’’ to support the
language OSHA is finalizing in this rule.
In the following discussion, OSHA
addresses the comments received on
paragraph (d)(1), separated by theme.
I. Arguments That the HCS Has
Historically Not Required
Manufacturers To Classify Chemicals
Due to Hazards Related to Downstream
Use
Several stakeholders commented that
the HCS historically has not required
manufacturers to classify hazards based
on downstream reactions (Document ID
0318, pp. 3–4; 0325, pp. 7–15; 0326, p.
3; 0337, p. 2; 0314, pp. 4–5; 0348, p. 2;
0356, p. 7; 0369, p. 4). For example,
ACC stated, ‘‘[n]ot only is OSHA’s
approach incompatible with the current
language of the HCS, it is not supported
in the text or regulatory history of the
HCS’’ (Document ID 0347, p. 3). ACC
quoted OSHA’s preamble from the 2012
update, where OSHA stated that
manufacturers and importers have
greater knowledge and expertise with
regards to the composition of the
chemicals they make or import than do
downstream employers and are usually
in the best position to assess the
intrinsic hazards associated with them,
whereas downstream employers are
usually in the best position to determine
the risk arising from the use of the
chemical in their workplaces (Document
ID 0347, p. 3). ACC also quoted OSHA’s
compliance directive, where OSHA
acknowledges that downstream users
who alter the product become the
manufacturer and become the
responsible party, so would need to
consider all the known or intended uses
of the products when classifying for
hazards. ACC commented that OSHA
has not identified any guidance
documents that would support the
agency’s interpretation of (d)(1)
(Document ID 0347, pp. 2–3).
Additionally, PLASTICS indicated that
OSHA has not historically required
manufacturers to classify the hazards of
by-products produced during
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
downstream use of a chemical.
PLASTICS provided several examples
dating back to 2004 indicating that
OSHA did not intend to have the
byproducts included in the hazard
determination process or that the
downstream employer was responsible
for the hazard determination process for
byproducts. PLASTICS also indicated
that OSHA has been unclear and that
various guidance documents have
appeared to be inconsistent in their
discussion of the scope of the hazard
classification process (Document ID
0314, Att. 1, pp. 4–9).
NAIMA suggested that OSHA should
address the hazard classification
revision in a separate rulemaking, and
request information from the regulated
community. NAIMA viewed the
proposed changes as OSHA’s attempt to
impose new burdens and regulatory
changes in the guise of harmonizing the
HCS with the GHS (Document ID 0338,
p. 9).
OSHA disagrees that the HCS has not
historically required manufacturers to
identify hazards related to downstream
uses of the chemical they produce or
provided any guidance to this effect.
While ACC is correct that OSHA, in the
preamble to the 2012 HCS,
distinguished between the relative
knowledge of manufacturers and
downstream employers, ACC neglected
to include in their comment the
paragraph immediately following the
one it quoted. That paragraph states:
‘‘OSHA’s approach in promulgating the
HCS reflects this reality. It places the
duty to ascertain and disclose chemical
hazards on manufacturers and
importers, so that downstream users can
use this information to avoid harmful
exposures to chemical hazards. But
because manufacturers and importers
will often have less information about
the particular exposures of downstream
users, their hazard assessment and
communication obligations are imposed
only for all normal conditions of use of
their chemicals and foreseeable
emergencies associated with those
chemicals’’ (emphasis added) (77 FR
17601–02). Additionally, during the
2012 rulemaking, in paragraph (a)(1)
OSHA changed the language to specify
that the purpose of the HCS is to ensure
classification of hazards, rather than
merely assessment or evaluation of
them, further indicating that the
language in the scope section regarding
normal conditions of use and
foreseeable emergencies was intended to
apply to the classification process, not
just assessment of hazards more broadly
(77 FR 17693). Thus, the 2012 HCS did,
in fact, contemplate that manufacturers
would classify their chemicals for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
hazards associated with these types of
downstream uses.
This concept has been part of the HCS
since the beginning. As indicated in the
preamble to the 1983 HCS, stakeholders
raised concerns then regarding
responsibility for providing information
on MSDSs (now referred to as SDSs)
that only the downstream employer
could know. In response, OSHA agreed
that ‘‘[t]he chemical manufacturer or
importer, in making hazard
determinations, should evaluate and
communicate information concerning
all the potential hazards associated with
a chemical, whereas the employer may
supplement this information by
instructing employees on the specific
nature and degree of hazard they are
likely to encounter in their particular
exposure situations’’ (48 FR 53296). The
preamble of the 1983 HCS went on to
explicitly state ‘‘[t]herefore, the
chemical manufacturer must provide
thorough hazard information, which
would be applicable to a full range of
reasonably foreseeable exposure
situations, rather than limiting the
information on the basis of presumed
use. The downstream employer will
then be assured of having the
information reasonably necessary to
make informed choices for control
measures’’ (48 FR 53307). When OSHA
updated the HCS in 2012, it replaced
the hazard determination process with
the hazard classification process and
indicated that hazard classification was
‘‘very similar to the process of hazard
determination that is currently in the
HCS, with the exception of determining
the degree of hazard where appropriate’’
(58 FR 17698).
Another example of OSHA’s
longstanding view that manufacturers
must consider downstream hazards is
found in a 1994 LOI regarding normal
conditions of use for wood products.
The LOI stated that wood and wood
products are exempt from the hazard
communication standard as articles ‘‘if
the only hazard presented from use of
the product is flammability or
combustibility, which are hazards that
are well-known among users of wood
products. However, it may not be
generally known among users that
inhalation of certain types of wood dust
or chemicals used to treat wood can
present a serious lung disease hazard.
For this reason, OSHA has always
required under the hazard
communication standard that
distributors of wood products provide
MSDS to employers whose employees
may be exposed to these inhalation
hazards’’ (available at https://
www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standard
interpretations/1994-12-05). As in 1994,
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44279
OSHA does not intend that every
possible downstream use be accounted
for, only those that are known or can be
reasonably anticipated. This policy was
reiterated in a 2016 LOI which stated
that manufacturers ‘‘must make a
reasonable effort to obtain reliable
information to determine how their
product(s) or by-product(s) may expose
workers under normal conditions of use
or in foreseeable emergencies. A
manufacturer’s or importer’s hazard
classification must anticipate the full
range of downstream uses of its
products and account for any hazardous
by-products that are known to be
present and may be formed’’ (available
at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/
standardinterpretations/2016-05-20).
The LOI went on to state that
manufacturers are not required to
contact every downstream workplace to
obtain this information, but a reasonable
effort should be made.
Finally, contrary to ACC’s and
PLASTICS’ assertions, OSHA guidance
documents have included in the hazard
determination step that ‘‘[a]ll possible
physical or health hazards that might be
associated with a chemical’s use must
be considered,’’ including in OSHA’s
2007 Guidance For Hazard
Determination (available at https://
www.osha.gov/hazcom/ghd053107).
This concept was carried forward into
the 2015 HCS compliance directive
which also indicates that manufacturers
must consider downstream uses of their
chemicals when classifying. For
example, the directive, which provides
in-depth guidance on how to apply the
criteria for classification, explains that a
HNOC means an adverse physical or
health effect that is not covered under
one of the existing hazard classes in the
standard. The directive then explains
that: ‘‘The term physical effect generally
refers to a material impairment of health
or functional capacity caused by the
intrinsic hazard(s) of a particular
chemical in normal conditions of use or
foreseeable emergencies’’ (Document ID
0007, pp. 19–20). These statements in
combination make clear that OSHA
expected the hazards of downstream
uses to be accounted for in the
classification process. Additionally,
what PLASTICS identified as
inconsistency in OSHA’s guidance
actually represents its misinterpretation
of the level of knowledge that can be
expected from a manufacturer, importer,
or distributor in two different scenarios:
one where the chemical in question is
used downstream to manufacture other
chemicals and the other where the
chemical is used by end-users.
However, the confusion that PLASTICS
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44280
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
points to is exactly why OSHA has
decided to clarify in this final rule the
scope of this existing obligation.
Additionally, OSHA has enforced the
HCS in accordance with this
understanding of the obligations to label
for downstream hazards, which further
reinforces the longstanding nature of
this requirement. For instance, in 2011
and 2012 OSHA cited a number of
manufacturers under the HCS for failing
to communicate the hazards of
formaldehyde exposure to salons,
stylists, and consumers using hair
products containing that chemical (see
https://www.osha.gov/hair-salons/
government-response).
As indicated above, OSHA has
determined that the language it
originally proposed to add to paragraph
(d)(1), which would have stated that
hazard classification shall include any
hazards associated with a change in the
chemical’s physical form or resulting
from a reaction with other chemicals
under normal conditions of use, is
insufficiently precise, and is therefore
adopting revised language in this final
rule. The final language provides that
hazard classification ‘‘shall include any
hazards associated with the chemical’s
intrinsic properties including: (i) a
change in the chemical’s physical form
and; (ii) chemical reaction products
associated with known or reasonably
anticipated uses or applications.’’ This
language in the final rule ties a
responsible party’s classification
obligations to what the manufacturer,
importer, or distributor knows or can
reasonably anticipate and avoids the
concerns that several commenters raised
that the language was too vague (see,
e.g., Document ID 0368, pp. 3–4; 0402,
p. 1; 0283, p. 13; 0461, pp. 2–3; 0315,
pp. 3–4; 0313, p. 3). Stakeholders
should be familiar with the term
‘‘reasonably anticipated’’ because OSHA
has used similar language in multiple
standards, guidance products, and LOIs,
including the bloodborne pathogens
standard (29 CFR 1910.1030), the
respirable crystalline silica standard (29
CFR 1910.1053), and the hazardous
waste operations and emergency
response standard (29 CFR 1910.120).
Moreover, this term is commonly used
by other agencies as well; for example,
the National Toxicology Program (NTP)
uses ‘‘reasonably anticipated’’ as a
classification for carcinogens
(reasonably anticipated to be a human
carcinogen) (86 FR 72988). EPA’s TSCA
regulations (40 CFR 723.250) also use
the term ‘‘reasonably anticipated’’ in
their scoping language: ‘‘Reasonably
anticipated means that a knowledgeable
person would expect a given physical or
chemical composition or characteristic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
to occur based on such factors as the
nature of the precursors used to
manufacture the polymer, the type of
reaction, the type of manufacturing
process, the products produced in
polymerization, the intended uses of the
substance, or associated use conditions
(40 CFR 723.250).’’
II. Arguments That Classification
Should Be Based on Inherent or
Intrinsic Hazards
OSHA received multiple comments
from a variety of stakeholders stating
that hazard classification is based on the
intrinsic or inherent properties of the
chemical and the proposed changes in
paragraph (d)(1) go beyond the meaning
of intrinsic or inherent properties
(Document ID 0303, p. 1; 0347, pp. 2–
3; 0322, p. 14; 0424, Tr. 116, 117, 138,
195, 205; 0366, p. 3; 0323, pp. 2–5;
0214, pp. 1–15).
OSHA agrees that the intention of the
hazard communication standard is to
provide information based on the
intrinsic or inherent hazards of the
chemical that are presented in the
workplace and that are not tied to the
level of exposure to the chemical, but
disagrees that the change in paragraph
(d)(1), either as proposed or as finalized
here, goes beyond the meaning of
intrinsic or inherent hazards. In final
paragraph (d)(1), OSHA has made
explicit that hazard classification under
the HCS should be based on the
intrinsic properties of the chemical to
which workers are exposed. As
finalized, paragraph (d)(1) also
identifies two examples of intrinsic
properties: changes in the chemical’s
physical form and chemical reaction
products associated with known or
reasonably anticipated uses or
applications. Label and SDS preparers
must consider both when classifying the
chemicals they produce, import, or
distribute. These examples are
consistent with OSHA’s longstanding
interpretation of intrinsic properties or
hazards.
To clarify the meaning of intrinsic
hazards, OSHA provided several
examples in guidance issued in 2015
and 2016 regarding what the agency
would consider non-intrinsic hazards
(Document ID 0007, p. 20; 0008, p. 385).
For instance, the agency explained that
hazards due to scalds caused by
exposure to chemicals at high
temperatures and slips and falls caused
by treading on a solid chemical shaped
in a rounded form or spilled liquids are
not physical effects caused by the
chemical’s intrinsic properties under
the HCS. Any substance that is heated
to high temperatures can cause a scald,
and any spilled liquids could be a slip
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
hazard. Intrinsic hazards are hazards
that are derived from the essential
nature or character of the substance,
reaction product, or mixture, which
would not simply be true of any
substance under those conditions. Even
prior to adopting the GHS in 2012,
OSHA had identified intrinsic hazards
as the basis for identification and hazard
determination for the information on the
labels, SDSs, and worker training.
OSHA is not deviating from this
approach. How a chemical will behave
when its physical form changes and
what chemical reaction products form
when it is used downstream are based
on the properties that are intrinsic to
that chemical and would not be true of
simply any substance under those
circumstances, and thus fall within
OSHA’s conception of what constitutes
an intrinsic hazard.
Michele Sullivan suggested that the
agency should instead take a twopronged approach to address the issue
of inherent hazards and require (1)
classification of chemicals as shipped,
with hazard class and category and (2)
inclusion of hazards or warnings, rather
than classification, for chemical
products with directions for
downstream use, such as kits
(Document ID 0366, p. 3). OSHA does
not agree with this approach because it
incorrectly applies the idea of intrinsic
hazards as a more limited concept, and
the agency believes that the language
‘‘known or reasonably anticipated uses
or applications’’ cabins the breadth of
the language in (d)(1)(ii) so that it is
feasible for manufacturers, importers,
and distributors to classify in
accordance with the requirements.
As noted above, to address these
concerns, OSHA is updating the
regulatory text to include the term
‘‘intrinsic’’ in (d)(1) to clarify that the
hazard information required is based on
classification of hazards related to the
intrinsic properties of the chemicals
workers are exposed to. The agency
believes that this clarifies OSHA’s intent
that the hazard be of an intrinsic nature
and that it considers hazards from both
changes in the chemical’s physical form
and chemical reaction products
associated with downstream use to be
related to intrinsic properties.
III. Arguments That the Proposed
Revision to (d)(1) Would Shift the
Burden From Downstream Users to the
Originating Manufacturer (or Upstream)
Several commenters expressed
concern that OSHA’s proposed changes
to paragraph (d)(1) would improperly
shift the responsibility for determining
and classifying chemical hazards from
downstream users, such as
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
manufacturers and employers that
process chemicals, to the original
manufacturer of the chemical
(Document ID 0314, p. 2; 0323, p. 3;
0326, pp. 4–5; 0337, p. 2; 0347, p. 2;
0423, Tr. 134; 0348, pp. 1–2; 0404, pp.
3–4; 0361, p. 1; 0362, pp. 2–3; 0329, p.
8; 0287, p. 6). For example, ACMA
noted that ‘‘. . . unlike the PSM
standard where the responsibility for
the analysis is properly placed on the
employer operating the covered process,
OSHA’s proposal would shift that
obligation upstream to each of the
multiple chemical manufacturers or
importers who supplied a reactant in
the downstream chemical reaction’’
(Document ID 0318, p. 9). The Vinyl
Institute noted that ‘‘[a] broad expansion
of the scope of the hazard classification
of the upstream supplier to reflect the
hazards of downstream chemical
reactions and the products of those
reactions (including ‘‘foreseeable
emergencies’’) would be inappropriate.
It would shift the responsibility from
where it belongs (on the downstream
manufacturer) to an upstream supplier
who generally has not specified the
chemicals to be used in the downstream
reaction, has not designed the process
chemistry, has not designed the process
equipment in which the reaction occurs,
has no control over the operation of the
process and has no idea what other
chemicals in the facility might be
involved in what might be a foreseeable
emergency from the perspective of the
downstream manufacturer-employer’’
(Document ID 0369, p. 5). NACD stated
that determining downstream hazards is
outside the scope of responsibilities for
a distributor or producer under the
standard and that it is downstream
employers who, under the HCS, bear the
responsibility to conduct hazard
assessments that apply to their own
workplaces. NACD also commented that
any chemical that can be mixed with a
wide range of other chemicals could
have an exponentially long and
unknown list of hazards that ‘‘result
from a chemical reaction’’ and that such
hazards cannot reasonably be
documented by an upstream user
(Document ID 0465, p. 4). The Council
of Chemical Association Executives
(CCAE) provided similar comments
(Document ID 0469, p. 2). Dow stated
that the concept of classifying reaction
products is overly broad and expands
OSHA’s existing requirement for
manufacturers to assess chemical
hazards of the product as manufactured
and shipped (Document ID 0359, p. 2).
OSHA disagrees that the proposed
new language in paragraph (d)(1) shifts
any burden from the downstream user
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
to the manufacturer. First, as explained
above, the revisions to paragraph (d)(1)
clarify the existing requirements for
hazard classification and do not create
new requirements. Regardless, the
intent of the new language is not to
require manufacturers, distributors, or
importers to predict how downstream
employees will be exposed to a
chemical or to anticipate every
conceivable way the chemical could be
used, but rather to classify the chemical
for hazards that arise through known or
reasonably anticipated uses, thereby
providing downstream users with
sufficient information to perform a
hazard assessment specific to their own
workplace and how employees use the
chemical there. As described above,
OSHA has revised the language in this
final rule to better reflect this intent.
OSHA agrees that downstream users
still must assess whether the specific
processes they use will cause hazards in
the workplace and is only adding this
language to clarify that if the upstream
manufacturer, distributor, or importer is
aware of hazardous chemical reactions
with the known or reasonably
anticipated uses of its product it must
include hazard classifications for those
hazards.
IV. Arguments That the Proposed
Change to (d)(1) Would Be Infeasible or
Overly Burdensome to Manufacturers as
It Would Require Knowledge of All the
Downstream Uses To Classify Correctly
Many comments indicated that it
would be infeasible or extremely
burdensome for manufacturers,
distributers, and importers of chemicals
to learn all downstream uses of products
and correctly classify them accordingly
(Document ID 0291, pp. 5–6; 0303, p. 2;
0314, p. 10; 0315, p. 3; 0316, pp. 3–4;
0317, pp. 2–3; 0318, pp. 4–5; 0319, pp.
1–2; 0323, p. 3; 0324, p. 2; 0327, p. 7;
0347, Att. 1, pp. 2–4; 0468, pp. 1, 3;
0348, p. 2; 0356, pp. 7–9; 0357, pp. 1–
3; 0359, p. 2; 0363, pp. 3–4; 0366, p. 3;
0367, p. 4; 0329, p. 2; 0369, p. 6). For
example, Worksafe stated that ‘‘[b]oth
‘normal conditions of use’ and
‘foreseeable emergencies’ are largely
unknowable by producers’’ (Document
ID 0354, p. 4). HCPA also stated that it
is not practical to list every potential
hazard of the cleaning product which
could interact with any number of
unknown soils when used by
downstream consumers (Document ID
0327, pp. 7–8; 0424, Tr. 15–17).
NAIMA asserted that under the
proposed new language, the upstream
chemical manufacturer or supplier
would be responsible for performing a
chemical process hazard analysis and
hazard classification for each
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44281
downstream chemical reaction and the
reaction products of that downstream
chemical reaction conducted by a
downstream customer or manufacturer.
NAIMA stated that downstream
reactions typically involve at least two
chemicals, and often mixtures, that
would require multiple manufacturers’
suppliers to provide redundant and
overlapping chemical process hazard
analysis and hazard classification to all
of these downstream manufacturers.
They also noted this same requirement
would also apply upstream to the
suppliers’ suppliers, and ‘‘the real world
problem with such astounding
overreach is it is unlikely that any
manufacturers will take the risk of such
a convoluted and impossible
evaluation’’ (Document ID 0338, p. 10).
Dow also stated that proposed
changes implied that the manufacturer
and SDS preparer are responsible for
knowing all foreseeable downstream
uses of the substance, including
chemical reactions and resulting
chemicals generated, that could occur in
the downstream supply chain with that
substance. Dow suggested that to require
this level of knowledge would present a
significant compliance challenge for
chemical manufacturers because
manufacturers cannot reasonably know
all possible resulting chemical reactions
and uses by downstream users and the
hazards they may create. Dow further
explained that the hazards created by
manufacturing and the resulting
chemical reactions are the responsibility
of the manufacturer performing that
manufacturing, as they are the experts
in the product and the chemistry they
are performing (Document ID 0359, pp.
1–2).
NACD commented that its members
do business in different markets, which
makes it difficult for them to ascertain
every type of downstream use that could
be considered normal conditions of use.
NACD stated that it is impractical for a
manufacturer or distributor to know all
possible uses, hazards, or potential
reactions associated with downstream
customers, and manufacturers should be
only responsible for communicating the
hazards present in the form of the
chemical as sold (Document ID 0329, p.
8; 0423, Tr. 128–130; 0465, p. 4).
Innovative Chemical Technologies
(ICT) stated that a chemical producer
cannot adequately guess all possibilities
and then analyze those scenarios for
hazards to include on the SDS because
a reaction results in one or more new
chemical substances, which may be
more or less hazardous than the
reactants. ICT expressed concern that
compliance with the proposed revision
would require chemical producers to
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44282
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
essentially do a portion of a process
hazard analysis (PHA) for reaction
products, focused on customer sites that
it does not own or control (Document ID
0324, p. 2). ACMA and PLASTICS
submitted similar comments (Document
ID 0314, Att. 1, p. 12; 0318, p. 8). OSHA
notes that ACMA also asserted in their
comment that the proposed language in
paragraph (d)(1) is economically
infeasible but did not provide financial
data to corroborate the assertion. As
explained in Section VI.G., Economic
Feasibility and Impacts, OSHA has
determined based on the record
evidence that the requirements of this
final rule are economically feasible.
After reviewing the concerns
expressed in the numerous comment
submissions on this provision, OSHA
concludes that the agency’s intention
was not clear as written and was
therefore misinterpreted. OSHA did not
intend for an upstream supplier or
manufacturer to identify every
conceivable use or process in which a
downstream user might apply the
chemical and to classify these potential
hazards of chemicals downstream.
OSHA’s intent was to ensure
classification only for those downstream
uses where the manufacturer knows or
could reasonably anticipate how the
chemical will be used and where that
use creates a hazard that needs to be
communicated in the workplace. The
record demonstrates that manufacturers
have basic information on how their
chemicals will be used by downstream
users and markets to those uses. For
instance, many chemical manufacturers
have product stewardship programs to
address these very issues (Document ID
0443, p.1; 0330, p.1). However, the
agency is also aware that product
research and new uses will continue to
be developed and that some chemicals
have so many uses it would be difficult
to anticipate them all. Therefore, the
agency finds it would be unreasonable
to expect manufacturers to predict and
account for every possible use
downstream. For example chemicals,
such as toluene, that are often used as
starting materials for manufacturing
other chemicals, would likely have too
many possible uses for the upstream
chemical manufacturer to know or
reasonably anticipate the ways that it
could be combined with other
chemicals. OSHA would not expect
manufacturers of toluene, for instance,
to classify hazards of the products that
use toluene as a starting material in the
manufacture of a downstream user’s
products. However, manufacturers of
toluene would still need to ensure that
the SDS had the appropriate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
information in Section 10 on stability
and reactivity that would help those
downstream manufacturers consider the
risks of their specific processes.
Therefore, as explained above, OSHA
has modified the language to better
reflect the agency’s intent that hazard
classification should encompass hazards
present during downstream uses or
applications that are known or
reasonably anticipated by the
manufacturer, importer, or distributor,
such as the intended use for which the
substance is manufactured.
Moreover, OSHA received comments
describing situations where not only
would it be feasible for manufacturers to
include hazard information regarding
known or reasonably anticipated uses or
applications, it would also greatly
improve worker safety. Cal/OSHA
provided several examples of uses of
materials that manufacturers should
have been aware of but did not include
on the SDS (Document ID 0322, pp. 13–
14; 0375, pp. 13–14). One such use was
an aerosol degreaser used in automotive
repair facilities that was linked to cases
of neuropathy in automotive repair
technicians. Cal/OSHA stated that it
was standard practice in the industry for
the technicians who were assigned the
dirtiest jobs in an automotive repair
facility to use between six and 10 cans
of degreasing solvent products in just
one day (Document ID 0322, pp. 13–14;
0375, pp. 13–14). The agency finds that
this example shows the utility of the
new language in paragraph (d)(1)
because not only does it illustrate the
intrinsic hazard presented by the
product, but demonstrates that this type
of use would be ‘‘reasonably
anticipated’’ to a manufacturer familiar
with the automotive repair industry,
given Cal/OSHA’s findings that this was
a pervasive practice in that industry.
Cal/OSHA also provided an example
of workers in hair salons being exposed
to excessive amounts of formaldehyde
formed as a reaction product to hair
straightening products used in the
salons (Document ID 0451, Att. 1, pp. 3–
4). Cal/OSHA had submitted this as an
example of their concerns that the
proposed language ‘‘normal conditions
of use’’ would ‘‘open the door for
producers—without sufficient
downstream information—to not
disclose a chemical based on the
assumption that under ‘normal
conditions of use,’ no health-hazardous
exposures would occur,’’ concerns
which Worksafe echoed in their
comments (Document ID 0451, p. 2;
0354, p. 1). However, OSHA finds just
the opposite, particularly with respect
to the revised language that the agency
is adopting in this final rule. Since the
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
conditions described by Cal/OSHA are
apparently commonplace in the salon
industry, the formaldehyde hazard
would result from a ‘‘known or
reasonably anticipated use’’ for a
manufacturer or distributor familiar
with that industry and would therefore
be encompassed by paragraph (d)(1).
OSHA believes that clarifying hazard
classification requirements under
paragraph (d)(1) will ensure that
manufacturers, distributors, and
employers understand how to meet their
obligation to disclose this information to
workers and that workers will be better
protected.
Additionally, OSHA received
examples of product stewardship
programs and SDSs that demonstrate
companies are aware of and able to
determine the uses of their products,
which further underscores the
feasibility and utility of requiring them
to identify known or reasonably
anticipated uses. NIOSH also indicated
that both individual manufacturers and
coalitions have product stewardship
programs, which allow sharing of
information related to product uses, and
cited ACC’s ‘‘Responsible Care’’
program as an example. NIOSH
described these programs as a ‘‘great
tool’’ for hazard communication
(Document ID 0423, Tr. 39; 0456, Att. 2,
p. 2). ACC, in its post hearing
comments, also discussed at length the
various ways that some of their
members engaged with downstream
users to ensure safety information was
thoroughly provided, including on-site
training, customer notification letters,
surveys and questionnaires, and
indicating additional information on the
SDS regarding typical reactions
(Document ID 0468, p. 5). NABTU also
provided examples of SDSs and product
stewardship programs that account for
downstream uses of chemicals
(Document ID 0450, Att. 7).
In conclusion, OSHA agrees with
commenters that it would not be
possible for every manufacturer,
importer, and distributor to be aware of
every single use or application of its
products, and the agency is not
requiring these entities to do the kind of
intensive investigations that many of the
commenters described as infeasible.
Additionally, regulated parties will not
immediately be aware of all uses when
new products are developed or when
there are trade secret issues with
downstream users. Similarly, OSHA
would not expect a manufacturer to
know every use of feedstocks (raw
materials used to make other chemical
products), starting materials or
commodity chemicals, solvents,
reactants, or chemical intermediates
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
where there could be thousands of uses
or the substances are used in
downstream manufacturing to produce
new chemical products. However, the
agency concludes that manufacturers
must make a good faith effort to provide
downstream users with sufficient
information about hazards associated
with known or reasonably anticipated
uses of the chemical in question. As
discussed above, OSHA is finalizing
language to make this clear, and to tie
the classification obligation to either the
manufacturer, importer, or distributor’s
own knowledge or facts that the
manufacturer or importer can
reasonably be expected to know.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
V. Arguments That It Would Be
Impossible To Correctly Classify Uses
Due to Downstream Manufacturers’
Trade Secret/CBI Issues
Several commenters suggested that
full classification might not be possible
in situations where downstream users
may not share usage information due to
confidential business information (CBI)
or trade secret concerns (see, e.g.,
Document ID 0291, pp. 5–6; 0324, p. 2;
0326, p. 4; 0337, pp. 2–3; 0348, p. 4;
0363, p. 4; 0367, p. 4; 0369, p. 5; 0347,
p. 2; 0468, p. 3). OSHA would not
consider a manufacturer or supplier to
know or be able to reasonably anticipate
a downstream use if the downstream
user uses the chemical in a proprietary
process, producing derivatives that are
trade secrets. Therefore, this situation
would not trigger the classification
requirements under paragraph (d)(1).
VI. Arguments That This Would Lead to
Duplicative Classification
ICBA and others expressed concern
about how OSHA’s proposed new
language in paragraph (d)(1) would
apply to chemicals like carbon black,
which are typically sold in bulk
quantities for use in a multitude of
different downstream products. ICBA
noted that because those downstream
products also contain various other
substances, all of the upstream
manufacturers of the ingredient
substances would have to
‘‘independently and duplicatively
classify[ ] downstream products,’’ which
would be inefficient and could lead to
‘‘divergent hazard classifications of the
same product’’ (Document ID 0291, p. 6;
0318, p. 2–9; 0348, pp. 1–4; 0461, pp.
1–2). ICBA stated that ‘‘the downstream
user is in the best position to classify its
own product.’’ Similarly, NAIMA stated
that ‘‘It is unclear how manufacturersuppliers and manufacturer-users would
resolve a situation in which multiple
suppliers of reactants used in a
particular downstream chemical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
reaction are required to perform a
hazard classification for that reaction
and reach different conclusions, which
seems likely for any chemical with
broad uses’’ (Document ID 0338, p. 3).
OSHA agrees that manufacturers of
chemicals are responsible for the
classification of their own chemical
products. As discussed above, OSHA’s
intent in adding clarifying language to
paragraph (d)(1) was not to require
upstream manufacturers to engage in
hazard analyses with respect to
products created downstream, but rather
to ensure that upstream manufacturers
provide sufficient hazard information
about their own products so that
downstream users have the information
they need to conduct their own hazard
analyses and/or take other appropriate
action. This will not result in
duplicative or divergent classification
because the manufacturers, importers,
and distributors will not be required to
do hazard classification unless they
know or could reasonably anticipate the
uses with sufficient information to
classify the hazard. ICBA and NAIMA’s
concerns about duplicative
classification rest on the assumption
that the responsible party will be
required to learn the processes of every
downstream user and perform hazard
classification for each process, but as
OSHA has clarified above, that is not
the case. Additionally, this change
would not decrease the quality of
information provided to workers. On the
contrary, as indicated in the 1983 HCS,
when manufacturers provide thorough
hazard information, applicable to a full
range of reasonably foreseeable uses,
downstream manufacturers and
employers will have the information
necessary to make informed choices for
control measures without limiting the
downstream manufacturer from
providing additional information as
warranted (48 FR 53307).
VII. Arguments That the Information Is
Already Covered Under Other Specific
Sections of the SDS
The clarifying changes OSHA is
making to paragraph (d)(1) also clarify
the requirements of Section 2 of the SDS
because that section requires the
presentation of hazard information for
chemicals. Accordingly, several
commenters provided comments
relevant to paragraph (d)(1) as it relates
to the SDS. Several stakeholders
commented that the information OSHA
proposed to clarify is required in section
2 of the SDS is already covered in other
sections of the SDS (Document ID 0303,
p. 2; 0347, p. 2; 0468, Att. 2, p. 12; 0361,
p. 1; 0329, pp. 7–8; 0356, p. 6; 0467, p.
4). Tom Murphy commented that there
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44283
are limits to the concept of
‘‘foreseeable’’ in the context of an
emergency and that the information is
better covered under paragraph (h)
Employee information and training and
placed under section 10(c) of the SDS
(Document ID 0277, p. 3). The American
Welding Society (AWS) commented that
‘‘current requirements are adequate to
ensure that manufacturers continue to
warn about the general nature of the
anticipated physical and health hazards
arising out of product use, as
appropriate, in Sections 2, 8, 10 and 11
of the product Safety Data Sheet’’
(Document ID 0303, p. 2), while ACC
commented that ‘‘the requirement is
unnecessary as these hazards are
already identified in sections 5, 9, and
10 of the SDS. Anything beyond that is
unrealistic and entirely speculative’’
(Document ID 0467, Att. 2, p. 14). ILMA
commented that this information should
be in section 11 and section 15
(Document ID 0356, p. 6). The ArcherDaniels-Midland Company (ADM) and
PLASTICS stated that this information
should be in other sections without
further explanation (Document ID 0361,
p. 1; 0467, p. 11).
As OSHA discussed in the 2012
update to the HCS, the standardization
of the SDS format improves the
effectiveness of the SDS by providing a
format that makes it easier for users to
find information (77 FR 17596).
Additionally, the information
commonly wanted and used by
employees, and of the greatest interest
for emergency responders is presented
early in the SDS while more complex or
technical information is presented later
(58 FR 17596). While it is true that
similar, but not identical, information
may be contained in multiple sections
of the SDS and used for different
purposes and potentially by different
readers of the SDS, the changes to
paragraph (d)(1) specifically require
Section 2 to contain information on
hazards resulting from a change in the
chemical’s physical form and from
chemical reaction products when they
are known or can be reasonably
anticipated. Although there does exist
some overlap between Section 2 and
Section 10, Section 2 provides workers
with necessary, easily understandable
health and safety information, whereas
Section 10 provides health and safety
professionals information on when and
how to design safety systems to protect
workers. Similarly, Section 5 of the SDS
provides information on fire-fighting
measures which are specific to types of
hazards related to fire; Section 8
provides information on exposure
controls and personal protection but
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44284
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
does not indicate the actual hazards
associated with the chemicals; Section
11 provides information on stability and
reactivity of a chemical which is used
primarily by medical professionals,
occupational health and safety
professionals, and toxicologists
(Document ID 0060, p. 394); and Section
15, which is a non-mandatory section,
permits additional information on
regulatory requirements. Therefore,
Section 2 is the appropriate location for
information about actual hazards and
the specific hazard classifications that
workers can easily access. For more
detailed discussion on the various
sections of the SDS, please see the
Summary and Explanation for
Appendix D.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
VIII. Arguments That the Proposed
Paragraph (d)(1) Does Not Align With
the GHS or International Trading
Partners
Several stakeholders commented that
the language proposed in the NPRM
does not align with international trading
partners, or the GHS (Document ID
0314, pp. 12–13; 0326, p. 3; 0338, p. 2;
0348, p. 3; 0362, p. 1; 0369, pp. 5–7;
0366, p. 1; 0347, pp. 4–5; 0468, Att. 2,
p. 12). AWS stated that the GHS uses
the term ‘‘hazard classification’’ to
indicate only intrinsic properties of
substances (or mixtures). AWS said
these hazardous properties are based on
the hazards exhibited in the form
substances (or mixtures) are purchased,
shipped, and received in commerce, not
from subsequent use in the workplace.
AWS urged OSHA to ‘‘not deviate from
the principles of classification based
upon intrinsic hazards and be consistent
with the reasoned approach taken by the
authors of the GHS’’ (Document ID
0303, p. 2). Hach made the same point
(Document ID 0323, pp. 4–5). Similarly,
NACD commented that since the
proposed requirements in the SDS are
not included in the GHS, the proposal
would make OSHA’s requirements more
divergent from the global system rather
than aligning with it (Document 0465, p.
5). ACC stated that ‘‘the requirement is
not part of the GHS, so rather than
facilitating alignment, the change would
have the opposite effect of making the
U.S. rules even more divergent from the
global system’’ (Document ID 0468, Att.
2, p. 12). The Vinyl Institute commented
that the language proposed in the 2021
NPRM was in contrast to language in the
EU CLP citing Article 5: ‘‘The
information shall relate to the forms or
physical states in which the substance
is placed on the market and in which it
can reasonably be expected to be used’’
(Document ID 0369, pp. 6–7).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Contrary to commenters’ arguments,
the GHS does not specify that it only
applies to chemicals in their shipped
form or in commerce; it states that it
applies to all hazardous chemicals
across stages in their life cycles
(Document ID 0060, p. 5). As explained
above, OSHA believes commenters have
conflated the idea of intrinsic or
inherent hazards with hazards of a
chemical as shipped. Additionally,
OSHA opined on the development and
implementation of the GHS in the 2012
rulemaking to update the HCS. As
discussed there, in developing the GHS,
it was recognized that countries’
regulatory authorities would need to
have the discretion to address national
circumstances in ways that are suited to
the regulatory perspective of the
country. Thus, authorities such as
OSHA are free to make determinations
about scope and application issues
while still being harmonized with the
primary provisions of the GHS (58 FR
17695). Therefore, OSHA disagrees with
the commenters’ premise that any
difference between the HCS and the
GHS means that OSHA is improperly
deviating from the GHS or from its
trading partners.
In any event, OSHA interprets the EU
CLP differently than the Vinyl Institute
and finds the changes to paragraph
(d)(1) actually align with similar
provisions in other jurisdictions since
the CLP guidance quoted by the Vinyl
Institute explicitly requires
consideration of ‘‘reasonably expected
use’’ during the classification process
(Document ID 0256, p. 55).
Additionally, since a number of other
countries separately regulate hazards of
chemicals as shipped and chemicals in
the workplace, OSHA is improving
alignment of labels with other countries
that may only regulate hazards of
chemicals as shipped by clearly stating
that hazards related to downstream use
only need to be on the SDS. Therefore,
the agency believes that the inclusion of
this language actually strengthens
trading relations because it better aligns
the HCS with international
jurisdictional requirements for labeling
and workplace hazard communication.
IX. Arguments That Proposed Paragraph
(d)(1) Will Result in Expansion of Tort
Liability for Manufacturers
Several commenters stated that the
proposed changes to paragraph (d)
would expand tort liability for
manufacturers (Document ID 0314, p.
12; 0326, p. 4; 0366, p. 3; 0369, p. 4).
Hach commented that ‘‘expanded legal
obligation to perform hazard
classifications at the downstream levels
creates more opportunities for
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
inadequate hazard communication,’’
which could cause plaintiffs’ attorneys
to pursue claims against upstream
manufacturers (Document ID 0323, p. 5).
NACD and CCAE stated that because of
liability concerns with attempting to
determine all downstream uses and
chemical reactivity hazards, the
proposed change will result in several
pages of ‘‘legalese’’ to indemnify the
entity on the SDS, which will not
enhance worker safety. Consequently,
they stated, manufacturers and
distributors should be responsible for
communicating the hazards of the
material in the form sold only
(Document ID 0329, p. 8; 0423, Tr. 128–
130; 0465, pp. 4–5; 0469, p. 3).
However, no commenter provided
specific examples of case law or other
evidence to support their contentions
that the proposed language to update
paragraph (d) would result in an
expansion of tort liability. Moreover, the
OSH Act expressly provides that
nothing in the statute shall supersede,
or in any manner affect, workers’
compensation laws or other common
law or statutory rights, duties, or
liabilities related to employment-related
injuries, illnesses, or fatalities (29 U.S.C.
653(b)(4)). Therefore, OSHA finds no
merit to arguments that adoption of the
proposed changes to paragraph (d)
would expand tort liability.
X. Arguments That the Proposed
Paragraph (d)(1) Will Result in Software
Issues
Both ACC and NACD commented that
computer systems used by most larger
companies to generate SDSs are
automated using existing formulations
based on current rules and companies
would incur a significant burden to
update the systems (Document ID 0347,
Att. 1, p. 8; 0329, p. 5). NACD reasoned
that, because many chemical
manufacturers and distributors rely on
the services of outside software
companies to prepare SDSs, adopting
the proposed changes in the SDS would
create complications for manufacturers
and distributors. NACD indicated that
this change would require product-byproduct evaluation of hazards, ‘‘which
is contrary to the basic principles of the
GHS’’ and which would cause problems
because much of the software used by
manufacturers relies on GHS
classifications and data from the EU
(Document ID 0465, p. 5).
OSHA is not convinced that the
changes to paragraph (d)(1) will lead to
significant burdens for industry. First,
as to NACD’s assertion that there are no
data sources for downstream reactions,
SDS preparers can use the same sources
as they do for classification of other
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
chemicals as well as information from
the manufacturer. Additionally, if it
were true that software companies could
not respond to updates to the GHS and
changes in classification procedures,
then neither OSHA nor other countries
would ever be able to make regulatory
changes to maintain alignment with the
GHS (see Section VI., Final Economic
Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis). In fact, NACD did not
contend that there are technological
barriers to creating compliant software,
only that existing software is not
currently configured to meet these
requirements. Finally, because the new
language simply clarifies that classifiers
must include hazards associated with
known or reasonably anticipated uses,
these hazards are most likely already
classified elsewhere, such as the
example discussed above where
formaldehyde was generated as a byproduct during use of hair straightening
products (Document ID 0451, pp. 2–8).
Accordingly, OSHA finds that softwarerelated concerns do not pose an obstacle
to adopting the new language in
paragraph (d)(1).
XI. Arguments That the Inclusion of the
Proposed Language Could Be
Misinterpreted as Including ‘‘Articles’’
Some commenters believed that
inclusion of the originally proposed
language, ‘‘normal conditions of use’’
and/or ‘‘foreseeable emergencies,’’ could
be misinterpreted as including
‘‘articles,’’ which are generally
exempted from the HCS (Document ID
0339, p. 2; 0332, pp. 1–2, 4; 0358, p. 2;
0369, pp. 3–4). The Portable
Rechargeable Battery Association
(PRBA) suggested that the proposed
language demonstrated ‘‘OSHA’s
intention to expand the purview of the
HCS to include certain products that
have previously been exempted as
articles’’ (Document ID 0332, p. 4). The
Vinyl Institute commented that ‘‘it
would be inappropriate to consider
changes in physical form through
destruction or recycling to be a normal
condition of use that would change the
classification of a product as an article.
Under such an unprecedented
approach, OSHA would disqualify
almost every current article from
continuing to be treated as an article’’
(Document ID 0369, pp. 3–4). The Vinyl
Institute indicated this concern was
prompted by OSHA’s classification
requirement with respect to downstream
changes in physical form under normal
conditions of use such as: ‘‘(a)
Reduction in particle size from
combustible solids to combustible dust,
(b) Reduction in particle size from nonrespirable to respirable, (c) solid
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
substances becoming corrosive or
irritant when moistened or in contact
with moist skin or mucous membranes’’
(Document ID 0369, pp. 3–4). Similarly,
AF&PA and AWC’s joint comment
stated that destruction and demolition
of wood products could be considered
‘‘normal conditions of use’’ (Document
ID 0287, pp. 5–6).
OSHA did not and does not intend
the change in paragraph (d)(1) to affect
the definition of ‘‘article’’ or change the
exemption status of any product. The
HCS defines ‘‘article’’ as ‘‘a
manufactured item . . . which is
formed to a specific shape or design
during manufacture . . . which under
normal conditions of use does not
release more than very small quantities
. . . of a hazardous chemical . . . and
does not pose a physical hazard or
health risk to employees’’ (29 CFR
1910.1200(c)). Nothing in paragraph
(d)(1) affects this definition. Moreover,
to the extent the commenters were
concerned about the originally proposed
language ‘‘normal conditions of use and
foreseeable emergencies,’’ that language,
as explained above, has been revised
and does not appear in the final rule.
XII. Arguments That Proposed
Paragraph (d)(1) Will Result in OverWarning or Warning Fatigue for
Downstream Chemical Users
Several commenters suggested that
the proposed changes in paragraph
(d)(1) would lead to confusion and
complexity of the SDS that could lead
to ‘‘over-warning’’ or ‘‘warning fatigue’’
as workers could be receiving multiple
warnings on the same chemical, or
irrelevant hazard information
potentially turning the SDS into a
‘‘novel.’’ They argued this could lead to
workers being overloaded or
overwhelmed with hazard information
that may be too confusing to discern the
real hazards they would be potentially
exposed to (Document ID 0314, p. 10;
0318, p. 6; 0319, p. 2; 0337, p. 2; 0343,
pp. 2–3; 0356, p. 8; 0369, p. 6; 0468, Att.
2, p. 12; 0348, p. 4; 0444, p. 3; 0361, p.
1; 0362, p. 7; 0329, p. 8). Many of these
comments are related to chemicals that
are produced in bulk quantities and
intended to be ingredients in various
downstream chemical products. For
example, NACD indicated that ‘‘[a]ny
chemical that can be mixed with a wide
range of other chemicals could have an
exponentially long and unknown list of
hazards that ‘result from a chemical
reaction’ ’’ (Document ID 0329, p. 8).
OSHA disagrees that the changes to
paragraph (d)(1) create any problem
with warning fatigue. First, as explained
above, manufacturers need not classify
hazards for every conceivable future
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44285
use, just those that are known or
reasonably anticipated. Second, the SDS
and the product label serve two
different purposes. As provided for in
paragraph (f)(1) of this final rule,
hazards associated with known or
reasonably anticipated uses do not need
to be included on a product’s label.
Such hazards must be included in
Section 2 of the SDS, but this is
appropriate because the SDS is meant to
have more comprehensive information
available to workers who need or desire
more details about the product. OSHA
is not dictating how this information is
presented in Section 2 of the SDS. SDS
preparers have discretion to present the
information in an organized fashion to
prevent confusion for the downstream
user.
XIII. Additional Comments
OSHA received additional comments
that did not fit neatly within any of the
above categories. ACC stated its belief
‘‘that OSHA has conflated two separate
obligations under the Hazard
Communication Standard—the scope of
the HCS with respect to an employer’s
workplace, and the scope of the hazard
classification (known as the ‘hazard
determination’ prior to HCS 2012’’
(Document ID 0468, p. 2). ILMA and
PLASTICS made similar comments
(Document ID 0314, pp. 2–3; 0356, p. 6).
OSHA believes that these concerns
arose from the agency’s proposed use in
paragraph (d)(1) of the terms ‘‘normal
conditions of use’’ and ‘‘foreseeable
emergency,’’ which both appear in
paragraph (b)(2) of the HCS, which
describes the scope of the entire
standard. Because the use of those terms
in paragraph (d)(1) created significant
misinterpretations, OSHA has changed
the regulatory language for this final
rule, as explained above.
Several commenters also argued that
the examples OSHA provided were
insufficient to support the broad nature
of the proposed language in paragraph
(d)(1) (Document ID 0325, pp. 8–13;
0323, p. 4; 0316, pp. 3–5, 0362, pp. 2–
3). For example, Hach claimed that the
examples OSHA provided were unique
situations and did not warrant the
‘‘proposed over broadening of the
classification scope’’ (Document ID
0323, p. 4).
OSHA disagrees with commenters
who suggest that there is insufficient
evidence presented to support the
requirement. While OSHA provided
several examples in the NPRM, other
commenters, such as Cal/OSHA and
NABTU (as discussed above), have also
provided additional examples of
situations where manufacturers should
have reasonably anticipated
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44286
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
downstream hazards but failed to warn
of these hazards and workers were
harmed.
SAAMI was concerned that the
proposed language in paragraph (d)(1)
would impose additional requirements
on explosives since these types of
materials can be used for demolition or
destruction as a normal condition of use
and that the classification as an
explosive and the resulting hazard
communication is sufficient to alert
users to the potentialities (Document ID
0412, p. 3). OSHA believes that the
classification of explosives already
accounts for many of the hazards that
would be associated with demolition or
destruction because the hazard is still
explosiveness regardless of whether that
risk is in transport or during actual use
of the explosives. However, the HCS
covers all health and physical hazards
and there are some circumstances of
downstream use that need to be
accounted for during the classification
process, such as if the explosive itself
creates a toxic atmosphere when used.
The National Association of Printing
Ink Manufacturers (NAPIM) suggested
that OSHA should define the term
‘‘reaction’’ for paragraph (d)(1) because
some members of the regulated
community may not understand what
OSHA intends it to mean in this context
(Document ID 0317, p. 2). OSHA does
not believe this is necessary. First, the
term ‘‘reaction’’ is used in multiple
ways throughout the HCS depending on
the context of the requirement. For
example, in Appendix A it is used to
describe health effects (e.g., Table A.4.2)
while in Appendix B the term
‘‘chemical reaction’’ is part of the
definition for explosives (see B.1.1.1).
Thus, OSHA believes that providing a
single definition of ‘‘reaction’’ for the
whole standard could create confusion.
OSHA also does not believe the term
‘‘chemical reaction’’ needs a definition
because it is common knowledge for
SDS preparers that ‘‘chemical reaction’’
refers to a change of the chemical
structure versus a mere change in the
physical form of a substance. Several
commenters indicated that the proposed
language would only be reasonable if it
were limited to uses specified or
directed by the upstream supplier and
that OSHA should ensure that
paragraph (d)(1) only applies to a
narrow range of downstream reactions
(see, e.g., Document ID 0316, p. 4; 0362,
p. 3; 0404, p. 3; 0367, p. 5; 0315, p. 3,
0359, p. 1–2). For example, HCPA
agreed that ‘‘the chemical reactions
should be included in the hazard
assessment in cases when multiple
chemicals are sold together with the
intention that they’d be mixed together
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
before use.’’ However, HCPA stated that
the proposed changes in paragraph
(d)(1) constitute agency overreach,
giving the example of concentrated
cleaning products that downstream
customers dilute with water and the
inability of the manufacturer to know
every type of a soil a cleaning product
might be used on (Document ID 0327,
pp. 7–9; 0424, Tr. 15–17). They
recommended that the mixing of two or
more chemicals be considered in
classification only when the label
directs the user to use the chemical in
such a manner and excludes products
where the label directs users to only mix
with water (Document ID 0327, p. 7).
Similarly, Dow suggested that the
proposed paragraph be revised to state
that the manufacturer need only provide
product chemical reaction hazard
assessment based on its intent and the
knowledge of a chemical reaction that
will occur during the downstream use of
its product as manufactured and sold
(Document ID 0359, pp. 1–2).
OSHA disagrees with these comments
for several reasons. First, OSHA would
not expect any additional hazard
classifications simply for diluting a
more concentrated chemical with water
because, as HCPA noted, such an action
would only reduce the chemical’s
hazards, not increase them. Second,
under the finalized language in
paragraph (d)(1), manufacturers of
cleaning products need only classify
hazards associated with known or
reasonably anticipated uses of the
products, not every potential type of soil
that a downstream customer might
clean. OSHA believes that ‘‘known and
reasonably anticipated uses’’, rather
than only uses that are explicitly
directed by the product’s label, is the
appropriate requirement to provide
sufficient information to downstream
employers and workers.
Two commenters suggested that
OSHA should rescind the proposed text
and address unique situations of hazard
identification and downstream uses
affecting the scope of HCS in a letter of
interpretation rather than updating the
standard (Document ID 0323, p. 5; 0368,
p. 3). OSHA disagrees. The regulatory
text is the first and primary place the
regulated community turns to
understand its obligations under the
HCS. The agency is exercising its
statutory authority to promulgate and
revise safety and health standards
through notice-and-comment
rulemaking. OSHA has provided an
opportunity for stakeholders to
comment on the proposed regulatory
text changes, reviewed and considered
all of the comments, and made changes
to the regulatory text, where
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
appropriate, based on the record as
whole. By making this change in the
regulatory text, OSHA intends to ensure
all regulated parties are aware of this
requirement and alleviate confusion on
this point. Addressing this issue in
letters of interpretation would not
achieve the full extent of that goal.
XIV. Suggested Edits/Proposed New
Language
OSHA also received several
recommendations for changing the
proposed text for paragraph (d)(1), in
addition to those discussed above.
PLASTICS and Vinyl Institute
recommended that OSHA state detailed
and narrow conditions under which
classification of downstream reactions
would be required. Their
recommendations for such conditions
included where the manufacturer
specifies the uses, provides all of the
chemicals, and specifies the complete
process and process conditions.
Additionally, they recommended
adding that the classification is only
contingent on the downstream users
following the specified processes
(Document ID 0314, pp. 14–15; 0369,
pp. 7–8). A joint comment from RISE
and CropLife also provided
recommendations for new text that
would limit the classification
requirement to only ‘‘approved’’ uses
(Document ID 0343, p. 3). RISE and
CropLife explained that their proposed
revision ‘‘narrows the scope of the
hazard classification and provides
clarity so the provision can be more
readily implemented without over
classification of the chemical hazards’’
(Document ID 0343, p. 3).
ACC submitted proposed new text for
paragraph (d)(1): ‘‘In the case of a
hazardous product for which
instructions for use, provided at the
time of the sale or importation, require
its combination with one or more
products, mixtures, materials or
substances resulting in the creation of
one or more new materials or substances
that present one or more new or more
severe hazards not already identified on
the safety data sheet of the hazardous
product, the safety data sheet must also
provide the following information
elements, in respect of each new
material or substance and clearly
indicate that they pertain to that new
material or substance: (a) the nature of
the new or more severe hazard; and (b)
the content of the applicable specific
information elements set out in
Appendix D to § 1910.1200—SAFETY
DATA SHEETS (Sections 4–11)’’
(Document ID 0347, Att. 1, p. 8). ACC
stated that while their preference was
for OSHA to remove the proposed
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
language entirely, if the agency was
unwilling to remove the language, then
OSHA should consider utilizing their
draft text as it was modeled after a
similar Canadian provision (Document
ID 0347, Att. 1, p. 9).
OSHA appreciates these stakeholders
providing thoughtful proposals for new
language, but the agency finds that the
suggested changes do not represent the
original intent which OSHA’s proposal
sought to clarify. The commenters’
suggested changes would narrow the
current obligations of the HCS (thereby
reducing protections for workers) and,
in some cases, would introduce new
ambiguity. PLASTICS’ and Vinyl
Institute’s suggested edits, while
appearing to give clarity to what they
perceived OSHA’s intent to be, contain
qualifications that would actually
narrow the scope of the HCS and the
classification requirements. Similarly,
in the language suggested by RISE and
CropLife, requiring classification only
for uses specified on the label would not
only narrow the scope of the HCS but
might incentivize manufacturers to
minimize the information provided to
downstream users to limit the need for
classification. OSHA also does not
believe that ACC’s language is less
ambiguous. It would require the
manufacturer to decide if or when a
hazard is more severe than a hazard
already identified or whether it is
identified on the SDS. This also defeats
the purpose of having the hazards in
one section upfront on the SDS to
ensure that the workers are aware of all
of the potential hazards without having
to read the entire SDS. Accordingly,
OSHA declines to adopt the suggestions.
XV. Out of Scope Comments
OSHA received two comments on
paragraph (d) that are out of scope for
this rulemaking. First, Cal/HESIS
recommended that OSHA add a new
paragraph (d)(4) which would provide a
source for authoritative lists for
chemical classifications (Document ID
0313, p. 4). This comment is out of
scope for this rulemaking, as OSHA did
not propose a change related to this
issue. In addition, OSHA notes that this
is already addressed in the nonmandatory Appendix F of the HCS.
Second, Cal/OSHA, Worksafe, and the
National Council for Occupational
Safety and Health (National COSH)
commented that OSHA should include
in paragraph (d)(2) the ‘‘single study
rule’’ (Document ID 0322, p. 2; 0354, p.
1; 0407, p. 12). This comment, too, is
out of scope because OSHA did not
propose a change related to this issue.
OSHA notes that the extent of its
incorporation of the single positive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
study is explained in the preamble to
the 2012 HCS (77 FR 17708) and is
discussed further in the Summary and
Explanation for Appendix A.0.3.5 of
this final rule.
To summarize, for the reasons
discussed above, OSHA is finalizing
different language than what was
proposed in the NPRM to better clarify
the extent of the obligations of
manufacturers, importers, and
distributors and to better distinguish the
requirements for hazard classifications
that must appear on the label and those
that appear only in the SDS. OSHA is
not finalizing the proposed phrase
‘‘under normal conditions of use and
foreseeable emergencies,’’ but is adding
language providing that hazard
classification shall include hazards
associated with the chemical’s intrinsic
properties, including ‘‘(i) Ca change in
the chemical’s physical form and; (ii)
chemical reaction products associated
with known or reasonably anticipated
uses or applications.’’ As discussed
above, OSHA believes that stakeholders
should be familiar with the terms
‘‘known’’ and ‘‘reasonably anticipated’’
as OSHA has used these terms in
multiple standards, guidance products,
and LOIs. The agency finds that this
language captures the intent of the
original language from 1983 and the
intent of the proposal while minimizing
ambiguity. Finally, this clarification will
ensure that workers have the
information necessary to protect
themselves from the hazards posed by
chemicals to which they are
occupationally exposed.
(e) Written Hazard Communication
Program
Paragraph (e) of the HCS provides
specific requirements for chemical
manufacturers, importers, distributors,
or employers to develop, implement,
and maintain a written hazard
communication program. Paragraph
(e)(4) requires employers to make their
written hazard communication program
available, upon request, to employees,
their designated representatives, the
Assistant Secretary and the Director of
NIOSH.
The final rule contains one change to
correct a reference in paragraph (e)(4)
that erroneously referred to 29 CFR
1910.20 instead of 29 CFR 1910.1020
when specifying when and how
employers must make the written
hazard communication program
available. OSHA’s Access to Employee
Exposure and Medical Records standard
was originally located at § 1910.20, but
was renumbered to § 1910.1020 in 1996
(61 FR 31429), resulting in the incorrect
reference OSHA is now correcting. In
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44287
the NPRM, OSHA proposed this minor
editorial correction after finding that an
inadvertent misprint occurred in the
print version of the CFR. Specifically, in
the print version of the CFR, paragraph
(e)(4) references § 1910.20 instead of
§ 1910.1020 (OSHA’s Access to
Employee Exposure and Medical
Records standard). OSHA proposed to
fix this error. At the time the NPRM was
published, the error was reflected only
in the print version of the CFR and the
eCFR (www.ecfr.gov) was correct, but at
the time of this final rule, the eCFR is
also incorrect.
No stakeholders objected to the
correction of the reference. However,
OSHA received one comment suggesting
that a different standard should be
referenced to explain when and how
employers must make written hazard
communication programs available. The
U.S. Department of Defense, Force
Safety and Occupational Health (DOD)
asserted that § 1910.1020 ‘‘is not a
relevant reference for the hazard
communication program’’ because it
‘‘likely will not contain specific
employee exposure information’’
(Document ID 0299, p. 2). They
suggested that OSHA cite to
§ 1910.120(l)(1)(i) (the Hazardous Waste
Operations and Emergency Response
(HAZWOPER) standard) instead and
included proposed language to
implement their suggestion. They also
suggested adding a provision stating
that the employer may limit employee
requests for copies of SDSs to chemicals
that the requesting employee was
personally potentially exposed to
(Document ID 0299, p. 2).
OSHA disagrees with DOD’s
suggestion that § 1910.1020 is not
relevant and that § 1910.120 should be
referenced instead. Rather, § 1910.1020
is the appropriate reference here.
Paragraph (e) of the hazard
communication standard has referenced
OSHA’s Access to Employee Exposure
and Medical Records standard since
1983. Section 1910.1020(c)(5) states that
an ‘‘employee exposure record’’ means
a record containing any of several kinds
of information including a safety data
sheet indicating a material may pose a
hazard to human health
(§ 1910.1020(c)(5)(iii)) and a chemical
inventory or any other record that
reveals the identity of a toxic substance
or harmful physical agent and where
and when it is used
(§ 1910.1020(c)(5)(iv)). Paragraph
(e)(1)(i) of the HCS (§ 1910.1200)
requires that the written hazard
communication program contain a list
of the hazardous chemicals known to be
present using a product identifier that is
referenced on the appropriate safety
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44288
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
data sheet. Thus, the information a
written hazard communication program
is required to contain classifies the
program as an employee exposure
record within the meaning of
§ 1910.1020. Section 1910.1020 also
contains specific access requirements,
including the requirement to assure that
employees are provided with records in
a reasonable time, location, and manner
and the requirement that employers
assume the costs of records provision to
employees and their representatives.
Therefore, citing to § 1910.1020 for
requirements pertaining to an
employer’s written hazard
communication program is appropriate
regardless of whether the program
contains any specific employees’
exposure information.
On the other hand, § 1910.120(l)(1),
which addresses the requirements for an
emergency response plan under the
HAZWOPER standard, is intended to
cover only procedures for emergency
response situations, does not reference
exposure information, lacks the detailed
access procedures included in
§ 1910.1020, and is not intended to
cover all workplaces with hazardous
chemicals. As such, it is less relevant to
records access pertaining to routine and
regular employee exposures than
§ 1910.1020.
OSHA also disagrees with DOD’s
suggestion that the agency amend
paragraph (e)(4) to include a statement
that an employer need only provide
copies of a chemical’s SDS to an
employee if the employee was
potentially exposed to that chemical.
This suggestion is beyond the scope of
this rulemaking because OSHA only
proposed a typographical revision to
this section and did not propose any
changes to the substance of paragraph
(e)(4). OSHA notes that the HCS does
not require employers to provide copies
of SDSs to employees, only immediate
access. Where an SDS constitutes an
exposure record under 29 CFR
1910.1020(c)(5), then 1910.1020’s
requirement to allow employee access
(which includes the opportunity to
examine and copy) would apply.
For the reasons discussed above,
OSHA has determined that
§ 1910.1020(e) is appropriate to
reference for access requirements
pertaining to written exposure control
plans under HCS, rather than
§ 1910.120(l)(1). In the final rule, the
agency has corrected the technical error
and retained the reference to
§ 1910.1020.
(f) Labels and Other Forms of Warning
Paragraph (f) of the HCS provides
requirements for labeling. In the NPRM,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
OSHA proposed to modify paragraphs
(f)(1), (f)(5), and (f)(11), and also
proposed a new paragraph (f)(12).
Paragraph (f)(1) of the HCS, Labels on
shipped containers, specifies what
information is required on shipped
containers of hazardous chemicals and
also provides that hazards not otherwise
classified (HNOCs) do not have to be
addressed on these containers. OSHA
proposed to revise paragraph (f)(1) to
provide that, in addition to HNOCs,
hazards resulting from a reaction with
other chemicals under normal
conditions of use do not have to be
addressed on shipped containers. OSHA
believed this information was not
appropriate on containers because it
might confuse users about the
immediate hazards associated with the
chemical in the container. However,
because OSHA believed information on
hazards resulting from a reaction with
other chemicals under normal
conditions of use is important for
downstream users, the agency did not
propose to change the existing
requirements for these hazards to be
indicated on SDSs (under Appendix D)
and addressed in worker training where
applicable (under paragraph (h)). OSHA
also proposed to add the word
‘‘distributor’’ to the third sentence of
paragraph (f)(1) to make it consistent
with the first sentence.
OSHA did not receive comments on
inclusion of ‘‘distributor’’ in this
paragraph, so the agency is finalizing
that addition as proposed. OSHA
received several comments on the
proposal that ‘‘hazards resulting from a
reaction with other chemicals under
normal conditions of use’’ be exempt
from inclusion on shipping labels.
Michele Sullivan agreed with OSHA
that including this information on the
label could be confusing and potentially
misleading, stating that including
downstream hazards on the container
could cause confusion with DOT
requirements (Document ID 0366, p. 3).
However, Cal/OSHA and Worksafe
expressed concern that exempting this
type of information from the label
would withhold important information
on chemical reactivity and hazards from
workers throughout the supply chain
(Document ID 0322, pp. 2–3, 15–16;
0424, Tr. 166–168, 193–195; 0354, p. 5).
Cal/OSHA also took issue with using
the term ‘‘under normal conditions of
use’’ as the trigger for the labeling
exemption, contending that it is
unrealistic to expect chemical producers
to be able to accurately identify such
situations. Cal/OSHA stated that
chemical manufacturers would need to
rely on assumptions about downstream
uses and if a manufacturer relied on
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
incorrect assumptions, this could result
in essential chemical hazard
information being withheld (Document
ID 0322, pp. 13–14).
OSHA disagrees with the assertion
that not requiring this information on
the shipping label would allow
manufacturers to withhold important
hazard information from workers. As
explained in the NPRM, information
about downstream hazards is required
to appear in Section 2 (Hazard(s)
Identification) of the SDS, which must
be readily available to workers using the
product. Additionally, omitting hazard
information created from later chemical
reactions from the label properly places
the label’s emphasis on the hazards
associated with the chemical in the
container, while minimizing the
potential for over-warning, which could
mask the hazards to which workers are
exposed. However, as discussed in the
Summary and Explanation for
paragraph (d), OSHA received many
comments expressing uncertainty about
what the agency meant by the term
‘‘under normal conditions of use.’’
Accordingly, in this final rule, OSHA
has revised paragraph (d)(1) to remove
the ‘‘under normal conditions of use’’
language and replace it with language
that more clearly describes obligations
for classification. Correspondingly, in
paragraph (f)(1), this final rule removes
the reference to ‘‘under normal
conditions of use’’ and replaces it with
a direct reference to paragraph (d)(1)(ii).
As finalized, this change to paragraph
(f)(1) maintains the proposed exemption
but ensures consistency and minimizes
confusion about which hazards are
required on both the label and the SDS
and which hazards are required solely
on the SDS.
Hach commented that OSHA should
update (f)(1)(vi) to be consistent with
the proposed changes in Appendix D to
specify that the address and phone
number of the responsible party should
be the U.S. address and phone number
(Document ID 0323, p. 11). OSHA is
specifying that the address and
telephone number of the chemical
manufacturer, importer, or other
responsible party required in Section 1
of the SDS, Identification, must be
United States domestic, in order to
minimize confusion on this point. As
OSHA discussed in the NPRM, this
change is not a new requirement, but
clarifies the previously existing
requirements of Appendix D, which
requires that the name, address, and
telephone number of the responsible
party, such as the chemical
manufacturer or importer, be listed on
the SDS (86 FR 9722). OSHA explained
in a 2016 LOI that when chemicals are
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
imported into the United States, the
importer (defined by the HCS as being
the first business with employees in the
United States to receive hazardous
chemicals produced in other countries
for distribution in the United States) is
the responsible party for purposes of
compliance with the HCS and is
required to use a U.S. address and U.S.
phone number on the SDS (Document
ID 0090). For the same reasons that
OSHA is making this change in
Appendix D (see the Summary and
Explanation for Appendix D), OSHA
agrees that the change should be made
here as well. Therefore, this final rule
revises (f)(1)(vi) to include ‘‘U.S.’’ before
‘‘address’’ and ‘‘telephone number.’’
OSHA also proposed to add a new
paragraph, (f)(1)(vii), that would
introduce a requirement that the label
include the date a chemical is released
for shipment. The agency proposed this
change in conjunction with changes in
paragraph (f)(11) related to relabeling of
containers that are released for
shipment but have not yet been
shipped. The agency believed that
providing the date a chemical is
released for shipment on the label
would allow manufacturers and
distributors to more easily determine
their obligations under paragraph (f)(11)
when new hazard information becomes
available.
OSHA received numerous comments
on this proposal. NAIMA supported the
inclusion of a date for release for
shipment on the basis that including
such a date aligns with OSHA’s other
proposed changes related to chemicals
that have been released for shipment
(Document ID 0338, p. 7). Tom Murphy
commented that including a date on the
label could benefit workers but
suggested that OSHA change the title
‘‘Release for Shipment’’ to ‘‘Packaged
for Shipment’’ to better reflect the intent
of (f)(1) (Document ID 0277, p. 2). Many
commenters, however, objected to or
had concerns about the requirement of
adding the release for shipment date on
the label. Some raised practical
objections, such as inadequate space on
the label and lack of clarity about what
the proper date would be (Document ID
0361, pp. 1–2; 0362, pp. 3–4). Many
others questioned the need for such a
requirement since manufacturers
already track the date of manufacturing
through various means such as lot
numbers or manufacturing dates
(Document ID 0327, p. 4; 0359, p. 3;
0323, pp. 8–9; 0315, pp. 1–2; 0321, p.
1; 0333, p. 1; 0339, p. 2; 0340, pp. 4–
5; 0348, p. 2; 0349 p. 1; 0423, Tr. 103,
195–196, 210–216; 0424, Tr. 21). For
example, Epson America, Inc. (Epson)
commented that the proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
requirement was ‘‘not necessary and
meaningless’’ and that the proposal did
not make clear which date to use
(Document ID 0288, p. 1). NPGA, Dow,
and Hach also commented that a
required date on the label would add
unnecessary burdens and create
confusion (Document ID 0364, pp. 1–2;
0359, pp. 3–4; 0323, pp. 8–9). IMA–NA
suggested that such a date would not
bear a connection to when the container
was actually ready to ship (Document ID
0363, p. 8). Michele Sullivan
commented that requiring the date on
the label was contrary to international
harmonization because the GHS does
not have such a requirement (Document
ID 0366, p. 4). Similarly, Hach observed
that other international partners (e.g.,
Canada) do not require the date of
release for shipment on the labels
(Document ID 0323, pp. 8–9).
Some commenters indicated that
OSHA underestimated the burden of
this requirement since either
manufacturers would need to modify
their processes or the new requirement
would preclude the use of pre-existing
labels, which save manufacturers time
and cost (Document ID 0290, p. 1; 0315,
pp. 1–2; 0358; p. 2; 0324, pp. 2–3, 7;
0359, pp. 3–4; 0323, pp. 8–9; 0424, Tr.
21; 0425, Tr. 73; 0368, p. 6). Others
questioned whether the proposal would
create issues with labeling requirements
imposed by other agencies. For
example, ILMA commented that some of
their members are also regulated by
FDA and the use of a ship date as
opposed to a batch code may violate
FDA regulations (Document ID 0444, p.
6). Several commenters commented that
the addition of this date on the label
could create confusion with very little
benefit. AmeriGas stated that a
‘‘released for shipment’’ date could lead
to confusion with DOT requalification
dates (Document ID 0423, Tr. 210–216),
and SAAMI suggested that there could
be confusion with expiration dates
(Document ID 0421, p. 2).
In addition, HCPA, ACC, and others
recommended that OSHA allow
manufacturers and importers to use
their own methods to track their
inventory throughout distribution rather
than require an additional date on the
label (Document ID 0301, p. 1; 0315, pp.
1–2; 0327, p. 5; 0324, pp. 3, 7; 0423, Tr.
103). A comment jointly submitted by
the Compressed Gas Association (CGA)
and the Gases & Welding Distributors
Association (GAWDA) recommended
that the date be optional to provide
manufacturers flexibility, especially
those that reuse containers and inspect
labels regularly (Document ID 0310, pp.
1–2).
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44289
OSHA appreciates the various views
and comments submitted by
stakeholders. The agency finds
compelling the arguments that the date
a chemical was released for shipment is
not needed on labels because this
information is already available through
other means and that the addition of the
date could cause confusion for
downstream users due to other (nonHCS) date requirements on the label.
Since OSHA indicated in the NPRM that
the primary reason to include the
‘‘release for shipment’’ date was to aid
manufacturers and distributors in
complying with (f)(11), the agency finds
it relevant that manufacturers and
distributors believe they already have
adequate means to track their inventory
(86 FR 9698). OSHA therefore concludes
it is unnecessary to require dates be
included on the label and is not
including this proposed requirement in
the final rule.
Paragraph (f)(5) specifies label
requirements that apply to the transport
of hazardous chemicals from workplace
to workplace. In the NPRM, OSHA
proposed to add the heading
‘‘Transportation’’ to this paragraph. The
agency received no comments on the
proposed new paragraph heading, so is
finalizing the heading ‘‘Transportation’’
as proposed. In addition, OSHA is
making one technical correction to
(f)(5)(i). The citation for the
requirements of the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act has been changed
from 49 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. to 49 U.S.C.
5101 et seq. OSHA has updated the
reference.
Finally, OSHA proposed to add two
new subparagraphs to (f)(5) that specify
requirements related to the
transportation of hazardous chemicals.
OSHA proposed to add a new paragraph
(f)(5)(ii) to address the transportation of
bulk shipments of hazardous chemicals
(i.e., in tanker trucks, rail cars, or
intermodal containers). The proposed
paragraph would specify that labels for
bulk shipments of hazardous chemicals
may either be on the immediate
container or may be transmitted with
shipping papers, bills of lading, or by
other technological or electronic means
so that the information is immediately
available in print to workers on the
receiving end of the shipment.
OSHA received numerous comments
on this proposed provision. Several
comments supported the proposed
paragraph. ILMA indicated that the
option of using either physical or
technological means to transmit the
information was beneficial (Document
ID 0365, p. 12). ADM supported the
proposed language, finding it to be in
full agreement with pre-existing OSHA
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44290
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
guidance and industry practice
(Document ID 0361, p. 2). Similarly,
FCA supported the addition of
paragraph (f)(5)(ii) as long as the term
bulk shipment is not expanded to
encompass intermediate containers
(Document ID 0345, pp. 5–6). OSHA
notes that the regulatory text narrowly
defines bulk shipment to include only
tanker trucks, rail cars, and intermodal
containers.
NAIMA, Hugo Hidalgo, and Ameren
also supported the proposed new
paragraph, stating it provided needed
clarity (Document ID 0297, pp. 2–3;
0309, pp. 11, 16; 0338, p. 7). National
Refrigerants, Inc. (NRI) supported the
addition of (f)(5)(ii) but requested that
OSHA permit sending the label
electronically just once for multiple
shipments with the same materials
(Document ID 0326, p. 7). Similarly,
NACD and a comment submitted jointly
by the Association of American
Railroads (AAR) and the American
Short Line and Regional Railroad
Association (ASLRRA) stated that there
need only be one electronic
transmission of a label if multiple
shipments are made of the same
material (Document ID 0329, pp. 3–4;
0351, pp. 2–4; 0465, pp. 3–4). OSHA
disagrees with these suggested changes
since sending the label just once would
not provide the label to the receiver of
each shipment at the time of delivery.
The intent of (f)(5)(ii) is to ensure the
label is immediately available to the
person receiving the shipment while
recognizing advances in technology that
allow manufacturers or suppliers
alternate methods of ensuring a hard
copy is available.
While IPHMT and NPGA also
supported the addition of (f)(5)(ii), they
requested that OSHA revise the
paragraph to read as follows: ‘‘It is
permissible for the label for bulk
packaging of hazardous chemicals to be
on the container in a manner that does
not conflict with the requirements of the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
(49 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) [now 49 U.S.C.
5105 et seq.] and regulations issued
under that Act by the Department of
Transportation, or to be transmitted
with the shipping papers, bills of lading,
or other technological or electronic
means so that it is immediately
available to workers in printed form on
the receiving end of the shipment.’’
These commenters stated that their
proposed language would clarify that
OSHA does not intend to prohibit
markings required by DOT (Document
ID 0336, p. 2; 0364, pp. 5–6). OSHA
does not agree that this change is
needed, since (f)(5)(i) already provides
that labeling used to comply with the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
HCS must not conflict with the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
(49 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) [now 49 U.S.C.
5101 et seq.] and regulations issued
under that Act by DOT.
Toby Threet also supported, in
general, the provision for sending
electronic labels, with a minor edit to
clarify that it is not the worker who
should be in printed form (Document ID
0279, p. 3). OSHA is not convinced that
the language as proposed is truly
ambiguous and in need of clarification.
Dow requested a slight change to the
proposed text to allow for greater
latitude for where to affix the label on
the bulk shipping container, suggesting
OSHA change ‘‘may be on the
immediate container’’ to ‘‘may be
attached or affixed to the immediate
container’’ (Document ID 0359, p. 2).
DGAC expressed similar support for
revisions that would allow for flexibility
of label placement (Document ID 0339,
p. 2). OSHA disagrees that this language
is necessary or adds any additional
flexibility. OSHA already allows
flexibility in its definition of label in
paragraph (c). The definition notes that
labels may be affixed to, printed on, or
attached to the immediate container (or
outside packaging). Therefore, OSHA is
maintaining the language as proposed.
NACD and others questioned the need
for a label on a bulk shipping container,
suggesting that since the DOT placard
and SDS are already required, the end
user will have the necessary safety and
health information without a label
(Document ID 0329, pp. 3–4; 0315, p. 2).
OSHA disagrees with this assertion.
OSHA does not require the SDS to
accompany the actual shipment of the
chemical and therefore it may not be
immediately available upon delivery
(although it must be readily accessible
to employees). Also, the DOT placard
does not include the full range of
hazards covered by the HCS.
Additionally, Idemitsu Lubricants
America Corporation (ILA) suggested
that a hard copy of the label was not
necessary since the storage container on
the receiving side should already be
appropriately labeled (Document ID
0315, p. 2). OSHA disagrees, since the
person who is unloading the material
from the bulk shipment may not have
immediate access to the storage vessel
and its label.
NIOSH commented that proposed
(f)(5)(ii) was practical and would not
result in additional risk to the worker.
However, NIOSH recommended that
OSHA have a mechanism to verify that
the label information is transmitted
(Document ID 0281, Att. 2, p. 4). OSHA
agrees that some sort of
acknowledgement or acceptance of this
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
information from the end user is
important to ensure that the information
is appropriately received. Therefore, in
this final rule OSHA is revising the
proposed language to include that if the
label is transmitted in a means other
than a label on the bulk shipment
container or in printed form, the
recipient of the shipment must agree to
receive the labels by an alternate
method. OSHA is also revising the word
‘‘may’’ to ‘‘must’’ in the first sentence of
(f)(5)(ii) to clarify that the label preparer
must choose one of the options
provided in the paragraph.
Both Cal/OSHA and Worksafe
objected to permitting shippers to send
labeling information electronically,
expressing concern that this method
could leave workers who handle
containers during shipment unaware of
their contents and leave emergency
responders unaware of the presence of
hazardous materials and unable to
respond safely to an emergency that
occurs during shipment (Document ID
0322, pp. 2, 14–15; 0375, pp. 2, 14–15;
0354, p. 5). DOT has jurisdiction over
hazardous chemicals while they are in
transport and has provided alternate
methods to ensure the safety of people
transporting hazardous materials via
packaging and labeling as well as to
ensure that emergency responders are
aware of the hazards in case of an
emergency. The HCS, in contrast, is
concerned with chemical hazards in the
workplace after transport has
concluded. The purpose of providing
the HCS label either on the bulk
shipping container or with the bill of
lading is to ensure that the downstream
recipient has the information
immediately upon delivery. This longstanding requirement ensures that the
recipient has the information
immediately while not posing any
potential conflicts with the placarding
required by DOT.
Steven Wodka expressed concern that
permitting electronic transmission of
labels will result in workers on the
receiving end of the shipment not
having necessary hazard information
quickly enough. Wodka stated that
warning labels should appear at the
point of danger where they would be
most effectively seen, and that
permitting electronic transmission of
labels will lead to a delay between the
bulk shipment’s arrival at the
customer’s plant and the placement of
the appropriate label, even at the most
OSHA-compliant workplaces
(Document ID 0312, pp. 2–5). As noted
above, to further address the concern
that labels should be immediately
available at the point of danger, OSHA
is revising the proposed language of
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
(f)(5)(ii) to include a requirement that
the recipient of a shipment must agree
to receive labels electronically. OSHA
believes that the proposed regulatory
language requiring that labels be
‘‘immediately available to workers in
printed form on the receiving end of
shipment,’’ coupled with the new
language in the final version requiring
recipients to consent to electronic
delivery of labels, addresses the delay
concerns.
If a manufacturer, importer, or
distributor uses electronic transmission
of product labels for bulk shipments,
they must ensure the recipient chooses
to ‘‘opt-in’’ to accept the electronic
transmission. A downstream user/
recipient may choose to ‘‘opt-out’’ of an
electronic distribution system from a
manufacturer, importer, or distributor at
any time. If a downstream user/recipient
does opt out, the manufacturer,
importer, or distributor must then
ensure a product label is on each bulk
shipment in accordance with paragraph
(f)(1) or provide a hard copy of the
product label with shipping papers or
bills of lading. As a note, this provision
does not change the existing obligations
of the downstream employer to ensure
that any chemical container in the
workplace is labeled in accordance with
paragraph (f)(6) before any worker uses
the chemical. A tanker truck or railroad
tank car may be labeled in accordance
with paragraph (f)(7) when considered a
stationary process container.
In sum, OSHA is finalizing paragraph
(f)(5)(ii) with revisions to clarify that the
label may be electronically transmitted
only with agreement from the receiving
end. Electronic transmission of product
labels for bulk shipment may be
accomplished in numerous ways
through various electronic platforms
including computer systems, facsimile,
or bar or QR code, as long as the product
label is immediately available in printed
form on the receiving end of the
shipment.
As discussed in the NPRM, under the
2012 HCS, Appendix C paragraph
C.2.3.3 provides that where a pictogram
required by DOT appears on a shipped
container, the HCS pictogram for the
same hazard (specified in C.4) shall not
appear. This provision was intended to
prevent confusion associated with
having two different representations of
the same hazard on the container (77 FR
17728). However, since 2012, DOT has
updated its regulations to indicate that
it does not consider the HCS pictogram
to conflict with the DOT pictogram, and
based on this, OSHA no longer believes
that having both pictograms will create
confusion for workers handling the
chemical (49 CFR 172.401).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Accordingly, in the NPRM OSHA
proposed to: (1) delete the language
currently in paragraph C.2.3.3 from
Appendix C and (2) add new paragraph
(f)(5)(iii) to provide that where a DOT
pictogram appears on a shipped
container, the Appendix C pictogram for
the same hazard is allowed, but is not
required, on the HCS label.
For example, in the case where a
chemical is shipped in only its
immediate container, such as a 55gallon drum containing a flammable
liquid, both a DOT label and an OSHAcompliant label would be required.
Under the 2012 standard, the flame
pictogram on the OSHA-compliant label
would be prohibited because the DOT
label would contain the equivalent
pictogram. The proposed change would
allow, but not require, the flame
pictogram to appear on the OSHAcompliant label. This means chemical
manufacturers could use the same labels
for shipping containers and for
containers that are solely used in the
workplace; this would avoid
information loss and eliminate the need
to develop or print additional labels.
OSHA received several comments
relevant to this proposed change. ILMA
supported harmonizing the HCS with
DOT because it will ‘‘reduc[e] confusion
regarding hazards, not only for workers
but for the businesses that must juggle
two different labeling rules’’ (Document
ID 0356, p. 12). IPHMT commented that
the proposed regulatory language did
not make it sufficiently clear that adding
the HCS pictogram was permissible but
optional, rather than required. They
requested the agency amend the
proposed language to clarify that the
addition of the HCS pictogram with the
DOT pictogram is permissible but not
required (Document ID 0336, p. 3).
OSHA disagrees that additional
language is needed; the proposed
regulatory text states clearly that the
HCS pictogram ‘‘is not required on the
label.’’ NPGA and IPHMT also
commented that the agency had not
made a compelling case that no
confusion would ensue if both
pictograms were required and this might
affect emergency responders’ response
(Document ID 0336, p. 3; 0364, p. 6).
However, these commenters did not
provide any evidence that there would
be or has been confusion due to two
distinctly different pictograms. OSHA
notes that the DOT placard is larger than
and separate from the OSHA-compliant
label, enabling emergency responders to
distinguish between the two types of
labels. Moreover, these commenters
provided no reason for OSHA to
disagree with DOT’s conclusion, based
on that agency’s experience and
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44291
expertise, that confusion should not
arise from inclusion of both pictograms.
SOCMA supported the proposed
change, stating that ‘‘DOT has updated
its regulations to indicate that it does
not consider the HCS pictogram to
conflict or cause confusion with the
DOT pictogram for the same identified
hazard. This provision simply
harmonizes labeling regulations
between OSHA and DOT while
simplifying the dual labeling
requirements for regulated entities’’
(Document ID 0367, p. 5).
DOD asked OSHA to clarify whether
the HCS pictogram is permitted or
required once the container reaches its
destination (Document ID 0299, p. 2).
OSHA intends that if the immediate
container bears a DOT pictogram, the
same pictogram does not need to also be
on the HCS label, as long as the DOT
pictogram is not removed or defaced.
The end user would not need to add the
corresponding HCS pictogram.
NACD suggested alternate language to
distinguish between DOT terminology
for ‘‘marking’’ a shipping container and
OSHA terminology for ‘‘labeling’’
hazardous chemicals. They suggested
that OSHA remove two references to
‘‘the label’’ from proposed (f)(5)(iii)
(Document ID 0329, p. 4). OSHA
partially agrees that the use of the term
‘‘the label’’ for both DOT requirements
and OSHA requirements may be
confusing because DOT sometimes uses
the term marking rather than labeling.
However, the use of the term ‘‘on the
label’’ to reference OSHA labeling is
appropriate. Therefore, OSHA is
removing the first reference to ‘‘the
label’’ from the text of (f)(5)(iii); the text
as finalized reads, ‘‘Where a pictogram
required by the Department of
Transportation under Title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations appears on
a shipped container, the pictogram
specified in Appendix C.4 of this
section for the same hazard is not
required on the label.’’
NACD also suggested that OSHA
require that the pictogram(s), hazard
statement(s) and signal word(s) be in the
same field of view as the DOT’s hazard
class symbol, so workers could view all
hazard information at once, in order for
the HCS pictogram to not be required
(Document ID 0329, p. 4). OSHA
disagrees with this suggestion. The DOT
markings are used for different purposes
and the size and location may be
dictated in such a way that it would not
be feasible to have them in the same
field of view. Therefore, the agency is
finalizing (f)(5)(iii) as proposed with the
exception of removing the phrase ‘‘the
label for’’ where it referred to DOT
requirements.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44292
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
In the 2012 HCS, paragraph (f)(11)
requires that chemical manufacturers,
importers, distributors, or employers
who become newly aware of any
significant information regarding the
hazards of a chemical revise the labels
within six months of becoming aware of
the new information and ensure that
labels on containers of hazardous
chemicals shipped after that time
contain the new information. OSHA
recognizes that, on some occasions, a
chemical manufacturer or importer may
become aware of significant hazard
information after a chemical has already
been labeled but before it is shipped.
Therefore, in the NPRM OSHA
proposed to add a sentence to paragraph
(f)(11) providing that chemicals that
have been released for shipment and are
awaiting future distribution need not be
relabeled; however, the chemical
manufacturer or importer must provide
the updated label for each individual
container with each shipment. The
purpose of these changes is to account
for the long distribution cycles of some
products and the potential hazards
workers could face in relabeling the
immediate containers of hazardous
chemicals that have already been
prepared for shipment.
Following publication of the 2012
updates to the HCS, OSHA received
feedback related to difficulties some
chemical manufacturers were having
complying with paragraph (f)(11),
particularly in the case of chemicals that
travel through long distribution cycles
(see 86 FR 9699). 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 they 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 (86 FR 9699).
In addition to the compliance
difficulties noted by manufacturers,
OSHA is aware that the act of relabeling
(or in some cases repackaging) these
products in warehouses or distribution
facilities has the potential to pose
occupational safety and health risks to
employees. Relabeling each individual
container may require that employees
open already secure packaging, a
process that may result in workplace
hazards such as the potential for
chemical exposures.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
OSHA has previously recognized the
complexities involved with relabeling
existing stock of hazardous chemicals.
Following promulgation of the 2012
HCS, the HCS compliance directive
(Document ID 0007) provided
enforcement guidance on the labeling of
existing stock. Before June 1, 2015 (for
manufacturers and importers), and
before December 1, 2015 (for
distributors), OSHA permitted chemical
manufacturers, importers, and
distributors with existing stock that was
packaged (e.g., boxed, palletized, shrink
wrapped, etc.) for shipment and labeled
in accordance with the pre-2012 version
of the HCS to ship those containers
downstream without relabeling the
containers with HCS 2012-compliant
labels. However, the chemical
manufacturer or importer generally had
to provide an HCS 2012-compliant label
for each individual container shipped
and the appropriate HCS 2012compliant SDS(s) with each shipment.
After those deadlines, employers were
required to ensure that each container
was labeled with an HCS 2012compliant label prior to shipping.
OSHA used this enforcement policy as
a basis for the proposed revisions to
paragraph (f)(11). OSHA sought
commenters’ input on whether the
proposed changes would adequately
address issues associated with
relabeling in cases of long distribution
cycles, whether the proposed changes
would provide sufficient flexibility, and
whether the proposed revisions would
alleviate safety concerns that would
otherwise be associated with the
relabeling of packaged stock.
OSHA received numerous comments
on this proposed provision. A comment
jointly submitted by the Fertilizer
Institute (TFI) and the Agricultural
Retailers Association (ARA) supported
the proposal and stated that it would
reduce their burden without impacting
the hazard information (Document ID
0340, pp. 4–5). Tom Murphy supported
the provision but indicated it could be
clearer if the agency changed the term
‘‘release for shipment’’ to ‘‘packaged for
shipment’’ (Document ID 0277, p. 2).
NIOSH, NAIMA and Ameren also
expressed support, noting that the
provision would allow manufacturers
with long distribution cycles the
opportunity to send updated labels with
the shipment while avoiding
unnecessary risk to workers (Document
ID 0281, Att. 2, p. 4; 0338, p. 7; 0309,
p. 11). NIOSH recommended that clear
responsibility be established to ensure
labels accompany shipment. OSHA
agrees; it is the responsibility of the
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
originator to ensure updated labels
accompany the shipment.
Some commenters expressed
confusion about what the proposed
provision would require; in particular,
they appeared to interpret the proposed
provision as mandatory rather than
optional. API and Michele Sullivan
urged OSHA to make the proposed
provision optional, as it would not be
relevant to many supply chain
operations (Document ID 0316, pp. 4–5;
0366, p. 4). NAPIM appeared to read the
proposed provision as requiring
manufacturers to place an updated label
on each container that had already been
prepared for shipment (Document ID
0317, p. 2). NPGA and a comment
jointly submitted by CGA and GAWDA
stated that the proposed provision
would be inappropriate for
manufacturers of cylinder gas products
and urged the agency not to include it
in the final rule (Document ID 0310, p.
2; 0385, p. 2; 0364, p. 4). OSHA notes
that the proposed provision was
intended to be optional and is revising
the language in the final version to
clarify that manufacturers have the
option to adopt the provision’s alternate
labeling procedures but are not required
to do so. Manufacturers, distributors
and importers can always follow the
requirements for updating labels as laid
out in the first part of (f)(11). OSHA is
also revising the title of paragraph
(f)(11) from ‘‘Release for Shipment’’ to
‘‘Label Updates’’ to better reflect the
true purpose of this provision:
providing requirements for updating
information on labels. This change is
similar to a suggestion submitted by
Toby Threet, that OSHA should revise
the title ‘‘to something more
representative of the entire paragraph,
such as ‘Revision of Labels’’’ (Document
ID 0279, p. 5).
Some commenters conditioned
support for the changes on OSHA
eliminating or adjusting the correlating
proposed requirement to add the date of
‘‘release for shipment’’ on the label
(Document ID 0327, p. 5; 0347, Att. 1,
pp. 9–11; 0361, p. 1). As discussed
above, OSHA has decided not to adopt
its proposed requirement to include the
‘‘release for shipment’’ date on the label
in this final rule.
Other commenters, while supporting
this provision in principle, did not
support shipping the updated label with
the shipment. Several commented that
doing so would inappropriately place
the burden on the downstream user to
update the label on site. For example,
the Medical Device Transport Council
(MDTC) strongly supported the relief
from relabeling that (f)(11) would afford
but did not support placing the burden
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
on subsequent distributors and
customers to apply the updated labels to
the containers (Document ID 0358, pp.
2–3). Likewise, DGAC commented that
it does not support this provision as it
places the burden on subsequent
distributors and their customers
(Document ID 0339, p. 3). Similarly,
others including Dow commented that
shipping unaffixed labels could create
issues with safety and raise liability
issues, and that there would be no way
to ensure that relabeling would even
take place (Document ID 0349, p. 1;
0359, pp. 2–3; 0368, pp. 5–6). The
agency believes that the commenters are
exaggerating the nature of any
additional burden on downstream users.
The purpose of the accommodation
proposed in (f)(11) is to avoid the
burdens and hazards that can come with
relabeling containers in a specific,
narrow set of circumstances, while still
providing the up-to-date information to
downstream users. If upstream
manufacturers are concerned about
liability, they can opt not to take
advantage of this optional
accommodation and instead update the
label at the point of shipment.
Other commenters requested
flexibility on how and when to send the
labels downstream, such as sending
them electronically and/or in advance of
the shipment, or suggested it is not
necessary to send updated labels at all
since the downstream user already has
the information on the SDS (Document
ID 0279, p. 5; 0297, pp. 5–7; 0319, p. 2;
0327, p. 5; 0345, pp. 4–5; 0349, p. 1;
0368, pp. 5–6). ACI indicated that new
processes would need to be put in place
to provide the updated label (Document
ID 0319, p. 2). However, it is important
to ensure that downstream users have
the most up-to-date information at the
time the hazardous chemical is
received. Allowing the label to be sent
separately from the shipment or relying
on the SDS would fail to ensure that the
downstream user has the updated label
with each container. OSHA again notes
that this provision is optional, so if a
manufacturer does not have a
mechanism to provide the updated label
with the shipment or is concerned about
liability, they can relabel each container
prior to shipment.
Several commenters stated that they
found the term released for shipment to
be confusing (Document ID 0329, p. 4;
0465, p. 4; 0324, p. 3). OSHA is adding
a definition of released for shipment in
the final rule (see the Summary and
Explanation discussion for paragraph
(c)).
Cal/OSHA opposed the proposed
update, characterizing it as an
‘‘additional delay in relabeling’’ that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
would ‘‘expose[ ] workers throughout
the supply chain to undisclosed
chemical hazards’’ (Document ID 0322,
p. 15). OSHA disagrees that the
proposed provision will cause a delay in
downstream workers receiving the
correct label information because it
would require updated labels to be sent
together with every shipped container.
In providing this accommodation OSHA
is providing flexibility to manufacturers
in a way that minimizes potential
hazards to upstream workers who could
be exposed to hazards due to relabeling
while still providing the updated label
information with the shipped product
within the required timeframe.
Finally, several commenters requested
clarification about aspects of the
proposed provision. NRI asked whether
this accommodation applies to any
container filled, sealed, and labeled by
the manufacturer before the expiration
of the six-month deadline (Document ID
0326, p. 6). The answer is yes. NRI also
asked whether the provision would
apply to labels on a chemical’s
immediate container as well as labels on
immediate outer packages holding small
containers (Document ID 0326, p. 6).
This answer is also yes: this
accommodation would apply to
containers within an immediate outer
package, as long as the immediate outer
package is already released for
shipment.
The Vinyl Institute asked whether the
exception applies when the immediate
container is filled and labeled, but the
immediate container has not yet been
placed in its kit or outer container,
palletized, and/or shrink wrapped
(Document ID 0369, pp. 8–9). PLASTICS
supported the proposed provision but
suggested a supplemental statement to
state that: ‘‘The ‘released for shipment’
criterion would be satisfied if the
immediate container were filled, sealed,
and labeled by the deadline even if the
immediate container (1) has not yet
been placed in its kit or outer container,
palletized, and/or shrink wrapped, or
(2) the product is on a temporary QA
hold and is subsequently cleared for
distribution’’ (Document ID 0314, p. 19).
In the Vinyl Institute’s question and in
PLASTICS’ suggestion, it appears that
the immediate containers still would
need to be packaged for shipment, so
they would not meet the definition of
released for shipment discussed
previously in the Summary and
Explanation for paragraph (c), and the
exception would not apply.
IMA–NA asked OSHA to implement
staggered timelines for label updates
based on the severity of the hazard,
indicating that a Class 1 hazard should
have a short timeline and a Class 2B
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44293
hazard could wait as much as twelve
months for new labeling (Document ID
0363, p. 8). This comment is out of
scope for this rulemaking since OSHA
did not propose to change the basic
schedule for updating labels after
learning of new hazard information. In
addition, the agency believes
downstream users must have the
updated information available on the
immediate container as quickly as
possible regardless of the severity of the
hazard.
For the reasons discussed above,
OSHA is modifying the proposed text
for (f)(11) to make clear that for
chemicals that have been released for
shipment and are awaiting further
distribution, the chemical manufacturer,
importer, or distributor has the option
not to relabel after learning significant
new hazard information. However, if
they choose to take that option, they
must produce updated labels for each
container and send those labels with the
shipment for the downstream users.
Finally, OSHA proposed a new
paragraph, (f)(12), to address small
container labeling. The 2012 HCS
required that all shipped containers be
labeled with the information specified
in paragraph (f)(1). Many stakeholders
have told OSHA that they have
difficulty including all of the required
information from paragraph (f)(1) on the
labels they use for small containers. In
some cases, the information becomes
too small for a person to read it, and
while it is sometimes possible to use
alternate types of labels (such as pullout labels or tags), it is not always
feasible to do so (86 FR 9699). In
response to these concerns, through
LOIs and the HCS compliance directive,
OSHA provided a practical
accommodation to address situations
where it is infeasible to provide all HCSrequired label information directly on
small containers through the use of pullout labels, fold-back labels, or tags (see
86 FR 9699). This practical
accommodation allows limited
information to be included on the small
container label, but requires complete
label information to be provided on the
outside packaging. In the NPRM, OSHA
proposed to incorporate this practical
accommodation into the standard in
new paragraph (f)(12).
OSHA proposed that all of the new
small container labeling provisions
apply only where the chemical
manufacturer, importer, or distributor
can demonstrate that it is not feasible to
use pull-out labels, fold-back labels, or
tags containing the full label
information required by paragraph (f)(1).
Proposed paragraphs (f)(12)(ii)(A)–(E)
would provide that labels on small
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44294
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
containers that are less than or equal to
100 milliliter (ml) capacity must
include, at minimum: product
identifier; pictogram(s); signal word;
chemical manufacturer’s name and
phone number; and a statement that the
full label information for the hazardous
chemical is provided on the immediate
outer package. Proposed paragraph
(f)(12)(iii) would provide that no labels
are required for small containers of 3 ml
capacity or less where the chemical
manufacturer, importer, or distributor
can demonstrate that any label would
interfere with the normal use of the
container; however, that same proposed
provision states that if a container meets
the conditions of (f)(12)(iii) and no label
is required, the container must bear, at
minimum, the product identifier. For
example, the product identifier (e.g.,
chemical name, code number or batch
number) could be etched on a 3 ml glass
vial (container) to ensure that the
identifier remains fixed to the vial. This
type of identification would ensure that
the chemical in the small container can
be identified and matched with the
chemical’s full label information.
Proposed paragraph (f)(12)(iv) would
provide that for any small container
covered by paragraph (f)(12)(ii) or (iii),
the immediate outer package must
include the full label information
required by paragraph (f)(1) for each
hazardous chemical in the immediate
outer package, along with a statement
that the small container(s) inside must
be stored in the immediate outer
package bearing the complete label
when not in use. This proposed
provision would also state that labels
affixed to the immediate outer package
must not be removed or defaced, as
required by existing paragraph (f)(9).
OSHA intended these proposed
changes to provide chemical
manufacturers, importers and
distributors with flexibility in labeling
small containers. The proposal was
consistent with the small packaging
examples provided in the GHS Annex 7:
Examples of Arrangements of the GHS
Label Elements (Document ID 0197, pp.
431–436), and would result in better
alignment with Health Canada’s HPR
small capacity container requirements
(Document ID 0051). Specifically, the
HPR, under 5.4(1), provides exemptions
from certain labeling requirements (such
as precautionary statements) for small
capacity containers of 100 ml or less. In
addition, under 5.4(2), the HPR provides
labeling exemptions for containers of 3
ml or less if the label interferes with the
normal use of the hazardous product.
OSHA requested comments on the
feasibility of the proposed small
container labeling provisions as well as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
whether the proposed changes would
improve safe handling and storage for
chemicals in small containers.
OSHA received numerous comments
on proposed paragraph (f)(12). Most
commenters supported adoption of
(f)(12) (Document ID 0281, Att. 1, p. 4;
0309, p. 16; 0316, p. 6; 0323, pp. 6–8;
0329, pp. 5–6; 0338, pp. 7; 0339, pp. 3–
4; 0345, p. 3; 0346, pp. 1–2; 0347, Att.
1, pp. 12–13; 0349, p. 1; 0359, p. 4;
0361, pp. 2–3; 0366, p. 4; 0367, p. 3).
FCA described proposed (f)(12) as a
‘‘substantial improvement’’ and
‘‘strongly urge[d]’’ adoption of the
provision (Document ID 0345, p. 3). The
Flavor and Extract Manufacturers
Association agreed that trying to include
all the information required on a fullsized label on small packages is
infeasible and voiced support for the
flexibility that (f)(12) would provide
(Document ID 0346, pp. 1–2). NAIMA
called proposed (f)(12) a ‘‘common
sense’’ solution (Document ID 0338, p.
7). While API noted that the addition of
proposed paragraph (f)(12) to the HCS
would likely impact laboratory samples,
they indicated no concerns about
adding it (Document ID 0316, p. 6).
Other commenters, while supporting
this accommodation, had additional
recommendations. ACC voiced general
support for adding paragraph (f)(12) but
recommended that the agency expand
full relief to any container below 100
ml, eliminating the need for separate
provisions for 3 ml and 100 ml
(Document ID 0347, Att. 1, pp. 12–13;
0406, Att. 1, pp. 12–13). OSHA
disagrees with this recommendation.
The information on the immediate
container is essential for worker safety
and most containers, except for the very
smallest, have enough room on the
immediate container (either attached
directly or with the use of tags or pullout labels) to provide at least minimal
information.
NACD and Loren Lowy recommended
that the small package label also
reference the SDS (Document ID 0329,
pp. 5–6; 0333, p. 1; 0465, pp. 4–5).
OSHA does not believe this is
necessary. Workers should already be
trained on the hazards they are exposed
to and have ready access to the SDSs.
Space on small containers is at a
premium and including unnecessary
references to the SDS might detract from
the hazard information. However,
NACD or others can add this statement
if they deem it appropriate.
NIOSH recommended that outer
packages be ‘‘water resistant’’
(Document ID 0281, Att. 1, p. 4). While
OSHA believes ‘‘water resistant’’
packaging might be beneficial, this
suggestion is beyond the scope of this
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
rulemaking because OSHA did not
propose any new requirements related
to the durability of labels.
Hach supported the small package
labeling provision but suggested that
OSHA eliminate the requirement to
include a U.S. phone number, stating
that this takes up valuable label space
and reduces harmonization with trading
partners such as Canada and Mexico
(Document ID 0323, pp. 6–8). OSHA
disagrees with this suggestion. The
phone number should be maintained on
the label since this provides the worker
with immediate access to where they
can seek additional information if the
SDS is not in the immediate vicinity.
Givaudan, PLASTICS, the Vinyl
Institute, and ACA suggested that OSHA
eliminate the need to show infeasibility
while ICT requested that OSHA explain
what the agency means by
‘‘demonstrating that it is not feasible’’
(Document ID 0293, p. 1; 0314, pp. 17–
18; 0369, p. 9; 0324, p. 4; 0368, pp. 7–
9). Michele Sullivan also noted that
neither Canada nor the GHS requires
proof of infeasibility (Document ID
0366, p. 4). OSHA maintains that
requiring a showing of infeasibility is
appropriate. It is imperative that,
wherever possible, workers have the full
label information on the immediate
container to ensure safe use at all times.
If this is demonstrated to be not feasible
(for example, due to space
considerations or extraordinary
economic considerations), then OSHA
has provided a way to minimize these
impacts while still providing valuable
information to workers. The label
provides a concise, immediate, and
conspicuous visual reminder of
chemical hazards at the site where the
chemical is used; reducing this
information where it is feasible to
provide the entire label would reduce
protections for the downstream user of
the chemicals. Relatedly, Ameren
commented that prior approval should
not be required for using the abbreviated
labels (Document ID 0309, p. 12). To
clarify, new paragraph (f)(12) would not
require prior approval, only that the
company must demonstrate that the full
label was infeasible.
HCPA’s comment supported the
agency’s efforts, but requested that
OSHA follow the approach of Canada,
which does not require entire label
elements on the outer package
(Document ID 0327, pp. 5–6). OSHA
believes that not having this information
on the immediate outer package would
be a reduction in protections that the
HCS currently affords and removing this
information would not provide any
benefits other than aligning with
Canada. While OSHA strives to align
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
with Canada where possible, OSHA’s
primary mission is to protect workers.
OSHA believes providing the full label
on the immediate outer package is
appropriate and provides the workers
downstream with the information they
need.
While not endorsing or disagreeing
with the proposal, Epson asked if OSHA
would offer the same exemptions as the
EU CLP regulation which provides
exemption for containers not exceeding
125 ml (Document ID 0288, p. 1). OSHA
has chosen to provide labeling
flexibility for containers of 100 ml or
less because OSHA believes that the
information on the immediate container
is essential and the chemicals even in
very small containers can be extremely
hazardous. OSHA’s determination to
place the cut-off at 100 ml also aligns
with Canada’s small container labeling
requirements and therefore serves the
important purpose of consistency with
our largest trading partner. Hach asked
for the 3 ml limit for very small
containers to be raised to 5 ml and
provided photos in comments and
testimony to demonstrate their concerns
(Document ID 0323, pp. 6–8; 0425, Tr.
83–84). OSHA believes, however, that 3
ml is the appropriate cut-off for a total
exemption of hazard information. This
cut-off is consistent with Canada’s
requirements for small container
labeling, and while Hach provided
pictures of small containers of less than
5 ml, there is no indication that a label
would interfere with the use of the
product.
PLASTICS expressed concern about a
‘‘mixed kit’’ scenario, where an outer
package would contain smaller
containers of varying sizes or where
some containers in a kit do not contain
hazardous materials and would not be
covered by the HCS, and proposed
alternate regulatory language that would
accommodate this type of situation
(Document ID 0314, pp. 18–19).
PLASTICS also requested that OSHA
permit downstream users to relabel
containers in such a scenario. While
OSHA acknowledges that a ‘‘mixed kit’’
scenario might pose challenges in
applying this accommodation, OSHA
does not believe that the appropriate
response is to move the responsibility of
labeling the immediate container to the
downstream users. This would require
each downstream user to open each kit
and figure out which container would
need to be relabeled, creating the
potential for mislabeling. OSHA already
provides multiple flexibilities,
including the use of attached tags which
can be applied to the immediate outer
container for the full information. Rev.
8 shows several different options on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
how to label ‘‘kits’’ in Annex 7 (example
10—scenario A and B) (Document ID
0065, pp. 451–457).
Toby Threet suggested regulatory text
changes for proposed paragraph (f)(12).
Threet stated that any container less
than or equal to 3 ml capacity is
automatically also less than or equal to
100 ml capacity and label preparers
cannot comply with both paragraphs
(f)(12)(ii) and (f)(12)(iii); therefore,
OSHA should modify paragraph
(f)(12)(ii) to add a lower limit of ‘‘greater
than 3 ml’’ (Document ID 0279, pp. 25–
26). OSHA does not believe that this
change is appropriate because
paragraphs (f)(12)(ii) and (f)(12)(iii) have
separate conditions that trigger their
applicability; thus, there is no conflict
between the two provisions. Threet also
requested that OSHA exclude situations
where the immediate outer container
might itself present a hazard, such as if
it became contaminated with radiation
(Document ID 0279, p. 26). In such a
situation, the downstream user would
have an obligation to ensure appropriate
labeling under paragraph (f)(9); the
agency does not believe it would be
beneficial to complicate the regulatory
text here.
OSHA received one additional
comment that was beyond the scope of
proposed changes related to paragraph
(f). PLASTICS submitted a comment
relating specifically to (f)(6)(iii) that
recommends using color-coded charts to
replace labels at workstations where
solvents present an issue with label
integrity (Document ID 0357, pp. 3–4).
This comment is out of scope because
it does not relate to any changes
proposed in the NPRM. OSHA notes
that this issue has already been
addressed in the 2015 HCS compliance
directive (Document ID 0007).
For the reasons discussed above,
OSHA is finalizing paragraph (f)(12) of
the rule as proposed.
PLASTICS and Vinyl Institute also
asked OSHA to address the difficulties
associated with creating labels to meet
the requirements of multiple
jurisdictions with inconsistent
requirements even though the
manufacturer ‘‘does not know where the
product will be shipped at the time it is
packaged and labeled’’ (Document ID
0314, Att. 1, p. 20; 0369, Att. 2, p. 10).
PLASTICS and Vinyl Institute did not
provide any specific suggestions
regarding how OSHA should address
this issue. The HCS has always differed
in some respects from other
jurisdictions that adopt the GHS, and
the GHS anticipates that countries will
adopt the GHS with slight variation, so
OSHA does not believe this is a new
issue presented by the updates in this
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44295
rulemaking. OSHA does not have
control over the requirements of other
jurisdictions, but notes that many of the
changes in this final rule are designed
to better align with other jurisdictions to
avoid issues with inconsistent
requirements.
OSHA received two additional
comments that are pertinent to
paragraph (f), but that are out of scope
for this rulemaking. PLASTICS
requested that the agency codify the
guidance in an LOI from November 23,
2015, that provides an exception for
containers that are shipped to
destinations outside of the U.S. and sent
directly overseas with no anticipated
exposures to downstream U.S. workers
(Document ID 0314, Att. 1, p. 20). Vinyl
Institute also identified this as a change
that was missing from the proposals in
the NPRM (Document ID 0369, Att. 2, p.
10). OSHA did not propose to codify
this LOI in the NPRM, therefore this
comment is outside the scope of this
rulemaking and the agency declines to
take the requested action.
(g) Safety Data Sheets
Paragraph (g) specifies the
requirements for chemical
manufacturers and importers to obtain
or develop an SDS for each hazardous
chemical in the workplace. SDSs
provide important safety information to
employers and employees on the use of
hazardous chemicals in the workplace.
Additionally, SDSs provide detailed
technical information and serve as a
reference for employees who are
exposed to a hazardous chemical,
industrial hygienists, safety
professionals, emergency responders,
health care professionals, and other
interested parties. This final rule revises
paragraphs (g)(2), which identifies what
information must be included on an
SDS, and (g)(10), which addresses the
form and storage of SDSs, and corrects
erroneous references to material safety
data sheets in (g)(7).
The first sentence of paragraph (g)(2)
previously stated that the chemical
manufacturer or importer preparing the
SDS shall ensure that it is in English.
However, as permitted by paragraph
(g)(1), some chemical manufacturers and
importers may obtain, rather than
prepare, SDSs. To minimize any
potential confusion between paragraphs
(g)(1) and (2), OSHA proposed to revise
paragraph (g)(2) by removing the
reference to preparing the SDS. The
sentence as proposed reads ‘‘The
chemical manufacturer or importer shall
ensure that the safety data sheet is in
English . . . . ’’. This is a technical
clarification intended to ensure
consistency with paragraph (g)(1).
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44296
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
OSHA also changed the wording in the
parenthetical at the end of paragraph
(g)(2) from ‘‘§ 1910.1200–Safety Data
Sheets’’ to ‘‘to this section.’’ OSHA
received no comments on these
proposed revision to (g)(2); therefore,
OSHA is finalizing (g)(2) as proposed.
OSHA also proposed a change to
paragraph (g)(10) to allow SDSs to be
stored, rather than designed, in a way
that covers groups of hazardous
chemicals in a work area. When the
HCS was first promulgated in 1983,
paragraph (g)(10) permitted employers
to design SDSs to cover groups of
hazardous chemicals in a work area
where it may have been more
appropriate to address the hazards of a
process rather than addressing the
hazards of each chemical individually
(48 FR 53337).
In 2012, OSHA changed the SDS
provisions of the HCS to require a
standardized 16-section format, which
improved hazard communication by
ensuring users could quickly find
relevant information (see 77 FR 17596–
98). The standardized format requires
each SDS to address a single hazardous
chemical rather than groups of
hazardous chemicals. Therefore, OSHA
has proposed a change to paragraph
(g)(10) that would allow SDSs to be
stored, rather than designed, in a way to
cover groups of hazardous chemicals in
a work area. As OSHA explained in the
NPRM, the proposed change would
allow employers flexibility in how they
keep SDSs in the workplace while also
ensuring that the required SDS format is
maintained (86 FR 9700). The agency
requested comments regarding whether
the proposed revision would require
stakeholders to make any significant
changes to their current practices (86 FR
9688).
Several commenters expressed
support for this proposed revision.
NAIMA supported the proposed
revision, as SDSs must currently follow
a standard format (Document ID 0338, p.
8). NACD similarly observed that the
proposed revision ‘‘makes sense as the
HCS requires SDSs to use a standard
format’’ and further noted that it would
not require any major changes to
chemical distribution operations
(Document ID 0329, p. 6). Ameren also
noted that the proposed revision would
not require significant changes to its
current practices (Document ID 0309, p.
12). In addition, NIOSH stated that it is
unaware of any changes to current
practices that will be required by the
proposed revision (Document ID 0281,
p. 4; 0423, Tr. 19). OSHA received no
comments or testimony objecting to the
proposed revision to (g)(10).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Several commenters requested
clarification regarding the proposed
change to paragraph (g)(10). API asked
for ‘‘further clarification about the
storing language’’ (Document ID 0316, p.
9). ACC asked if the revision would
allow electronic storage of SDSs, or
merely allow employers to group the
SDSs together (Document ID 0347, p.
12). Dow also asked for clarification on
electronic storage, stating that they ‘‘do
not foresee an impact as long as OSHA
can confirm that this change will still
allow for on-site back-up storage of
SDS’s while also allowing employers to
provide electronic access to employees’’
(Document ID 0359, p. 4).
In response to API’s request for
clarification, OSHA notes that the
general intent of the change to (g)(10),
as discussed in the NPRM and reiterated
above, is to allow the individual 16section SDSs required by the 2012 HCS
to be stored in a way that covers groups
of hazardous chemicals in a work area
(86 FR 9700). Because the HCS now
requires an individual SDS for each
chemical, however, employers can no
longer ‘‘design’’ SDSs that cover groups
of hazardous chemicals. Following
publication of the final rule, OSHA will
issue guidance materials and respond to
inquiries on any aspects of the HCS for
which stakeholders request information
or clarification.
In response to questions regarding
electronic storage, OSHA notes that
paragraph (g)(8) of the HCS, which
requires the employer to maintain
copies of the required SDSs for each
hazardous chemical and make sure that
they are readily accessible to employees
when they are in their work areas,
specifically permits electronic access to
SDSs provided that such access poses
no barriers to immediate employee
access. OSHA elaborated on this in the
preamble to the 2012 HCS (77 FR
17729). OSHA’s revision to (g)(10) does
not change the requirements of (g)(8);
the HCS still allows employers to
provide SDSs via electronic access as
long as employees have immediate
access to the SDSs and employers are
able to immediately provide copies of
SDSs to medical personnel.
For the reasons discussed above,
OSHA is finalizing paragraph (g)(10) as
proposed.
Additionally, OSHA is also correcting
references to material safety data sheets
in (g)(7)(i), (iii), and (iv) which it
identified after the NPRM. In this final
rule, OSHA is updating those references
to reflect the change to the terminology
safety data sheets in the 2012 HCS.
Finally, OSHA received one out-ofscope comment regarding paragraph
(g)(4). TFI and ARA jointly commented
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
that (g)(4) permits agricultural retailers
to create a single SDS for all custom
fertilizer blends of the same hazard
classification, and asked OSHA to
include a statement in the preamble
adopting this interpretation (Document
ID 0340, pp. 4–6).
Paragraph (g)(4) allows chemical
importers, manufacturers and retailers
to prepare a single SDS where complex
mixtures have similar hazards and
contents (i.e., the chemical ingredients
are essentially the same, but the specific
composition varies from mixture to
mixture). Where a single SDS is used for
similar mixtures or in cases of batch-tobatch variability, concentration ranges
of ingredients may be used. If the
composition differences are small, and
the hazard(s) remain the same,
concentration ranges may be used for
multiple, similar products; however,
separate SDSs are required for blends
containing distinct ingredients. TFI and
ARA’s comment is beyond the scope of
this rulemaking because OSHA did not
propose any revisions to paragraph
(g)(4). In addition, as TFI and ARA
noted in their comment, OSHA has
previously addressed this question in a
letter of interpretation requested by TFI.
As stated in that letter, OSHA cannot
provide a blanket approval because the
agency does not approve or endorse
SDSs (available at https://
www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standard
interpretations/2016-02-25.)
(i) Trade Secrets
Paragraph (i) of the HCS describes
certain conditions under which a
chemical manufacturer, importer, or
employer may withhold the specific
chemical identity (e.g., chemical name),
other specific identification of a
hazardous chemical, or the exact
percentage (concentration) of the
substance in a mixture, from the SDS.
In the NPRM, OSHA proposed several
changes to paragraph (i). First, OSHA
proposed to allow manufacturers,
importers, and employers to withhold a
chemical’s concentration range as a
trade secret, which had not previously
been permitted, and to add language
specifying that it is Section 3 of the SDS
from which trade secret information
may be withheld. Second, OSHA
proposed to require the use of
prescriptive concentration ranges in lieu
of the actual concentration or
concentration range whenever the actual
concentration or concentration range is
claimed as a trade secret. These changes
were proposed to align with Canada’s
WHMIS, allowing manufacturers,
importers, and employers the ability to
use the same SDS for both U.S. and
Canadian workplaces. The proposed
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ranges are the same as those required by
Canada (Document ID 0172). Third,
OSHA proposed to replace the phrase
‘‘physician and nurse’’ in paragraph (i)
with the term Physician or other
licensed health care professional
(PLHCP), defined as an individual
whose legally permitted scope of
practice (i.e., license, registration, or
certification) allows the individual to
independently provide or be delegated
the responsibility to provide some or all
of the health care services referenced in
paragraph (i) of the standard.
OSHA requested comments on the
proposed changes to paragraph (i),
including information on stakeholders’
experiences with developing SDSs using
the prescribed concentration ranges for
compliance with Canada’s WHMIS and
any concerns they might have about
using concentration ranges on the SDS.
OSHA also requested comments on
whether the proposed ranges would
provide sufficient information for
downstream manufacturers to conduct
hazard classifications and whether the
proposed ranges would be too wide to
provide sufficient information to protect
workers.
Additionally, OSHA requested
comments specific to proposed new
paragraph (i)(1)(v), which would require
use of the narrowest applicable
concentration range, but in cases where
the concentration range to be withheld
falls between 0.1 percent and 30 percent
and does not fit entirely into one of the
prescribed concentration ranges, would
permit use of a single range created by
the combination of two applicable
consecutive ranges instead, provided
that the combined concentration range
does not include any range that falls
entirely outside the actual concentration
range in which the ingredient is present.
OSHA requested comments on this
proposal and on two alternatives to the
proposed provision: a more lenient
version, allowing combinations among
all ranges up to 100 percent
concentration, and a more restrictive
version, such as allowing combinations
only for the ranges up to 10 percent
concentration.
Several commenters expressed
general support for OSHA’s proposal to
allow actual concentration ranges to be
withheld as a trade secret and to require
the use of prescribed concentration
ranges (Document ID 0316, p. 28; 0323,
p. 9; 0329, p. 6; 0359, p. 4; 0361, pp. 2–
3; 0363, pp. 6–7; 0368, p. 12; 0425, Tr.
75–78). IMA–NA supported the trade
secret protections in the NPRM, stating
that the proposed revisions would
provide necessary flexibility in the use
of concentration ranges for mixtures
omitted from SDS disclosures and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
protect sensitive information (Document
ID 0363, pp. 6–7). NACD commented
that the prescription of ranges would
improve accuracy of companies’ hazard
assessments and reporting by
introducing a standardized set of ranges
and reducing ‘‘guesswork’’ in the
selection of an appropriate range and
would ease compliance with OSHA’s
PSM standard and the EPA’s Risk
Management Program, (Document ID
0329, p. 6; 0423, Tr. 178–179). Dow also
supported the use of prescribed ranges
to protect trade secrets, stating that
OSHA’s proposal ‘‘strikes a fair balance
between disclosure of information and
worker protection’’ (Document ID 0359,
p. 4). NABTU strongly supported the
proposed requirement of mandatory
concentration ranges (Document ID
0334, p. 4; 0425, Tr. 24–25).
Several commenters, including
industrial entities or associations such
as Hach, NACD, Dow, and ACA,
additionally supported the specific
ranges OSHA proposed, which align
with those already in use by Health
Canada (Document ID 0323, p. 9; 0329,
p. 8; 0359, p. 4; 0368, p. 12). ACA noted
that some ACA members already use the
ranges prescribed by Canada and have
found that the ranges provide adequate
information to downstream users
(Document ID 0368, p. 12).
OSHA also received comments
critical of its proposal. Some
stakeholders argued that the proposed
requirement would weaken protections
for CBI relative to the provisions of the
2012 HCS. Among these, most suggested
that OSHA should make the use of
prescribed concentration ranges
optional for entities claiming the actual
concentration range as a trade secret
(Document ID 0319, p. 2; 0321, pp. 2–
3; 0327, p. 6; 0343, p. 3; 0356, p. 4;
0343, p. 3; 0347, pp. 13–14; 0366, p. 6;
0367, p. 3; 0369, p. 9; 0374, p. 2; 0424,
Tr. 13; 0447, pp. 4–5), while FCA
favored maintaining the existing trade
secret provisions (Document ID 0345, p.
4). Several stated that the specific ranges
OSHA proposed would be too narrow to
adequately protect CBI (Document ID
0324, p. 4; 0345, p. 4; 0366, p. 6; 0367,
p. 3; 0369, p. 9; 0468, pp. 3–4), or could
be confusing because some of the ranges
overlap one another (Document ID 0345,
p. 4) or cross some hazard classification
thresholds (Document ID 0347, p. 14;
0349, pp. 1–2; 0366, p. 6). Michele
Sullivan commented that ranges which
cross hazard classification thresholds
‘‘could also cause a conflict with the EU
CLP requirements’’ (Document ID 0366,
p. 6).
A few commenters stated that
requiring the use of prescribed ranges
would be expensive and time-
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44297
consuming for companies who would
need to program changes to their SDSs
for use in the U.S. if claiming actual
concentration range as a trade secret
(Document ID 0343, p. 3; 0347, pp. 13–
14); NAIMA, on the other hand,
commented that it ‘‘is not aware of any
economic implications associated with
including the prescribed concentration
ranges so long as they are not so narrow
as to effectively annul the Trade Secret’’
(Document ID 0338, p. 8). Others argued
that workers are adequately protected
under the standard’s existing provision
allowing medical professionals to obtain
chemical composition from the
chemical manufacturer, importer, or
employer in an emergency, in addition
to the standard’s existing provisions for
OSHA and certain others to obtain it in
some non-emergency situations
(Document ID 0366, p. 6; 0356, p. 4;
0337, p. 2; 0349, pp. 1–2). APA
commented that the previously existing
HCS provisions for trade secrets and
medical personnel access to information
are appropriate because errors in
judgment may occur if emergency
responders opt to rely on information
from a prescribed range instead of
contacting the manufacturer to get an
exact percentage (Document ID 0337, p.
2).
While most commenters who
expressed concern about protection of
CBI or the potential costs of compliance
did not give further information,
examples, or analysis to support their
position, a few provided additional
explanation. ILMA noted that, because
their products are often customized, a
requirement to provide concentration
range information could compromise
CBI for their customers as well as
themselves, and that legal protections of
CBI may be lost once a trade secret is
revealed through non-illicit means
(Document ID 0356 p. 4; 0424, Tr. 120–
121). ACC stated that the concentration
of a substance within a mixture could
possibly be determined ‘‘for example, if
the classification limit is close to one of
the concentration cutoffs’’ (Document ID
0347, p. 14). In their post-hearing
comments, ACC provided a hypothetical
example: ‘‘If there are 2–3 components
in a solution one at 95% and two at 2
and 3%, the 1 to 5% range could just
be a few competitor tests away from
getting it right. . . [A] wide range
protects more’’ (Document ID 0468, pp.
7–8). NAIMA’s post-hearing comment
stated that ‘‘For mixtures, any [range]
less than 10 percent would be too
narrow.’’ NAIMA also stated that the
following ranges ‘‘have been identified
as . . . sufficient to protect trade secrets:
(a) 7 to 13%; (b) 10 to 30%; (c) 15 to
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44298
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
40%; (d) 30 to 60%; (e) 45 to 70%; (f)
60 to 80%; (g) 65 to 85%; (h) 80 to
100%; and 0–10%’’ (Document ID 0461,
p. 1).
Some commenters suggested that
companies should be allowed to design
ranges appropriate to their CBI or other
business needs (Document ID 0319, p. 2;
0324, p. 4; 0345, p. 4; 0363, p. 6; 0366,
p. 6; 0425, Tr. 24–25). For example, ICT
commented that OSHA should permit
mixture manufacturers/importers to
prepare SDSs with concentration ranges
that sufficiently protect their trade
secrets (Document ID 0324, p. 4) and
FCA requested that manufacturers be
allowed to utilize ranges customary
within their industry (Document ID
0345, p. 4). In addition, several
commenters suggested that OSHA
should allow companies to select ranges
narrower than those OSHA proposed
(Document ID 0299, pp. 2–3; 0309, pp.
13–16; 0321, p. 2; 0334, pp. 3–4; 0349,
p. 1; 0359, p. 4; 0368, p. 12; 0425, Tr.
24–25, 35–36, 117–118; 0464, p. 6). Dow
noted that Health Canada’s latest
proposed revision to their HPR codifies
a similar allowance for smaller ranges
that fit within the prescribed ranges, so
that adoption of a similar provision by
OSHA would maintain alignment with
Canada (Document ID 0359, p. 4).57
Industrial Health and Safety Consultants
(IHSC) suggested that the issue of overclassification (i.e., cases in which use of
a prescribed range could result in
classifying a substance in an additional
and/or higher hazard category) could be
alleviated by allowing the use of
concentration ranges narrower than
those proposed (Document ID 0349, pp.
1–2). PLASTICS asked whether a
classifier would be required to classify
a product to reflect the most severe
category into which the highest point of
a range selected to represent batch
variability would fall (Document ID
0314, p. 21).
NABTU supported permitting
manufacturers and importers to use
their own concentration ranges if they
are narrower than the prescribed ranges
(Document ID 0425, Tr. 24–25; see also
Document ID 0334, p. 4; 0424, Tr. 35–
36, 0464, p. 6).
NIOSH testified at the public hearing
that ‘‘non-mandatory use of the
prescribed concentration ranges . . .
could weaken protection of workers by
downplaying the contribution of the
chemical in question to the hazards of
the product’’ (Document ID 0423, Tr. 20)
and that the prescribed concentration
57 Health Canada published the update to their
HPR in December 2022. Their final rule includes
the allowance for narrower ranges. Canada Gazette,
Part II, Volume 157, Number 1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
ranges ‘‘will allow handlers of the
materials better protections and better
hazard communication, as well as
emergency responders potentially
dealing with a substance and having to
access that information readily’’
(Document ID 0423, Tr. 31–32). NIOSH
also commented that allowing
manufacturers to use their own
concentration ranges could result in
ranges so broad as to be nearly useless,
providing the example of an SDS that
listed a concentration range from onehalf of one percent to 50 percent
(Document ID 0281, p. 6; 0423, Tr. 30–
31, 47–48). NABTU echoed this
concern, stating in post-hearing
comments, ‘‘[t]he wide concentration
ranges manufacturers are currently
listing on their SDSs make it more
difficult to determine if the use of a
given product is likely to result in
exposures above or below levels
considered to be safe’’ (Document ID
0464, p. 6).
After considering all comments
received on the agency’s proposed
requirement to use prescribed ranges
which align with those in use by Health
Canada, OSHA has decided to finalize
the requirement to utilize prescribed
concentration ranges when claiming
exact concentration as proposed, with
the exception that OSHA is adding a
new paragraph (i)(1)(vi). This new
provision allows the use of narrower
ranges than those prescribed in (i)(1)(iv)
and (i)(1)(v), meaning that the range
must be fully within the bounds of a
prescribed range listed in (i)(1)(iv) or
fully within the bounds of a
combination of ranges allowed by
(i)(1)(v). OSHA’s responses to the
concerns received regarding proposed
paragraph (i) are given below.
First, OSHA is not persuaded that
requiring the use of prescribed ranges,
or the specific ranges the agency
proposed, would significantly
compromise CBI. The trade secret
provisions of the HCS do not rely only
on withholding of concentration
information in order to protect CBI, but
also allow the manufacturer or supplier
to claim the chemical identity as CBI
(paragraph (i)(1)). In addition, OSHA
does not require listing the chemical’s
generic chemical identity or alternative
name (e.g., ‘‘Alcohol’’ for propanol vs.
‘‘Component 1’’), which provides
additional CBI protection. And, while
several commenters opined that
required use of the ranges OSHA
proposed could compromise CBI, none
provided persuasive information,
argument, or analysis to support their
concerns or preferred alternative. While
NAIMA provided alternate ranges for
OSHA’s consideration in post-hearing
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
comments, which they said, ‘‘have been
identified as . . . sufficient to protect
trade secrets,’’ this statement is not
supported by the source NAIMA cites.
That source is a document summarizing
the thirteen prescribed concentration
ranges included in Canada’s 2015
update to the HPR for use in protecting
trade secrets. These ranges include the
ranges (a) 0.1 to 1 percent; (b) 0.5 to 1.5
percent; and (c) 1 to 5 percent, which
are not included in the set of ranges
NAIMA gave when citing the summary
document. They do not include the
range 0–10 percent, which was included
in NAIMA’s post-hearing comment
citing the document. NAIMA’s
statement that the ranges it listed ‘‘have
been identified’’ as protective of CBI
therefore does not accurately reflect the
content of the source it cited; rather,
that source refers to the prescribed
ranges that Canada adopted and that
OSHA proposed in the NPRM
(Document ID 0461, p. 2).
Furthermore, OSHA’s proposed
ranges have been in use by entities
trading in Canada since 1988
(previously under WHMIS 1988 and
then reinstated under the HPR in 2018),
yet no commenter provided a real-world
example of CBI compromised due to the
use of Canada’s prescribed ranges.
Notably, ACA stated that some of its
members already use the ranges
prescribed by Canada and have found
they provide adequate information to
downstream users (Document ID 0368,
p. 12); ACA did not report that using the
prescribed ranges compromised any of
their members’ trade secrets. NACD
commented that individuals involved in
the commercial and sales aspects of
chemical distribution ‘‘reported no
concerns that the prescribed ranges
would inadvertently disclose trade
secret information’’ (Document ID 0329,
p. 6; 0423, Tr. 178–179). API stated it
had no concerns with the proposed
change (Document ID 0316, pp. 10, 28).
And, as previously noted, OSHA
received comments from several
industrial entities or associations
including Hach, NACD, Dow, and ACA,
specifically supporting the requirement
to use the ranges used by Health Canada
(Document ID 0323, p. 9; 0329, p. 8;
0359, p. 4; 0368, p. 12).
After consideration of the comments
received on possible compromise of
CBI, OSHA finds that these commenters
have not adequately supported their
position that the proposed requirement
to use prescribed concentration ranges
would significantly compromise CBI.
OSHA is also not persuaded that
paragraph (i) should include broader
ranges than those proposed or allow
companies flexibility to design ranges
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
broader than those proposed. Creating
broader ranges would be less
informative to workers and other
downstream users, and would negate
the benefit of consistency with Canada’s
system. However, OSHA notes in
response to PLASTICS that classifiers
would be required to classify a
substance according to the most severe
hazard associated with the range they
select, and agrees with comments that
allowing the use of narrower
concentration ranges than those
prescribed would alleviate some of the
classification concerns raised by
stakeholders without compromising the
information provided to workers and
other users. Therefore, OSHA is adding
a new paragraph (i)(1)(vi) which states
that the SDS preparer may provide a
range narrower than those prescribed in
(i)(1)(iv) or (i)(1)(v). This means that the
range selected must be fully contained
within the range or combination of
ranges required under (i)(1)(iv) and
(i)(1)(v), inclusive of the boundaries of
such ranges. For example, when the
ingredient’s concentration range in the
mixture is 0.9 to 2 percent and that
range is claimed as CBI, paragraph (i) as
proposed would have required the
manufacturer or supplier to give the
range 0.5 to 5 percent (a combination of
the prescribed ranges 0.5 to 1.5 percent
and 1 to 5 percent). The revision to the
proposed text allows the manufacturer
or supplier to disclose a narrower range
such as 0.5 to 2 percent, or 0.9 to 5
percent, or 0.5 to 2.5 percent. If a
manufacturer or supplier finds that the
concentration range they intend to claim
as a trade secret is below a certain
hazard classification/category threshold
but using a prescribed range (or
allowable combination of prescribed
ranges) would trigger other
requirements (e.g., shipping, storage)
which would not have been triggered by
the actual concentration range, they may
use a narrower range or combination of
ranges to avoid this issue. The
allowance for the use of narrower
concentration ranges that fall within the
prescribed ranges aligns with Canada’s
WHMIS (Document ID 0172).
OSHA also disagrees with
commenters who stated that requiring
the use of prescribed concentration
ranges would provide no benefit to
workers beyond the existing provisions
pertaining to medical emergency
situations, which allow medical
professionals to obtain chemical
composition from the chemical
manufacturer, importer, or employer in
the event of a medical emergency.
OSHA has determined that providing
ready access to information about the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
concentration range of hazardous
substances to workers and other users is
also essential to the purposes of the HCS
when such ranges are claimed as trade
secrets. Workers have a right to know,
and to be able to readily access,
information about the nature and extent
of their occupational exposures to
hazardous substances for their own
information, records, and use—for
example, in the event that health
concerns arise that may be work-related.
In addition, OSHA believes that
emergency responders will benefit from
ready access to the prescribed
concentration range of a hazardous
substance, particularly in cases where it
may not be possible to achieve
immediate contact with the producer.
Furthermore, the use of prescribed
ranges will help employers and other
users to appropriately assess risk in the
workplace, even before an emergency
arises. This requirement provides
information to help manage risk
proactively.
Some commenters objected that
OSHA’s proposed changes to paragraph
(i) would not sufficiently inform
workers regarding hazardous materials
in the workplace (Document ID 0268;
0299, pp. 2–3; 0341, pp. 38–39; 0354, p.
1, 0354, p. 6, 0356, p. 6). National COSH
and Worksafe jointly commented that
the proposal would increase uncertainty
for workers as well as for regulators,
employers, worker representatives and
other decision-makers (Document ID
0354). In contrast, NABTU found the
proposed approach to be an acceptable
alternative to the current standard as the
prescribed concentration ranges ‘‘would
at least provide some information
[about] concentration in every instance
of the trade secret claim’’ (Document ID
0425, Tr. 24–25). NIOSH stated that the
proposed change would not increase
risk to workers provided that the trade
secret exemption is applied only in
limited and specific situations, and that
complete information on hazardous
properties, special handling
requirements, and necessary PPE is
provided on the SDS (Document ID
0281, p. 4; 0423, Tr. 19–20).
OSHA disagrees with comments that
the proposed revisions to paragraph (i)
would lessen protections and/or
information for workers. Under
paragraph (i), there are three types of
information that manufacturers can
claim as a trade secret: the name of a
chemical, the exact percentage of a
chemical’s concentration in a mixture,
and/or a concentration range. In the
2012 HCS, OSHA allowed
manufacturers to completely withhold
the name and/or the exact percentage;
manufacturers who withheld a
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44299
chemical’s exact percentage were not
required to list a concentration range in
its place. Under this final rule,
manufacturers may no longer
completely withhold the exact
percentage; they must now provide a
concentration range in its place. This
change will result in additional
information available to workers.
The Work Health and Survival Project
(WHSP) and an anonymous commenter
suggested that OSHA should adopt the
trade secret policies of Australia’s Work
Health and Safety (WHS) regulation, in
which the identities of chemicals
presenting moderate hazards may be
withheld as trade secrets on the SDS
and disclosed using a generic name
(Document ID 0341, pp. 38–39; 0268). A
different anonymous commenter, who
claimed to have experience with
companies that make insufficiently
supported trade secret claims as a
pretext for withholding the identity or
percentage of hazardous ingredients,
opined that OSHA’s proposal to allow
the concentration range to be withheld
as a trade secret would make it more
difficult for downstream users to
conduct hazard classifications, and that
‘‘the inappropriate claiming of trade
secret status should be addressed before
companies are allowed to also claim the
range as a trade secret’’ (Document ID
0308, p. 1). They suggested that the HCS
should not allow ‘‘chemical ingredients
of public knowledge or of general
knowledge in an industry’’ to be
claimed as a trade secret.
OSHA did not propose to require the
use of a generic name when the identity
of chemicals presenting moderate
hazards are withheld as trade secrets or
to disallow trade secret protection for
generally known chemical components.
These suggestions are therefore out of
scope for this rulemaking. For OSHA to
consider these changes they would need
to be addressed in a future rulemaking.
Furthermore, OSHA does not agree that
the proposal to allow concentration
ranges to be withheld as a trade secret
must not be finalized until the
possibility that some manufacturers may
be using the trade secret provisions
inappropriately is eliminated. OSHA
believes that potential misuse of trade
secret protections is best addressed
through enforcement.
Several commenters gave input on the
proposed rules for combining ranges,
including responses to the question
OSHA posed in the NPRM as to whether
it should allow more expansive
combination of the prescribed ranges.
NAIMA and Ameren supported
combination of all ranges listed
(Document ID 0309, p. 13; 0338, p. 8;
0423, Tr. 162–163). Ameren cited
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44300
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘potential cost savings by OSHA
allowing combinations among all
ranges’’ (Document ID 0309, p. 13).
DOD opposed allowance for
combinations of all prescribed ranges,
arguing that the benefits to be gained by
requiring use of prescribed ranges
would be negated by allowing
combination of an unlimited number of
concentration ranges. DOD
recommended instead that OSHA
should ‘‘allow no more than 2
prescribed concentration ranges, below
20%, to be combined as this would still
provide actionable information for
managers and safety professionals to
protect worker health’’ and that the use
of any concentration range greater than
20% (or combined concentration ranges
greater than 20%) should require some
form of special exemption (Document ID
0299, pp. 2–3).
OSHA agrees with DOD that allowing
employers to combine prescribed ranges
from (i)(1)(iv)(A) through (M) would
prevent important information from
reaching employees and health and
safety professionals. However, OSHA
does not agree that limiting
concentration ranges to no greater than
20% will materially improve the
effectiveness of the standard over the
concentration ranges OSHA proposed.
Most of the concentration ranges OSHA
proposed to adopt in paragraph (i)(1)(iv)
are 25% or less, with the exception of
paragraph (i)(1)(iv)(I) (concentrations
between 30% and 60%). The largest
range that could be created through
combining ranges is 23% (for
concentrations of 7% to 30%). As
explained above, the ranges chosen have
been in use by entities trading in
Canada since 1988 and OSHA finds no
evidence in the record, or in DOD’s
comment, demonstrating that these
ranges are insufficient to effectively
inform workers and downstream users
of chemical hazards. In addition,
altering the concentration ranges would
negate the benefit of consistency with
Canada’s system. Therefore, OSHA is
not adopting DOD’s suggestion.
PLASTICS asked OSHA to clarify
what is required if the actual
concentration range straddles two
prescribed ranges, in two situations.
First, PLASTICS stated that the proposal
‘‘does not clearly convey the options
available if the exact range falls between
0.1% and 30% and does not fit entirely
into one of the prescribed ranges.’’
Second, PLASTICS asked for
clarification on what should be done if
the actual concentration range straddles
two prescribed ranges and it exceeds
30%. PLASTICS proposed the following
revision to address these situations:
‘‘[w]hen the concentration or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
concentration range for an ingredient is
withheld as a trade secret, the SDS must
list the narrowest prescribed
concentration range(s) in
§ 1910.1200(i)(1)(iv) which include(s)
the actual concentration or
concentration range for that ingredient’’
(Document ID 0314, p. 21; see also 0423,
Tr. 142–143).
OSHA disagrees with PLASTICS’
suggestion. First, OSHA believes
proposed paragraph (i)(1)(v) does clearly
specify what a manufacturer must do
when the exact range falls between 0.1
and 30 percent but does not fit entirely
into one of the prescribed ranges (A)
through (G). In that case, the
manufacturer must combine two
consecutive ranges between (A) and (G)
and may supply the resulting range in
place of selecting a single prescribed
range to represent the concentration
range on the SDS.
Regarding PLASTICS’ question as to
what should be done when a
concentration range above 30 percent
cannot be captured by the use of a single
prescribed range, OSHA believes in
such a circumstance it would be
inappropriate for a manufacturer to
withhold the concentration range from
the SDS. In the hypothetical case where
representing a manufacturer’s batch
would require a combination of ranges
above 30 percent, the resulting range
would generally be too wide to provide
meaningful information to workers, and
permitting such combinations would
bring the HCS out of alignment with
Canada. Therefore, OSHA is not
adopting PLASTICS’ proposed revision.
OSHA notes that manufacturers would
still, in such cases, have the option of
withholding the chemical identity in
order to protect trade secret information.
ADM similarly suggested that OSHA
revise paragraph (i) ‘‘to clarify that any
of the prescriptive concentration ranges
be allowed, if accurate’’ (Document ID
0361, p. 3). OSHA notes that ADM’s
requested change would contradict,
rather than clarify, the agency’s intent.
Manufacturers must use the narrowest
range possible that includes the true
concentration range, so that workers
will have access to the most precise
information possible under a system of
prescribed ranges which align with
Health Canada’s requirements.
For the reasons discussed above,
OSHA is finalizing the rules for
combination of prescribed ranges as
proposed, with the exception that
OSHA has added paragraph (i)(1)(vi) to
allow use of narrower ranges, and
narrower combinations of ranges, than
those described in (i)(1)(iv) and (i)(1)(v)
respectively.
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
PLASTICS also suggested revising
(i)(1) to state that the chemical
manufacturer, importer, or employer
may withhold the chemical identity
and/or concentration or concentration
range of a hazardous chemical
‘‘substance . . . from Section 3 (as well
as every other section) of the safety data
sheet . . .’’ (emphasis added to indicate
PLASTICS’ suggested additions to (i)(1))
(Document ID 0314, p. 20). PLASTICS
opined that the reference to Section 3 in
paragraph (i)(1) ‘‘could imply that it
must still be included elsewhere’’ on the
SDS.
OSHA does not believe that
PLASTICS’ suggested text is necessary
or appropriate. OSHA intended the
instructions contained in paragraph
(i)(1) to pertain to how to treat chemical
trade secrets for Section 3 of the SDS.
This is evident in OSHA’s HCS
Compliance Directive, which specifies
that if a trade secret is claimed, the SDS
must indicate that the identity and/or
concentration of the chemical is claimed
as a trade secret in Section 3 (Document
ID 0007, pp. 76–77). OSHA proposed to
add ‘‘in Section 3’’ to paragraph (i)(1) to
ensure that its intent for the directions
contained in paragraph (i)(1) to apply
specifically to the SDS Section 3 is
clear. However, OSHA did not intend
for this clarification to imply that a
manufacturer who withholds the
identity of a hazardous chemical from
Section 3 in accordance with paragraph
(i) must provide the name of that
chemical in other sections, such as in
conjunction with its OSHA Permissible
Exposure Limit (PEL) or American
Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit
Value (TLV) (if applicable) in Section 8.
Rather, the identifier provided for that
chemical in Section 3 should be used
consistently throughout the SDS. This is
also conveyed by the directive, which
indicates that the identifier used in
Section 3 and Section 8 must be the
same if there is a PEL or TLV associated
with the constituent. In addition to the
requirement to use a single identifier for
a hazardous chemical throughout the
SDS, OSHA notes that in other sections
where a manufacturer may make
specific claims about a chemical
constituent’s health effects and provides
supporting evidence for those claims
(e.g., Section 11, Toxicological
information) the manufacturer must
provide sufficient information regarding
the chemical identity for others to assess
these claims.
Furthermore, OSHA notes that
PLASTICS does not explain the addition
of ‘‘substance’’ in its suggested text. The
agency finds that adding ‘‘substance’’ in
the place indicated does not improve on
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
the original text and is not making this
change to the regulatory text.
Toby Threet was concerned that if a
range is broader than OSHA’s specified
‘‘ ‘trade secret’ ranges, but . . . not being
withheld as a trade secret . . . an
Agency inspector [may] misunderstand
and issue a citation, believing that these
broad ranges did not comply with
paragraphs (i)(1)(iv) and (i)(1)(v).’’
Threet requested ‘‘clarification from
OSHA that the provisions of paragraphs
(i)(1)(iv) and (i)(1)(v) apply only to
concentration ranges that are withheld
as a trade secret, not to actual
concentration ranges that are disclosed
in the SDS. Thus, if the actual
concentration range is broader than the
ranges stated in paragraph (i), and is
disclosed, this does not constitute
noncompliance with paragraph (i)’’
(Document ID 0279, p. 7). OSHA does
not believe this to be an issue because
paragraphs (i)(1)(iv)–(v) unambiguously
apply only to trade secret claims and
paragraph (i)(1)(iii) requires the SDS to
indicate when the specific chemical
identity and/or percentage
concentration or concentration range of
composition is being withheld as a trade
secret. Moreover, OSHA expects that its
inspectors will be adequately trained in
the proper application of the standard’s
requirements. Therefore, OSHA does
not believe there will be any confusion
on this point and is not adopting
Threet’s suggestion.
As explained in the Summary and
Explanation for paragraph (c), OSHA
proposed in the NPRM to add a
definition of Physician or other licensed
health care professional (PLHCP) to the
standard, defined as an individual
whose legally permitted scope of
practice (i.e., license, registration, or
certification) allows the individual to
independently provide or be delegated
the responsibility to provide some or all
of the health care services referenced in
paragraph (i) of the standard.
Correspondingly, OSHA proposed to
replace the phrase ‘‘physician and
nurse’’ in paragraph (i) with ‘‘PLHCP’’
to be consistent with other OSHA
standards that use the term PLHCP and
to better reflect current medical
practices. No commenter objected to
this revision.
In their comments and at the public
hearing, PLASTICS requested guidance
on what measures an employer may take
prior to disclosing a trade secret in the
event of a medical emergency to verify
it would be disclosed to an appropriate
individual (Document ID 0314, p. 21;
0423, Tr. 142–143). Paragraph (i)(2)
specifies that where a treating PLHCP
determines that a medical emergency
exists and the chemical identity and/or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
specific percentage concentration of a
hazardous chemical is needed for
emergency or first-aid treatment, the
chemical manufacturer, importer, or
employer must immediately disclose the
specific chemical identity or percentage
composition of a trade secret chemical
to that treating PLHCP, regardless of
whether a written statement of need or
a confidentiality agreement exists.
However, the chemical manufacturer,
importer, or employer may require a
written statement of need and
confidentiality agreement, in
accordance with the provisions of
paragraphs (i)(3) and (4), as soon as
circumstances allow. The
confidentiality agreement authorized by
paragraph (i)(3)(iv) provides remedies to
ensure CBI is protected.
Finally, PLASTICS and Michele
Sullivan expressed concern that the use
of ‘‘or’’ in paragraph (i)(1) could suggest
that either the identity or the
concentration of an ingredient may be
withheld as CBI, but not both.
(Document ID 0314, pp. 20–21; 0366, p.
5). OSHA’s intent is that both chemical
identity and the exact percentage (or the
concentration range) may be claimed as
a trade secret. To clarify this, and to be
consistent with similar language in
paragraph (i)(1)(iii), OSHA has revised
paragraph (i)(1) in the final rule to state
that the manufacturer, importer, or
employer may withhold the specific
chemical identity and/or the exact
percentage (concentration) or
concentration range of the chemical for
which a trade secret is claimed.
(j) Dates
Paragraph (j) of the HCS specifies the
dates by which compliance with the
updated provisions of the HCS is
required. This final rule modifies the
previous dates in paragraph (j), which
pertained to implementation of the 2012
update to the HCS and have all passed.
As explained below, OSHA has
modified the compliance dates in the
final rule from those proposed in the
NPRM to address stakeholders’ concerns
that the proposed dates did not provide
sufficient time for chemical
manufacturers, importers, and
distributors to comply.
In the NPRM, OSHA proposed a twoyear tiered compliance period. First,
OSHA proposed that the final rule
would become effective 60 days after
the publication date (paragraph (j)(1)).
The agency then proposed two staggered
compliance dates: chemical
manufacturers, importers, and
distributors evaluating substances
would be required to comply with all
modified provisions of the HCS no later
than one year after the effective date
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44301
(paragraph (j)(2)) and chemical
manufacturers, importers, and
distributors evaluating mixtures would
need to comply no later than two years
after the effective date (paragraph (j)(3))
(86 FR 9701).
OSHA received numerous comments
on the proposed dates in paragraph (j),
including requests for extension of
compliance dates; comments related to
the proposed differentiation between
compliance dates for substances and
mixtures; and requests for clarification.
Two commenters stated that they
believed the proposed compliance dates
were adequate (Document IDs 0309, p.
17; 0360, p. 9). Many commenters,
however, requested more time to
comply with the proposed changes to
the HCS. Suggestions included
extension of compliance dates ranging
from an additional six months to two
years for substances and six months to
three years for mixtures (see, e.g.,
Document ID 0347, pp. 14–16; 0423, Tr.
106; 0327, pp. 2–3; 0329, pp. 9–10;
0343, p. 4; 0349, pp. 2–3; 0338, pp. 5;
0461, pp. 3–5; 0368, p. 10; 0323, p. 10;
0367, p. 6; 0447, p. 6; 0291, pp. 2–4;
0356, p. 11; 0339, p. 4; 0316, p. 11;
0364, p. 3; 0283, p. 6). Commenters
based these recommendations on a
number of considerations related to the
difficulty of updating labels and SDSs.
For example, ACC stated that a
significant number of the proposed
changes to the HCS would either require
updating a large number of SDSs, such
as the requirement to list particle
characteristics, or would require
extensive time to implement properly
due to the need to purchase new
software, test and approve changes to
software, and update precautionary
statements on SDSs (Document ID 0347,
pp. 15–17). NAIMA noted additional
reasons that updating labels and SDSs
would be time-consuming, including
the time required to replace language or
change color on a product label; review
the changes for quality, accuracy, and
compliance with all regulatory
requirements; and redesign the labels
(Document ID 0338, pp. 4–5; 0461, pp.
3–5).
Several commenters expressed
support for OSHA’s proposed tiered
approach which provided a later
compliance date for chemical
manufacturers, importers, and
distributors responsible for evaluating
mixtures than for those evaluating
substances (See, e.g., Document ID 0323,
p. 10; 0327, p. 2; 0356, p. 10; 0366, p.
6; 0367, p. 6; 0447, p. 6; 0347, p. 14;
0287, p. 12; 0309, p. 17; 0316, p. 11).
However, some commenters expressed
concern that the compliance windows
were too short because downstream
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44302
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
users might not receive key information
from upstream manufacturers,
importers, or distributors in time to
comply with the requirement to update
SDSs or labels (See, e.g., Document ID
0327, pp. 2–3; 0329, p. 10; 0356, p. 10;
0317, p. 2; 0314, pp. 22–23; 0338, pp.
3–5; 0323, p. 10; 0287, p. 11; 0362, pp.
4–5). The National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM) noted that many
downstream manufacturers, importers,
or distributors may not know whether
there are any updates in classification
coming from upstream (Document ID
0362, pp. 4–5). Hach echoed this
concern, stating that this issue had
previously caused problems with
OSHA’s 2012 update to the HCS
(Document ID 0323, p. 10). Hach
suggested that OSHA extend the
compliance deadline for chemical
manufacturers of mixtures to two years
beyond the compliance date for
substances (Document ID 0323, p. 10).
For similar reasons, some commenters
recommended adding an additional tier
for chemical manufacturers who
combine multiple mixtures since they
will be reliant on upstream
manufacturers, importers, or
distributors for new information, which
may come at the end of the compliance
period for the mixture tier (Document ID
0317, p. 2; 0362, pp. 4–5; 0326, p. 8).
NAM and NRI recommended that in this
potential third tier OSHA should
explicitly state that such companies are
allowed three months to update SDSs
and six months to update labels from
the date the companies receive new
information from upstream suppliers
(Document ID 0362, p. 5; 0326, p. 8).
NACD proposed a slightly different
change to the tiered compliance dates
and requested that OSHA adopt a
staggered implementation timeline
based on role in the supply chain,
where the original chemical producer
would have 18 months to comply, and
the next segment of the supply chain
(typically chemical distributors) would
have an additional year (Document ID
0329, pp. 9–10).
As the following discussion explains,
OSHA believes that the proposed
compliance dates will be adequate for
implementation of most of the HCS
revisions included in this final rule.
However, OSHA is adopting a modest
extension to the proposed compliance
dates to account for the possibility that
some of the issues cited by stakeholders
could present a significant challenge to
meeting the proposed timeline.
As discussed further in Section VI.,
Final Economic Analysis and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, OSHA
has analyzed the time, effort, and cost
of the changes in this rule and has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
concluded that most of the revisions
will require only limited changes to
SDSs and labels for select hazardous
chemicals to reflect chemical
reclassifications (Appendix B) and to
conform to language criteria in
precautionary statements and other
mandatory language (Appendix C and
Appendix D). As also noted in that
section, chemical manufacturers and
importers periodically review, revise,
and update the electronic templates
they use to create SDSs and labels when
new information becomes available,
changes are made to the product, or new
products are introduced to the market,
allowing many chemical manufacturers
and importers to phase in any required
revisions to their labels and SDSs in
accordance with the normal cycle of
updating these items. The arguments
raised by commenters were accounted
for in that analysis. Therefore, the
agency estimates that the revisions it is
finalizing will, for the most part, be
possible to work into the normal cycle
of SDS and label updates.
Although OSHA believes that the
proposed one- to two-year tiered
compliance dates will accommodate
implementation of most revisions
included in this final rule, the agency
also recognizes that some of the changes
to the HCS in this update will result in
major changes to classifications, and
that some of the changes to Appendix C
and Appendix D may result in
significant changes to some labels or
SDSs, which could pose difficulties for
some stakeholders to meet the
compliance dates originally proposed.
Therefore, OSHA is extending the
compliance date for chemical
manufacturers, importers, and
distributors evaluating substances to be
18 months after the publication date and
the compliance date for mixtures to be
36 months after the publication date.
OSHA is amending the designation of
the compliance date for substances to be
paragraph (j)(2)(i) and is amending the
designation of the compliance date for
mixtures to be paragraph (j)(3)(i) in
order to accommodate the addition of
paragraphs (j)(2)(ii) and (j)(3)(ii),
discussed later in this section. OSHA is
not further differentiating the
compliance timeline between
manufacturers of mixtures from
substances and manufacturers of
mixtures from mixtures, as some
commenters suggested. Nor is OSHA
adopting a staggered implementation
timeline based on role in the supply
chain, as NACD suggested. OSHA is
concerned that adding such additional
tiers could potentially create a very long
compliance timeline, leaving workers
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
along the supply chain with uneven
protections and undermining the
purpose of the HCS, which is to have a
single harmonized system. As the
agency explained in finalizing the 2012
HCS, although some overlap between
the current requirements and the new
ones is inevitable during the phase-in
period, ‘‘hazard communication during
this transition period will be confusing
and less effective’’ (77 FR 17739). OSHA
seeks to limit this effect by ensuring that
the transition is completed in a timely
fashion.
OSHA has determined that the
changes in this final rule can be
implemented within the timeframes set
for compliance. OSHA believes that the
extended dates and tiered approach
based on substances and mixtures will
alleviate the vast majority of compliance
issues. However, OSHA recommends
that manufacturers of mixtures and
downstream clients who use their
products for further processing and/or
manufacture of other mixtures work
together to ensure that all parties have
sufficient time to comply with this
standard. OSHA believes, as it did in
2012, that ‘‘[t]hese types of issues are
generally addressed by the market, and
the needs of a manufacturer’s
customers’’ (77 FR 17739). In addition,
where particular circumstances warrant
special consideration (such as where a
downstream user has not received the
necessary information despite its best
efforts), OSHA retains enforcement
discretion to address those situations as
appropriate.
Hach and ACA also requested an
unlimited sell-through period for
products labeled prior to the
compliance deadlines to prevent waste
and unnecessary compliance burden
(Document IDs 0323, p. 10; 0368, p. 10).
Hach noted that ‘‘[e]xisting label stock
would cover thousands of products.
Without an unlimited sell-through these
existing stocks would need to be
disposed of and manufactured products
would need to be relabeled’’ (Document
ID 0323, p. 10). While OSHA is not
specifically providing unlimited time to
use already-created labels on existing
stock, the agency is finalizing an update
to paragraph (f)(11) which allows
manufacturers, importers, and
distributors to not relabel chemicals that
have been released for shipment and are
awaiting distribution, which will reduce
the need to dispose of existing label
stock and eliminate relabeling for those
products. See the Summary and
Explanation for paragraph (f) for further
discussion of the update to paragraph
(f)(11).
Several commenters recommended
that the compliance dates should align
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
with other countries (Document ID
0279, p. 2; 0327, p. 2; 0347, p. 15; 0359,
p. 5). In particular, HCPA, Dow, and
ACC recommended that OSHA
coordinate compliance dates with
Health Canada’s WHMIS update
(Document ID 0347, p. 15; 0327, p. 2).
OSHA notes that Health Canada has
already published their update to the
HPR and they are now aligned with Rev.
7 (see https://www.canada.ca/en/
health-canada/services/environmentalworkplace-health/occupational-healthsafety/workplace-hazardous-materialsinformation-system/amendmentshazardous-products-regulations.html)
with a compliance date of December 14,
2025. The agency will, however, work
with Canada to address stakeholder
concerns regarding the timing of
updates and related compliance dates as
OSHA has done with other cross-cutting
issues. Additionally, OSHA notes that
chemical manufacturers have the option
to coordinate their compliance with
Canada and OSHA’s updated
requirements by coming into
compliance with whichever country’s
compliance dates occur first.
OSHA also received requests for
clarification related to the proposed
compliance deadlines. ICBA, NRI,
AF&PA and AWC, and ILMA stated that
the terms ‘‘evaluating substances’’ and
‘‘evaluating mixtures’’ in proposed
paragraphs (j)(2) and (j)(3) were unclear
(Document ID 0291, pp. 2–4; 0356, p.
10; 0326, pp. 7–9; 0287, p. 10). ICBA
noted that if OSHA meant the term
‘‘evaluating’’ to refer only to the task of
hazard classification, the proposed
regulation is unclear as to when
manufacturers, importers, or
distributors must comply with other
new or revised requirements in this
final rule, particularly those that
normally occur after a determination of
a hazard classification, as no other
compliance dates were provided
(Document ID 0291, p. 3). ICBA, ILMA,
and AF&PA and AWC sought to clarify
which provisions of the final rule have
a compliance deadline of 60 days, one
year, and two years after the effective
date of the final rule (Document ID
0291, p. 3; 0356, p. 10; 0287, p. 10).
Relatedly, ASSP raised concerns about
the sufficiency of the compliance
periods for training requirements
specifically, and recommended that
OSHA implement a transition period to
allow employers adequate time to
retrain workers (Document ID 0284, p.
2).
OSHA intends that the terms
‘‘evaluating substances’’ and
‘‘evaluating mixtures’’ include hazard
evaluations and updates to
classification, labeling, and SDSs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
required to comply with the revisions in
this final rule. These changes are to be
completed by 18 months from the
effective date for substances (paragraph
(j)(2)(i)) and by 36 months from the
effective date for mixtures (paragraph
(j)(3)(i)). Because this final rule contains
only limited revisions of the hazard
classification rules, the agency does not
anticipate that most employers will
need to complete additional
requirements that follow from changes
to hazard classification, namely,
updating any alternative workplace
labeling used under paragraph (f)(6),
updating the hazard communication
program required by paragraph (h)(1),
and providing any additional employee
training in accordance with paragraph
(h)(3) for newly identified hazards.
However, recognizing that some
employers will need to complete these
requirements, OSHA is adding new
paragraphs (j)(2)(ii) and (j)(3)(ii) to the
final rule. Those paragraphs provide an
additional six months after the
compliance dates to complete any
necessary updates to alternative
workplace labeling, updates to the
hazard communication program, and
additional employee training for newly
identified physical or health hazards
resulting from evaluation of substances
and mixtures (that is, 24 months after
the effective date for substances and 42
months after the effective date for
mixtures).
None of the provisions revised in this
final rule have an immediate
compliance deadline on the effective
date of the final rule (i.e., 60 days after
the date of publication of the final rule).
To further clarify how employers can
comply with the HCS through the
implementation phase of the final rule,
OSHA is adding a new paragraph (j)(4),
which provides that chemical
manufacturers, importers, distributors,
and employers may comply with either
§ 1910.1200 revised as of May 20, 2024,
or the previous version of this standard,
or both during the transition period.
In conclusion, for the reasons
discussed above, OSHA is finalizing
paragraph (j) with the following
modifications: chemical manufacturers,
importers, and distributors evaluating
substances are required to comply with
all modified provisions of the HCS no
later than 18 months after the effective
date (paragraph (j)(2)(i)) and those
entities evaluating mixtures must
comply with all modified provisions no
later than 36 months after the effective
date (paragraph (j)(3)(i)); new
paragraphs (j)(2)(ii) and (j)(3)(ii) require
employers to update any alternative
workplace labeling under paragraph
(f)(6), update the hazard communication
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44303
program required by paragraph (h)(1),
and provide any additional employee
training in accordance with paragraph
(h)(3) for newly identified hazards no
later than 24 months following the
effective date for substances and 42
months following the effective date for
mixtures; and new paragraph (j)(4)
provides that chemical manufacturers,
importers, distributors, and employers
may comply with either the previous
version of this standard, the version
finalized in this rule, or both during the
transition period. The revised paragraph
(j) will replace the regulatory text
previously included in paragraph (j).
C. Appendix A
Appendix A addresses the health
hazards covered by the HCS, including
classification criteria consistent with the
GHS.
OSHA proposed to update Appendix
A in several respects. The agency’s
finalized changes to Appendix A, its
review of the comments and testimony
received on the proposed changes to
Appendix A, and OSHA’s response to
these comments and testimony are
discussed in order of revisions to
specific health hazards in Appendix A,
followed by general changes to
definitions and terminology,
clarification of mandatory requirements,
and corrections.
At the time that OSHA’s NPRM was
published, OSHA provided a redline
strikeout version of Appendix A, which
reflected all of OSHA’s proposed
revisions, in the docket and on the
OSHA website (Document ID 0222, pp.
39–115) so that interested parties could
view all of the proposed changes in
context. OSHA will update this
document to show the changes being
made in this final rule and strongly
encourages stakeholders to review that
document in conjunction with the
discussion of the revisions, as the
discussion provided in this final rule’s
Summary and Explanation does not
fully describe all of the non-substantive
or editorial changes OSHA is making in
Appendix A. Stakeholders can examine
the redline strikeout of the regulatory
text (changes from 2012 HCS to this
final) at OSHA’s HCS web page (https://
www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/) to view all
of the changes to the 2012 HCS made in
this final rule.
OSHA received comments broadly
supporting its proposed revisions to
Appendix A. (NAIMA stated that it
‘‘supports the extensive changes to
Appendix A because the classification is
clarified in a positive manner and not
changed . . . NAIMA agrees [with
OSHA] that proposed amendments will
bring greater clarity’’ (Document ID
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44304
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
0338, p. 7). ILMA stated, ‘‘ILMA and its
members are generally supportive of
OSHA’s proposed changes to Appendix
A. While largely editorial, these changes
better synchronize the Hazard
Communication Standard with the GHS
and, with respect to ease of
international trade, such
synchronization to those other
jurisdictions, which are adopting more
recent versions of the GHS, assist ILMA
members who do business
internationally’’ (Document ID 0404,
Att. 2, p. 1). ILMA further requested that
OSHA publish guides to assist the
regulated community with
classification, particularly smaller
companies who may not use
subscriptions to database-driven hazard
communication software and who may
not understand how to incorporate nonanimal testing results in their
classifications of mixture products
(Document ID 0404, Att. 2, p. 2). OSHA
anticipates updating some of the
existing hazard communication
standard guidance products, such as the
Hazard Classification guidance
(Document ID 0008), and also
anticipates developing new products to
assist the regulated community in
complying with the updated standard.
OSHA’s proposed revisions to
Appendix A are reviewed in detail
below, together with a review of the
comments and testimony received on
each proposed revision and discussion
of the provisions adopted in the final
rule.
I. General Classification Considerations
(Appendix A.0)
In paragraph A.0.1, OSHA proposed
to add a note from paragraph 1.3.3.1.3
of Rev. 7 (Document ID 0060, p. 21),
providing that ‘‘Where impurities,
additives or individual constituents of a
substance or mixture have been
identified and are themselves classified,
they should be taken into account
during classification if they exceed the
cut-off value/concentration limit for a
given hazard class.’’ OSHA did not
include this note in the HCS in 2012
because the definition of substance in
paragraph (c) references additives and
impurities, and therefore the
classification of substances necessarily
takes impurities and additives into
account. Nonetheless, the agency came
to believe that this note adds clarity and
is useful for aligning with the GHS, so
proposed to add this note as paragraph
A.0.1.3. OSHA’s intent in proposing this
provision was to clarify that
manufacturers and importers must
consider the hazards of all classified
components when classifying
chemicals, which the agency believed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
would help ensure accurate
classification of chemicals and therefore
improve protections for workers.
OSHA received one comment
regarding its proposed addition
(Document ID 0316, pp. 11–12). API
supported the proposed revision, noting
that the proposed language aligns with
the UN GHS and prior OSHA guidance
(Document ID 0316, pp. 11–12). OSHA
did not receive any comments objecting
to the proposed addition of the note
from Paragraph 1.3.3.1.3 of Rev. 7;
therefore, the agency has finalized the
addition of this provision in new
paragraph A.0.1.3.
Cal/OSHA, Cal/HESIS, Worksafe and
National COSH submitted suggestions
that OSHA should modify paragraph
A.0.3.5 to require a single positive study
to determine the hazard classification
(Document ID 0322, Att. 1, p. 9; 0313,
p. 5; 0354, p. 1; 0407, p. 12). Cal/OSHA
stated that ‘‘[r]equiring disclosure of the
findings of a single positive study that
reports ‘statistically and biologically
significant positive results’ is important
for a number of reasons.’’ They noted
that this single positive study rule
would (1) represent the highest possible
standard of evidence in establishing
causation in health studies, (2) address
the issue that scientific standards of
evidence can bias health effects studies
toward false negative results, (3) remove
the economic incentive for a
manufacturer, importer or classifier not
to classify based on a single study, and
(4) reduce ‘‘information asymmetries’’
between producers and downstream
buyers (Document ID 0322, Att. 1, pp.
9–12).
OSHA did not propose any changes to
A.0.3.5, therefore, these comments are
out of scope for this rulemaking.
Additionally, OSHA discussed its
decision to remove the across-the-board
‘‘one-study’’ approach in the 2012
update to the HCS. The agency
explained that the hazard evaluation
process in the HCS goes beyond simply
identifying one study and was
preferable because it includes a
complete evaluation of all of the
information available when determining
what information to transmit to users of
the chemical, although the one-study
approach was still included in some
criteria in the 2012 HCS (77 FR 17708).
OSHA also proposed to modify the
introduction of paragraph A.0.4.1,
which previously characterized the
process of mixture classification
provided in A.0.4.1(a) through (c) as
‘‘recommended,’’ to instead characterize
the specified process as mandatory.
OSHA did not receive any comments
objecting to the proposed revision.
Therefore, the agency has finalized the
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
introduction of paragraph A.0.4.1 to
state that, except as provided in A.0.4.2,
the process of mixture classification is
based on the specified sequence of steps
in A.0.4.1(a) through (c).
John Baker submitted a comment
expressing support for the existing
language of paragraph A.0.4.3.2, which
specifies that, if the classifier has
information that the hazard of an
ingredient will be evident (i.e., it
presents a health risk) below the
specified cut-off value/concentration
limit, the mixture containing that
ingredient must be classified
accordingly, in light of the unique
hazards posed by nanoscale particles.
Baker noted that ‘‘[t]his is important
because the health (and to some extent,
physical) hazard posed by nanoscale
particles is related to the large number
of particles rather than their aggregate
weight percentage in the mixture’’
(Document ID 0302). OSHA did not
propose to alter paragraph A.0.4.3.2,
therefore, it is unchanged in the final
rule.
II. Acute Toxicity (Appendix A.1)
In paragraph A.1.1, OSHA proposed
to revise the definition of acute toxicity
to refer to serious adverse health effects
(i.e., lethality) occurring after a single or
short-term oral, dermal, or inhalation
exposure to a substance or mixture. The
previous definition referred to adverse
effects occurring following oral or
dermal administration of a single dose
of a substance, or multiple doses given
within 24 hours, or an inhalation
exposure of four hours. This change was
proposed to align with Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060, p. 115; 0131).
Cal/OSHA commented that the acute
toxicity definition needed more clarity.
Specifically, they noted that a ‘‘serious
health effect’’ is not synonymous with
death (i.e., lethality) and that OSHA
contradicted itself in A.1.2.1 if it
intended ‘‘serious health effect’’ to mean
death (Document ID 0322, Att. 2, p. 1).
Cal/OSHA also commented that ‘‘acute
toxicity has to do with the timing of
health effects, not their nature;
therefore, it is not appropriate to use the
term ‘serious’ to qualify ‘health
effects’ ’’, and that ‘‘there are many
forms of acute toxicity that do not lead
to death,’’ ranging from mild (e.g., skin
irritation) to serious (e.g., eye damage)
to deadly (e.g., pulmonary edema)
(Document ID 0322, Att. 2, pp. 1–2).
Finally, they noted that non-lethal
health effects are covered by their
respective sections in Appendix A and
that the introductory material for acute
toxicity should make this clear.
OSHA agrees with Cal/OSHA that the
general term ‘‘acute’’ refers to timing,
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
rather than severity, of effects. In the
proposed language, the term ‘‘acute’’
refers to health effects ‘‘occurring after
a single or short-term oral, dermal, or
inhalation exposure to a substance or
mixture.’’ However, as Cal/OSHA
observed, non-lethal health effects are
covered by their respective sections in
Appendix A, and thus the inclusion of
‘‘serious adverse health effects (i.e.,
lethality)’’ is a necessary component of
the definition to indicate to regulated
parties that within the HCS framework
the classification of acute toxicity is
only used when the effects are
sufficiently severe in order to avoid
duplicative classifications or
unnecessary confusion between hazard
classifications.
Furthermore, the phrase ‘‘serious
adverse health effects (i.e., lethality)’’ in
the proposed definition is not intended
to imply that OSHA considers serious
adverse health effects to be, in general,
synonymous with death. Rather, this
phrase is taken from the GHS and is
intended to signify that the endpoint of
the toxicological test methods used to
classify for ‘‘acute toxicity’’ is the death
of animals in the test population. The
definition’s reference to lethality is
intended to distinguish between hazards
that meet the classification criteria
established for ‘‘acute toxicity,’’
utilizing toxicological test methods with
an endpoint of lethality, from hazards
which are acute in nature, but which
should be classified under other
sections in Appendix A because the
available information does not indicate
lethality. The phrase does not represent
a determination by OSHA that other
health effects are not serious in the
sense of being ‘‘material’’ for the
purposes of the OSH Act.
Finally, OSHA disagrees with Cal/
OSHA that the new text added to
A.1.2.1 contradicts the agency’s use of
‘‘lethality’’ in the proposed definition of
‘‘acute toxicity.’’ Although some in vivo
methods include indicators such as
‘‘significant clinical signs of toxicity’’ to
approximate LD50/LC50 values, these
methods are using the clinical signs of
toxicity to indirectly determine the
acute toxicity estimate (ATE) which is
nevertheless intended to characterize
the lethality of a toxic substance.
Therefore, OSHA maintains that its
revisions to A.1.2.1 do not contradict its
use of the term ‘‘lethality’’ to
characterize the endpoint used to
classify a hazard under ‘‘acute toxicity.’’
OSHA therefore declines to adopt the
recommendations made by Cal/OSHA
regarding the definition of acute
toxicity.
John Baker commented that the
modified definition is ‘‘vague as to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
dimension of time’’ and recommended
that OSHA amend the proposed
definition of acute toxicity to refer to
serious health effects (i.e., lethality)
occurring following oral or dermal
administration of a single dose of a
substance, or multiple doses ‘‘given
within 24 hours or an inhalation
exposure of 4 hours’’ (Document ID
0302). However, OSHA notes that the
references to time in the acute toxicity
definition were purposely removed so
that the definition would be more
general and neutral with respect to test
guidelines (86 FR 9705). Since the HCS
is test method neutral, OSHA believes
that the definitions in the HCS should
not include timeframes as listed in
specific test guidelines. Therefore,
OSHA has retained the proposed
modifications in the acute toxicity
definition to exclude timeframes in the
final rule.
For the reasons discussed above,
OSHA is finalizing the definition of
acute toxicity in paragraph A.1.1 as
proposed.
OSHA also proposed to revise the
classification criteria for substances in
A.1.2.1 to indicate that ‘‘[w]hile some in
vivo methods determine LD50/LC50
values directly, other newer in vivo
methods (e.g., using fewer animals)
consider other indicators of acute
toxicity, such as significant clinical
signs of toxicity, which are used by
reference to assign the hazard category.’’
This change was proposed to align with
classification criteria in the Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060, p. 115; 0131).
The Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine (PCRM)
supported this revision and
recommended that OSHA include the
Collaborative Acute Toxicity Modeling
Suite (CATMoS) for screening chemicals
for acute oral toxicity, which can be
used to predict GHS classification
(Document ID 0295, p. 2). As the HCS
is test method neutral and, as stated in
A.0.2.2, test guidelines that have been
scientifically validated are acceptable,
OSHA has not included a specific
reference to CATMoS in paragraph
A.1.2.1 in the final rule. However, the
agency will consider including
information about CATMoS in one of its
guidance products, as it may be helpful
to classifiers. API also supported the
proposed revision, noting its alignment
with the GHS (Document ID 0316, p.
15). Therefore, OSHA has finalized the
classification criteria for substances in
A.1.2.1 as proposed.
OSHA also proposed slight revisions
to Table A.1.1 to align with Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060, p. 115; 0131). The
GHS presents the ATE range in Table
A.1.1 using the term ‘‘ATE’’ to express
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44305
the range, while the 2012 HCS uses the
term ‘‘and.’’ OSHA proposed to change
the ‘‘and’’ in the ATE ranges to ‘‘ATE’’
to align with Rev. 7. The proposed
modification was not to change the
classification criteria itself, but as OSHA
explained in the NPRM, would be more
technically accurate and consistent with
the way the table is expressed in the
European Chemicals Agency’s Guidance
on the Application of the CLP Criteria:
Guidance to Regulation (EC) No 1272/
2008 on classification, labelling, and
packaging of substances and mixtures
(Document ID 0256, pp. 237–238).
Michele Sullivan suggested that the
format used in the 2012 HCS Table
A.1.1 should be retained, as it is familiar
to small businesses, businesses, and
stakeholders operating in the U.S.
According to Sullivan, the ‘‘focus of the
USA OSHA HCS should be to express
technically correct values in a format
easy to understand for USA
stakeholders, not to be consistent with
formatting in EU regulations’’
(Document ID 0366, p. 7).
Tom Murphy commented that ‘‘the
information to be conveyed in [Table
A.1.1] is in the format ‘>5 ATE ≤50.’ The
placement of the acronym in the format
of the proposed rule makes the
information difficult to comprehend at a
glance, and this opportunity for a
systemic failure is easily addressed:
please consider changing the format of
the table entries to either ‘5 < ATE ≤ 50’
or ‘ATE > 5 and ATE ≤ 50’ ’’ (Document
ID 0277, p. 1).
OSHA believes that the proposed
format, in addition to aligning with Rev.
7 and the EU’s CLP regulation, is also
more technically correct than the format
used in the 2012 Table A.1.1. The ATE
values define the hazard categories for
acute toxicity. For example, if a gas has
an ATE of less than or equal to 100, then
it should be classified as Category 1.
The format used in the 2012 version of
the standard included just the number
‘‘≤ 100’’ under the Category 1 column,
while the proposed Table A.1.1 includes
‘‘ATE ≤ 100’’. OSHA believes that the
proposed format displays the criteria in
a more technically accurate way, and
that classifiers will understand the
information presented in this format. As
such, OSHA has retained the
modifications to Table A.1.1 in the final
rule. While Tom Murphy’s suggested
change is technically equivalent to
OSHA’s proposal, it is not evident that
Murphy’s notation would be
significantly easier to understand ‘‘at a
glance’’ nor would it be consistent with
the GHS or other international partners.
Therefore, OSHA is not adopting the
suggestion.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44306
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
OSHA is also making a correction to
the heading of Table A.1.1 in the final
rule. The heading of Table 3.1.1 in Rev.
7 states, ‘‘Acute toxicity estimate (ATE)
values and criteria for acute toxicity
hazard categories.’’ OSHA inadvertently
left out the change to the heading in the
NPRM and is making the editorial
correction in this final rule to maintain
alignment with the GHS.
OSHA proposed to include a new
sentence at the end of paragraph A.1.2.3
to clarify that data from both animal
tests and human studies should be
considered in evaluating acute toxicity.
The proposed text stated that ‘‘[i]n cases
where data from human experience (i.e.,
occupational data, data from accident
databases, epidemiology studies,
clinical reports) is also available, it
should be considered in a weight of
evidence approach consistent with the
principles described in A.0.3.’’ To
ensure human data is considered in
classifying chemicals for all acute
toxicity hazard categories, the GHS
added this clarifying text in paragraph
3.1.2.3 (Document ID 0131, p. 116) and
OSHA proposed adding this sentence to
align with Rev. 7. OSHA did not receive
any comments pertaining to the
proposed revision. Therefore, the
agency is finalizing paragraph A.1.2.3 as
proposed.
OSHA proposed a new paragraph
A.1.2.4 which corresponds to Chapter
3.1 (paragraph 3.1.2.6.5) in Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060, p. 117). The agency
proposed this paragraph and its
subparagraphs to require the classifier to
consider whether the chemical is
corrosive to the respiratory tract if data
are available that indicate that the
mechanism of toxicity was corrosivity of
the substance or mixture. The proposed
paragraph was also to clarify that the
hazard corrosive to the respiratory tract
is covered under the HCS.
As OSHA explained in the NPRM, the
agency did not explicitly include the
corrosive to the respiratory tract hazard
in the HCS in 2012 but explained in its
guidance, OSHA 3844: Hazard
Communication: Hazard Classification
Guidance for Manufacturers, Importers,
and Employers, that this hazard should
be considered during classification
(Document ID 0008, p. 48). The Hazard
Classification guidance explains that if
the classifier has data indicating that
there is acute inhalation toxicity with
corrosion of the respiratory tract that
leads to lethality, then the substance or
mixture may be labeled with the
additional hazard statement ‘‘corrosive
to the respiratory tract.’’ However, if the
classifier has data that indicate acute
inhalation toxicity with corrosion of the
respiratory tract and the effect does not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
lead to lethality, then the guidance
explains that the hazard may be
addressed in the Specific Target Organ
Toxicity (STOT) hazard classes
included in Appendices A.8 and A.9 of
the HCS. OSHA proposed to include
these clarifications in paragraphs
A.1.2.4.1 and A.1.2.4.2, and to change
the ‘‘may’’ language from the guidance
to ‘‘must’’ language to ensure that
corrosive to the respiratory tract is
appropriately considered during the
classification process.
OSHA received several comments on
proposed paragraph A.1.2.4. NIOSH
supported OSHA’s proposed addition of
paragraph A.1.2.4, noting that it ‘‘adds
information to help protect workers’
safety and health,’’ is in line with the
intent of the original 1983 HCS, and
facilitates the design and
implementation of protective measures
appropriate to the hazard (Document ID
0281, Att. 2, p. 5). ILMA also supported
the addition of proposed paragraph
A.1.2.4, noting that it would assure
appropriate consideration of hazards
corrosive to the respiratory tract during
the classification process (Document ID
0356, Att. 1, p. 5). ICT agreed that the
addition of A.1.2.4 ‘‘clarifies that some
lethal inhalation effects are not due to
systemic poisoning but are due to local
destruction of respiratory tissue’’
(Document ID 0324, p. 5).
ICT also requested clarification on
when the statement would be
applicable. Both ICT and an anonymous
commenter asked whether OSHA
intended the ‘‘Corrosive to the
respiratory tract’’ hazard statement for
use instead of, or in addition to, the
existing hazard statements (e.g., ‘‘Fatal if
inhaled’’) related to acute toxicity by the
inhalation route (Document ID 0265;
0324, p. 5).
ACC asked OSHA to clarify the
proposed text in paragraphs A.1.2.4.1
and A.1.2.4.2. ACC indicated that ‘‘in
many cases, suppliers may choose to
warn for corrosion to the respiratory
tract simply based on a substance being
corrosive to eyes and skin,’’ and that
‘‘without knowledge as to whether this
effect leads to lethality, it is not clear
how suppliers should classify.’’ ACC
further stated that it is unclear what
OSHA’s intent is in referring to the
regulatory text for STOT classifications
and questioned what the agency meant
by the term ‘‘addressed’’ in A.1.2.4.2
(Document ID 0347, p. 16). In answer to
these requests for clarification, OSHA
has modified the proposed language.
The following discussion explains the
general classification process and how
label preparers are to apply a hazard
statement for corrosion of the
respiratory tract based on the final text.
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
To further clarify how corrosive effect to
the respiratory tract should be
addressed, OSHA is adding a note to
each of the relevant tables in Appendix
C.
When classifying for corrosive to the
respiratory tract the classifier should
take a tiered approach. If the classifier
has data to indicate the chemical is
corrosive to the respiratory tract and the
effect leads to lethality, then the label
should contain the hazard statement
‘‘Corrosive to the respiratory tract’’ and
the corrosion pictogram in addition to
the prescribed acute toxicity hazard
statement(s) and other label and SDS
elements. If the classifier has data that
indicate the chemical is corrosive to the
respiratory tract but does not lead to
lethality, then the chemical should be
classified using the criteria as provided
under STOT single exposure (STOT–
SE). The label should then include the
hazard statement ‘‘Corrosive to the
respiratory tract if inhaled.’’ This hazard
statement should be used instead of a
more general STOT–SE hazard
statement for the respiratory tract (e.g.,
‘‘Causes damage to respiratory tract if
inhaled’’) and unlike the corresponding
statement for acute toxicity, this hazard
statement includes ‘‘if inhaled’’ because
A.8.2.1.2 requires the relevant route(s)
of exposure by which the classified
substance produces damage to be
identified. Additionally, OSHA is
requiring the use of the more specific
corrosion pictogram instead of the more
general health pictogram when this
hazard is addressed under STOT.
However, if there are other target organ
hazards, the current STOT hazard
statement and pictogram should be used
to communicate those hazards, in
addition to the required hazard
statement and pictogram for corrosive to
the respiratory tract.
Finally, in response to ACC’s
comment on classifiers’ current
practices, OSHA is modifying the
proposed language to state that if the
classifier does not have direct data on
corrosivity to the respiratory tract (and
would therefore not classify the
chemical under STOT–SE) but the
chemical is classified under either skin
corrosion/irritation or serious eye
damage/eye irritation, the classifier
must consider the available data
(including skin and/or eye data) to
determine whether the chemical may be
corrosive to the respiratory tract if
inhaled. If they determine that it may be
corrosive to the respiratory tract, they
must include the hazard statement
corrosive to the respiratory tract along
with the already required hazard
statement (e.g., causes severe skin burns
and eye damage) and pictogram (e.g.,
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
corrosion) to ensure that the respiratory
corrosion hazard is communicated to
downstream users. This is intended to
ensure workers have complete hazard
information when handling a substance
or mixture that may cause corrosion to
the respiratory tract in order to avoid
gases, vapors, or mists that may be
generated under certain conditions (e.g.,
accidental spill) even if the substance or
mixture is not intended for such an
exposure route.
As OSHA indicated in proposed
paragraph A.1.2.4, the corrosive to the
respiratory tract classification is
intended to be used, when appropriate,
in addition to the inhalation toxicity
classification and the hazard statement
‘‘corrosive to the respiratory tract’’
would be used in addition to the hazard
statements for acute toxicity. To clarify
this provision, OSHA has modified
proposed paragraph A.1.2.4.1 to state,
‘‘If the classifier determines the
chemical is corrosive to the respiratory
tract and data are available that indicate
that the effect leads to lethality, then in
addition to the appropriate acute
toxicity pictogram and hazard
statement, the chemical must be labeled
with the hazard statement ‘corrosive to
the respiratory tract’ and the corrosion
pictogram.’’ OSHA anticipates
providing additional guidance on the
‘‘Corrosive to the respiratory tract’’
hazard statement following publication
of the final rule.
Cal/OSHA commented that paragraph
A.1.2.4.1, as written in the NPRM,
would not adequately warn workers and
emergency responders, reasoning that
when inhalation of a corrosive chemical
substance ‘‘leads to lethality,’’ that
information should be communicated
on the label, not just on the SDS (in
some cases ‘‘Fatal if inhaled’’ would
appear on the SDS) (Document ID 0451,
Att. 1, p. 2). Cal/OSHA suggested
alternative language for A.1.2.4.1 to
require that, if the classifier determines
a chemical is corrosive to the respiratory
tract and data are available that indicate
that the effect leads to lethality, then the
chemical must be labeled with either
the hazard statement, ‘‘This chemical is
corrosive to the respiratory tract and can
cause death if inhaled’’ or ‘‘This
chemical is corrosive to the respiratory
tract and can be fatal if inhaled’’
(Document ID 0451, Att. 1, p. 2).
Because the hazard statement
‘‘Corrosive to the respiratory tract’’
would supplement, rather than replace,
the appropriate acute toxicity pictogram
and hazard statement, OSHA disagrees
with Cal/OSHA that the proposed
supplemental hazard statement
‘‘Corrosive to the respiratory tract’’
should be modified from the GHS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
statement when the data indicate
lethality. The acute toxicity statements
already indicate lethality when
appropriate. For example, a chemical
that is acute inhalation toxicity Category
1 and is corrosive to the respiratory tract
will carry the skull and crossbones
pictogram and the hazard statement
‘‘Fatal if inhaled’’ in addition to the
‘‘Corrosive to the respiratory tract’’
statement.
An anonymous commenter asked
whether hazard categories are being
established for ‘‘Corrosive to the
respiratory tract’’ and, if so, how the
categories will be defined, how mixtures
should be classified that contain
component(s) deemed ‘‘Corrosive to the
respiratory tract,’’ and if cut-off values
would be established. They also noted
that this hazard statement does not
appear in Appendix C of the proposed
standard and asked what signal word,
pictogram, and precautionary
statements should appear on the SDS
and label when the ‘‘Corrosive to the
respiratory tract’’ hazard statement is
used (Document ID 0265).
As explained above, the ‘‘corrosive to
the respiratory tract’’ hazard is not a
distinct hazard class. Therefore, no
hazard categories will be established for
it. Classification of mixtures would
follow the same principles as for other
health hazards. If there are no data for
the mixture as a whole, mixtures that
contain component(s) deemed corrosive
to the respiratory tract should be
classified as acutely toxic, STOT–SE,
skin corrosion/irritation, or eye damage/
irritation and carry the appropriate
pictogram(s), signal word, hazard
statement(s) and precautionary
statement(s) on the label and SDS based
on the hazard class and category. The
SDS and label for the mixture will also
contain the hazard statement ‘‘Corrosive
to the respiratory tract’’ (for acute
toxicity, skin corrosion/irritation, or eye
damage/irritation) or ‘‘Corrosive to the
respiratory tract, if inhaled’’ (for STOT–
SE). As discussed above and in the
Summary and Explanation for
Appendix C, OSHA agrees that the
hazard statements for corrosion to the
respiratory tract should be included in
Appendix C along with the other label
element information and has included it
there in the final rule. The Summary
and Explanation for Appendix C
includes further discussion of the label
element requirements associated with
corrosion to the respiratory tract.
ACC expressed concern about the
impact of this proposal on GHS
harmonization, stating that ‘‘[t]he
introduction of a new Acute Toxicity
and Specific target organ toxicity (single
exposure) (STOT SE) classification for
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44307
corrosion to the respiratory tract will
cause a number of significant
classification differences between
jurisdictions and confusion among
manufacturers and importers’’ and
argued that the information could be
accurately represented in Section 11 of
the SDS. They noted the EU as an
example which ‘‘includes
supplementary EUH [European Union
hazard] phrases, but does not require
the use of an entirely separate
classification’’ (Document ID 0347, p.
16).
Furthermore, ACC stated that STOT
classifications are not appropriate for
classifying respiratory corrosion.
According to ACC, STOT repeat
exposure (STOT–RE) is not appropriate
because respiratory corrosion is an acute
effect; STOT–SE Category 1 or Category
2 are also not appropriate because
respiratory corrosion is not a systemic
effect; and STOT–SE Category 3 is not
appropriate because it only refers to
respiratory irritation (Document ID
0347, p. 17). VelocityEHS similarly
opined that corrosion to the respiratory
tract does not fit the criteria under
STOT because ‘‘damage from
corrosivity/causticity is not usually tied
to a specific organ, but damages
multiple tissues (skin, eyes, mucus
membranes). Corrosive/caustic
substances damage whatever tissue they
come into contact with, and therefore do
not meet the definition of being target
organ specific’’ (Document ID 0320, p.
2).
OSHA disagrees with ACC and
VelocityEHS’ position that STOT
criteria should not be used for corrosion
to the respiratory tract. Specifically,
OSHA disagrees with ACC’s position
that STOT–SE Category 1 and Category
2 cover only systemic effects and are
therefore not the appropriate hazard
classes and categories to address the
corrosion of the respiratory tract hazard.
The GHS recognized that local effects
are also covered under STOT in Rev. 2,
published in 2007. Prior to Rev. 2, the
hazard class chapter was entitled
‘‘Specific Target Organ/Systemic
Toxicity.’’ In Rev. 2, the UNSCECHS
agreed to replace the term ‘‘Specific
target organ/systemic toxicity’’ and all
its related terms with ‘‘Specific target
organ toxicity’’ on the understanding
that, according to paragraphs 3.8.1.1 and
3.9.1.1 of the GHS, ‘‘all significant
health effects that impair function (both
reversible and irreversible, immediate
and/or delayed) are regarded to be
‘‘target organ toxicity’’, irrespective of
the toxic effects being local or not’’ (ST/
SG/AC.10/C.4/22, available at https://
unece.org/DAM/trans/doc/2006/ac10c4/
ST-SG-AC10-C4-22e.pdf, p. 6).
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44308
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Corrosion to the respiratory tract fits the
meaning of ‘‘Specific target organ
toxicity’’ as explained by the
UNSCECHS.
Similarly, OSHA disagrees with
VelocityEHS’s reasoning that the
occurrence of corrosion in multiple
organs (e.g., skin, eye, mucus
membranes) excludes classification for a
respiratory tract STOT. Under STOT–SE
in the HCS (A.8.1.4), classifiers should
take into consideration both changes in
a single organ or biological system and
generalized changes of a less severe
nature involving several organs.
However, OSHA agrees with ACC that
since respiratory tract corrosion is an
acute effect, STOT RE is not an
appropriate hazard class for corrosion of
the respiratory tract. OSHA is therefore
removing the reference to A.9 from
A.1.2.4.2. OSHA also agrees that
corrosion of the respiratory tract would
not be appropriately classified as
STOT–SE Category 3 because it would
not meet the criteria in A.8.2.2. The
language in A.1.2.4.2 is a general
reference that corrosive to the
respiratory tract should be classified
under STOT and therefore no regulatory
text change is necessary to exclude
STOT Category 3. Additionally, to make
this clear, OSHA has not included a
note regarding corrosive to the
respiratory tract in Appendix C under
the table for STOT–SE Category 3. For
the reasons explained above, OSHA
maintains that STOT–SE Category 1 and
Category 2 should be used for
classifying corrosive to the respiratory
tract hazards when the data meet the
criteria and indicate the effect does not
lead to lethality.
OSHA disagrees with ACC’s comment
that the use of STOT criteria would
cause significant classification
differences between jurisdictions,
including diverging from the EU’s
approach to classification. OSHA notes
that ACC may have misunderstood
OSHA’s intent regarding corrosive to the
respiratory tract since paragraph A.1.2.4
incorporates additional hazard phrases
but does not create an entirely separate
classification, which is also, as ACC
noted, how the EU treats corrosion of
the respiratory tract. However, OSHA
has made changes to the approach so
that the label and SDS would be more
consistent with other jurisdictions,
including the EU. First, OSHA has
updated the label elements under
STOT–SE for consistency so the hazard
statement and pictogram on the label
(and SDS) would be equivalent to the
EU. Additionally, OSHA has updated its
approach to include the hazard
statement ‘‘Corrosive to the respiratory
tract’’ under Appendices A.2 and A.3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
when there are insufficient data to
support classification under STOT. This
is similar to the EU approach where if
a chemical is corrosive and the chemical
may be inhaled then the EUH071
‘‘Corrosive to the Respiratory Tract’’
hazard phrase must be used.
Furthermore, OSHA disagrees with ACC
that information on corrosivity to the
respiratory tract can be sufficiently
covered in Section 11 of the SDS, as
Section 11 is not typically used to
convey important toxicity information
to workers at a level of generality
appropriate to a lay reader, but rather to
safety and health experts at a more
detailed level.
VelocityEHS further commented that
labeling elements present for corrosive
to the respiratory tract versus acute
toxicity and STOT could be confusing
or misleading to a worker since the
pictogram for corrosion is different. To
illustrate this issue, VelocityEHS
provided an example indicating that if
a chemical is corrosive to the respiratory
tract, but the effect does not lead to
lethality, corrosion still occurs and is
likely corrosive to the skin and eye. In
that case, they noted that providing the
health hazard pictogram to represent the
STOT along with the corrosion
pictogram could be misleading and
confusing as to why the health hazard
pictogram was included (Document ID
0320, p. 3)
VelocityEHS suggested alternate
criteria for evaluating corrosive to the
respiratory tract when it does not lead
to lethality, including modified text for
paragraph A.1.2.4 and its subparagraphs
that lays out a tiered approach for
classifying chemicals as corrosive to the
respiratory tract. They suggested first
classifying chemicals as corrosive to the
respiratory tract under the skin or eye
hazard classes, and then if not classified
under either of these hazard classes,
classifying under STOT–SE.
VelocityEHS provided additional text
for Appendices A.2 (Skin Corrosion/
Irritation) and A.3 (Serious Eye Damage/
Eye Irritation) including classification
guidance and label elements for
corrosive to the respiratory tract
(Document ID 0320, pp. 2–7).
OSHA agrees with VelocityEHS that
Appendices A.2 and A.3 are relevant for
corrosive to the respiratory tract and has
updated the text of A.1.2.4.2
accordingly, but disagrees with
VelocityEHS’s suggestion that they
should be the primary hazard classes
that should address corrosive to the
respiratory tract. As discussed above,
OSHA believes that STOT–SE criteria
are appropriate when the data indicate
corrosion to the respiratory tract and
indicate non-lethality; therefore,
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Appendix A.8 (STOT–SE) is
appropriate. However, the agency
recognizes that in many cases the data
may be insufficient to justify a STOT–
SE classification and therefore it would
be appropriate to include corrosive to
the respiratory tract based on data used
for either skin corrosion/irritation
classification or serious eye damage/eye
irritation classification.
OSHA also disagrees with
VelocityEHS that workers will find the
label elements for acute toxicity
confusing or misleading when used
alongside label elements for corrosion of
the respiratory tract. OSHA understands
that workers may be already familiar
with the corrosion pictogram because of
skin and eye corrosion, and with
effective training, the combination of
the corrosion pictogram and the skull
and bones pictogram for acute toxicity
will helpfully and accurately convey the
level of severity of the hazard and thus
are helpful to include together.
However, OSHA does believe that more
targeted hazard communication is
warranted for STOT SE and, as
explained above, is adding a new hazard
statement ‘‘Corrosive to the respiratory
tract, if inhaled’’ and requiring the use
of the corrosivity pictogram instead of
the health pictogram. Workers will also
need to be trained on the corrosive to
respiratory tract hazard and that they
may see the corrosion pictogram in
addition to the skull and crossbones, but
OSHA believes that with the training
required under the HCS these
modifications will ultimately provide
better information and will not be
confusing.
However, OSHA also notes that in
Appendix C, the agency gives direction
on the label elements and in particular
has added a new paragraph in this
rulemaking (C.3.2.4) to make clear that
if multiple hazards require the same
pictogram only one pictogram should
appear on the label (see discussion in
Appendix C). Additionally, Appendix C
provides flexibilities under C.2 (Hazard
statements) and C.4 (Precautionary
statements) indicating that the label
preparer can omit statements if they can
show that a statement is inappropriate
or that modified statements improve
readability. Lastly, the label preparer
can provide supplemental information
to the label (or SDS) as long as the
information does not contradict or cast
doubt on the required information. With
all of these flexibilities, OSHA believes
SDS and label preparers will be able to
minimize any confusion that
VelocityEHS suggests will exist.
Following the discussion above,
OSHA is finalizing the new paragraph
A.1.2.4 which provides that if the
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
classifier has data indicating that there
is acute inhalation toxicity, based on
lethality data, with corrosion of the
respiratory tract, then the substance or
mixture should be labeled with the
additional hazard statement ‘‘Corrosive
to the respiratory tract’’ and the
corrosion pictogram. OSHA is retaining
the provision that if the classifier has
data that indicates corrosion of the
respiratory tract and the effect does not
lead to lethality, then the hazard must
be addressed in the STOT–SE (A.8)
hazard class, with the modified hazard
statement and corrosion pictogram in
lieu of the usual STOT–SE
requirements. If there are insufficient
data to classify the hazard as STOT, and
the classifier determines based on
relevant skin and/or eye data that the
chemical may cause corrosion of the
respiratory tract, then the hazard
statement ‘‘Corrosive to the respiratory
tract’’ must be used in A.2 and/or A.3,
as appropriate. As described further in
the summary and explanation for
Appendix C, OSHA has also added
notes to the relevant sections in
Appendix C to further clarify this issue.
However, OSHA is removing the
reference to STOT–RE (A.9) from
paragraph A.1.2.4.2. Additionally,
OSHA intends to update its Hazard
Classification guidance document
(Document ID 0008) following the
publication of the final rule and
anticipates adding further guidance for
‘‘Corrosive to the respiratory tract.’’
Paragraph A.1.3.6.1 explains how to
classify a mixture when there are data
for all of the ingredients in the mixture.
Cal/OSHA commented on paragraph
A.1.3.6.1 that the units that are used in
the ATE formula are unclear and
suggested that OSHA provide more
explanation and an example using each
of the applicable units (Document ID
0322, Att. 2, p. 3). OSHA did not
propose a change to the ATE formula in
A.1.3.6.1 and therefore this comment is
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
However, Table A.1.1, Acute toxicity
estimate (ATE) values and criteria for
acute toxicity hazard categories,
provides the units that should be used
to calculate the ATE by route of
exposure. Additionally, OSHA provides
guidance on classification of acute
toxicity and examples using the ATE
formula in its Hazard Classification
guidance document (Document ID 0008,
pp. 33–35).
In Figure A.1.1 and paragraph
A.1.3.6.2.2, OSHA proposed to correct
the cross-reference from A.1.3.6.2.3 to
A.1.3.6.2.4. OSHA did not receive any
comments pertaining to this proposed
revision and is therefore finalizing the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
corrections to Figure A.1.1 and
paragraph A.1.3.6.2.2 as proposed.
OSHA also proposed to amend
paragraph A.1.3.6.2.3. If a mixture
contains an ingredient of unknown
acute toxicity at a concentration of at
least one percent, paragraph A.1.3.6.2.3
previously required a statement that
‘‘X’’ percent of a mixture consists of
ingredient(s) of unknown toxicity on the
label and SDS. OSHA proposed to revise
this paragraph to require a statement
that ‘‘X’’ percent of the mixture consists
of ingredient(s) of unknown acute (oral/
dermal/inhalation) toxicity on the label
and SDS in such cases (emphasis
added), thus indicating that the
percentage of unknown acute toxicity
must be differentiated by route of
exposure. Given that it is possible to
have unknown ingredients for more
than one relevant route of exposure
(e.g., oral, dermal, inhalation), OSHA
reasoned that differentiating the
statement by route would be helpful to
chemical users. This proposed change
aligns with paragraph 3.1.3.6.2.2 in Rev.
7 (Document ID 0060, p. 121). OSHA
also proposed to delete the second
paragraph in A.1.3.6.2.3 because it is
duplicative of the first paragraph.
ILA supported the proposed revision
in A.1.3.6.2.3, stating that the change
‘‘adds value to the label and provides
valuable information to the end user’’
(Document ID 0315, p. 3). However, ILA
also commented that more clarity is
needed surrounding when the statement
should be used, and that it may be
difficult for users to understand when
the statement of unknown toxicity is
required on a label. Specifically, they
asked ‘‘[s]hould the statement be used
when the material is classified as Acute
Oral/Dermal/Inhalation without testing
AND contains components greater than
1% with unknown toxicity? OR if the
intention is to place this statement on
labels when no testing data is available,
the material does not have an acute oral/
dermal/inhalation classification but
contains components greater than 1%
with unknown toxicity?’’ (Document ID
0315, p. 3).
OSHA’s proposed changes to
A.1.3.6.2.3 do not affect when the
statement of unknown acute toxicity is
required. As clarified in OSHA’s
classification guidance (Document ID
0008, p. 42), the unknown acute toxicity
statement is required on the label and
the SDS where the chemical mixture is
already classified as acutely toxic for a
particular route of exposure, and there
are one or more other ‘‘relevant
ingredients’’ of unknown acute toxicity
for that particular route. In the event
that an ingredient with unknown acute
toxicity is used in a mixture at a
PO 00000
Frm 00167
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44309
concentration ≥ one percent, and the
mixture as whole has not been tested,
the mixture cannot be attributed a
definitive acute toxicity estimate. In this
situation, the mixture is classified based
on the known ingredients only. A
statement that X percent of the mixture
consists of ingredient(s) of unknown
acute toxicity (oral, dermal/inhalation)
is required on the label and SDS in such
cases. Conversely, if a mixture as a
whole has been tested but is not
classified based on this testing, then no
statement is required regardless of
ingredients (Document ID 0008, p. 42).
OSHA anticipates updating this
guidance following the publication of
the final rule and including a discussion
of this provision.
An anonymous commenter submitted
a question pertaining to paragraphs
A.1.3.6.2.3, C.3.3, and Appendix D of
the proposed HCS, which require a
statement of the concentration of
ingredients of unknown acute toxicity to
appear in Section 2 of the SDS and on
the label: ‘‘[c]onsider the case of a
mixture in which the exact
concentration(s) of hazardous
component(s) are withheld as trade
secrets and reported as prescribed
concentration range(s) (pursuant to
paragraph (i)(1)(iv)) in Section 3 of the
SDS. In Section 2 of the SDS and on the
label, is it acceptable to report the
percentage of ingredient(s) of unknown
acute toxicity as a range corresponding
to one of the prescribed ranges, or must
the exact percentage be reported?’’
(Document ID 0266). OSHA has
addressed this comment below in the
Summary and Explanation for
Appendix D.
OSHA received an anonymous
comment that referred to the ‘‘split entry
concept’’ and the agency’s 2013 LOI
(available at https://www.osha.gov/lawsregs/standardinterpretations/2013-0402), which describes ‘‘split entry’’ as a
concept used in the EU that allows for
a modified GHS classification in certain
situations, such as when particle size in
laboratory tests differs from the particle
size expected in workplace exposures
(Document ID 0270). The commenter
asked OSHA to clarify in the HCS how
SDS providers should classify
‘‘substances that are acutely toxic by
inhalation that are not respirable in the
form in which they are supplied’’
(Document ID 0270).
OSHA did not propose to address this
issue in the NPRM, therefore, the
request for clarification in the HCS is
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
However, OSHA notes that the 2013 LOI
states that the HCS 2012 classification
process does not support the use of the
split entry concept. The agency will
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44310
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
consider addressing this issue in
updated guidance to clarify that the use
of ‘‘split entry’’ is still not allowed
under the standard.
After reviewing these comments,
OSHA is finalizing the proposed
changes to paragraph A.1.3.6.2.3.
III. Skin Corrosion/Irritation and Serious
Eye Damage/Eye Irritation (Appendices
A.2 and A.3)
OSHA proposed revisions to the
sections on skin corrosion/irritation and
serious eye damage/irritation
(Appendices A.2 and A.3), which
correspond to Chapters 3.2 and 3.3 in
the GHS, respectively. As OSHA
explained in the NPRM (86 FR 9703),
the UNSCEGHS, in its 16th Session
(December 2008), assembled an informal
working group to review the content of
Chapters 3.2 and 3.3 in the GHS and to
propose editorial revisions in order to
enhance clarity and user-friendliness in
the application of the criteria
(Document ID 0093). The group’s
primary focus was to change the order
of the text to ensure that the
classification strategy was clear, and to
change the testing scheme to more of an
evaluation scheme, since the GHS, like
the HCS, is test method neutral. The
work of the informal working group was
not complete before OSHA published its
updates to the HCS in 2012. However,
the working group completed its efforts
to clarify the skin corrosion/irritation
and serious eye damage/eye irritation
chapters prior to publication of the
NPRM. The work was approved by the
UNSCEGHS in 2012 (Document ID
0212). Accordingly, in 2021, OSHA
proposed to revise Appendices A.2 and
A.3 to incorporate all the modifications
to the GHS skin corrosion/irritation and
serious eye damage/eye irritation
chapters agreed to by the UNSCEGHS
up to and including Rev. 7. The agency
reasoned that this would ensure that
OSHA’s HCS remains aligned with the
GHS.
OSHA proposed substantial revisions
to Appendix A.2 (Skin Corrosion/
Irritation) that reflect the final changes
the UNSCEGHS adopted through Rev. 7.
However, Rev. 8, published in July 2019
(Document ID 0065, pp. 129–145),
expanded the use of non-animal test
methods in Chapter 3.2 (skin corrosion/
irritation). These changes include
recognition of specific in vitro test
methods, reorganization of the chapter,
reorganization of the tiered approach
with an updated Figure 3.2.1 to reflect
those changes, as well as descriptive
text on use of new test methods,
structure activity relationship (SAR) and
read across methods, and an updated
decision logic diagram. Table 3.2.1 from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Rev. 8 updated the tiered approach for
classification, including an elevation in
acceptance of in vitro data to tier 2 of
the approach. The updated tiered
approach also included consideration of
conflicting lower-tiered data when the
lower tier suggests a higher
classification level. In addition to the
changes in the table, Rev. 8 updated the
background information to provide
additional guidance for how to use nonanimal test data to classify chemicals.
In Section XV., Issues and Options
Considered, in the NPRM, OSHA
requested comments from the regulated
community to determine if the agency
should adopt Chapter 3.2 from Rev. 8
with all of the revisions to the
classification scheme. The agency noted
that adoption would greatly benefit
classification for new chemicals where
no existing data currently exists. It also
explained that adopting these updates
in the HCS would not require a reevaluation of chemicals already
classified because the overall tiered
approach for evaluating existing data
has been retained.
OSHA received several comments that
favored including updates from Rev. 8
in the revised HCS. ILMA supported the
inclusion of Rev. 8’s tiered approach in
Appendix A.2 and indicated that their
members would benefit from the
inclusion of data from non-animal
testing protocols, although they also
noted that changes in criteria for skin
and eye irritation would present the
biggest compliance challenge to ILMA
members and would require ILMA
members to spend more time reviewing
the updated criteria to assure that all
available data are considered (Document
ID 0356, pp. 5–6). PCRM also supported
incorporating in Appendix A.2 ‘‘all
revisions to the classification scheme for
skin corrosion/irritation’’ from Rev. 8
(Document ID 0295, p. 1). ACC thanked
OSHA ‘‘for taking into consideration the
additional flexibility that the inclusion
of Chapter 3.2 (specifically Table 3.2.1)
provides’’ and expressed support for the
use of non-animal test methods for
classification purposes (Document ID
0347, p. 6). PETA, HCPA, and NAIMA
also expressed support for OSHA
expanding the use of non-animal testing
(Document ID 0282, p. 1; 0327, p. 8;
0338, p. 7).
NIOSH supported adoption of a tiered
approach to classification of chemicals
for skin irritation and corrosion
(Document ID 0281, Att. 2, p. 5). NIOSH
also recommended that OSHA consider
the NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin
61: A Strategy for Assigning New
NIOSH Skin Notations as a resource
(NIOSH [2017]. A strategy for assigning
new NIOSH skin notations. Cincinnati,
PO 00000
Frm 00168
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No.
2009–147). NIOSH stated that the
proposed expansion of the use of
nonanimal test methods in evaluating
skin corrosion/irritation from Rev. 8
‘‘would elevate the use of in vitro
methods in the tiered approach to the
classification of chemicals under
Appendix A.2 Skin Corrosion/Irritation
. . . [and] would be beneficial if
systemic effects of the chemical in
question have been ruled out. In vitro
methods predictive of in vivo outcomes
continue to improve but may not
accurately predict systemic response
[Stueckle and Roberts 2019]’’
(Document ID 0281, Att. 2, p. 5).
A few commenters expressed
concerns with adopting Rev. 8. Michele
Sullivan commented that it was good
planning for OSHA to consider adopting
Rev. 8, but expressed concern that the
regulatory text was not provided
(Document ID 0366, p. 2). API similarly
requested that OSHA provide the exact
regulatory language (Document ID 0316,
p. 31). In response to these stakeholder
concerns regarding the regulatory text,
OSHA notes that the NPRM provided
the updated criteria from Rev. 8 which
describes the classification criteria as
well as the full text of the GHS purple
book for Rev. 8 (Document ID 0065, pp.
129–136). OSHA believes that this
provided ample notice for interested
parties. No commenter expressed
specific concerns about the GHS
classification criteria provided in the
docket.
OSHA agrees with commenters that
including the updates in Rev. 8 to the
skin corrosion/irritation chapter would
benefit classification and has revised
Appendix A.2 in the final rule to align
with the updates in Rev. 8. The agency
is not including any revisions regarding
Category 3 because the agency did not
adopt Category 3 in 2012, which is
primarily for consumer products, and
commenters agreed this decision was
appropriate (77 FR 17709). OSHA did
not receive any comments suggesting
that the agency should adopt Category 3
in this final rule and is not including it
in this update. OSHA has also not
included the guidance material in Rev.
8.
OSHA will take NIOSH’s concern
regarding systemic effects into account
when updating its classification
guidance. The agency also
acknowledges ILMA’s concern regarding
the additional time required to review
the updated criteria. However, OSHA
reiterates that the agency is not
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
changing the HCS classification criteria.
The updates from Rev. 8 provide
additional guidance for how to use nonanimal test data to classify new
chemicals. Inclusion of these updates in
the HCS does not require a re-evaluation
of chemicals already classified because
the overall tiered approach for
evaluating existing data has been
retained (86 FR 9692). However, OSHA
has taken ILMA’s suggestion and
extended the compliance deadlines
from the timelines in the NPRM (see
Summary and Explanation for
paragraph (j)).
In the NPRM, OSHA’s proposed text
for Appendix A.2 was based on Rev. 7,
so the agency’s decision, based on the
comments it received, to align with Rev.
8 necessarily entails changes from the
proposed text. Thus, many of the
sections discussed below are now
numbered differently or may be
rephrased. Additionally, several new
sections have been added. These
changes are discussed below in the
order in which they appear in Appendix
A.2.
In Appendix A.2, skin corrosion/
irritation, Paragraph A.2.1.1 provides
updated definitions of skin corrosion
and skin irritation, and those definitions
are the same in Rev. 7 and Rev. 8. Cal/
OSHA suggested that OSHA should
clarify the revised definitions in
paragraph A.2.1.1 since the time
references were removed from the
definition (Document ID 0322, Att. 2,
pp. 3–4). As discussed below, OSHA
proposed to modify the HCS health
hazard definitions to make the
definitions more general and to remove
the references to the test guidelines.
OSHA believes these revisions provide
clearer and more concise definitions
and a clear differentiation between the
‘‘definitions’’ section and ‘‘general
considerations’’ section. Therefore,
OSHA has retained the revised
definitions of skin corrosion and skin
irritation in the final rule. However, in
response to Cal/OSHA’s comments,
OSHA has modified the final definitions
of skin corrosion and skin irritation to
include the word ‘‘initial’’ to clarify the
time parameters. The updated
definitions in the final rule read, ‘‘Skin
corrosion refers to the production of
irreversible damage to the skin; namely,
visible necrosis through the epidermis
and into the dermis occurring after
initial exposure to a substance or
mixture’’ and ‘‘Skin irritation refers to
the production of reversible damage to
the skin occurring after initial exposure
to a substance or mixture.’’
Additionally, OSHA has included
information about the time parameters
in A.2.2.2.1.1, A.2.2.2.2.1, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
A.2.2.2.2.2. For skin corrosion in
A.2.2.2.1.1, the agency is adding the
word ‘‘initial.’’ For skin irritation in
A.2.2.2.2.1, OSHA is including the text
‘‘following its application for up to 4
hours’’ and in A.2.2.2.2.2 is adding the
text ‘‘when after the first application’’ to
indicate that these provisions refer to a
one-time exposure.
OSHA originally proposed that new
paragraph A.2.1.2 would clarify the
sequence in which data should be
evaluated when classifying for skin
corrosion/irritation using a tiered
evaluation approach. However, since
OSHA is now aligning Appendix A.2
with Rev. 8, it is finalizing language
based on Rev. 8’s language in 3.2.1.2,
which clarifies that all available and
relevant information must be considered
when conducting classifications. It also
indicates that all classifications must be
based on data generated using
internationally validated and accepted
methods. OSHA believes that the
content of its original proposal for
A.2.1.2 is adequately clarified in Figure
A.2.1 and is not necessary to include in
A.2.1.2. Also to align with Rev. 8, OSHA
is adding paragraph A.2.1.3, which was
not in the text of the proposed rule, to
provide information on the tiered
approach to classification of skin
corrosion/irritation hazards.
OSHA proposed to revise paragraph
A.2.2 to present the information in a
clearer, more logical fashion but did not
propose to change the classification
criteria. The text OSHA originally
included in the NPRM for this
paragraph was based on Rev. 7, but
because the agency has decided to align
it with Rev. 8, the language and
numbering has changed since the
proposal. Paragraph A.2.2 contains more
information on when to use subcategories 1A, 1B, and 1C. New
paragraphs A.2.2.1 and A.2.2.2 provide
information on classification based on
standard human data and animal test
data, respectively. Paragraph A.2.2.2.1
and subparagraphs A.2.2.2.1.1 and
A.2.2.2.1.2, as well as Table A.2.1,
provide classification information and
criteria for skin corrosion. Skin
irritation information and criteria are
included in paragraph A.2.2.2.2.
ACC commented that OSHA should
retain flexibility in classification and
‘‘avoid an overly prescriptive inclusion
of Table 3.2.1’’ of Rev. 8. ACC did not
explain what it might consider an
‘‘overly prescriptive inclusion of Table
3.2.1’’ to be. Since ACC expressed
general support of updating Appendix
A.2 to expand the use of non-animal test
methods as outlined in Rev. 8 and
praised ‘‘the additional flexibility that
the inclusion of Chapter 3.2 (specifically
PO 00000
Frm 00169
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44311
Table 3.2.1) provides’’ in their
comments, and since OSHA has not
added any requirements for testing or
requirements to re-evaluate chemicals
already classified, the agency believes
its approach to incorporating Rev. 8
changes into Table A.2.1 (which is
drawn from Table 3.2.1) would not
likely be ‘‘overly prescriptive’’ in ACC’s
view (Document ID 0347, p. 6).
Tom Murphy commented on
paragraph A.2.2.2.1 (now A.2.2.2.2.1),
suggesting that OSHA consider a change
from the proposed text ‘‘A substance is
irritant to skin when it produces
reversible damage to the skin following
its application for up to 4 hours’’ to ‘‘A
substance is an irritant to the skin when
it produces reversible damage to the
skin within 4 hours of the initial
application’’ (Document ID 0277, p. 1).
Murphy reasoned that an improper
reading of the proposed wording could
lead a reader to misunderstand that the
application is constantly applied (rather
than applied once and allowed to
remain) for up to four hours while
observing the subject for reversible
damage.
The language in paragraph A.2.2.2.1
(now A.2.2.2.2.1), ‘‘for up to 4 hours,’’
is consistent with the language used in
the GHS and was taken from the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) test
guidelines, which are widely recognized
and accepted around the world.
Classifiers are already familiar with the
language and the associated test
guideline. Therefore, OSHA is
maintaining this provision as proposed
in the final rule. However, as discussed
above, OSHA has updated the definition
of skin irritation in A.2.1.1 to include
the word initial and paragraph A.2.2.2.1
(now A.2.2.2.2.2) with the additional
phrase ‘‘when after the first application’’
for classification for skin irritation
(category 2), which should provide the
requested clarity.
OSHA also received comments on
paragraph A.2.2.2.4 (now A.2.2.2.2.4),
which discusses the variability of
animal irritant responses within a test.
Cal/OSHA commented that the text in
the paragraph is not clear (Document ID
0322, Att. 2, p. 4). They asked what
OSHA meant by the word ‘‘might,’’ and
if the manufacturer or importer is
required to act on this information or
not. They also inquired about the
meaning of a ‘‘very elevated mean
score,’’ how ‘‘other responses’’ fulfill
this criterion, and how this increases
‘‘the sensitivity of the classification
system.’’ In response to Cal/OSHA’s
comments, OSHA modified the text in
the third sentence of paragraph
A.2.2.2.2.4 from ‘‘might’’ to ‘‘should’’ to
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44312
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
clarify that manufacturers should
designate a substance as an irritant
when at least one of three test animals
show a very elevated mean score
according to the test method used
throughout the study, including lesions
persisting at the end of an observation
period of normally 14 days. OSHA also
modified the text in the fourth sentence,
from ‘‘could’’ to ‘‘should’’ to indicate
that other irritant responses should also
fulfill the same criterion. OSHA notes
that the agency did not propose to
modify this paragraph, which is in the
2012 HCS as A.2.2.2.2, but the agency
believes adopting this change is
consistent with the changes made
throughout Appendix A to provide
clarity. With regard to Cal/OSHA’s
questions about other language in
A.2.2.2.4, OSHA has provided detailed
guidance on classification which
discusses each hazard class. In
particular, OSHA has provided
numerous examples for skin corrosion
and irritation classification scenarios
which provide detailed rationale on
applying the classification principles
(Document ID 0008, pp. 69–85) and
therefore does not believe that the
intention of the text is unclear to
regulated parties, but will review the
guidance to determine if additional
material should be added to clarify the
terms addressed by Cal/OSHA.
Table A.2.2 provides the classification
criteria for skin irritation Category 2.
Cal/OSHA asked why the classification
criteria indicate that a chemical should
be deemed a skin irritant if the criteria
are met in Table A.2.2 in at least two
animals, rather than one (Document ID
0322, Att. 2, p. 4). OSHA notes that the
HCS skin irritation classification criteria
align with the current criteria used for
classification of skin irritation in the
GHS reference tests where irritant
responses are present in two of three
tested animals. Regardless, to the extent
Cal/OSHA seeks a modification in the
criteria in Table A.2.2, such changes
were not proposed in the NPRM and
thus would be beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
As previously explained, OSHA is
introducing changes to the final rule
which align with Rev. 8. To that end
OSHA has added additional paragraphs
to Appendix A.2 in the final rule. New
paragraph A.2.2.3 provides information
on classification based on in vitro/ex
vivo data. New paragraph A.2.2.4
provides information on classification
based on other existing skin data in
animals. New paragraph A.2.2.5
includes information on classification
based on chemical properties. New
paragraph A.2.2.6 includes information
on classification based on non-test
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
methods. New paragraph A.2.2.7
outlines the approach to evaluation of
information that should be considered.
In addition, Figure A.2.1 was updated to
make it consistent with the text and to
show the tiered evaluation process.
PCRM supported adding these
sections, specifically highlighting the
revised Figure 3.2.1 and Sections
3.2.2.3, Classification based on in vitro/
ex vivo data, and 3.2.2.6, Classification
based on non-test methods (Document
ID 0295, pp. 1–2).
Cal/OSHA commented that the phrase
‘‘buffering capacity’’ in paragraph
A.2.3.5 is used inconsistently in
paragraph A.2.3.5, and is not defined in
the chapter, nor is the term ‘‘acid/
alkaline reserve’’ (Document ID 0322,
Att. 2, p. 5). Due to the changes made
to align with Rev. 8, the content Cal/
OSHA is referring to is now in A.2.2.5.
OSHA intends to update some of its
existing compliance assistance products
following the publication of the final
rule and anticipates providing further
guidance on acid/alkaline reserve
(buffering capacity).
Paragraph A.2.3 (proposed as A.2.4)
provides information on classification
criteria for mixtures. OSHA had
proposed changes to align with Rev. 7,
including changes to proposed A.2.4.1.1
and A.2.4.1.2. As with the other
classification criteria in A.2, in this final
rule OSHA is aligning this section with
Rev. 8 instead. Therefore, OSHA is
updating A.2.3.1.1 (proposed as
A.2.4.1.1) and A.2.3.1.3 (proposed as
A.2.4.1.2) and adding a new paragraph
A.2.3.1.2. In the new A.2.3.1.1, OSHA is
including language stating that the
tiered approach specified in Figure
A.2.1 must be taken into account when
evaluating mixtures. New paragraph
A.2.3.1.2 provides information on using
in vitro/ex vivo data and limitations
regarding applicability domains. The
new A.2.3.1.3 is also included to
indicate that if there are no other data
on the mixture besides pH, and the pH
is extreme (pH ≤2 or pH ≥11.5), that
information is sufficient to classify the
mixture as corrosive to the skin.
However, if the acid/alkaline reserve
suggests that the mixture may not be
corrosive despite the extreme pH, then
this needs to be confirmed by other
data.
OSHA also proposed to include a new
note to Table A.2.3, ‘‘Concentration of
ingredients of a mixture classified as
skin Category 1 or 2 that would trigger
classification of the mixture as
hazardous to skin (Category 1 or 2),’’ to
indicate how to classify the mixture
when data are available for subcategorization of Category 1. The
proposed note was to align with the
PO 00000
Frm 00170
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
note to Table 3.2.3 in Rev. 7 (Document
ID 0060, p. 133), in order to provide
information OSHA believes will be
useful for classifiers. OSHA received no
comments on this proposed note, and is
finalizing it as proposed except to
remove the phrase ‘‘data are available
and’’ to align with Rev. 8 as discussed
previously (Document ID 0065, p. 136).
ACC suggested that OSHA consider
adding Tables 3.2.6 and 3.2.7 from the
GHS to either the standard or an
updated guidance document (Document
ID 0347, p. 6). OSHA anticipates
updating some of its guidance products
following the publication of the final
rule and providing relevant guidance,
including the content of Tables 3.2.6,
Skin corrosion criteria for in vitro/ex
vivo methods, and 3.2.7, Skin irritation
criteria for in vitro methods from Rev.
8, as well as references to NIOSH’s
Current Intelligence Bulletin and/or
other relevant NIOSH guidance.
For the reasons discussed above,
OSHA is finalizing Appendix A.2 to
align with Rev. 8 in several respects,
including the changes to numbering and
wording, and the additional paragraphs
described above.
In Appendix A.3, OSHA proposed
updates to align with Rev. 7. API
supported these changes and noted that
they were in alignment with the GHS
(Document ID 0316, p. 19).
OSHA proposed to modify A.3.1.2 to
clarify the sequence in which data
should be evaluated when classifying
for serious eye damage/eye irritation
using a tiered evaluation approach. The
proposed revision was to align the
language in this paragraph with the
tiered approach in Figure A.3.1. The
first tier is existing human data,
followed by existing animal data,
followed by in vitro data, and then other
sources of information. OSHA received
no comments on this change, and is
finalizing it as proposed.
The changes OSHA proposed in
paragraphs A.3.2 and A.3.3, including
Tables A.3.1 and A.3.2, are mainly
editorial in nature. The classification
criteria in these paragraphs would
remain the same, but the proposed
revisions rearrange the presentation of
the information and include additional
headings to provide a clearer, more
logical sequence. All of the proposed
changes were to conform with Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060, pp. 139–145).
OSHA proposed a new paragraph
A.3.2 to provide a summary of the
classification criteria for substances that
is provided in Tables A.3.1 and A.3.2.
Paragraph A.3.2.3 of the 2012 HCS (now
renumbered as A.3.2.1.3) provided that
if there is pronounced variability among
animal responses, that information
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘may be taken into account’’ when
determining the classification. Worksafe
and Cal/OSHA commented that the
language in the 2012 HCS would allow
producers to withhold evidence of a
serious health effect in toxicological
studies if the effect occurs among a
range of other effects (Document ID
0354, p. 4; 0322, Att. 1, p. 3). While
Worksafe and Cal/OSHA incorrectly
suggest that this is a new problem with
the language, since the word ‘‘may’’ was
already in the 2012 HCS, OSHA agrees
with these comments and has
concluded that making a change would
be consistent with the editorial and
clarifying nature of the edits OSHA
proposed for A.3.2 and A.3.3 and the
broader goal of this update to Appendix
A to clarify which elements are
mandatory. The agency has therefore
revised proposed paragraph A.3.2.1.3 in
the final rule to indicate that the
provision is mandatory and that
information on pronounced variability
‘‘must’’ be taken into account when
making classification decisions.
OSHA received a comment from Cal/
OSHA asking why two out of three test
animals are required for category 1(b)
while only one positive test is required
in (a). Additionally, they stated the text
in the table is unclear about the
meaning of irreversible effects
(Document ID 0322, p. 5). While OSHA
proposed to modify the title and added
a footnote to Table A.3.1, OSHA did not
propose to modify the actual criteria
and they remain consistent with the
GHS. Therefore, this comment is outside
the scope of this rulemaking.
OSHA proposed a new paragraph
A.3.3.6 (now A.3.2.2.6 in the final rule)
as a reorganization of the 2012 HCS
paragraphs A.3.3.3 and A.3.3.4.
Proposed paragraph A.3.3.6 (now
A.3.2.2.6) was to provide guidance on
using the tiered approach and making
weight-of-evidence decisions, and also
to indicate OSHA’s preference for not
conducting new animal tests. OSHA
received no comments on proposed
paragraph A.3.3.6 (now A.3.2.2.6), and
is therefore finalizing it as proposed.
OSHA proposed to modify Figure
A.3.1 to align with the tiered evaluation
scheme in Figure 3.3.1 of Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060, p. 142). Under
OSHA’s proposed revisions, Figure
A.3.1, ‘‘Tiered Evaluation for serious
eye damage and eye irritation’’
(previously titled ‘‘Evaluation strategy
for serious eye damage and eye
irritation’’ in the 2012 HCS), would
remain largely the same. However, as in
Figure A.2.1, OSHA proposed to revise
Steps 1a, 1b, and 1c to clarify that the
parameter being evaluated is existing
human or animal serious eye damage/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
eye irritation data. In addition, OSHA
proposed to modify the finding in Step
4 to clarify that high acid/alkaline
reserve or no data for acid/alkaline
reserve should be considered when the
pH is ≤2 or ≥11.5. OSHA also proposed
modifications to the footnotes of Figure
A.3.1 to reflect the most recent test
methods. Specifically:
• OSHA proposed to include two
additional sentences in footnote c
(previously footnote (3)) that
emphasizes that expert judgement
should be exercised when making
determinations from existing animal
data indicating serious eye damage/eye
irritation, as not all skin irritants are eye
irritants.
• OSHA proposed to include OECD
Test Guideline 460 (Fluorescein leakage
(FL)) in footnote d (previously footnote
(4)) as an additional example of an
internationally accepted, scientifically
validated test method for identifying eye
corrosives and severe irritants. OSHA
also proposed an additional sentence for
this footnote to indicate that there are
presently no scientifically validated and
internationally accepted in vitro test
methods for identifying eye irritation.
• OSHA proposed to revise footnote f
(previously footnote (6)) to make it clear
that all available information on a
substance must (instead of should) be
considered in making a determination
based on the total weight of evidence. In
addition, OSHA proposed to remove the
last two sentences at the end of footnote
f and add a new sentence indicating that
negative results from applicable
scientifically validated in vitro tests are
considered in the total weight of
evidence evaluation.
PCRM supported updating the
footnotes for Figure A.3.1 (Document ID
0295, p. 2). OSHA received no other
comments on the changes to Figure
A.3.1 and is therefore finalizing them as
proposed.
In proposed paragraph A.3.4 (now
A.3.3 in the final rule), OSHA proposed
several minor editorial changes to
ensure consistency in the terminology
used. For example, OSHA proposed to
use the term ‘‘serious eye damage’’
(rather than ‘‘eye corrosion’’) throughout
the text to reflect the name of the hazard
class. OSHA received no comments on
these revisions and is therefore
finalizing them as proposed.
For the reasons discussed above,
OSHA is finalizing the entirety of A.3 as
proposed, except for changing ‘‘may’’ to
‘‘must’’ in A.3.2.3 and renumbering
some of the paragraphs to better align
with the GHS.
PO 00000
Frm 00171
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44313
IV. Respiratory or Skin Sensitization
(Appendix A.4)
OSHA proposed a small number of
primarily editorial changes in Appendix
A.4, Respiratory or Skin Sensitization. It
received no comments on those
changes, but did receive an out of scope
comment on this section.
Cal/OSHA commented that in
paragraph A.4.2.1.3.1, ‘‘[t]he proposal
requires disclosure of chemical
asthmagens that cause respiratory
sensitization, but does not require
disclosure of chemicals that produce
bronchospasm without a sensitization
(immune) effect, also known as reactive
airway dysfunction syndrome (RADS),
or acute-onset, irritant induced asthma
(IIA)’’ (Document ID 0322, Att. 1, pp.
17–18). Cal/OSHA therefore
recommended adding a category 1C to
this hazard class (Document ID 0322,
Att. 2, p. 6). OSHA notes that the agency
did not propose to modify paragraph
A.4.2.1.3.1, therefore, Cal/OSHA’s
proposal is outside the scope of this
rulemaking. Additionally, as stated
above, OSHA has provided considerable
guidance on each hazard category under
its Hazard Classification guidance
(Document ID 0008). In this case,
OSHA’s classification guidance covers
organ dysfunction, such as RADS, under
the hazard classes STOT–SE and STOT–
RE (Document ID 0008, pp. 192, 213).
V. Germ Cell Mutagenicity (Appendix
A.5)
As discussed below, OSHA proposed
to add a definition for germ cell
mutagenicity in A.5.1.1. Because of this
new paragraph, OSHA also proposed
adjusting the subsequent numbering of
existing paragraphs in A.5.1. OSHA
received no comments on these changes
and is finalizing them as proposed.
In A.5.4, Examples of scientifically
validated test methods, paragraph
A.5.4.2, OSHA proposed to delete the
Mouse spot test (OECD 484) as an
example of an in vivo somatic cell
mutagenicity test, as it was deleted by
the OECD on April 2, 2014. The
proposed change was to align with Rev.
7 (Document ID 0060, p. 163) and to
ensure that hazard classifications are
being conducted with the most current
scientific principles. OSHA received no
comments on this revision and is
therefore finalizing it as proposed.
Toby Threet stated that Figure A.5.1
‘‘should not place all human
epidemiological studies on an equal
footing. Sometimes an epidemiological
study, by itself, is not sufficient to
establish that a chemical is a known
human germ cell mutagen’’ and
proposed modified text (Document ID
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44314
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
0279, p 16). OSHA did not propose to
modify Figure A.5.1; therefore, the
proposed revision is out of scope for
this rulemaking and OSHA declines to
change the text as requested.
VI. Carcinogenicity (Appendix A.6)
Paragraph A.6.4.2 indicates that when
OSHA has identified a chemical as a
carcinogen in 29 CFR part 1910, subpart
Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances,
that chemical must be classified as a
carcinogen for purposes of the HCS (for
instance, the respirable crystalline silica
standard references the HCS and silica
being a carcinogen in 29 CFR
1910.1053(j)(1)). OSHA proposed to
strike the specific citation to 29 CFR
part 1910, subpart Z, Toxic and
Hazardous Substances, and replace it
with the text ‘‘this section subpart.’’
Toby Threet and the Vinyl Institute
stated that the proposed text was
unclear, and the Vinyl Institute
commented that the reason for the
revision was vague (Document ID 0279,
p. 17; 0369, p. 10). OSHA included the
text ‘‘section subpart’’ in error in the
NPRM. The proposed text should have
replaced the citation to 29 CFR part
1910, subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous
Substances with the text ‘‘this subpart.’’
However, OSHA agrees with these
comments and is retaining the original
text for clarity.
Cal/HESIS, Cal/OSHA, Worksafe,
National COSH, and Steve Wodka
commented that manufacturers should
be required to classify chemicals as
carcinogens and provide carcinogenicity
information when the chemical is listed
as a carcinogen by authoritative
organizations. Cal/HESIS specified these
should include ‘‘the NTP, the IARC, the
EPA, and OSHA when OSHA has
included cancer as a health hazard to be
considered by classifiers for the
chemical under 29 CFR part 1910,
subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous
Substances’’ (Document ID 0313, pp. 6–
7). Some of these commenters provided
suggested text for paragraph A.6.4
(Document ID 0313, pp. 6–7; 0312, p. 6;
0322, Att. 1, pp. 5–7; 0354, pp. 5–6;
0407, p. 15). OSHA did not propose to
modify the paragraphs that Cal/HESIS
proposed revisions to (except to use the
term ‘‘of this subpart’’ in A.6.4, which
is unrelated to this issue). Therefore, the
suggested revisions are out of scope for
this rulemaking and OSHA declines to
make those changes. Furthermore,
OSHA provides ample guidance in both
Appendix F, which includes a table on
how to classify carcinogens based on
NTP and the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC)
classifications, and Appendix C of the
compliance directive (Document ID
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
0007, p. 103) which OSHA anticipates
updating after issuing this final rule.
Cal/HESIS also commented that
OSHA should ‘‘allow State Plan States
such as California to require
manufacturers that sell chemicals in
their states or territories to classify
chemicals as carcinogens or as having
reproductive toxicity or developmental
toxicity when the chemicals are listed
by a state- or territory-specific body. . .
as carcinogens or as reproductive or
developmental toxicants’’ (Document ID
0313, p. 8). This issue is outside the
scope of this rulemaking as OSHA
proposed nothing related to this issue in
the NPRM. However, OSHA notes that
it has already addressed the issue of
labeling of hazardous chemicals in its
1997 approval of the California State
Standard on Hazard Communication
Incorporating Proposition 65 (Prop 65)
(62 FR 31159).
VII. Reproductive Toxicity (Appendix
A.7)
In Appendix A.7, OSHA proposed to
revise the ‘‘effects on or via lactation’’
hazard category classification criteria in
Figure A.7.1(b) to align with OSHA’s
Hazard Classification guidance
(Document 0008, p. 172). During the
development of the Hazard
Classification guidance document, it
became apparent to OSHA that there
were issues with regard to the
classification criteria in Figure A.7.1(b).
The hazard category for effects on or via
lactation captures two separate effects:
(1) substances that can interfere with
lactation and (2) substances and their
metabolites that may be transmitted
through breast milk to children in
amounts sufficient to cause concern for
the health of the breastfeeding child.
However, the criteria in effect at that
time did not adequately distinguish
between these two separate effects.
OSHA therefore proposed to delete the
text ‘‘hazardous to breastfed babies’’ in
the second sentence in Figure A.7.1(b),
which was not grammatical and
excluded the effects on lactation. OSHA
also proposed to modify the third
sentence in the figure to read:
‘‘Classification for effects via lactation
shall be assigned on the basis of:’’ in
order to avoid confusion on how to
apply the criteria for effects on lactation.
These proposed changes would not
affect the classification of substances or
mixtures as reproductive toxicants.
OSHA received no comments on this
revision and is therefore finalizing it as
proposed.
OSHA also proposed to modify
paragraph A.7.2.5.1 to include OECD
Test Guideline 443, Extended One
Generation Reproductive Toxicity
PO 00000
Frm 00172
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Study, as an additional method for one
or two generation toxicity testing.
Additionally, in Table A.7.1 ‘‘Cut-off
values/concentration limits of
ingredients of a mixture classified as
reproductive toxicants or for effects on
or via lactation that trigger classification
of the mixture,’’ OSHA proposed a
correction to the top left heading from
‘‘ingredients classified as’’ to
‘‘ingredient classified as.’’ OSHA
explained in the NPRM that the use of
the word ‘‘ingredients’’ in this context
could be confusing, as it could suggest
that the additivity principle should be
applied. Therefore, OSHA proposed this
change for clarity. These proposed
modifications in Appendix A.7 were to
align with Rev. 7 (Document ID 0060,
pp. 185–187). OSHA received one
comment from PCRM in support of the
addition of OECD TG 443, and no
comments objecting to its addition.
OSHA is therefore finalizing these
changes as proposed.
Cal/HESIS commented that OSHA
should add a requirement that
manufacturers refer to authoritative
organizations when classifying
chemicals that have reproductive
toxicity as follows: ‘‘Manufacturers
classifying chemicals shall treat the
following source as establishing that a
substance is a reproductive or
developmental toxicant for hazard
communication purposes in lieu of
applying the criteria described herein: 1.
Reproductive or developmental
toxicants identified in the Monographs
on the Potential Human Reproductive
and Developmental Effects, National
Toxicology Program, Office of Health
Assessment and Translation’’
(Document ID 0313, p. 6). OSHA did not
propose any modifications to the
classification criteria in Appendix A.7
related to authoritative organizations
when classifying chemicals that have
reproductive toxicity, therefore, Cal/
HESIS’s comment is therefore outside
the scope of this rulemaking and OSHA
declines to accept their proposal.
VIII. Specific Target Organ Toxicity
Single Exposure (Appendix A.8)
In addition to non-substantive
changes in A.8.1.6 and A.8.2.1.7.3,
OSHA proposed adding new paragraph
A.8.3.4.6 to include the concept of
‘‘relevant ingredient’’ when classifying
mixtures containing Category 3
ingredients using the additivity
approach. Under the 2012 HCS, the
additivity principle was introduced in
paragraph A.8.3.4.5. However, a
‘‘relevant ingredient’’ for this procedure
had not been established. OSHA
therefore proposed paragraph A.8.3.4.6
to provide that in cases where the
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
additivity approach is used for Category
3 ingredients, the ‘‘relevant ingredients’’
of a mixture are those which are present
in concentrations ≥ one percent (w/w
for solids, liquids, dusts, mists, and
vapors and v/v for gases), unless there
is a reason to suspect that an ingredient
present at a concentration < one percent
is still relevant when classifying the
mixture for respiratory tract irritation or
narcotic effects. This proposed
paragraph would align with Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060, p. 198). OSHA
received no comments on these
revisions and is finalizing them as
proposed.
OSHA received a comment from Toby
Threet arguing that in Tables A.8.1,
A.9.1, A.9.2, and paragraph A.8.3.4.6,
the use of the words ‘‘gas,’’ ‘‘vapor,’’ and
‘‘mist’’ as three distinct categories is
scientifically incorrect and that either
‘‘gas’’ and ‘‘vapor’’ are synonymous or
‘‘vapor’’ and ‘‘mist’’ are synonymous,
depending on OSHA’s intended
meaning of ‘‘vapor.’’ Threet suggested
that OSHA modify these sections to
only have two categories (Document ID
0279, p. 17). OSHA notes that the
agency did not propose to modify the
use of these three terms in Tables A.8.1,
A.9.1, or A.9.2 or how those terms are
used more generally in the HCS, and
A.8.3.4.6, while new, reflects that
underlying concept. Therefore, such
changes would be out of scope for this
rulemaking. OSHA notes that its Hazard
Classification guidance provides
substantial guidance and examples
regarding how to apply the hazard
criteria to vapors, mists, and gases
(Document ID 0008, pp. 189–226).
IX. Specific Target Organ Toxicity
Repeated or Prolonged Exposure
(Appendix A.9)
OSHA made a few changes to
Appendix A.9 that are discussed below
in the section on broader changes made
throughout Appendix A. OSHA
received one comment on Appendix A.9
unrelated to its proposed changes. Cal/
HESIS commented that OSHA should
add the following requirement: ‘‘For
chemicals that affect the nervous
system, manufacturers shall treat the
following sources as establishing that a
substance is a neurotoxicant for hazard
communication purposes in lieu of
applying the criteria described herein: 1.
Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR), Health
Effects of Toxic Substances and
Carcinogens, Nervous System. 2.
Chemicals for which a reference dose or
concentration has been developed based
on neurotoxicity in the United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s
Integrated Risk Information System
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
database (searching for ‘‘Organ/System
affected: Nervous’’)’’ (Document ID
0313, pp. 7–8). While OSHA agrees that
these sources are relevant and the
classifiers can rely on this information
for classification purposes, OSHA did
not propose to modify the classification
criteria in Appendix A.9 to include a
requirement that manufacturers refer to
authoritative organizations when
classifying chemicals that have specific
target organ toxicity, therefore, it is
outside the scope of this rulemaking to
modify Appendix A.9 as suggested by
Cal/HESIS.
X. Aspiration Hazard (Appendix A.10)
OSHA proposed changes to Appendix
A.10 to clarify the classification criteria
for mixtures when data are available for
all ingredients or only for some
ingredients and to align with Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060, p. 213). OSHA
proposed new paragraph A.10.3.3.1 to
clarify that the concept of ‘‘relevant
ingredient’’ applies and that relevant
ingredients are those that are present in
concentrations of at least 1%. In
addition, OSHA proposed a new
heading, ‘‘Category 1,’’ as new
paragraph A.10.3.3.2. and proposed
paragraphs A.10.3.3.2.1 and A.10.3.3.2.2
to clarify that the principle of additivity
applies in Appendix A.10. OSHA did
not propose any substantive changes to
the classification criteria. ILMA
commented in support of the changes in
A.10.3.3, stating that the clarifications
provided ‘‘will assist ILMA members
(many of whom compound and market
low-viscosity petroleum product
mixtures) in properly classifying their
products for aspiration toxicity’’
(Document ID 0356, p, 6). OSHA
received no objections to the changes
and is finalizing them as proposed.
XI. Changes to Definitions and
Terminology, Clarification of Mandatory
Requirements, and Corrections
(A) Definitions
OSHA proposed to update Appendix
A to include changes to the health
hazard definitions to reflect those
adopted in Rev. 7 (Document ID 0060;
0131). In the time since OSHA revised
the HCS in 2012, the UNSCEGHS
revised all of the health hazard
definitions in the GHS. The previous
health hazard definitions were not
consistent with respect to form or
content, and many of the definitions
were taken directly from the OECD test
guidelines.
The UNSCEGHS determined that the
definitions should be more general and
neutral with respect to test guidelines
and that test guideline criteria should
PO 00000
Frm 00173
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44315
not be part of a definition. The group
also determined that the health hazard
definitions should be clear and concise
and that there should be a clear
differentiation between ‘‘definitions’’
and ‘‘general considerations’’ text.
OSHA proposed to adopt all the revised
health hazard definitions from Rev. 7 in
Appendix A, as well as corresponding
changes to text throughout the
appendix. For example, in some cases
OSHA proposed to remove OECD test
guidelines from definitions and to move
them to paragraphs outlining
classification criteria. OSHA has
discussed in the respective sections
above the definition changes that had
substantive impacts on the rest of their
hazard classifications and has made
alterations to some of the proposed
definitions. These health hazard
definitions are the definitions that
OSHA is finalizing in Appendix A:
• Acute toxicity refers to serious
adverse health effects (i.e., lethality)
occurring after a single or short-term
oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to
a substance or mixture.
• Skin corrosion refers to the
production of irreversible damage to the
skin; namely, visible necrosis through
the epidermis and into the dermis
occurring after initial exposure to a
substance or mixture.
• Skin irritation refers to the
production of reversible damage to the
skin occurring after initial exposure to
a substance or mixture.
• Serious eye damage refers to the
production of tissue damage in the eye,
or serious physical decay of vision,
which is not fully reversible, occurring
after exposure of the eye to a substance
or mixture.
• Eye irritation refers to the
production of changes in the eye, which
are fully reversible, occurring after
exposure of the eye to a substance or
mixture.
• Respiratory sensitization refers to
hypersensitivity of the airways
occurring after inhalation of a substance
or mixture.
• Skin sensitization refers to an
allergic response occurring after skin
contact with a substance or mixture.
• Germ cell mutagenicity refers to
heritable gene mutations, including
heritable structural and numerical
chromosome aberrations in germ cells
occurring after exposure to a substance
or mixture.
• Carcinogenicity refers to the
induction of cancer or an increase in the
incidence of cancer occurring after
exposure to a substance or mixture.
Substances and mixtures which have
induced benign and malignant tumors
in well-performed experimental studies
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44316
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
on animals are considered also to be
presumed or suspected human
carcinogens unless there is strong
evidence that the mechanism of tumor
formation is not relevant for humans.
• Reproductive toxicity refers to
adverse effects on sexual function and
fertility in adult males and females, as
well as developmental toxicity in the
offspring, occurring after exposure to a
substance or mixture. Some
reproductive toxic effects cannot be
clearly assigned to either impairment of
sexual function and fertility or to
developmental toxicity. Nonetheless,
substances and mixtures with these
effects shall be classified as
reproductive toxicants.
• Specific target organ toxicity—
single exposure (STOT–SE) refers to
specific, non-lethal toxic effects on
target organs occurring after a single
exposure to a substance or mixture. All
significant health effects that can impair
function, both reversible and
irreversible, immediate and/or delayed
and not specifically addressed in A.1 to
A.7 and A.10 of this Appendix are
included. Specific target organ toxicity
following repeated exposure is
classified in accordance with SPECIFIC
TARGET ORGAN TOXICITY—
REPEATED EXPOSURE (A.9 of this
Appendix) and is therefore not included
here.
• Specific target organ toxicity—
repeated exposure (STOT–RE) refers to
specific toxic effects on target organs
occurring after repeated exposure to a
substance or mixture. All significant
health effects that can impair function,
both reversible and irreversible,
immediate and/or delayed and not
specifically addressed in A.1 to A.7 and
A.10 of this Appendix are included.
Specific target organ toxicity following
a single-event exposure is classified in
accordance with SPECIFIC TARGET
ORGAN TOXICITY—SINGLE
EXPOSURE (A.8 of this Appendix) and
is therefore not included here.
• Aspiration hazard refers to severe
acute effects such as chemical
pneumonia, pulmonary injury or death
occurring after aspiration of a substance
or mixture.
• Aspiration means the entry of a
liquid or solid chemical directly
through the oral or nasal cavity, or
indirectly from vomiting, into the
trachea and lower respiratory system.
NAIMA and API commented in
support of the proposed modifications
to the health hazard definitions
(Document ID 0338, p. 7; 0316, p. 12).
OSHA received comments on some of
the specific definitions, which are
addressed in their respective sections
(including acute toxicity, skin corrosion,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
and skin irritation definitions) and the
definitions listed above include any
responsive modifications OSHA
decided to make based on those
comments. OSHA received no
objections to the changes to the serious
eye damage, eye irritation, respiratory
sensitization, skin sensitization, germ
cell mutagenicity, carcinogenicity,
reproductive toxicity, STOT–SE, and
STOT–RE definitions, and is therefore
finalizing these definitions as proposed.
(B) Terminology Issues
The 2012 HCS was somewhat
inconsistent in the way the terms
‘‘hazard category’’ and ‘‘toxicity
category’’ were used throughout
Appendix A. In some cases, the terms
were used interchangeably, while in
other instances the terms were intended
to have different meanings. OSHA
therefore proposed revisions to ensure
that these terms are used appropriately
and consistently. As such, OSHA
proposed to delete the term ‘‘toxicity
category’’ and replace it with ‘‘hazard
category’’ in various places, including
paragraphs A.0.5, A.1, A.3, A.8, A.9,
and A.10. These proposed changes also
align with Rev. 7 (Document ID 0060;
0084). OSHA received no comments on
these changes and is finalizing them as
proposed.
(A) Mandatory Language
OSHA proposed to update a number
of provisions in Appendix A to make it
clear that those provisions are
mandatory. For example, OSHA
proposed to change the term ‘‘should’’
to ‘‘must’’ in paragraph A.3.4.3.3 (now
paragraph A.3.3.3.3) to clarify that the
cut-off value/concentrations in Table
A.3.3 are mandatory when determining
if a mixture must be classified as
seriously damaging to the eye or an eye
irritant. OSHA received no comments
on these changes and is finalizing them
as proposed.
(B) Corrections
OSHA proposed to correct a few
errors that currently exist in the HCS.
OSHA erroneously did not include
Appendix A.4, respiratory or skin
sensitization, in the list of health
hazards referenced in the
‘‘concentration of mixtures’’ paragraph
at A.0.5.1.3 of the 2012 HCS. OSHA
therefore proposed to add a reference to
Appendix A.4 in paragraph A.0.5.1.3 to
clarify that the concentration of
mixtures bridging principle applies to
respiratory and skin sensitization.
Similarly, Appendix A.4 was also
erroneously excluded from the list of
health hazards referenced in the
‘‘interpolation within one toxicity
PO 00000
Frm 00174
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
category’’ paragraph at A.0.5.1.4 of the
2012 HCS. Thus, OSHA also proposed
to add a reference to Appendix A.4 in
paragraph A.0.5.1.4 to clarify that the
interpolation bridging principle applies
to respiratory and skin sensitization.
OSHA received no comments on these
changes and is finalizing them as
proposed.
D. Appendix B
Appendix B addresses the physical
hazards covered by the HCS, including
classification criteria consistent with the
GHS. OSHA proposed several
substantive updates to Appendix B,
including the addition of a new hazard
class (desensitized explosives) and
several new hazard categories (splitting
Category 1 into 1A and 1B and further
subdividing Category 1A into flammable
gases, chemically unstable gases and
pyrophoric gases in the Flammable
Gases class, as well as nonflammable
aerosols in the Aerosols class), revisions
to the consensus standards and testing
methods referenced in Appendix B, and
clarifications based on implementation
issues that arose from the 2012 HCS.
OSHA proposed to include the new
hazard class and hazard categories
because, since the HCS aligned with the
GHS in 2012, new physical hazard
classes or hazard categories have been
added to Rev. 7 which better identify
and communicate hazard information to
downstream workers (Document ID
0060). OSHA proposed to adopt those
additions to maintain alignment with
the GHS. As explained in the NPRM and
in the discussion to follow on
individual classes within Appendix B,
OSHA preliminarily determined that the
addition of these specific hazard classes
and categories would better differentiate
between the hazards and better
communicate hazards on labels for
downstream users by using more
targeted hazard statements,
precautionary statements, and
pictograms.
In order to maintain alignment with
Rev. 7 (Document ID 0060), OSHA also
proposed several updates to references
to consensus standards and testing
methods. Although the HCS does not
require testing and permits classifiers to
use data from literature or experience
for classification purposes, OSHA
proposed to update consensus standards
and testing methods referenced in
Appendix B in accordance with Rev. 7
to ensure that data considered for
classification incorporate updated
scientific principles. OSHA is not,
however, implying that data obtained
from the older methods would no longer
be valid or that classifiers would need
to retest or reclassify chemicals due to
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
these updated methods. Third, OSHA
proposed certain corrections and
clarifications to Appendix B to address
(1) previous inadvertent omissions from
the GHS or the HCS; (2) changes made
to the GHS to improve clarity or
technical accuracy; and (3) how some
hazard classes should be evaluated in
light of the addition of new hazard
classes in the GHS. These changes,
discussed further below, were proposed
to align the HCS with the GHS while
improving the classification and
communication of hazards and
maintaining or enhancing worker safety
and health. As noted elsewhere in this
preamble, OSHA has determined that
primarily aligning the HCS with Rev. 7
will not only improve safety and health
but will also ease compliance burdens
for U.S. stakeholders that must also
comply with international requirements
for hazard classification and
communication.
OSHA also proposed to make several
changes to Appendix B to clarify
compliance requirements. These
changes arose from the agency’s
experience with implementing the HCS
and are expected to maintain existing
safety and health protections while
easing or having no effect on the
compliance burdens for regulated
entities. They are described in more
detail in the discussions below on
individual classes within Appendix B.
Finally, OSHA provided a redline
strike out version of Appendix B, which
reflected all of OSHA’s proposed
revisions, in the docket and on the
OSHA website to allow interested
parties to view all of the proposed
changes in context (Document ID 0222).
OSHA will update this document to
show the changes being made in this
final rule and strongly encourages
stakeholders to review that document in
conjunction with the discussion of the
revisions, as the discussion provided in
this final rule’s summary and
explanation does not fully describe all
of the non-substantive or editorial
changes OSHA is making in Appendix
B. Stakeholders can examine the redline
strikeout of the regulatory text (changes
from 2012 HCS to this final rule) at
OSHA’s HCS web page (https://
www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/) to view all
of the changes from the 2012 HCS made
in this final rule.
I. Explosives (Appendix B.1)
OSHA proposed several minor
amendments to Appendix B.1. First,
OSHA proposed a clarification to the
classification criteria for Division 1.6
explosives in B.1.2 (f). Under Rev. 3,
one of the criteria for classification of an
article (OSHA uses the term ‘‘item’’ in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
the HCS) as a Division 1.6 explosive is
that it contains ‘‘only’’ extremely
insensitive detonating chemicals
(Document ID 0085, Att. 2, p. 4). Rev.
7 (Document ID 0060, p. 44) states that
the criteria are met if the article (‘‘item’’
in the HCS) ‘‘predominantly’’ contains
extremely insensitive detonating
chemicals. OSHA proposed to make the
same change to paragraph B.1.2 (f) of
Appendix B on the basis that changing
the criteria from containing ‘‘only’’
extremely insensitive detonating
chemicals to ‘‘predominantly’’
containing extremely insensitive
detonating chemicals would be more
technically accurate and better align
with the guidance in test series 7 in the
UN Manual of Tests and Criteria
(Document ID 0151). It would also
reduce confusion for chemical
manufacturers or importers when
classifying explosives. OSHA did not
receive any comments on this change
and is finalizing it as proposed.
OSHA also proposed to add two notes
from the GHS (Document ID 0060, pp.
44–45) to Appendix B, paragraph
B.1.3.1, that are related to the addition
of the desensitized explosives hazards
class (Appendix B.17, newly added in
this final rule and discussed later in this
document). The first new note OSHA
proposed to add (Note 2) provides an
explanation that explosives for which
explosive properties have been
suppressed or reduced by being wetted
with water or alcohols, diluted with
other substances, or dissolved or
suspended in water or other liquid
substances must be classified as
desensitized explosives.
The second new note OSHA proposed
(Note 3) explains that some chemicals
that are exempt from classification as
explosives under UN Recommendations
on the Transport of Dangerous Goods
guidelines still have explosive
properties, which must be
communicated in Section 2 (Hazard
identification) and Section 9 (Physical
and chemical properties) of the SDS, as
appropriate. OSHA proposed that the
notes would be incorporated in the HCS
with edits to change these provisions
from recommendations in the GHS to
requirements in the HCS (e.g., ‘‘may be
a candidate for classification as’’ in the
GHS would be revised to ‘‘shall be
classified as’’ in the HCS) and to revise
the GHS terminology to terminology
more appropriate for the HCS (e.g.,
‘‘substances and mixtures’’ in the GHS
would be revised to ‘‘chemicals’’ in the
HCS).
OSHA received comments on
proposed Note 2 from DOD. DOD stated
that ‘‘The techniques cited in
B.1.3.1. . .do not necessarily ‘suppress
PO 00000
Frm 00175
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44317
or reduce explosive properties’ as
indicated within NOTE 2. Instead, those
techniques simply result in sensitivity
suppression or reduction by
homogeneously dispersing certain
concerning molecules amongst other
inert molecules, which is why the
resultant chemicals are known as
‘desensitized explosives’ ’’ (Document
ID 0299, p. 3). DOD recommended that
OSHA change the first sentence of Note
2 to read: ‘‘Some explosive chemicals
are wetted with water or alcohols,
diluted with other substances, or
dissolved or suspended in water or
other liquid substances, to suppress or
reduce their explosive properties or
sensitivity’’ (Document ID 0299, p. 3;
emphasis added).
OSHA believes the language proposed
in the NPRM captured the idea of a
reduction of sensitivity in the phrase
‘‘suppress or reduce their explosive
properties.’’ However, to ensure clarity,
OSHA has added the term ‘‘sensitivity’’
at the end of the first sentence of Note
2 as DOD requested.
DOD additionally recommended that
OSHA should address the concept of
desensitizing an explosive by mixing it
with an inert solid (e.g., silica) in Note
2 (Document ID 0299, p. 3). OSHA does
not agree that this addition is necessary.
The primary purpose of this note is to
alert the classifier that a mixture may be
a desensitized explosive and that they
should consider this in their
classification process. The note is not
intended to give guidance on how to
dilute an explosive to become
desensitized or list every mechanism by
which such desensitization can be
achieved. OSHA notes that mixing
explosives with solids is not excluded
from this note because it includes the
phrase ‘‘diluted with other substances.’’
Additionally, this wording matches the
wording in Rev. 7, which is reflected in
both this proposed note and proposed
Section B.17, Desensitized Explosives.
Furthermore, OSHA notes that the
addition of solids to explosive
chemicals is not an unequivocal
abatement of the explosive hazard nor
does it automatically create a
desensitized explosive. Under certain
circumstances such an addition would
be a new mixture that may need to be
reevaluated to determine whether it is
an explosive or desensitized explosive.
OSHA does not want to suggest that
solids can in all cases be used to create
a desensitized explosive. Thus, OSHA is
not adding the suggested edits by DOD
but anticipates providing additional
information on this issue as it updates
its classification guidance.
DOD provided two suggestions for
Note 3. First, DOD noted that there is an
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44318
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
error in OSHA’s citation of the is UN
Recommendations on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and
Criteria and that it should be to UN ST/
SG/AC.10/11/Rev.6 instead of UN ST/
SG AC.10/30/Rev.6. Second, DOD
recommended that OSHA add the
phrase ‘‘which are exempted from
classification as explosives (based on a
negative result in Test Series 6 in Part
I, Section 16, of UN ST/SG/AC.10/11/
Rev.6)’’ (Document ID 0299, pp. 3–4).
OSHA agrees with both suggested
revisions and notes that DOD’s second
recommended change is in the Rev. 7
note which OSHA’s Note 3 was based
on (Document ID 0060, p. 45, Note 2
under table 2.1.2). Therefore, OSHA is
updating Note 3 as recommended by
DOD.
OSHA received several comments
from SAAMI. First, SAAMI commented
that, similar to OSHA’s approach to
changes from Rev. 8 of the GHS, OSHA
should provide an option in the final
rule for industry to change over to Rev.
9 for GHS chapter 2.1 (Document ID
0370, p. 2). However, unlike the changes
in Rev. 8, OSHA did not propose or
raise as an issue the potential to adopt
Rev. 9 updates to chapter 2.1 in this
final rule. OSHA does not believe there
has been sufficient notice and comment
to make such sweeping changes to this
final rule. However, while OSHA is not
making a finding in this rulemaking that
this will be the case for every explosive,
OSHA believes that under many
circumstances following the Rev. 9
update to chapter 2.1 will result in full
compliance with the requirements of the
HCS, and manufacturers, importers, and
distributors can determine whether in a
given case following Rev. 9 would also
comply with the HCS.
OSHA’s conclusion is based on
several factors unique to explosives.
First, OSHA notes that following Rev. 9
would meet the HCS requirement to not
use updated classification criteria from
subsequent GHS revisions. As
illustrated by SAAMI’s comparison
spreadsheet (Document ID 0294, Att. 2),
which OSHA has reviewed and
concluded is accurate, the same TDG
classification criteria are used. The
categories are simply called different
names (e.g., Divisions 1.1–1.3 and 1.5
are now called 2A, Division 1.4 is called
2B or 2C) and are regrouped to better
break down the classification into low,
medium, and high hazards when
outside of the packaging. A label
preparer could follow all of the
classification instructions in Appendix
B and simply call it a different category
name as a result, which would not
confuse workers because the category
name is not used on labels.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Second, explosives have unique
flexibility under Appendix C with
regard to the language used on labels
compared to other hazards and the
labeling language in Rev. 9 is generally
quite similar to the language used in
Rev. 7. Specifically, in Appendix C, in
the note under C.4.14, if a label preparer
determines that an unpackaged or
repackaged explosive corresponds to a
hazard category other than Division 1.1,
OSHA allows the use of the
corresponding symbol (i.e., pictogram),
signal word, and/or hazard statement.
Since labels are attached to the
immediate container, which would be
exposed when explosives are
unpackaged or repackaged, OSHA
believes that it is often appropriate to
use this flexibility on HCS labels for
explosives. OSHA therefore believes
that this provision, in combination with
the usual flexibilities regarding hazard
statements under C.2.2.1 and C.2.2.2,
can allow the label preparer to
determine, on a case-by-case basis, that
the hazard statements in Chapter 2.1 of
Rev. 9 are appropriate. Similarly,
because deviations in precautionary
statements between Rev. 7 and Rev. 9
are infrequent and usually small, OSHA
believes that the labeling flexibility
under C.2.4 would allow for the use of
precautionary phrases from Rev. 9.
OSHA would allow deviations in
labeling language, for both hazard
statements and precautionary
statements, if the label preparer can
show that based on their analysis of the
explosive the label elements in Rev. 9
are more appropriate and therefore
would be in full compliance with the
HCS (see Appendix C, C.2.2.2 and
renumbered C.2.4.9). The hazard
statements, pictograms and signal words
for explosives in Rev. 9 are all at least
as protective as the Rev. 7 elements that
OSHA proposed to include in the
updated HCS, except for the low hazard
explosives (Category 2C, which
corresponds to explosive 1.4S in Rev. 7
and the HCS) where an exclamation
mark pictogram is used instead of an
exploding bomb (Document ID 0294,
Att. 2). While there is no general
flexibility regarding pictograms in C.2.3,
in Appendix C, Category 1.4S small
arms and ammunition are specifically
exempted from the requirement to
include a pictogram, meaning that the
pictogram requirements in the HCS and
Rev. 9 are not in conflict.
Considering all of the flexibilities
outlined above, OSHA concludes that a
label preparer may, on a case-by-case
basis, determine that using the label
elements prescribed in Rev. 9 for
labeling explosives would be in
PO 00000
Frm 00176
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
compliance with the HCS. OSHA also
believes that this could help harmonize
labeling since Rev. 9 categorization
gives labelers a clearer path forward to
an appropriate labeling scheme where
explosives are removed from their
original packaging and the use of
alternate labeling elements are
appropriate as allowed under the HCS.
However, OSHA is not making a finding
in this rulemaking that it will be
appropriate to follow Rev. 9 in every
case because this was not put through
notice and comment and the agency has
not, therefore, had the opportunity to
consider every possibility that might
cause a conflict between the HCS and
Rev. 9. Label preparers who wish to
follow Rev. 9 in a given situation must
carefully consider whether doing so will
comply with the HCS.
OSHA also received several
comments regarding explosives that are
out of scope for this rulemaking. SAAMI
commented about potential confusion
between the definitions of the term
article in the HCS versus in DOT
regulations as they applied to
‘‘explosive articles.’’ SAAMI noted that
‘‘in the HCS, ‘explosive articles’ are
‘items’ rather than ‘articles’ and are thus
covered by the HCS’’ (Document ID
0294, p. 3). They expressed concern that
the term ‘‘article’’ is used in DOT
regulations, but has a different meaning
than the term used in the HCS, which
could cause confusion since DOT
articles may not be OSHA articles. They
suggested that OSHA should clarify the
distinction ‘‘in the preamble of the final
rule or in the HCS itself’’ (Document ID
0294, p. 3).
OSHA did not propose any updates to
the definition of article in the NPRM,
therefore this comment is out of scope
for this rulemaking. Furthermore, since
OSHA does not use the term ‘‘explosive
article’’ in the HCS and has carefully
delineated between ‘‘articles’’ and
‘‘items’’ as it pertains to explosives, the
agency disagrees with SAAMI that the
differences between the DOT and HCS
terms will cause confusion. OSHA notes
that in the 2012 update to the HCS, the
agency was careful to explain the
difference between the long-standing
definition of article in the HCS and the
term ‘‘item’’ when referring to
explosives (77 FR 17722). OSHA will
consider explaining, as suggested by
SAAMI, the terminology in the updated
guidance products it will produce
following the promulgation of this final
rule.
DOD also commented on the
definition of article and argued that
paragraph 1.3.2.1.1 of Rev. 7 creates
confusion regarding whether explosives
are covered by the HCS. They suggested
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
clarifying that explosive and
pyrotechnic items, as defined in
paragraph B.1.1.1 of Appendix B, are
within the definition of ‘‘chemical.’’ As
stated above OSHA did not propose
changes to the term ‘‘article’’ or
‘‘chemical’’, therefore this comment is
out of scope for this rulemaking. The
agency also believes that under the
regulatory text of the HCS it is clear that
all explosives are covered under the
HCS. However, OSHA will consider
further clarifying that explosives are
covered as it updates guidance products
to reflect this final rule.
OSHA also received a comment from
Daniel Nicponski of Albany Molecular,
resubmitting his e-correspondence
communication with OSHA regarding
his concern that the calculation in
B.1.3.4 is incorrect (Document ID 0304,
p. 1). Because OSHA did not propose a
change to this formula, this comment is
out of scope for this rulemaking.
However, the agency notes that this
issue has been brought up in a variety
of fora including an OSHA and DOT
Public meeting, the UN Subcommittee
of Experts on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods (UNSCETDG) and the
International Group of Experts on the
Explosion Risks of Unstable Substances
(IGUS) meeting. These discussions are
ongoing and may result in an update to
the formula in a future revision of the
GHS. If the GHS decides to update the
formula, OSHA will consider updating
the formula in B.1.3.4 in a subsequent
rulemaking.
OSHA received a comment and
supporting documents from Ben Barrett,
a private citizen, providing information
for the docket documents that identified
potential inconsistencies and potential
solutions for the classification of
unintentionally energetic substances in
the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria
(Document ID 0463). These proposals
are still under consideration by the UN
Subcommittee of Experts on the
Transport of Dangerous Goods and have
yet to be incorporated into the manual.
Similar to the discussion above,
Barrett’s comment is not related to a
proposed change and is therefore out of
scope for this rulemaking; however, if
the Manual of Tests and Criteria is
updated in the future, OSHA will
consider incorporating by reference the
updated version in a subsequent
rulemaking.
II. Flammable Gases (Appendix B.2)
OSHA proposed several changes to
the Flammable Gases hazard class
(Appendix B.2). Most significantly,
OSHA proposed to subdivide Category 1
of this class into two subcategories, 1A
and 1B, and to specify that pyrophoric
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
gases and chemically unstable gases are
to be classified as Category 1A, in
alignment with changes made in Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060, p. 53) since OSHA
updated the HCS in 2012. As explained
in the NPRM, the proposed
subcategories would provide
downstream users with a better
understanding of the severity of the
hazards associated with the flammable
gases in each category in order to take
appropriate precautions or determine if
a substitute chemical is less hazardous.
Furthermore, OSHA noted that the
proposed bifurcation (splitting
flammable gases Category 1 into
Category 1A and 1B) would not alter
transportation requirements for
flammable gases because all flammable
gases categorized as either 1A or 1B
would still count as Category 1
flammable gases for the transportation
classification and communication
scheme.
Most comments that OSHA received
on this change supported the proposal
to subdivide Category 1 of the
Flammable Gases hazard class.
Commenters supported this change for a
variety of reasons, including that it
improves alignment with the GHS
(Document ID 0316, pp. 21–22; 0366, p.
7), it will encourage the use of less
harmful substances (Document ID 0298,
p. 1), and it will facilitate the transition
to low Global Warming Potential (GWP),
lower flammability refrigerants which
will fit into the new GHS Category 1B
classification (Document ID 0355, pp. 1–
2; 0311, pp. 1–2).
OSHA received one comment
objecting to the proposal to split
flammable gases into subcategories.
NPGA noted that similar federal
regulations, codes, and standards do not
distinguish by categories of
flammability and argued that this is
because it is inconsequential and that
employers, employees, or emergency
responders do not apply different
handling or safeguard protocols to
‘extremely flammable’ products
compared to ‘flammable’ products.
Additionally, they asserted that the
agency’s discussion in the NPRM
indicated an ambition to direct chemical
choices for purposes they consider to be
beyond the scope of the HCS. They
asked the agency to consider
eliminating distinctions in flammability
and promulgate one flammability
hazard statement for a single category of
flammability (Document ID 0364, pp. 4–
5).
OSHA disagrees with NPGA’s
assertions. The agency notes that
NPGA’s comments did not include any
information to support their claim that
distinctions among flammable products
PO 00000
Frm 00177
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44319
are inconsequential to the selection of
handling procedures and safeguards.
OSHA has good reason to believe that
the two categories previously provided
for flammable gases should be further
refined, and in particular that splitting
flammable gas Category 1 into Category
1A and Category 1B will better
articulate the hazards of flammable
gases to support appropriate hazard
communication, identification, and
assessment of alternatives. Category 1
and Category 2 were based on the
percentage of the gas in a mixture with
air that is ignitable and on ranges of
flammability in air. In practice, based on
those criteria, almost all flammable
gases (except ammonia and methyl
bromide, which are treated separately)
are classified as Category 1. Therefore,
no distinctions were drawn between
gases that exhibit a wide spectrum of
flammable properties for hazard
identification and communication
purposes. The new subcategories of
flammable gases provide greater
information on the exact conditions
under which the gas is flammable (i.e.,
flammability limit and its fundamental
burning velocity) and how flammable
the gas is. Therefore, under the
proposed divisions downstream users
will have the information necessary to
determine whether an alternative
product would be not only less
flammable but also less likely to
propagate, and thereby cause less risk to
workers (86 FR 9707).
Furthermore, NPGA’s claim that
OSHA exceeded the scope and purpose
of the HCS misstates OSHA’s position.
In the NPRM, OSHA noted that the
subdivision of Category 1 flammable
gases would facilitate users choosing a
less flammable product where possible
and gave an example where a non-ozone
depleting refrigerant was less flammable
than propane although they were both
classified as Category 1. This example is
consistent with the purpose of the HCS
to ensure that chemicals are
appropriately classified and information
is transmitted to employers and workers
to enable better choices for worker
safety and health, such as choosing a
chemical that is less flammable than an
alternative. OSHA was not suggesting in
the NPRM that it would prefer to see the
non-ozone depleting chemical used
because it would reduce ozone
depletion, but rather because of its
lower flammability. Therefore, OSHA
disagrees with NPGA’s objections and is
finalizing the update to divide
flammable gases into Category 1A and
1B as proposed.
Heating, Air-conditioning, &
Refrigeration Distributors International
(HARDI) asked OSHA to update its
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44320
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Process Safety Management standard
(PSM), 29 CFR 1910.119, to reflect this
change once this rule is finalized
(Document ID 0355, p. 2). HARDI’s
comment is out of scope for this
rulemaking, which pertains solely to
updating the HCS. However, OSHA
notes, as stated above, that both
subdivisions of Category 1 flammable
gases (1A and 1B) remain Category 1
flammable gases and therefore are
covered by the PSM Standard.
When OSHA revised the HCS in 2012,
pyrophoric gases were not classified
under Rev. 3 (Document ID 0085).
Therefore, to ensure that the 2012
update did not reduce protections and
that the hazards of pyrophoric gases
would continue to be covered and
communicated following the alignment
with the GHS, OSHA specifically added
pyrophoric gases under the HCS. This
involved addressing pyrophoric gases
under the definition of ‘‘hazardous
chemical’’ and maintaining a definition
for ‘‘pyrophoric gas’’ in paragraph (c) of
the HCS (77 FR 17704).
Since OSHA revised the HCS in 2012,
the UNSCEGHS updated the criteria for
flammable gases to include pyrophoric
gases (Document ID 0086; 0060, p. 53).
Rev. 7 reflects the decision from the
UNSCEGHS that pyrophoric gases, as
well as chemically unstable gases,
should always be classified as Category
1A flammable gases because pyrophoric
gases ignite spontaneously in air at
temperatures of 54 °C (130 °F) or below,
and chemically unstable gases are able
to react explosively even in the absence
of air or oxygen. In the NRPM, OSHA
preliminarily agreed with this decision
and proposed incorporating it into
Appendix B.2.
OSHA also proposed to adjust the
definitions in paragraph (c) related to
pyrophoric gases to reflect this change
in Appendix B.2. Further discussion of
changes to the definition section can be
found in the Summary and Explanation
for paragraph (c).
OSHA had previously defined
pyrophoric gas in paragraph (c) as ‘‘a
chemical in a gaseous state that will
ignite spontaneously in air at a
temperature of 130 degrees F
(54.4 degrees C) or below.’’ The GHS
defines a pyrophoric gas as ‘‘a
flammable gas that is liable to ignite
spontaneously in air at a temperature of
54 °C [130 °F] or below’’ (Document ID
0065, p. 51). This change was officially
made in Rev. 8 of the GHS. OSHA
proposed to align with the GHS use of
the term ‘‘liable to ignite’’ to be more
technically accurate, since some
pyrophoric gases may have a delayed
ignition time (see, e.g., Document ID
0065, p. 51, Note 4). OSHA also
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
proposed to move the pyrophoric gas
definition to Appendix B.2. OSHA
anticipated that these proposed changes
would have no significant impact on the
scope of gases considered pyrophoric
gases, and did not expect that chemical
manufacturers or importers would need
to reclassify chemicals due to these
changes.
As noted above, OSHA also proposed
adding a new subcategory for
chemically unstable gases to the
flammable gases hazard class to allow
for more accurate communication of the
hazards associated with those gases.
OSHA proposed to adopt the Rev. 7
definition of a chemically unstable gas:
‘‘a flammable gas that is able to react
explosively even in the absence of air or
oxygen’’ (Document ID 0060, p. 53) in
paragraph B.2.1. Consistent with Rev. 7,
under proposed Table B.2.1, a Category
1A chemically unstable gas would be
further sub-classified into one of two
categories based on the temperature and
pressure at which it becomes unstable.
The proposed criteria for Category 1A/
A chemically unstable gases are
‘‘flammable gases which are chemically
unstable at 20 °C (68 °F) and a standard
pressure of 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi).’’ The
proposed criteria for Category 1A/B
chemically unstable gases are
‘‘flammable gases which are chemically
unstable at a temperature greater than
20 °C (68 °F) and/or a pressure greater
than 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi).’’
As OSHA explained in the NPRM, a
chemically unstable gas is a subcategory
of flammable gases, and any chemical
that meets the criteria for chemically
unstable gas would have met the
previous HCS definition of flammable
gas. While these hazards were classified
in flammable gases, the UNSCEGHS
noted that these gases exhibit slightly
different behaviors, have the propensity
to react dangerously even in the absence
of any reaction partner (e.g., air or
oxygen), and should have different
hazard communication elements
(Document ID 0250, p. 5). Because
chemical manufacturers are currently
classifying chemically unstable gases as
flammable gases, OSHA did not propose
a new hazard category for these gases.
Instead, OSHA proposed the addition of
chemically unstable gases as a separate
category in the appendix for flammable
gases (Appendix B.2) to improve the
way the hazards of these gases are
identified, evaluated, and
communicated.
Rev. 7 (Document ID 0060, p. 53) also
added three clarifying notes under Table
2.2.1 that were not included in Rev. 3
(Document ID 0085). The notes provide
guidance on the classification of
flammable gases under the new hazard
PO 00000
Frm 00178
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
categories. OSHA proposed to add these
notes to the HCS following Table B.2.1
because they allow for better clarity and
communication of hazards. Proposed
Note 2 states ‘‘In the absence of data
allowing classification into Category 1B,
a flammable gas that meets the criteria
for Category 1A shall be classified by
default in Category 1A.’’ Proposed Note
3 states ‘‘Spontaneous ignition for
pyrophoric gases is not always
immediate, and there may be a delay.’’
Proposed Note 4 states ‘‘In the absence
of data on its pyrophoricity, a
flammable gas mixture should be
classified as a pyrophoric gas if it
contains more than 1% (by volume) of
pyrophoric component(s).’’
Rev. 7, in Chapter 2.2.4.2, provides
additional guidance on the classification
of flammable gases, including the new
hazard categories (Document ID 0060, p.
57). It includes updated references to
consensus standards and test methods
(i.e., ISO 10156:2017), and new
references to consensus standards and
test methods related to the new hazard
categories (i.e., ISO 817:2014, IEC
60079–20–1 ed1.0 (2010–01), DIN
51794, and Part III of the UN Manual of
Tests and Criteria). OSHA proposed to
adopt these changes, with edits to make
the GHS criteria mandatory (i.e.,
changing ‘‘should’’ to ‘‘shall’’), to add
U.S. units of measurement (e.g.,
Fahrenheit), and to incorporate by
reference the cited standards and test
methods. To incorporate this guidance
from the GHS Chapter 2.2.4.2, OSHA
proposed edits to the already-existing
paragraph B.2.3. (B.2.3.1, as proposed)
and proposed similar language in new
paragraphs B.2.3.2, B.2.3.3 and B.2.3.4.
However, OSHA did not propose to
require chemicals that were already
classified using an earlier version of ISO
10156 to be reevaluated with the
updated test method; the updated
criteria would apply only to new
chemicals or chemicals not already
classified.
The revisions to B.2.3.1 proposed to
update the consensus standards and
testing methods that were previously
referenced in that section. Proposed
B.2.3.2 included guidance on the test
methods to determine pyrophoricity.
Proposed B.2.3.3 includes guidance
regarding when testing should be
considered for pyrophoric gases and
how to classify flammable gas mixtures
if testing has not been done. Proposed
B.2.3.4 provides guidance on the test
methods to determine chemical
stability, including references to the
most up-to-date editions.
OSHA received a few comments on
the additions of pyrophoric gases and
chemically unstable gases as
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
subcategories to the flammable gases
hazard class. API indicated they
supported the proposed changes as they
would align with the GHS (Document ID
0316, pp. 21–22). Cal/OSHA submitted
several comments on OSHA’s proposed
changes in Appendix B.2. pertaining to
Notes 3 and 4 below Table 2.1 and
proposed paragraph B.2.3.3.
First, Cal/OSHA observed that Note 3
‘‘describes a uniquely hazardous
property of pyrophoric gases; that is,
their potential delay in ignition,’’ which
in their view demonstrates the necessity
of clear testing protocols and ‘‘erring on
the side of classification and labelling to
protect downstream users’’ (Document
ID 0322, Att. 2, p. 7). Cal/OSHA
requested that OSHA revise proposed
Note 3, which states that spontaneous
ignition is not always immediate, by
removing ‘‘and there may be a delay’’
from the first sentence, and adding in a
second sentence a discussion of the
factors which influence the time it takes
for pyrophoric gases to spontaneously
ignite and by stipulating that a rigorous
testing regime is required for all
flammable gases that contain pyrophoric
components in any amount. Cal/OSHA’s
suggested text also states that ‘‘when
experience or past practice indicates a
higher degree of hazard [than indicated
by testing], the classification must
reflect that experience’’ (Document ID
0322, Att. 2, pp. 7–8).
Second, Cal/OSHA submitted
comments on OSHA’s proposed
paragraph B.2.3.3 and argued that it
‘‘gives undue discretion to producers at
the expense of workers and downstream
users’’ since it would allow producers to
avoid classifying and labeling a
flammable gas as pyrophoric ‘‘when
experience in production or handling
shows that the substance does not ignite
spontaneously on coming into contact
with air at a temperature of 130 °F (54
°C) or below’’ (Document ID 0322, Att.
1, p. 17). Finally, they asserted that the
paragraph is inconsistent with Note 3
since OSHA in one place is providing
manufacturers the discretion on when to
test and in another place indicating
caution because there is variability and
cases where the pyrophoric effects may
be delayed, which indicates pyrophoric
gases are ‘‘uniquely hazardous.’’ Cal/
OSHA commented that this introduces
‘‘ambiguities and unclear regulatory
direction with regard to pyrophoric
gases’’ and suggested deleting paragraph
B.2.3.3 in its entirety (Document ID
0322, Att. 2, pp. 7–8).
Finally, Cal/OSHA requested that
OSHA revise proposed Note 4, which
states that a flammable gas mixture
should be classified as a pyrophoric gas
if data on its pyrophoricity is absent and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
it contains more than 1% (by volume)
of pyrophoric component(s). Cal/OSHA
suggested revising this note to state that
‘‘All flammable gases that contain
0.01% or more of a pyrophoric gas must
be subjected to testing for pyrophoricity
and classified accordingly.’’ They also
suggested changing ‘‘should’’ to ‘‘must’’
and ‘‘1%’’ to ‘‘0.01%’’ in the existing
sentence. Finally, they suggested adding
a sentence indicating that ‘‘when
experience or past practice indicates
pyrophoricity with a lesser percentage,
the classification must reflect that
experience’’ (Document ID 0322, Att. 2,
pp. 7–8).
OSHA disagrees with most of Cal/
OSHA’s suggested changes. First, OSHA
does not require testing under the HCS.
This has been a long-standing position
(48 FR 53291, 53336). Therefore, it
would not be appropriate to add testing
requirements or imply testing
requirements under this hazard class.
This does not negate the fact that SDS
and label preparers must use all
available data and relevant experience
when classifying chemicals. But to the
extent that Cal/OSHA’s suggested
revisions to Notes 3 and 4 would
mandate testing in order to comply with
the HCS, they would be contrary to the
approach taken in the HCS. Therefore,
OSHA is not adopting them.
OSHA also does not see B.2.3.3 and
Note 3 as creating inconsistencies or
ambiguities in requirements for
classification of pyrophoric gases.
B.2.3.3 provides the requirements for
classification and Note 3 provides some
guidance on the potential properties of
pyrophoric gases that SDS and label
preparers need to be aware of. OSHA
does not believe that either B.2.3.3 alone
or these paragraphs in combination give
manufacturers undue discretion but
rather accounts for the inherent
challenges of requiring classification
without requiring testing. B.2.3.3’s
statement that experience can be used to
determine whether to apply the
classification procedures for pyrophoric
gases does not mean that experience can
override test data; if there are already
test data available for these chemicals
that indicate it is pyrophoric, the test
data would be used over ‘‘experience’’
or ‘‘expert judgement.’’ B.2.3.3 also
requires that the manufacturer classify
the chemical if it contains 1 percent or
greater of a pyrophoric gas in the
absence of testing, which means the
classifier only has discretion when a
mixture contains less than 1.0 percent
pyrophoric gas. OSHA therefore
disagrees with Cal/OSHA’s request to
delete paragraph B.2.3.3. OSHA also
does not agree that 1% should be
changed to 0.01% in Note 4. Cal/OSHA
PO 00000
Frm 00179
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44321
did not supply any additional
information or data supporting why
OSHA should deviate from the GHS text
that was developed by the subject
matter experts at the GHS
subcommittee. However, OSHA will
consider whether to include some of the
discussion regarding variability of
spontaneous ignition that Cal/OSHA
suggested for Note 3 as
recommendations when OSHA updates
its classification guidance following
promulgation of this final rule.
OSHA agrees with Cal/OSHA that the
wording in Note 4 should include
mandatory language instead of
‘‘should.’’ OSHA’s original intent was to
update proposed GHS text where
appropriate to make it mandatory,
including Note 4.
For the reasons discussed above,
OSHA is finalizing all of section B.2 as
proposed, with the exception of
changing ‘‘should’’ to the mandatory
language ‘‘shall be’’ in Note 4.
III. Aerosols and Chemicals Under
Pressure (Appendix B.3)
OSHA proposed to align with Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060, pp. 59–62) by
expanding the existing Flammable
Aerosols hazard class (Appendix B.3) to
include non-flammable aerosols as well
as flammable aerosols. Under Rev. 3 and
the 2012 HCS, Chapter 2.3 and
Appendix B.3, were each titled
‘‘Flammable Aerosols.’’ Under Rev. 3,
the hazards presented by non-flammable
aerosols were either not classified at all
or were classified in another health
hazard class or physical hazard class
(e.g., gases under pressure) (Document
ID 0085).
As OSHA explained in the NPRM (86
FR 9708), the agency believes that most
aerosols are classified as gases under
pressure under Rev. 3 (and were
classified accordingly under the HCS)
because of the design criteria of the
aerosols under DOT regulations
(Document ID 0163). Under DOT
regulations, aerosols are ‘‘any nonrefillable receptacle containing a gas
compressed, liquefied, or dissolved
under pressure’’ and the highest
permissible pressure is 180 psig at
130 °F in most cases (see 49 CFR 171.8,
173.306). Accordingly, under DOT
regulations, most aerosols meet the
current HCS criteria for gases under
pressure, which are gases contained in
a receptacle at a pressure of 200 kPa (29
psig) or more, or which are liquefied or
liquefied and refrigerated (see existing
paragraph B.5.1). However, OSHA
believes that classifying aerosols as
gases under pressure may not accurately
identify the hazards of aerosols because
aerosol containers differ from
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44322
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
pressurized gas cylinders in terms of
container characteristics and failure
mechanisms.
Since Rev. 3, the UNSCEGHS and the
UNSCETDG agreed to rename Chapter
2.3 ‘‘Aerosols’’ and to add a new nonflammable aerosol hazard category,
Category 3, to the aerosols hazard class
(Document ID 0060, pp. 59–60). This
hazard category now captures aerosols
that (1) contain 1% or less flammable
components (by mass); and (2) have a
heat of combustion that is less than 20
kilojoules per gram (kJ/g).
As OSHA described in the NPRM,
OSHA assessed the hazards associated
with aerosol containers and compressed
gas cylinders to consider the impacts of
the proposed change and ensure that it
would not compromise worker safety
and health. A study conducted for
OSHA by ERG, an OSHA contractor,
evaluated how aerosol products and
gases under pressure differ in terms of
container characteristics, failure
mechanisms, and previous incidents
(Document ID 0009). The ERG report
concluded that sizes and pressures of
compressed gas cylinders far exceed
those of hand-held containers typically
used for aerosol products. The report
also noted differences in failure
mechanisms for pressurized cylinders
versus aerosols, including that although
non-flammable aerosol cans do not
present a significant fire hazard, they
can present a hazard from bursting
resulting from thermal content
expansion during heating (Document ID
0009). This conclusion was also
supported by data from OSHA’s Fatality
and Catastrophe Information Summary
(FatCat) database, located at https://
www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.
html, which revealed that employees are
at greater risk of a fatality due to the
failure of the container if they are
working with compressed gas cylinders
than they are if they are working with
aerosol cans (86 FR 9709).
Following a review of the data and the
ERG report, OSHA preliminarily
determined that a new category for nonflammable aerosols is appropriate.
Additionally, OSHA noted that this new
classification would ensure compressed
gas pictograms are not included on
aerosol labels, eliminating the risk of
‘‘over warning’’ about the hazards of
aerosol containers (UN, 2010, Document
ID 0095).
OSHA proposed several other changes
related to changes in the GHS including:
updating the aerosol hazard class to
include non-flammable aerosols
(Category 3 in Table B.3.1); changing the
name of Appendix B.3 from
‘‘Flammable Aerosols’’ to ‘‘Aerosols;’’
replacing the phrase ‘‘flammable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
aerosols’’ with ‘‘aerosols’’ throughout
Appendix B.3, as appropriate; and
adding clarifying information from Rev.
7 to paragraph B.3.2 (now B.3.1.2)
(Document ID 0060, p. 59). For example,
OSHA proposed to revise Note 2 to
B.3.2.1 (now B.3.1.2.1) to explain that
aerosols do not fall within the scope of
gases under pressure, but may fall
within the scope of other hazard classes.
OSHA preliminarily concluded that
aerosols (flammable and nonflammable) should not also be classified
as gases under pressure in order to
ensure that the appropriate hazard
warnings are presented on aerosol
containers.
OSHA also proposed to adopt Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060) criteria for a nonflammable aerosol (i.e., an aerosol that
does not meet the criteria for Category
1 or 2, contains less than or equal to 1
percent flammable components (by
mass), and has a heat of combustion less
than 20 kJ/g)), and to add those criteria
as new Category 3 in Table B.3.1. This
new category, Category 3, was proposed
to update hazard communication
requirements to better reflect the true
hazards of non-flammable aerosols. As
further discussed below in the Summary
and Explanation for Appendix C, OSHA
reasoned that this would also result in
changing the labeling for any such
aerosols that are currently classified as
compressed gases, including the
pictogram and hazard statements, and
would better differentiate between the
hazards associated with compressed
gases and the hazards associated with
aerosols.
OSHA received several comments on
the proposed changes to the aerosol
hazard class. ACA, IHSC, and Seymour
of Sycamore supported the inclusion of
non-flammable aerosols (Document ID
0368, p. 9; 0349, p. 2; 0321, p. 2). HCPA
also expressed support, noting that
‘‘Expanding the current ‘Flammable
Aerosols’ hazard class to include all
aerosol products not only makes logical
sense but aligns with both the GHS
Rev.7 and GHS Rev. 8’’ (Document ID
0327, pp. 8–9). Michele Sullivan
commented that ‘‘The proposed changes
to the Flammable Aerosols/Aerosols
Chapter are particularly welcomed’’
because they re-align the HCS with the
GHS. NIOSH agreed with OSHA that the
addition of a new hazard class and
several new hazard categories to
Appendix B would improve worker
safety through more specific
descriptions of hazards (Document ID
0281, Att. 2, p. 5; 0423 pp. 22–23). ACC
commented in support of changes to the
aerosols category that more closely align
with the GHS (Document ID 0347, p. 6).
PO 00000
Frm 00180
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Two commenters recommended that
OSHA make the compressed gas
cylinder pictogram optional (Document
ID 0368, p. 9; 0321, p. 2). Seymour of
Sycamore suggested allowing the
optional use of the pressurized cylinder
pictogram for both non-flammable and
flammable aerosols because ‘‘[t]he use of
the pressurized cylinder icon provides
information to the end user that the
product is under pressure and the end
user needs to be aware of conditions
that could make the product unsafe if
the product is exposed to those
conditions’’ (Document ID 0321, p. 2).
ACA similarly asked OSHA to make the
use of the pressurized cylinder
pictogram optional because aerosols are
common in both consumer products and
the workplace, even though they also
noted ‘‘[i]n environments where
workers have a more sophisticated
understanding of pictograms, the
symbol could lead to some confusion as
to whether the product is a nonflammable aerosol or a gas under
pressure’’ (Document ID 0368, pp. 9–
10).
OSHA disagrees with these comments
for several reasons. First, as OSHA
indicated in the NPRM, the main reason
for revising the aerosol chapter is to
better differentiate the hazards of
aerosols and compressed gases. As
discussed above and in the NPRM,
allowing the compressed gas cylinder to
aerosols would lead to ‘‘over warning’’
on aerosols and could also dilute the
message for compressed gases. In
addition, allowing the optional use of
compressed gas pictogram would
introduce inconsistency between labels
of similar products, and may confuse
downstream users, which ACA noted
even as it suggested allowing the
pictogram. OSHA also notes that the
hazard statement for nonflammable
aerosols makes clear that the container
is pressurized and therefore believes the
hazard noted by Seymore of Sycamore
is already accounted for appropriately.
Therefore, OSHA will not allow the
optional use of the compressed gas
pictogram for aerosol products.
However, aerosol cans that have already
been released for shipment as of the
compliance date of this final rule for
labelling updates do not need to be
relabeled and may bear the compressed
gas pictogram.
Although OSHA proposed updates to
the classification and labeling of
aerosols to align with Rev. 7, the agency
also noted in the NPRM that Rev. 8
contains several significant additional
changes in the aerosol chapter and
requested comments on whether the
agency should adopt two specific
changes that appear in Rev. 8.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
First, Rev. 8 lists classification criteria
for aerosols as text in a table (see the
GHS Table 2.3.1, Criteria for aerosols),
similar to other hazard chapters, rather
than referring classifiers to the decision
logics (Document ID 0065, pp. 57–58).
When OSHA revised the HCS in 2012,
the agency declined to adopt the GHS
decision logics and used its own text for
classification of flammable aerosols in
Appendix B. In the NPRM, OSHA
preliminarily determined that there are
no substantive differences between
OSHA’s current text and the text
represented in the new Rev. 8 table,
although they contain slightly different
language.
Several commenters suggested that
OSHA should adopt the updated
language in Rev. 8 instead of Rev. 7
(Document ID 0316, p. 22; 0347, p. 6;
0327, p. 9; 0309, p. 14). ACC indicated
updating to the Rev. 8 criteria table
would maximize harmonization,
thereby reducing the regulatory burden
on their members (Document ID 0347, p.
6).
While HCPA supported aligning with
Rev. 8, they asked OSHA to change
proposed Table B.3.1 by deleting
‘‘Contains >1% flammable components’’
from the Category 2 criteria to align with
the table in Rev. 8. HCPA reasoned that
the proposed version of Table B.3.1
could be misinterpreted to mean that an
aerosol product Category 3 cannot
contain one percent or more of
flammable material by mass or have a
heat of combustion equal to or greater
than 20 kJ/g, which would conflict with
the GHS’s two different criteria for an
aerosol product to be classified as a
Category 3 aerosol (Document ID 0327,
pp. 9–10).
OSHA disagrees with HCPA’s
comment. The first step in the decisions
logics for aerosols in Rev. 7 and Rev. 8
clearly states that only if an aerosol has
both less than one percent flammable
component and less than 20 kJ/g can it
directly go to category three. Only after
it fails the subsequent criteria for
Category 1 and 2 can it also become a
Category 3 aerosol (Document ID 0060,
pp. 60–62; 0065, p. 59). OSHA has taken
this into account by using the word
‘‘and’’ in Category 3 to indicate that the
additional criterion applies to an aerosol
that has either greater than one percent
flammable components or ≥20 kJ/g. The
proposed criterion for Category 3 was
intended to encompass both scenarios
as described by HCPA. Additionally,
OSHA disagrees that the HCS table
could be interpreted to mean that a
Category 3 aerosol could not have
greater than one percent flammable
components because the language
‘‘Contains >1% flammable components,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
or the heat of combustion is ≥20 kJ/g’’
in Category 2 is linked to the other
criteria with an ‘‘and’’. Therefore the
correct interpretation is that a chemical
that does not meet all of the criteria of
Category 2 is a Category 3 chemical,
rather than that just having more than
one percent flammable components or a
heat combustion greater than or equal to
20 kJ/g indicates a chemical belongs in
Category 2. Therefore, OSHA declines to
make the modifications requested by
HCPA. However, to avoid any potential
confusion with the proposed layout,
OSHA is making an editorial change to
Category 3 by placing a (1) before the
phrase ‘‘The chemical does not meet the
criteria for Categories 1 and 2’’ and a (2)
before the phrase ‘‘the chemical
contains <1% flammable components
(by mass) and has a heat of combustion
<20 kJ.g.’’
NIOSH expressed concern that
incorporating the Rev. 8 changes might
lower worker protections relative to the
proposed paragraph B.3.1 in the HCS
(Document ID 0281, Att. 2, p. 5). They
noted that Table 2.3.1 in Rev. 8 allows
certain aerosols with a heat of
combustion ≥20 kJ/g to be classified in
Category 3, while the proposed
paragraph B.3.1, which aligns with Rev.
7, requires all aerosols with a heat of
combustion ≥20 kJ/g to be classified in
Category 1 or 2. Therefore, NIOSH
reasoned, adoption of Rev. 8 provisions
in Table B.3.1 might lower worker
protections from aerosols which could
be classified in Category 3 under the
Rev. 8, but not the Rev. 7, decision
logic.
OSHA agrees with NIOSH that there
appears to be to an inconsistency
between Category 2 and Category 3 as
they are presented in Table 2.3.1 of Rev.
8. OSHA notes that the Table B.3.1 in
the HCS is consistent with the decision
logics provided in paragraph 2.3.4.1 of
Rev. 7 (Document ID 0060, p. 60) and
paragraph 2.3.1.4 of Rev. 8 (Document
ID 0065, p. 59).
To avoid confusion and to harmonize
with trading partners, such as Canada,
which adopted Rev. 7, OSHA is
finalizing changes to the aerosols hazard
class to align with Rev. 7, as proposed.
OSHA will review the criteria in Rev. 8
for aerosols at the UN subcommittee to
ensure that it accurately reflects the
original decision logics.
The second update to the
classification and labeling of aerosols in
Rev. 8 that OSHA requested comment
on was the adoption of a new hazard
category, chemicals under pressure,
within the aerosols class (Document ID
0065, pp. 61–63). OSHA noted that
these products function similarly to
aerosol dispensers covered under DOT
PO 00000
Frm 00181
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44323
(49 CFR 173.115) but are packed in
pressure receptacles (refillable and nonrefillable) of up to 450 liters (86 FR
9693). Chemicals under pressure used
for spray applications present hazards
similar to those presented by aerosol
dispensers. Therefore, the classification
criteria and hazard information for the
Rev. 8 hazard category of chemicals
under pressure are the same as for
aerosols. In the NPRM, OSHA
recognized that adopting this hazard
classification would bring some
chemicals under the purview of the HCS
that currently are not covered (e.g.,
certain aerosols in refillable containers)
(86 FR 9693).
OSHA requested comment on
whether the agency should adopt the
Rev. 8 hazard category and classification
criteria for chemicals under pressure in
the aerosol chapter. The agency received
several comments supporting the
addition of chemicals under pressure.
Michele Sullivan was also generally
supportive and noted that ‘‘[t]his new
hazard category can be helpful to some
stakeholders’’ but requested that OSHA
stay as close as possible to the GHS text
(Document ID 0366, p. 2). NIOSH
supported the addition of chemicals
under pressure since it would improve
worker safety and health by covering
certain chemicals that might not be
otherwise captured under the HCS
(Document ID 0281, Att. 2, p. 5).
Ameren and ACC also supported the
addition of chemicals under pressure
(Document ID 0309, p. 14; 0347, p. 6).
HCPA supported the addition of
chemicals under pressure to the HCS,
but as a separate chapter from aerosols.
They noted that there are differences
between aerosols and chemicals under
pressure such as the difference in size
limitations. HCPA concluded that since
aerosols and chemicals under pressure
are independent hazard classes, ‘‘it
would be logical for chemicals under
pressure to be its own chapter . . . and
separate from aerosols’’ (Document ID
0327, p. 9).
OSHA does not agree with HCPA that
chemicals under pressure should be in
its own chapter. The agency believes
that adding these categories to the
current chapter B.3 to keep the aerosols
and chemicals under pressure hazard
classifications in the same chapter is
appropriate, since they are often similar
chemicals in different receptacles, but is
providing separate definitions, hazard
criteria, and hazard communication
elements to ensure that the differences
between these two hazards are
recognized. The agency expects that
clearly separating the two categories
with different definitions, criteria, and
communication elements will avoid
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44324
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
creating any confusion related to its
inclusion in chapter B.3. Furthermore,
including it in the aerosols chapter
allows the HCS to remain aligned with
the GHS and its numbering system.
For the reasons discussed above,
OSHA is adding chemicals under
pressure as a separate hazard
classification in the HCS within the
aerosols chapter. In adopting the
chemical under pressure hazard
classification, OSHA is following a
similar structure to the GHS. OSHA is
renaming B.3 ‘‘Aerosols and Chemicals
Under Pressure’’ and adding a new B.3.2
‘‘Chemicals under pressure’’, including
B.3.2.1 ‘‘Definition’’ and B.3.2.2
‘‘Classification criteria.’’ OSHA is
renumbering B.3.2 ‘‘Classification
criteria (under Aerosols) to B.3.1.2 to
maintain consistency with the GHS. In
finalizing the chemicals under pressure
hazard classification, OSHA is
including all three categories as defined
in Table 2.3.3 in Rev. 8 as well as the
hazard communication elements in
Table 2.3.4 in Rev. 8 (Document ID
0065, p. 62) in Appendix C.16. OSHA
has also removed the word ‘‘aerosol’’
from B.3.3.2 to maintain alignment with
the updates from Rev. 8 and to indicate
that the formation calculation relates to
both aerosols and chemicals under
pressure.
For the reasons discussed above,
OSHA is finalizing Appendix B.3 as
Aerosols and Chemicals Under Pressure.
In the aerosols section, the agency is
aligning with Rev. 7 by including nonflammable aerosols as a category and
making the necessary revisions
associated with that change. The agency
is not adopting Table 2.3.1 from Rev. 8.
The agency is, however, adding
chemicals under pressure to B.3 in
alignment with Rev. 8.
OSHA received one out of scope
comment on Appendix B.3. Toby Threet
suggested that OSHA change the word
‘‘aerosol,’’ as used in the context of
physical hazards, to ‘‘spray cans’’ in
order to better differentiate between the
meaning of aerosol in Appendix A and
Appendix B (Document ID 0279, pp. 6–
8). OSHA did not propose any changes
to the definition or use of the term
aerosol so this comment is out of scope;
therefore, the agency is not making the
suggested change. Furthermore, the
agency does not believe that the
inconsistency in how aerosol is used in
Appendix A and Appendix B is an issue
in practice. Over the past 10 years,
while OSHA has published many letters
of interpretation pertaining to requests
for clarification of terms in the HCS, the
usage of the term aerosol has not been
raised as an issue, nor has OSHA seen
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
issues pertaining to these definitions in
classifications.
IV. Oxidizing Gases (Appendix B.4)
OSHA proposed to revise the note in
B.4.1, and the text in B.4.3 ‘‘Additional
classification considerations,’’ to clarify
that the provisions are referring to the
most recent version of the ISO 10156
standard. In the NPRM, OSHA
explained that the proposed change
would provide more clarity on the
definition and classification of oxidizing
gases and lead to more accurate
classification and improved
communication and would also align
with Rev. 7 (Document ID 0060, pp. 63–
65). OSHA noted that it did not propose
to require reclassification of chemicals
already classified using an earlier
version of ISO 10156, only that new
chemicals or chemicals not already
classified needed be classified according
to the new ISO standard. OSHA did not
receive any comments on this revision
and is finalizing it as proposed.
V. Gases Under Pressure (Appendix B.5)
OSHA proposed to align the
definition of gases under pressure in
B.5.1 with Rev. 7 (Document ID 0060, p.
67) by adding a temperature of 20
degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit)
so that the full definition reads ‘‘gases
which are contained in a receptacle at
a pressure of 200 kPa (29 psi) (gauge) or
more at 20 °C (68 °F), or which are
liquefied or liquefied and refrigerated.’’
The proposed change was intended to
clarify that the pressure of the
receptacle is measured at standard
conditions. OSHA also proposed to
align with Rev. 7 by adding a note to
Table B.5.1 to clarify that aerosols
should not be classified as gases under
pressure (Document ID 0060, p. 67). The
proposed change was a consequence of
OSHA’s proposal to add a new hazard
category for non-flammable aerosols, as
discussed previously. OSHA received
one comment from HCPA indicating
that they supported the proposed note
under Table B.5.1 (Document ID 0327,
p. 9). OSHA is therefore finalizing these
changes as proposed.
VI. Flammable Liquids (Appendix B.6)
OSHA proposed to make several
clarifying changes to the flammable
liquid hazard class in Appendix B.6.
First, OSHA proposed to add a reference
to paragraph (a)(14) of the Flammable
Liquids standard (29 CFR 1910.106), in
paragraph B.6.3 in order to provide
additional guidance about methods that
can be used to determine flash point for
storage purposes. Second, after updating
the HCS in 2012, OSHA realized there
may be a concern with ensuring that
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
information needed to determine the
appropriate storage for flammable
liquids is adequately documented on
the SDS. Per 29 CFR 1910.106(a)(5),
when an accurate boiling point is
unavailable, or for mixtures which do
not have a constant boiling point, the
boiling point may be based on the 10%
point of a distillation performed in
accordance with the Standard Method
of Test for Distillation of Petroleum
Products, ASTM D–86–62. Together
with an appropriately measured flash
point, this boiling point can be used to
categorize the mixture for use with
Table H–12 in § 1910.106 to determine
the maximum allowable container size
and type. Use of a boiling point reported
in Section 9 of an SDS (physical
properties), which is based on the ‘‘first
drop’’ (or initial) distillation
temperature in D–86, will likely be
conservative, but may lead to more
restrictive storage requirements than
would be the case using the 10%
distillation point (see Appendix D,
section 9(f)). OSHA therefore proposed
to add a clarifying footnote to B.6.3
explaining that to determine the
appropriate container size and container
type for a flammable liquid, the boiling
point must be determined by the
methods specified under OSHA’s
Flammable Liquids standard (29 CFR
1910.106(a)(5)) and listed on the SDS.58
In addition, the proposed note would
explain that if the chemical
manufacturer, importer, or distributor
used an alternative calculation (namely,
the 10% distillation point method) to
find the boiling point to determine the
appropriate storage for flammable
liquids, this must be clearly noted on
the SDS (in sections 7 and 9) to alert
downstream users. In the NPRM, OSHA
explained that the agency did not intend
for the updated HCS classification
requirements for flammable liquids to
impact the longstanding storage
requirements under 29 CFR 1910.106.
Manufacturers can still use the
flexibilities under § 1910.106 for
mixtures which do not have a constant
boiling point when determining storage
requirements. The proposed note was
intended to ensure that the proper
container size and type will be used for
storing flammable liquids while still
58 The flammable liquids standard states ‘‘Boiling
point shall mean the boiling point of a liquid at a
pressure of 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute
(p.s.i.a.) (760mm). Where an accurate boiling point
is unavailable for the material in question, or for
mixtures which do not have a constant boiling
point, for purposes of this section the 10 percent
point of a distillation performed in accordance with
the Standard Method of Test for Distillation of
Petroleum Products, ASTM D–86–62 . . . may be
used as the boiling point of the liquid.’’ 29 CFR
1910.106(a)(5).
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
appropriately communicating all
necessary information on the SDS.
OSHA did not propose any changes to
the classification criteria for flammable
liquids under the HCS. OSHA also
requested comments on whether a
footnote like the one proposed for B.6.3
should be inserted in Appendix D,
Section 9.
Finally, OSHA realized that a note
regarding cross-classification of aerosols
was inadvertently omitted from
Appendix B.6. In the 2012 HCS,
Appendix B.3 (formerly flammable
aerosols) includes note 2 to the
classification criteria, which previously
indicated that ‘‘[f]lammable aerosols do
not fall additionally within the scope of
flammable gases, flammable liquids, or
flammable solids.’’ The HCS contains a
cross-referencing note in Appendix B.2
(flammable gases), but OSHA
inadvertently omitted the statement in
Appendix B.6. OSHA therefore
proposed to add a note stating that
aerosols should not be classified as
flammable liquids following Table
B.6.1, for consistency and to minimize
confusion, in alignment with Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060, p. 71).
Several commenters expressed
concerns about OSHA’s proposed
addition of footnote 9 to Appendix B.6
(Document ID 0339, p. 3; 0316, p. 23;
0359, p. 5; 0347, p. 23). API indicated
that they were concerned about this
change not aligning with GHS
(Document ID 0316, p. 23). DGAC stated
that they did not support limiting the
determination of the initial boiling point
to just two ASTM standards because
they believe it is not necessary to list
how to determine it and they were
concerned that OSHA was excluding the
methods for determining initial boiling
point in the HMR (Document ID 0339,
p. 3). Similarly, IHSC commented that
they did not support the addition to
require the initial boiling point to be
determined by methods in § 1910.106
and suggested that OSHA limit this
requirement for mixtures that contain an
ingredient (greater than 1 percent) with
a boiling point less than 95 °F
(Document ID 0349, p. 2). Dow
commented that they disagreed with the
proposal to determine the initial boiling
point by methods in § 1910.106 because
they believed this was a change to
OSHA’s position that it does not require
testing (Document ID 0359, p. 5). ACC
commented on the second half of the
footnote specifically, requesting that
OSHA remove the requirement to note
an alternate calculation in Sections 7
and 9 of the SDS and asking why this
was included as a proposal in the
update (Document ID 0347, p. 23).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
OSHA believes that several of these
commenters may have misunderstood
OSHA’s proposed changes. Contrary to
DGAC, IHSC, and Dow’s assertion,
OSHA did not intend to suggest that the
boiling point could only be determined
by the methods specified under OSHA’s
Flammable Liquids standard. First, 29
CFR 1910.106(a)(5) does not specify the
means of determining the initial boiling
point except ‘‘Where an accurate boiling
point is unavailable for the material in
question, or for mixtures which do not
have a constant boiling point,’’ so
footnote 9 only addresses the
calculation of boiling point when it is
being used to determine a storage
container and type and where the
conditions in the flammable liquids
standard are met. Second, while the
language of footnote 9 is mandatory
(‘‘shall be determined by methods
specified under § 1910.106(a)(5)’’), the
language in paragraph (a)(5) of the
flammable liquids standard is
permissive (‘‘may be used as the boiling
point of the liquid’’). When read
together it is clear that manufacturers,
importers, and distributors can use
other methods approved by the HCS to
determine boiling point and the
flammable liquids standard only adds
another option for calculating boiling
point under specified conditions. This
was intended to ensure that the HCS is
compatible with § 1910.106 and to
clarify situations where using the initial
boiling point for HCS classification
would result in storage requirements
that might differ from the requirements
under § 1910.106.
This alternate calculation is solely
allowed in determining the storage
requirements for flammable liquids
where an accurate boiling point is not
available and practically speaking
would only apply to Category 1
flammable liquid mixtures. For
example, if a Category 1 flammable
liquid had an initial boiling point of 80
°F under the methods in the HCS, but
using the 10 percent point of distillation
accommodation for mixtures under
§ 1910.106(a)(5) resulted in a boiling
point of 100 °F, then for storage
purposes under § 1910.106 it would be
considered a Category 2 flammable
liquid. The new footnote makes explicit
that this second calculation is allowed
to be used for determining storage
requirements under the HCS, but the
SDS preparer would need to add in
Sections 7 and 9 of the SDS a note
stating that an alternate calculation was
used for determining storage
requirements. For the example given
above, an appropriate note would be
‘‘Initial boiling point 80 °F/estimated
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44325
boiling point 100 °F (for storage
purposes).’’ However, if a category 1
flammable liquid mixture had an initial
boiling point of 80 °F under the HCS
methods and the boiling point using the
accommodation for mixtures under
§ 1910.106(a)(5) was 92 °F, then for
storage purposes the flammable liquid
mixture would still be a Category 1
flammable liquid and there would be no
obligation to put in the additional note
on the SDS. OSHA believes this
clarification addresses the concerns
raised by these commenters. However,
to the extent that DGAC was
commenting on the sentence ‘‘The
initial boiling point shall be determined
in accordance with ASTM D86–07a or
ASTM D1078,’’ OSHA did not propose
any changes to that section and has
previously also limited the calculation
of boiling point to these two ASTM
standards, so that comment would be
out of scope.
Additionally, nothing in the proposal
should be read to require testing as Dow
asserted. As with all of the references to
testing standards in the HCS, OSHA is
only stating what methods are
acceptable for determining certain
characteristics, not requiring the SDS or
label preparer to do these kinds of
testing themselves. As to ACC’s
question regarding why the calculation
of initial boiling point should be
included in Sections 7 and 9 of the SDS
if an alternate calculation was used for
storage purposes, OSHA proposed
including that requirement to ensure
clarity on what underlying information
about the chemical was used so that
users are able to apply that information
accurately to their own workplace and
ensure worker safety. OSHA therefore
disagrees with ACC that this
requirement should be removed.
Finally, OSHA disagrees with API’s
assertion that this footnote is
problematic because it is not aligned
with the GHS. The alternate calculation
is not used in the ultimate classification
of flammable liquids under the HCS,
therefore the HCS is in full alignment
with the GHS. The addition of the
footnote is supplemental information (as
allowed by the GHS) and, as stated
above, OSHA is including this
requirement to ensure clarity about the
underlying information.
Even so, these comments indicate that
the proposed language may be
confusing, so although OSHA is
finalizing the proposed changes to B.6
(Flammable Liquids), the agency has
updated the footnote for clarity. As
finalized, Footnote 9 to Appendix B.6
reads: ‘‘To determine the appropriate
flammable liquid storage container size
and type, the boiling point shall be
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44326
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
determined by § 1910.106(a)(5). In
addition, the manufacturer, importer,
and distributor shall clearly note in
Sections 7 and 9 of the SDS if an
alternate calculation was used for
storage purposes and the classification
for storage differs from the classification
listed in Section 2 of the SDS.’’
(Emphasis added to new text.)
OSHA received comments from ACA
and Hach asking OSHA to add Note 2
from beneath Table 2.6.1 of Rev. 7 to the
HCS (Document ID 0323, pp. 11–13;
0368, p. 12). That note states that
liquids with a flash point of more than
35 °C and not more than 60 °C need not
be classified as non-flammable liquids
for some regulatory purposes, such as
transport, if negative results have been
obtained in the sustained combustibility
test according to the sustained
combustibility test L.2 of Part III, section
32 of the UNTDG, Manual of Tests and
Criteria (Document ID 0060, p. 71).
Hach commented that adding this note
to the HCS would relieve compliance
burdens and customer confusion
regarding the classification of certain
liquids and suggested a slightly altered
version of the note in order to align with
DOT PHMSA’s regulation under 49 CFR
173.120 (Document ID 0323, pp. 11–13).
Hach’s comment is out of scope for this
rulemaking since the agency did not
propose any changes relating to this
aspect of liquids classification.
Furthermore, this note was also part of
Rev. 3 and OSHA opted not to
incorporate Note 2 when promulgating
the HCS in 2012 because it would
reduce protections in workplaces, where
conditions may vary highly when
handling chemicals (e.g., heating
chemicals above their flashpoint) (77 FR
17722).
VII. Flammable Solids (Appendix B.7)
OSHA proposed one change to
Appendix B.7 (Flammable Solids): a
new Note 2 following Table B.7.1 stating
that aerosols should not be classified as
flammable solids. As with flammable
liquids, the UNSCEGHS observed this
omission in the flammable solids
chapter, and Rev. 7 includes this note
(Document ID 0060, p. 75). OSHA did
not receive any comments relating
specifically to the addition of the new
note and is finalizing it as proposed.
OSHA received one comment
pertaining to Appendix B.7. Toby
Threet asserted that OSHA should not
promulgate provisions for flammable
solids until the agency has definitive
criteria for ‘‘fire by friction’’ (Document
ID 0279, pp. 18–20). OSHA notes that
this hazard class was first promulgated
in 2012 and OSHA did not propose to
update the criteria for flammable solids.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Therefore, Threet’s comment is outside
the scope of this rulemaking.
VIII. Self-Heating Chemicals (Appendix
B.11)
OSHA proposed adding a note
beneath Table B.11.1 to explain that
classification of solid chemicals must be
based on tests performed on the
chemicals as presented. The note also
provides an example indicating that if a
chemical is presented for supply or
transport in a physical form different
from that which was tested and which
is considered likely to materially alter
its performance in a classification test,
classification must be based on testing
of the chemical in the new form.
Although this note was included in Rev.
3 (Document ID 0085, Att. 2, p. 84), and
incorporated into Appendices B.1, B.7,
B.10, B.12 and B.14 in the HCS in 2012,
it was inadvertently omitted from
Appendix B.11. OSHA proposed to add
the note to be consistent with the GHS
and the way the HCS treats other
physical hazards. OSHA did not receive
any comments on the new note and is
finalizing it as proposed.
IX. Chemicals Which, in Contact With
Water, Emit Flammable Gases
(Appendix B.12)
OSHA proposed to update the
classification criteria for Category 3 of
this hazard class in Table B.12.1. In Rev.
3 (Document ID 0085, Att. 2, p. 87) and
in the 2012 HCS, one of the criteria for
a Category 3 classification is that the
maximum rate of evolution of the
flammable gas is equal to or greater than
1 liter per kilogram of chemical per
hour. OSHA explained in the NPRM
that this criterion does not accurately
reflect the corresponding criteria in Test
N.5 in Part III, sub-section 33.5.4.4.1 of
the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria,
which provides that the maximum rate
of evolution of the flammable gas is
greater than 1 liter per kilogram of
chemical per hour (Document ID 0151,
p. 379). OSHA proposed to delete the
words ‘‘equal to or’’ in the Category 3
criteria in Table B.12.1 to make the
classification criteria consistent with the
criteria in the test methods, aligning
with Rev. 7 (Document ID 0060, p. 91).
OSHA preliminarily determined this
proposed change would not affect
worker protections. OSHA did not
receive any comments on this change
and is finalizing it as proposed.
X. Oxidizing Solids (Appendix B.14)
OSHA proposed to add a second set
of classification criteria to B.14.2 and to
Table B.14.1 based on a new UN test
method. Under Rev. 3 (Document ID
0085, Att. 2, p. 95), classification of
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
oxidizing solids was based only on Test
O.1 from Part III, sub-section 34.4.1 of
the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria
(Document ID 0151, p. 382). This was
reflected in the 2012 HCS, Appendix
B.14. In the NPRM, OSHA explained
that the test material used as the
reference mixture in Test O.1 has been
noted to pose a cancer hazard and is
difficult to purchase. Therefore, a new
test, Test O.3 (Gravimetric tests for
oxidizing solids), which uses a reference
mixture of calcium peroxide, has been
added to Part III, sub-section 34.4.3 of
the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria and
the Recommendations on the Transport
of Dangerous Goods Model Regulations
(TDG MR) (Document ID 0151, p. 393;
0150, p. 100). Consistent with Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060, p. 97), OSHA
proposed to allow oxidizing solids to be
classified using either Test O.1 or Test
O.3. The agency further noted that since
the proposed classification criteria
would allow the use of data from either
Test O.1 or O.3, data from existing
classifications could be used and no
new testing would be required for
substances or mixtures that were
previously classified based on Test O.1.
OSHA also proposed to update Note
1 to Table B.14.1 to reflect a 2017
revision to the International Maritime
Solid Bulk Cargoes Code for testing of
explosion hazards (Document ID 0141).
OSHA did not receive any comments on
the addition of Test O.3 or on the
update to this note and is therefore
finalizing both as proposed (with a
technical amendment to reorganize
B.14.2 to better clarify which version of
the Manual of Tests and Criteria is
appropriate for Test O.1 and Test O.3).
OSHA received one comment on
Appendix B.14 from Cal/OSHA
opposing the language in B.14.3.3,
which requires that, in the event of a
difference between test results and
known experience in the handling and
use of chemicals which shows them to
be oxidizing, judgements based on
known experience take precedence over
test results. Cal/OSHA suggested
revising B.14.3.3 to state that
‘‘experience demonstrating an oxidizing
hazard shall take precedence over
negative test results’’ (Document ID
0322, Att. 1, pp. 12–13). OSHA did not
propose any changes to B.14.3.3 in the
NPRM, therefore this comment is
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
OSHA notes that Cal/OSHA’s suggested
language, while structured differently
than B.14.3.3, presents the same
requirement: producers must disclose
oxidizing hazards for a chemical if the
producer has experience that indicates
those hazards, even if test results for the
chemical are negative. Further
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
discussion on the use of expert
judgement in the classification process
can be found in the Summary and
Explanation for Section B.2 (flammable
gases).
XI. Corrosive to Metals (Appendix B.16)
OSHA did not propose to make any
changes to Appendix B.16, Corrosive to
Metals. This is notable because OSHA
preliminarily decided not to adopt a
note that was added in Chapter 2.16 of
Rev. 7, under Table 2.16.2, which states:
‘‘Where a substance or mixture is
classified as corrosive to metals but not
corrosive to skin and/or eyes, some
competent authorities may allow the
labelling provisions described in
1.4.10.5.5’’ (Document ID 0060, p. 107).
Chapter 1.4.10.5.5 contains, in relevant
part, labeling provisions that state
competent authorities can allow the
corrosive to metals pictogram to be
omitted from labels for ‘‘substances or
mixtures which are in the finished state
as packaged for consumer use’’
(Document ID 0060, p. 32). As was
discussed in the NPRM, OSHA
preliminarily concluded that the note in
question, and the labeling provisions it
refers to, are not applicable to the HCS
because the HCS applies only to use of
chemicals in the workplace, and not to
consumer products (29 CFR 1910.1200
(b)(5)(v)) and therefore OSHA did not
propose to adopt the note. OSHA did
not receive any comments on this
preliminary conclusion and is therefore
finalizing its decision not to add the
note to Appendix B.16.
OSHA received one out of scope
comment on this hazard class. Toby
Threet commented that OSHA should
add copper to Table 16.1 (Document ID
0279, p. 22). OSHA notes that since the
agency did not propose adding copper
to Table 16.1 or otherwise changing it,
this comment is outside the scope of
this rulemaking.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
XII. Desensitized Explosives (Appendix
B.17)
OSHA proposed to add a new
physical hazard class for desensitized
explosives to align with Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060, p. 109).
Desensitized explosives are chemicals
that are treated so that they are
stabilized, or their explosive properties
are reduced or suppressed. As OSHA
discussed in the NPRM, these types of
chemicals can pose a hazard in the
workplace when the stabilizer is
removed, either as part of the normal
work process or during storage of the
chemical. Therefore, it is important that
the hazards be identified and
appropriately communicated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
In the 2012 HCS, OSHA
acknowledged, consistent with Rev. 3
(Document ID 0085, Att. 6, p. 15), that
these chemicals are considered
explosives if the wetting agent is
removed by including in Appendix C,
C.4.14, the precautionary statement
‘‘Keep wetted with’’ and instructing the
chemical manufacturer, importer, or
distributor to specify appropriate
material for wetting if drying out
increases the explosion hazard.
However, the hazard statement, signal
word, pictogram and other
precautionary statements required
under the 2012 HCS C.4.14 primarily
target more conventional explosives.
This gap in communication was
recognized as early as 2005, when the
UNSCEGHS noted that desensitized
explosives may become explosive under
certain circumstances—especially after
long-term storage and during handling
and use (Document ID 0206). In 2014,
the UNSCEGHS concluded that a new
hazard class was warranted for
desensitized explosives in the GHS
(Document ID 0087). Rev. 7 separately
classified desensitized explosives with a
full set of unique label elements
(including the appropriate signal word,
hazard statement, pictogram, and
precautionary statements) (Document ID
0060, pp. 109–112). Desensitized
explosives are labeled with a flame
pictogram rather than the explosive
bomb used for explosives, and the
precautionary statements are tailored to
the specific traits of desensitized
explosives.
As discussed in the NPRM, OSHA
reviewed the UNSCEGHS reports on
desensitized explosives and
preliminarily concluded that the hazard
class should also be added to the HCS
to improve communication about these
hazards. While the chemicals captured
by the desensitized explosives hazard
class were covered under the scope of
the 2012 HCS as explosives, OSHA
preliminarily determined that adding
the proposed new hazard class to the
HCS would ensure downstream users
receive more accurate hazard
information on labels and in SDSs for
these chemicals.
For these reasons, and to align with
the GHS, OSHA proposed to add the
desensitized explosives hazard class to
the HCS as Appendix B.17. As
explained in the NPRM, OSHA intended
the new Appendix B.17 to provide
relevant definitions and general
considerations, specify applicable
classification criteria, and include
information about additional
classification considerations for this
hazard class, as well as reference several
sections from the UN Manual of Tests
PO 00000
Frm 00185
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44327
and Criteria that would be incorporated
by reference. As with all hazard classes,
Rev. 7 does not require testing and
allows classifiers to use data reported in
the literature that was generated using
specified or equivalent test methods.
Proposed Appendix C.4.30 included the
proposed communication elements for
desensitized explosives relevant to
proposed Appendix B.17.
The proposed Appendix B.17 was
based on Chapter 2.17 of Rev. 7
(Document ID 0060, p. 109–112). OSHA
proposed to adopt most of the
classification language on desensitized
explosives from Chapter 2.17 to
minimize deviations from the GHS.
However, similar to the 2012
rulemaking, OSHA carefully reviewed
each of the hazard classification criteria
within the context of the HCS and
proposed to modify some of the
language. These edits included changing
some recommendations in the GHS to
mandatory requirements in the HCS
(i.e., changing ‘‘should’’ to ‘‘shall’’);
revising some terms in the GHS to more
accurately reflect terminology in the
HCS (e.g., changing ‘‘manufacturer/
supplier’’ to ‘‘manufacturers, importers,
and distributors’’); revising text to make
it clear that data for classification can be
obtained from the literature; and
removing references to classifications
for transportation that do not apply
under the HCS. OSHA also proposed
adding a definition for ‘‘phlegmatized,’’
which is drawn from the TDG MR, in a
footnote because many stakeholders
may be unfamiliar with that term from
the UN Recommendations.
OSHA did not propose to include
portions of Chapter 2.17 that do not
relate specifically to the method of
classification for desensitized
explosives, such as the text relating to
hazard communication (which is in
Appendix C) and the decision logics.
OSHA may, however, use the decision
logics in guidance materials.
OSHA received several comments on
the proposed addition of Appendix
B.17, all of which supported adopting
the desensitized explosive hazard class.
ACC, API, Michele Sullivan, and Dow
expressed support for aligning the
classification of desensitized explosives
with the GHS and trading partners
(Document ID 0347, p. 17; 0316, p. 23;
0366, p. 7; 0359, p. 5). API commented
that ‘‘[d]esensitized explosives should
be classified in accordance with GHS’’
(Document ID 0316, p. 23). Other than
ensuring that the language is
appropriate for OSHA’s jurisdiction and
written in regulatory language, OSHA’s
proposal follows the GHS classification
criteria. For the reasons explained
above, OSHA is finalizing Appendix
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
44328
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
B.17 as proposed with minor editorial
changes. Stakeholders can examine the
redline strikeout of the regulatory text
(changes from 2012 HCS to this final) at
OSHA’s HCS web page (https://
www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/) to view all
of the changes to the 2012 HCS made in
this final rule. Additionally, in the
NPRM OSHA requested comments on
whether the agency should, in the final
rule, update all of the existing
references to UN ST/SG/AC.10 (many of
which are in Appendix B) to Rev. 6 or
add Rev. 6 references to the existing
Rev. 4 references such that they would
be alternative options for compliance.
OSHA only received one comment on
this, which was from Ameren, and
which supported adding the Rev. 6
references to allow for compliance
alternatives (Document ID 0309, p. 14).
As discussed in the Summary and
Explanation for Incorporation by
Reference, OSHA has decided to retain
the generic citation to ST/SG/AC.10 in
all places where compliance with Rev.
4 or Rev. 6 is allowed, and has inserted
specific citations to ST/SG/AC.10/11/
Rev.6 where only Rev. 6 is allowed for
compliance (for instance, in situations
where new text was added to Rev. 6 and
there was no comparable material in
Rev. 4). For further discussion of that
issue, see the Summary and Explanation
for Incorporation by Reference.
OSHA also received one general
comment on Appendix B from Cal/
OSHA, noting that ‘‘In several places,
referenced technical documents are outof-date’’ and recommending that the
most recent versions of document
should be used ‘‘unless there is a
specific reason not to, such as where an
updated test method is less sensitive
than the previous method, for example’’
(Document ID 0322, Att. 2, p. 14). Cal/
OSHA did not provide further details on
which references to technical
documents it believed were out of date.
OSHA is updating several references to
technical documents in this rulemaking,
which are discussed throughout the
Summary and Explanation, and it
concludes that it has updated all of the
appropriate references.
E. Appendix C
Appendix C includes requirements
and instructions for the allocation of
label elements. Paragraph (f)(2) requires
the chemical manufacturer, importer, or
distributor to ensure that the
information provided on the label is in
accordance with Appendix C. Appendix
C provides hazard statements, signal
words, pictograms, and precautionary
statements for all four essential aspects
of hazardous chemical management
(prevention, response, storage, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
disposal), as well as general labeling
instructions.
OSHA proposed several updates to
Appendix C to improve communication
of hazard information on labels. These
changes were proposed in order to: (1)
address labeling requirements for the
new hazard classes and categories in
Appendix B (physical hazards); (2) align
the HCS with Rev. 7; and (3) improve
alignment of the HCS with other federal
agencies and Health Canada’s labeling
requirements in furtherance of the goals
of the RCC.
As was discussed in OSHA’s 2009
proposal to align the HCS with the GHS,
the precautionary statements, unlike the
hazard statements, were not harmonized
(but were merely codified) under the
GHS, meaning that numbers were
assigned to them. This meant that the
statements were not yet considered to be
part of the harmonized text (like hazard
statements); rather they were included
in the GHS as suggested language (74 FR
50282–83). OSHA chose to add these
statements in the final HCS rule in 2012
(77 FR 17574). However, since the
promulgation of the updates to the HCS
in 2012, the UNSCEGHS has continued
work to improve the utility of
precautionary statements by providing
better guidance on the allocation of
statements, updating the statements to
provide better protection, and adding
new statements for new hazard classes
and categories. In the 2021 NPRM,
OSHA proposed several changes based
on new precautionary statements and
instructions in Rev. 7. Additionally,
since 2012, OSHA has continued to
work with other Federal agencies on
crosscutting labeling issues. Some
updates to Appendix C were proposed
to align with DOT labeling regulations.
OSHA also proposed updates to
Appendix C based on the agency’s
cooperation with Health Canada under
the RCC. The RCC was reaffirmed
through a memorandum of
understanding signed in June 2018
(Document ID 0217), with the
expectation of aligning efforts for
international trade requirements
between the two countries.
Overall, OSHA anticipated that the
proposed changes to Appendix C would
provide improved communication of
hazard information and greater detail
and clarity for downstream users, which
would maintain or enhance the safety
and health of workers. The agency also
expected the updates would more
consistently align the HCS with other
Federal and international regulations,
thereby easing compliance burdens for
U.S. stakeholders that must also comply
with those requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The changes OSHA proposed to
Appendix C and the changes OSHA is
now finalizing are extensive. OSHA
addresses the substantive changes in the
discussion below, and in addition to the
regulatory text below, OSHA will
provide a redline strike-out version of
the final text of Appendix C on the
OSHA website (https://www.osha.gov/
dsg/hazcom/), as it did for the NPRM.
This version will reflect all of OSHA’s
revisions, including all non-substantive
updates. This will allow interested
parties to view all of the changes in
context to aid in the implementation of
the updated regulatory text. OSHA
encourages stakeholders to use that
document in conjunction with the
discussion of the revisions below, as the
discussion does not fully describe all of
the non-substantive or editorial changes
OSHA is making.
I. Sections C.1–C.3
The instructions in the beginning of
Appendix C (C.1–C.3) provide
directions and information about the
signal words, pictograms, hazard
statements and precautionary
statements required in C.4. OSHA
proposed several changes to C.1–C.3.
First, OSHA proposed to revise Figure
C.1, Hazard Symbols and Classes, to
include ‘‘HNOC (non-mandatory)’’ as a
hazard identified by the exclamation
point pictogram. This proposed change
would codify OSHA’s agreement with
Health Canada to permit the
exclamation mark pictogram to be used
for HNOCs. While OSHA does not
require labeling for HNOC hazards,
Health Canada requires a pictogram,
signal word, hazard statements, and
precautionary statements for HNOCs. To
ensure that U.S. and Canadian
requirements can simultaneously be met
for HNOCs, OSHA and Health Canada
have provided guidance allowing an
exclamation mark pictogram to be used
for HNOCs (Document ID 0103). Use of
the exclamation mark pictogram would
not be mandatory under the HCS. OSHA
also added desensitized explosives
under the flame pictogram in Figure C.1,
and that change is discussed with the
other changes related to desensitized
explosives below (see discussion of
revisions to C.4).
OSHA proposed several additional
related changes. As discussed above
under the Summary and Explanation for
paragraph (f), OSHA proposed to move
the existing text in paragraph C.2.3.3
from Appendix C to paragraph (f)(5)(iii)
in the text of the standard, so that all of
the instructions related to the transport
of hazardous chemicals and DOT
regulations are in one section of the
HCS. OSHA also proposed to replace
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
that text in C.2.3.3 with a new
paragraph, which would allow the
exclamation mark pictogram to be used
for HNOCs if the words ‘‘Hazard Not
Otherwise Classified’’ or the letters
‘‘HNOC’’ appear below the pictogram on
the label. Additionally, because any
pictogram may appear only once on a
label, OSHA proposed to add a new
paragraph at C.2.3.4 to specify that if
multiple hazards require use of the same
pictogram, it may not appear a second
time on the label. This includes
situations when the exclamation mark
pictogram would be used for both an
HNOC and for another hazard. OSHA
requested comments on these proposed
changes, particularly whether the
agency should require the exclamation
mark pictogram to be used for HNOCs.
OSHA received several comments
supporting the proposal to include
‘‘HNOC (non-mandatory)’’ as a hazard
identified by the exclamation point
pictogram (Document ID 0349, p. 2;
0309, p. 17) and agreeing that use of the
pictogram for HNOCs should not be
mandatory (Document ID 0316, p. 25;
0347, p. 18; 0366, p. 7). OSHA received
no comments objecting to these
revisions to Figure C.1, C.2.3.3, and
C.2.3.4 and is therefore finalizing them
as proposed.
The remaining changes OSHA
proposed for C.2 reflect updates to the
GHS that are intended to provide
additional flexibility to the label
preparer while still communicating the
required information. OSHA proposed
to add new paragraph C.2.4.7 to note
that precautionary statements may
contain minor textual variations from
the text prescribed elsewhere in
Appendix C (e.g., spelling variations,
synonyms, or other equivalent terms), as
long as those variations assist in the
communication of safety information
without diluting or compromising the
safety advice. This proposed new
paragraph also required that any
variations must be used consistently
throughout the label and SDS. Because
of the proposed addition of new
paragraph C.2.4.7, OSHA also proposed
to renumber existing paragraphs C.2.4.7
and C.2.4.8 to become C.2.4.8 and
C.2.4.9, respectively.
ACC and Michele Sullivan generally
supported the addition of proposed
paragraph C.2.4.7 because it adds
flexibility (Document ID 0347, p. 18;
0366, p. 8). ACC, however, requested
that OSHA remove the proposed
requirement to use any variations in
precautionary statements consistently
on the label and SDS. According to
ACC, most companies use SDS software
that comes with the GHS precautionary
phrases from the regulation already pre-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
loaded and ready for use; therefore, in
their view, modifying the phrases in the
SDS software in small ways to exactly
match the text on the label would create
a significant burden without enhancing
worker protection (Document ID 0347,
pp. 18–19). Michele Sullivan similarly
stated that making small changes to
precautionary statements that do not
change their meaning requires
significant time and money without
improving worker protection or safety
(Document ID 0366, p. 8).
OSHA disagrees with ACC’s request.
New paragraph C.2.4.7 is permissive,
not mandatory, so label preparers can
opt to rely on language provided in
Appendix C and used by their existing
software rather than expend additional
time and resources to modify the
statements if they do not find it
beneficial. In addition, OSHA’s
understanding is that the software used
to create SDSs and labels can be
updated, if necessary, to apply
variations in precautionary statements
consistently across both SDSs and labels
in order to comply with the proposed
requirement. OSHA has determined that
variations should be applied
consistently on the label and in the
safety data sheet in order to avoid
confusion and convey health and safety
information consistently to workers.
Cal/OSHA objected to proposed
C.2.4.7 and stated that ‘‘[s]tandard
language is essential for workers to
become accustomed to particular signal
words. The proposed change could open
the door for legal disputes with OSHA
over synonyms and the meaning of
‘other equivalent terms,’ ‘diluted’ and
‘compromised’ ’’ (Document ID 0322,
Att. 2, pp. 8–9).
OSHA has considered Cal/OSHA’s
concerns and has concluded that minor
variations should be allowed as they
can, in some cases, improve
communication of safety information to
workers. OSHA notes that the provision
to allow minor variations in
precautionary statements only allows
label preparers to use variations that at
least equally convey the required safety
information to workers. For example,
this provision would allow for spelling
variations, synonyms, or other
equivalent terms appropriate to the
region where the product is supplied
and used, which may improve
readability and comprehensibility for
workers in some situations. OSHA also
does not agree that these terms would be
difficult to enforce or would result in
significant litigation issues. For the
reasons discussed above, OSHA is
finalizing paragraph C.2.4.7 as
proposed.
PO 00000
Frm 00187
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44329
OSHA also proposed to add a new
paragraph, C.2.4.10, to address cases
where substances or mixtures that are
classified for multiple hazards may
trigger multiple precautionary
statements for medical responses.
Precautionary statements involve both
an ‘‘if’’ statement, either based on route
of exposure or the symptoms being
experienced, and a medical response,
such as ‘‘call a poison center/doctor’’ or
‘‘get medical advice/attention.’’ In a
situation where a substance or mixture
is classified for multiple hazards and
therefore triggers multiple precautionary
statements, this could result in
redundancy of either the ‘‘if’’ statement
component or the medical response
component.
To address this concern, consistent
with Rev. 7 (Document ID 0060, pp.
302–303), OSHA proposed a system of
prioritization and combination for
precautionary statements. Under
proposed C.2.4.10(a), when the hazards
have similar routes of exposure or
health outcomes, labels would usually
only need to include one precautionary
statement reflecting the medical
response at the highest level with the
greatest urgency, combined with at least
one route of exposure or symptom ‘‘if’’
statement. For example, in a situation
where a substance was classified as two
different hazards (such as skin corrosion
Category 1C and acute toxicity Category
3 for dermal) which required different
medical responses to the same route of
exposure, the statement, ‘‘Immediately
call a poison center/doctor/. . .’’ would
be prioritized over the less urgent ‘‘call
a poison center/doctor’’ and would be
the only medical response required on
the label for that route of exposure.
Proposed paragraph C.2.4.10(b) would
allow for (but not require) combination
of medical response statements where
multiple routes would trigger similar
medical statements. This means that if
a chemical has, for example, inhalation
and skin contact hazards that would
require the same level of medical
response, both of these routes of entry
could be listed in a combined statement.
Thus, if a chemical is classified as acute
toxicity Category 2 inhalation and acute
toxicity Category 2 dermal then the
statement can read ‘‘if inhaled or on
skin immediately call poison center/
doctor.’’ Proposed paragraphs (a) and (b)
can also be used in combination.
However, proposed paragraph
C.2.4.10(c) would prohibit the
combination of medical response
statements where the statements ‘‘Get
medical advice/attention if you feel
unwell’’ and ‘‘Get immediate medical
advice/attention’’ are both indicated.
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
44330
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
The agency requested comments on this
system of prioritization in proposed
C.2.4.10 and on whether the proposed
prioritization provisions would improve
clarity on labels.
Several commenters supported the
addition of proposed paragraph
C.2.4.10. NIOSH stated that the
proposed changes to paragraph C.2.4.10
would clarify hazards, citing a pre-GHS
study of the comprehensibility of
material safety data sheets (MSDSs)
which showed that ‘‘wordiness
contributed to difficulty in
understanding them [Kolp et al. 1993]’’
(Document ID 0281, Att. 2, p. 5). Dow
similarly commented that by reducing
the amount of text on labels, the
prioritization specified in C.2.4.10
would make the labels less confusing
and easier to understand. Dow further
observed that some manufacturers are
already doing this, and that the
proposed change would align with
requirements of major trading partners
(Document ID 0359, p. 5). Ameren also
agreed that precautionary statements for
medical responses should be prioritized
(Document ID 0309, p. 17).
OSHA also received several critical
comments on proposed paragraph
C.2.4.10. Cal/OSHA and Worksafe
raised concerns that the proposed
change would allow label preparers to
present medical response precautionary
statement for only one of several
hazards to users (Document ID 0322, p.
3; 0354, p. 4), and that prioritization can
lead to misinterpretation (Document ID
0344, p. 3) or would leave workers,
emergency responders and downstream
users without the information they need
to formulate an appropriate medical
response to exposure (Document ID
0322, p. 3; 0405, p. 20). The American
Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME) noted
similar concerns and recognized the
value specifically in including medical
response precautionary statements to
address both immediate (acute) and
long-term (chronic) medical concerns
when needed, since the appropriate
medical care may differ for a medical
emergency versus potential chronic
diseases such as may occur from
prolonged or repeated exposures
(Document ID 0344, p. 3).
OSHA disagrees with these
commenters that the proposed
paragraph C.2.4.10, if the general
principles are followed as OSHA
intended, would result in information
being omitted from the label. However,
OSHA acknowledges that the use of the
term ‘‘usually’’ is ambiguous and might
create confusion. OSHA also agrees that
only one precautionary statement will
not suffice in every situation. As OSHA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
discussed in the NPRM, the agency
believes there is value in including
more than one precautionary statement
related to medical response to address
both immediate (acute) and long-term
(chronic) medical concerns; appropriate
medical care may be different
depending on whether there is a
medical emergency (e.g., chemical
burns) or concerns about potential
diseases (e.g., cancer) due to prolonged
exposures. Therefore, to clarify the
requirements for combination and
prioritization of medical response
statements, OSHA is revising C.2.4.10(a)
to read ‘‘If the same medical response
statement is triggered multiple times,
the label need only include one
precautionary statement reflecting the
response at the highest level with the
greatest urgency, which should always
be combined with at least one route of
exposure or symptom ‘‘IF’’ statement.’’
OSHA believes this more specific
version better expresses the agency’s
expectations for when and how label
preparers may combine and prioritize
medical response statements, to
simplify the presentation of medical
response information while retaining
the information most important for end
users to view on the label. Additionally,
OSHA notes that nothing in paragraph
C.2.4.10 changes the requirements of
C.2.2 that all applicable hazard
statements must appear on the label, so
producers are still required to include
all hazards associated with their
products under the HCS.
OSHA received several requests for
clarification regarding proposed
paragraph C.2.4.10. Toby Threet asked
OSHA to clarify the meaning of
proposed paragraph C.2.4.10(c)
(Document ID 0279, pp. 22–23). OSHA
intended paragraph C.2.4.10 (c) to create
a limited exception to C.2.4.10(a)
(which allows for label preparers to
present only the highest priority
medical response statement) and
C.2.4.10(b) (which allows combination
of medical response statements for
multiple routes of exposure). Paragraph
C.2.4.10(c) requires that, in the specific
case where the medical response
precautionary statements ‘‘Get medical
advice/attention if you feel unwell’’ and
‘‘Get immediate medical advice/
attention’’ are both applicable to a
chemical or mixture, due to multiple
hazards triggering multiple
precautionary statements, they must
both appear as separate statements on
the label. In the NPRM, OSHA
explained its intent that both of those
statements should appear ‘‘without
prioritization,’’ by which the agency
meant that both should appear on the
PO 00000
Frm 00188
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
label, and that the label preparer does
not have discretion to decide that they
should be combined into a single
statement.
ICT asked OSHA to clarify the extent
to which proposed paragraph C.2.4.10
was intended to be mandatory, noting
that terms such as ‘‘should’’ and ‘‘may’’
in C.2.4.10(a) and (b) seem to indicate
that combining or reducing is optional,
while C.2.4.10(c) uses similar language
(‘‘should appear’’) to indicate something
that is required (Document ID 0324, p.
6).
OSHA intended for proposed
paragraphs C.2.4.10, (a) and (b) to allow,
but not require the label preparer to
prioritize and/or combine elements of
medical response precautionary
statements on the label. In contrast,
OSHA intended proposed paragraph
C.2.4.10(c) to be a requirement. OSHA
agrees with ICT that the use of ‘‘should’’
in C.2.4.10(c) does not clearly convey
the agency’s intent and is therefore
modifying the proposed language of
C.2.4.10(c) to replace ‘‘should’’ with
‘‘must’’.
ICT further noted that paragraph (f)(2)
requires that labels must bear the
information specified in Appendix C,
and that Appendix D states that
precautionary statements in the SDS
must be in accordance with paragraph
(f). ICT inquired whether it follows that,
in a case where medical response
statements have been prioritized and/or
combined for presentation on the label,
the medical response statements may be
similarly presented in the SDS
(Document ID 0324, pp. 5–6).
ICT is correct that the SDS is not
required to include any more or
different medical statements than are
presented on the label. If a label is only
required to have one medical response
statement in accordance with paragraph
C.2.4.10, then the SDS may also contain
only that statement. OSHA further notes
that it is permissible, but not required,
for SDS preparers to include additional
medical response statements beyond
those included on the label.
OSHA also received several
comments generally requesting
clarification regarding the principles in
C.2.4.10 (Document ID 0339, p. 3; 0358,
p. 3; 0349, p. 2) and two commenters
requested that OSHA develop guidance
(Document ID 0358, p. 3; 0349, p. 2).
OSHA notes that Annex 3 of Rev. 7,
Annex 3 (A3.3.2.4) contains useful
information on the application of
precautionary statements regarding
medical response. In A3.3.2.4,
Application of precautionary statements
concerning medical response, the GHS
provides a number of examples of how
the principles in C.2.4.10 can be applied
E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM
20MYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
when choosing precautionary
statements to ensure clarity of the most
appropriate safety message (Document
ID 0094, pp. 302–303). Because OSHA’s
language is intended to align with the
GHS, the guidance provided in the GHS
about how to prioritize and combine
precautionary statements also provides
information on how to comply with the
HCS. Additionally, OSHA will be
updating its guidance and anticipates
providing additional guidance and
examples on this topic.
OSHA requested input on alternative
language for paragraph C.2.4.10, based
on Rev. 8, in which the medical
response precautionary statements
would be standardized according to the
Hazard Class and Category (86 FR 9576).
CGA and GAWDA recommended
adoption of the Rev. 8 language on the
basis that the standardized statements
would make the statement selection
process easier when several options are
available (Document ID 0310, p. 3).
NIOSH supported adoption of the Rev.
8 standardization but recommended that
label preparers be given the option to
choose a stronger medical response
precautionary statement if supported by
available information (Document ID
0281, Att. 2, p. 6; 0423, Tr. 23). In
contrast, ACC advised OSHA not to
adopt the Rev. 8 provision, which ACC
believes would be overly prescriptive,
would not provide any additional
protection, and would not reduce the
cost or difficulty of compliance for
manufacturers (Document ID 0347, p. 7).
ACC testified that the revisions required
under the Rev. 8 provision would be a
major financial burden because of the
cost of updating product labels and that
the changes were semantic in nature,
providing the example that ‘‘many
Appendix C tables include a response
statement that directs the user to seek
medical care, in addition to the phrase,
get medical advice/attention. Revising
the label to include the additional
phrase is not a meaningful change in the
precautionary information being shared
with the user’’ (Document ID 0423, Tr.
105). Michelle Sullivan supported
optional use of the Rev. 8 precautionary
statements (Document ID 0366, p. 2).
After consideration of the
