9576 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
1Documents submitted to the docket by OSHA or 
stakeholders are assigned document identification 
numbers (Document ID) for easy identification and retrieval. The full Document ID is the docket number plus a unique four-digit code. OSHA is identifying supporting information in this NPRM by author name, publication year, and the last four digits of the Document ID. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 
Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration 
29 CFR Part 1910 
[Docket No. OSHA–2019–0001] 
RIN 1218–AC93 
Hazard Communication Standard 
AGENCY : Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA), Labor. 
ACTION : Proposed rule; request for 
comments. 
SUMMARY : OSHA is proposing through 
this notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) to modify the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to conform to the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) Revision 7 (GHS, Rev. 7), to address issues that arose during the implementation of the 2012 update to the HCS, and provide better alignment with other U.S. agencies and international trading partners, without lowering overall protections of the standard. OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposed revisions to the HCS will reduce costs and burdens while also improving the quality and consistency of information provided to employers and employees regarding chemical hazards and associated protective measures. Consistent with the Executive order entitled ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review’’ (January 18, 2011) and section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which call for assessment and, where appropriate, modification and improvement of existing rules to minimize any significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities, OSHA has reviewed the existing HCS. The agency has preliminarily determined that the proposed revisions will enhance the effectiveness of the HCS by ensuring employees are appropriately apprised of the chemical hazards to which they may be exposed, thus reducing the incidence of chemical-related occupational illnesses and injuries. The proposed modifications to the standard include revised criteria for classification of certain health and physical hazards, revised provisions for updating labels, new labeling provisions for small containers, technical amendments related to the contents of safety data sheets (SDSs), and related revisions to definitions of terms used in the standard. DATES : Comments on this NPRM 
(including requests for hearing) and other information must be submitted by April 19, 2021. 
Informal public hearing: OSHA will 
schedule an informal public hearing on the proposed rule if requested during the comment period. If a hearing is requested, the location and date of the hearing, procedures for interested parties to notify the agency of their intention to participate, and procedures for participants to submit their testimony and documentary evidence will be announced in the Federal 
Register. 
ADDRESSES : 
Written comments: You may submit 
comments and attachments, identified by Docket No. OSHA–2019–0001, electronically at http://
www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions. After accessing ‘‘all documents and comments’’ in the docket (Docket No. OSHA–2019–0001), check the ‘‘proposed rule’’ box in the column headed ‘‘Document Type,’’ find the document posted on the date of publication of this document, and click the ‘‘Comment Now’’ link. When uploading multiple attachments to regulations.gov, please number all of your attachments because www.regulations.gov will not 
automatically number the attachments. This will be very useful in identifying all attachments in the preamble. For example, Attachment 1—title of your document, Attachment 2—title of your document, Attachment 3—title of your document. For assistance with commenting and uploading documents, please see the Frequently Asked Questions on regulations.gov. 
Instructions: All submissions must 
include the agency’s name and the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA–2019–0001). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http:// 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA 
cautions commenters about submitting information they do not want made available to the public, or submitting materials that contain personal information (either about themselves or others), such as Social Security Numbers and birthdates. 
Docket: To read or download 
comments and materials submitted in response to this Federal Register document, go to Docket No. OSHA– 2019–0001 at http://
www.regulations.gov. All comments and submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, 
some information ( e.g., copyrighted 
material) is not publicly available to read or download through that website. All comments and submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office.
1 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : 
For press inquiries: Contact Frank 
Meilinger, Director, Office of Communications, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone: (202) 693–1999; email: meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. 
For general information and technical 
inquiries: Contact Maureen Ruskin, 
Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693–1950 or fax (202) 693–1678; email: ruskin.maureen@dol.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
Table of Contents 
I. Executive Summary 
II. Introduction III. Events Leading to the Proposed 
Modifications to the Hazard Communication Standard 
IV. Need and Support for the Proposed 
Modifications to the Hazard Communication Standard 
V. Pertinent Legal Authority VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 
VII. Preliminary Economic Analysis and 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
VIII. Federalism IX. State-Plan States X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act XI. Protecting Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks 
XII. Environmental Impacts XIII. Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments 
XIV. Issues and Options Considered XV. Summary and Explanation of the 
Proposed Modifications to the Hazard Communication Standard 
XVI. Authority and Signature 
I. Executive Summary 
The Globally Harmonized System of 
Classification and Labeling of Chemicals 
(GHS) has been implemented around the world. In 2012, OSHA updated its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), 29 CFR 1910.1200, to align with Revision 3 of the GHS (77 FR 17574). 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29577 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
2This calculation (a) converts the costs and cost 
savings of the rule from 2019 dollars to 2016 dollars 
using the BEA (2020) implicit price deflator for Gross Domestic Product, and (b) discounts the first year costs by five years, to reflect the five years between 2016 and 2021, the scheduled year of publication of this NPRM. For further details, see Document ID 0049, tab ‘‘Tables’’, E.O. 13771 Summary Table. However, the GHS is updated with 
improvements and clarifications every two years. This proposed rulemaking would amend the HCS to align with Revision 7 of the GHS, published in 2017. OSHA is also proposing updates to address specific issues that have arisen since the 2012 rulemaking and to provide better alignment with international trading partners, without lowering the protections provided by the standard. This action is consistent with Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review’’ (January 18, 2011), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 610, which requires periodic review of rules that may be out-of-date, ineffective, or excessively burdensome. 
OSHA is required by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) to assure, as far as possible, safe and healthful working conditions for the Nation’s working men and women. As part of this effort, OSHA first promulgated the HCS in 1983 to provide a standardized approach to workplace hazard communications associated with exposure to hazardous chemicals. The HCS requires chemical manufacturers or importers to classify the hazards of chemicals they produce or import. The standard requires all employers to provide information to their employees about the hazardous chemicals to which they are exposed, by means of a hazard communication program, labels and other forms of 
warning, safety data sheets (SDSs), and information and training. OSHA is not 
proposing to change the fundamental structure of the HCS. 
OSHA has preliminarily determined 
that the proposed amendments to the HCS would enhance the effectiveness of the standard by ensuring that employees 
are appropriately apprised of the 
chemical hazards to which they may be exposed. The proposed modifications to the standard include revised criteria for classification of certain health and physical hazards to better capture and communicate the hazards to downstream users, revised provisions for labels (including proposed provisions addressing the labeling of small containers and the relabeling of chemicals that have been released for shipment), technical amendments related to the contents of SDSs, and new provisions relating to concentrations or concentration ranges being claimed as trade secrets. 
Additionally, in accordance with all 
applicable Executive Orders, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, OSHA has prepared a Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), including a Preliminary Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
Certification, for the proposed modifications to the HCS (see the full PEA in Section VII of this document). Supporting materials prepared by OSHA, such as spreadsheets, are available in the public docket for this rulemaking, Docket ID OSHA–2019– 0001, through www.regulations.gov. OSHA invites comments on all aspects 
of the PEA. 
In the PEA, OSHA estimates that the 
proposed rule would result in net cost savings of $26.8 million per year at a 7 percent discount rate, as shown in Table ES–1, below (a summary of annualized costs by affected industry). Annualized at a 3 percent discount rate, OSHA estimates that the proposed rule would result in net cost savings of $27.5 million per year. Under a perpetual time horizon to allow for cost comparisons under Executive Order 13771, OSHA estimates that the net cost savings of the proposed rule at a discount rate of 7 
percent would be $19.6 million per year in 2016 dollars.
2OSHA also expects 
that the proposed revisions to the HCS would result in modest improvements in worker health and safety above those already being achieved under the current HCS, but the agency was unable to quantify the magnitude of these health and safety benefits (see Section VII.D. Health and Safety Benefits and Unquantified Positive Economic Effects). 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29578 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.000</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29579 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 
II. Introduction 
This preamble to the proposal to 
modify the HCS includes a review of the 
events leading to the proposal, a discussion of the reasons why OSHA believes these modifications are necessary, the preliminary economic and regulatory flexibility analysis for the proposal, and an explanation of the specific revisions OSHA is proposing to make to the standard. 
III. Events Leading to the Proposed 
Modifications to the Hazard Communication Standard 
OSHA first promulgated the HCS in 
1983, covering only the chemical manufacturing industry (48 FR 53280). The purpose of the standard was to provide a standardized approach for communicating workplace hazards associated with exposure to hazardous chemicals. OSHA updated the HCS in 1987 to expand coverage to all industries where workers are exposed to hazardous chemicals (52 FR 31852). In 1994, OSHA promulgated an additional update to the HCS with technical changes and amendments designed to ensure better comprehension and greater compliance with the standard (59 FR 6126). In adopting the original HCS in 1983, the agency noted the benefits of an internationally harmonized chemical hazard communication standard (48 FR 53287), and actively participated in efforts to develop one over the subsequent decades. In 2012, the agency officially harmonized the HCS with the third revision of the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) (UN GHS, Rev. 3, 2009, Document ID 0085) (77 FR 17574). 
OSHA has always envisioned that the 
HCS would require periodic rulemakings to maintain consistency with the GHS and incorporate the progression of scientific principles and best approaches for classification and communication of workplace hazards related to hazardous chemical exposure (77 FR 17574). This section provides information on the events that have occurred since promulgation of the 2012 HCS, with additional information on the development of the GHS and its relationship to the HCS, and explains the impetus for this proposed rule. 
Several international and domestic 
activities have impacted the direction of the HCS and led to the updates proposed in this NPRM, including negotiations at the UN, OSHA’s participation in the U.S.–Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) with Health Canada, and information 
OSHA has received from HCS stakeholders. These are discussed below. 
A. International Events Affecting the 
Standard 
The evolution of what was to become 
the GHS had its early beginnings with the work started in 1956 by the United Nations Economic and Social Council Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) and continued in the 1990s through the United Nations Conference on Environment and Economic Development (UNCED), the United Nations International Labour Organization (ILO), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (UN GHS, 2019, Document ID 0053). The overarching goal was to provide an internationally harmonized system to convey information to workers, consumers, and the general public on the physical, health, and environmental effects of hazardous chemicals across the globe, as well as to provide a foundation for the safe management of those chemicals. 
Finalized by the UN in 2002, the GHS 
is intended to harmonize elements of hazard communication, including SDSs and labels, by providing a unified classification system of chemicals based on their physical and health-related hazards. The GHS is updated and revised every two years based on information and experience gained by regulatory agencies, industry, and non- governmental organizations (UN GHS, 2020, Document ID 0052). OSHA largely adopted the third revision to the GHS in 2012. 
OSHA leads the U.S. Interagency GHS 
Coordinating Group, an interagency group that serves as a U.S. delegation to the UN. The Interagency Group works to ensure that modifications to the GHS 
continue to reflect U.S. agencies’ key priorities and do not conflict with U.S. hazard communication and associated requirements. The group meets regularly to discuss issues related to the domestic implementation of the GHS, as well as international work being done at the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the GHS (UNSCEGHS). The Interagency Group consists of representatives from OSHA, the Department of State, the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Coast Guard, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 
(ATF). To date, OSHA is the only U.S. agency to have implemented the GHS, although CPSC regulations contain elements of the GHS ( e.g., precautionary 
statements) (CPSC, 2006, Document ID 0175). The EPA (which initiated the U.S. working group) has proposed changes to its regulations governing significant new uses of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances 
Control Act that would align with the 
HCS and the GHS as well as OSHA’s respiratory protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) respirator certification requirements (81 FR 49598). 
Since OSHA’s adoption of Revision 3 
in 2012, the GHS has been updated five times; the latest revision, Revision 8, was published in July 2019 (UN GHS, Rev. 8, 2019, Document ID 0065). Updates to the GHS in Revision 4 (2011) included changes to hazard categories for chemically unstable gases and non- flammable aerosols and updates to, and clarification of, precautionary statements (UN GHS, 2011, Document ID 0240). Changes in Revision 5 of the GHS (2013) included a new test method for oxidizing solids; miscellaneous provisions intended to further clarify the criteria for some hazard classes (skin corrosion/irritation, severe eye damage/ irritation, and aerosols) and to complement the information to be included in the SDS; revised and simplified classification and labeling summary tables; a new codification system for hazard pictograms; and revised precautionary statements (UN GHS, 2013, Document ID 0241). 
Revision 6 of the GHS (2015) included 
a new hazard class for desensitized explosives and a new hazard category for pyrophoric gases; miscellaneous provisions intended to clarify the criteria for some hazard classes (explosives, specific target organ toxicity following single exposure, aspiration hazard, and hazardous to the aquatic environment); additional information to be included in section 9 of the SDS; revised precautionary statements; and a new example in Annex 7 addressing labelling of small 
packages (UN GHS, 2015, Document ID 
0134). Changes in Revision 7 (2017) 
included revised criteria for 
categorization of flammable gases 
within Category 1; miscellaneous 
amendments intended to clarify the 
definitions of some health hazard 
classes; additional guidance regarding 
the coverage of section 14 of the SDS 
(which is non-mandatory under the 
HCS); and a new example in Annex 7 
addressing labelling of small packages 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29580 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
with fold-out labels (UN GHS, 2017, 
Document ID 0094). Revision 8 (published July 2019) includes a change in classification criteria for aerosols (based on flammable properties, heat of combustion); minor changes to precautionary statements for skin irritation and serious eye damage; new provisions for use of non-animal test methods for the skin irritation/corrosion hazard class; and new precautionary pictograms for ‘‘keep out of reach of children’’ (UN GHS, Rev. 8, 2019, Document ID 0065). OSHA is proposing to revise the HCS to align with the GHS Revision 7; however, the agency has included select provisions from Revision 8 for consideration in this rulemaking. Major U.S. trading partners are also aligning with Revision 7. This is discussed in more detail in the 
introduction to Issues and Options (see 
Section XIV) and the introduction to Summary and Explanation (see Section 
XV). 
The GHS model is comprehensive and 
forward-looking, embracing concepts 
defined in the principles of aggregate exposure and cumulative risk, which have been developed and/or adopted by agencies such as the U.S. EPA pesticides program and NIOSH (US EPA, 2017, Document ID 0054; Lentz, 2015, Document ID 0071). In brief, aggregate exposure considers the combined exposures of a single chemical from multiple pathways (e.g., oral, dermal, 
inhalation), while cumulative risk evaluates the potential adverse effects from multiple chemicals or stressors (such as heat and noise). Because of its comprehensive approach, the GHS takes into consideration multiple aspects of the intrinsic hazards of a chemical ( e.g., 
physical, health, and environmental hazards) and makes this information available in a manner that facilitates the assessment of aggregate exposures from a single chemical and identifies factors that may contribute to cumulative risk from multiple chemical exposures. While the HCS requires employers to provide information on SDSs in sections 1–11 and 16 (12–15 are non-mandatory) for workplace settings (29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(2)), many consumer products have SDSs available to the public through the National Library of Medicine (NLM, 2020, http://
medlineplus.gov/ householdproducts.html, Document ID 
0059). Thus, aggregate exposure information is available to the public for many chemicals where occupational, consumer, and environmental exposures are possible, as intended by the GHS. 
An additional international activity 
impacting the HCS is OSHA’s 
participation in the RCC. The RCC was established in 2011 to promote 
economic growth, job creation, and other benefits through increased regulatory coordination and transparency between the U.S. and Canada (US EOP, 2011, Document ID 0057). In June 2018, U.S.–Canada RCC principles were reaffirmed through a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the 
White House Office of Management and Budget and the Treasury Board of Canada (US-Canada MOU, 2018, Document ID 0199). Since the RCC’s inception, OSHA and Health Canada, Canada’s corresponding governmental agency, have developed joint guidance products and consulted on respective regulatory activities. In keeping with the RCC’s goal of regulatory cooperation, OSHA is proposing several updates to the HCS that will align with Canada’s Hazardous Products Regulations (HPR), such as changes to exemptions for labeling small containers and using prescribed concentration ranges when claiming trade secrets (Health Canada, 2015, Document ID 0051). 
B. Stakeholder Engagement 
Since updating the HCS in 2012, 
OSHA has engaged stakeholders in 
various ways in order to keep them apprised of changes to the GHS that may have an impact on future updates to the HCS, as well as to gather information about stakeholders’ experience implementing the standard. For example, in November 2016, OSHA convened a meeting (International/ Globally Harmonized System (GHS), Docket No. OSHA–2016–0005) to inform the public that OSHA was beginning rulemaking efforts to maintain alignment of the HCS with more recent revisions of the GHS. Meeting attendees discussed topics and issues that OSHA should consider during the rulemaking. In addition, attendees provided suggestions as to the types of publications (such as guidance products) that would be helpful in complying with the standard and the topics they would like OSHA to address in future compliance assistance 
materials. 
OSHA has also engaged stakeholders 
through Interagency Group public meetings, prior to each UNSCEGHS Session, to discuss the issues and proposals being presented at the UN. During this forum, stakeholders have the opportunity to provide comments or voice concerns regarding the various proposals under discussion. Stakeholders are also able to provide comments on these proposals in writing via OSHA’s docket for International/ Globally Harmonized System (GHS) 
(Docket No. OSHA–2016–0005). The Interagency Group considers the comments and information gathered at these public meetings and in the docket when developing the United States’ position on issues before the UN. 
Additionally, in December 2018, the 
RCC held a stakeholder forum in Washington, DC. The purpose of the forum was to conduct senior-level discussions to proactively identify and discuss challenges, opportunities, and lessons learned regarding Canada-U.S, regulatory cooperation’’ (US EOP, 2018, Document ID 0252). OSHA led the session regarding chemicals management and workplace chemicals. 
C. OSHA Guidance Products, Letters of 
Interpretation, and Directives 
Since OSHA’s publication of the HCS 
update in 2012, the agency has published guidance documents, issued letters of interpretation (LOI), and implemented an enforcement directive. To see the guidance documents, please go to OSHA’s web page at: https://
www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/ guidance.html. OSHA will continue to 
develop guidance documents to assist employers and employees with their understanding of the HCS and is seeking comments in this NPRM on types of guidance documents that the public may find useful to understand the updated HCS. Any guidance provided will accord with the Department’s regulation at 29 CFR part 89, with a primary aim of providing helpful, plain language explanations. 
OSHA has issued several letters of 
interpretation (LOI) in response to questions from the regulated community. These LOI provide clarification on provisions in the 2012 update to the HCS, and how they apply in particular circumstances. Some of the major issues covered in the LOI include the labeling of small containers, the 
labeling of chemicals released for shipment, and the use of concentration ranges for trade secrets. OSHA’s LOI on the HCS may be found at https://
www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/standardnumber/1910/ 1910.1200%20-%20Index/result. In 
addition, the agency has published a directive that provides guidance to enforcement compliance officers intended to ensure uniform enforcement of the standard by the OSHA field offices (CPL 02–02–079, OSHA, 2015, Document ID 0007; https://
www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_ pdf/ 
CPL_ 02-02-079.pdf). Several of the 
updates in this proposal would codify specific elements of the enforcement guidance the agency has already 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29581 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
3The ILO and the World Health Organization 
(WHO) have also adopted an evergreen approach to 
workplace hazard communication (i.e., an approach 
that ensures systems for hazard communication remain relevant and up-to-date). The ILO and WHO produce international chemical safety cards (ICSC) and maintain a database of approximately 500 data sheets designed to provide safety and health information on hazardous chemicals in a format consistent with the GHS. While not exactly like SDSs, ICSCs use GHS precautionary statements to convey safety and health information about workplace chemicals in a consistent, internationally-accessible manner. With participation by experts from government agencies around the world, including the U.S. (CDC/NIOSH), Canada (Health Canada and Environment Canada), and the European Commission (ECHA), ICSCs are prepared and periodically updated to account for the most recent scientific developments. Due to the robust process of preparation and peer-review, the ICSCs are considered authoritative in nature and a significant asset for workers and health professionals across the globe, including in the United States (ILO, 2019, Document ID 0069). 
4SDSs, 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). provided in the LOI and the directive 
(see Section XV: Summary and Explanation for Regulatory Text, Appendix B and Appendix D). 
IV. Need and Support for the Proposed 
Modifications to the Hazard Communication Standard 
The HCS is the cornerstone of OSHA’s 
risk mitigation strategy for controlling hazardous chemicals in the workplace. The importance of hazard communication in general and the HCS specifically have been well established over the past few decades, ever since OSHA first established the HCS in 1983 as a worker’s ‘‘right to know’’ standard (OSHA Publication 3021—Workers’ Rights, 2017). However, even prior to OSHA’s promulgation of the HCS, there was recognition that workers needed to know the hazards encountered in the workplace and the importance of communicating, classifying, and training how to address, those hazards. The foundational goal of the HCS is to identify, understand, and communicate the hazards associated with exposure to chemicals before workers experience chronic exposure to those hazards. 
OSHA first established the need for 
the HCS in the 1983 standard (48 FR 53282–53284) and most recently reiterated the need for the standard in 2012, when OSHA adopted the GHS hazard communication framework (77 FR 17584–17600). The 2012 HCS emphasized the need for improved quality, consistency, and comprehensibility of information provided to workers. The improved information mandated by the current HCS enables employers and workers to further reduce risks associated with chemical hazards by enabling them to identify and determine the hazards and by providing a method to indicate the severity of the relevant hazards. The HCS, as updated in 2012, also mandates 
information on proper storage and handling and other information on risk mitigation and management. Numerous studies examined in the final rulemaking for the 2012 HCS supported the need for a hazard communication standard that was focused on ensuring the comprehensibility of the conveyed information (77 FR 17584–17585). 
OSHA is now proposing additional 
changes to the HCS that will serve three primary purposes: (1) Maintaining alignment with the GHS and ensuring that the standard reflects the current state of science and knowledge on relevant topics; (2) cooperating with international trading partners and other Federal agencies; and (3) responding to stakeholder experiences implementing current HCS requirements. The proposed changes include clarifying the 
purpose and scope of the standard, adding definitions, codifying enforcement policies currently in OSHA’s compliance directive, clarifying requirements related to the transport of hazardous chemicals, adding labeling provisions for small containers, and adopting new requirements related to preparation of SDSs and new provisions related to claiming concentration ranges 
as trade secrets. The agency believes that the changes proposed in this NPRM will further improve the 
comprehensibility and utility of the 
standard and allow the HCS to keep up with advances in relevant science and technology, thereby better protecting worker health and safety. 
A. Maintaining Alignment With the GHS 
and Ensuring That the Standard Reflects the Current State of Science and Knowledge on Relevant Topics 
Periodic updates to the HCS are 
needed to maintain pace with the general advancement of science, technology, and our understanding of the processes involved in effective communication. As stated in the 2008 ILO report, ‘‘Continuous improvement of occupational safety and health must be promoted. This is necessary to ensure that national laws, regulations, and technical standards to prevent occupational injuries, disease, and deaths are adapted periodically to social, technical, and scientific progress and other changes in the world of work.’’ (ILO, 2008, Document ID 0181). While the tools and protective measures in place to reduce or prevent chemical- related occupational injuries and illnesses are effective, such tools and systems become less effective as time 
goes by and new technologies and 
workplace hazards emerge. Therefore, 
there is a need for continual 
improvement in the systems and 
processes designed to identify, communicate about, and reduce workplace exposures to chemical hazards. OSHA has always intended for the HCS to be updated periodically to reflect these advancements, as is the GHS (for further discussion see Section XIV, Issues and Options).
3 The proposed changes to the HCS will 
result in better alignment between the 
standard and the continually-evolving GHS. The first edition of the UN GHS, adopted in December 2002 and published in 2003, implemented the 16- section format for SDSs that is now standard across much of the globe. As information has improved, the GHS has updated the form and content of SDSs
4 
to improve readability, minimize redundancies, and ensure hazards are communicated appropriately (UN GHS, 2017, Document ID 0060; ANS revises standard, 2005, Document ID 0237). 
Information OSHA has collected since 
publication of the 2012 updates to the HCS indicates that aligning the HCS with the GHS has had a positive impact. Data from published studies indicate that the hazard communication approach taken in the 2012 HCS has been effective, when implemented appropriately, in enabling workers to understand, avoid, and mitigate exposures to hazardous chemicals in the workplace (Bechtoldt, 2014, Document ID 0061; Elliott, 2016, Document ID 0119). Industry representatives have indicated that workers responded positively to training on pictograms and hazard statements because it provided an opportunity to address distinctions between acute toxicity and chronic health effects (Bechtold, 2014, Document ID 0061). In reference to SDSs, one industry representative stated that ‘‘[b]ecause the standardized hazard statements and classifications are so 
precisely disclosed, it’ll be a lot easier for industrial hygienists to identify the more hazardous chemicals, decide where they may need to take action, and compare the hazards of one product versus another.’’ (Bechtold, 2014, 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29582 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
5Holistic programs such as NIOSH’s Total 
Worker Health (TWH) program, where behavioral 
science is integrated into more traditional risk- management practices, require robust hazard communication practices (Tamers, 2019, Document ID 0076). Document ID 0061; Elliot, 2016, 
Document ID 0119). Consistent labeling requirements have also enabled employers to identify the most hazardous materials in the workplace, understand more about the health effects of these chemicals, and address which hazardous chemicals they may want to replace with safer alternatives (Bechtold, 2014, Document ID 0061). 
Several studies published since the 
2012 HCS adopted the 16-section SDS format indicate that the new format improves comprehension in the workplace (Elliott, 2016, Document ID 0119; Boelhouwer, 2013, Document ID 0107). However, other recent studies have shown that the system can still be improved upon. Multiple studies in various industries have demonstrated that while comprehension has improved, many SDSs lack information vital to worker protections. Problems include insufficient information on the identification of substances/mixtures; inadequate hazard identification and classification information ( e.g., missing 
information on carcinogens and sensitizers, incorrect chemical classifications); lack of precautionary statements on safe handling; missing information on exposure controls/ personal protective equipment; and missing toxicological information (Jang, 2019, Document ID 0110; Allen, 2017, Document ID 0117; DiMare, 2017, Document ID 0118; Tsai, 2016, Document ID 0116; Friis, 2015, Document ID 0120; Saito, 2015, Document ID 0191; Suleiman, 2014, Document ID 0192; Lee, 2012, Document ID 0070). A 2014 study concluded that the contents of the SDSs evaluated were generic and incomplete, lacking important safety measures and health information (Suleiman, 2014, Document ID 0192). A study on mixtures found that information on individual ingredients within mixtures was sometimes completely missing and that information on hazard characterization and classification was ambiguous and almost entirely incorrect (LeBouf, 2019, Document ID 0183). Furthermore, a 2012 study conducted by NIOSH found that SDSs for certain classes of chemicals lacked sufficient information to communicate the appropriate hazards and remedies related to engineered nanomaterials (Eastlake, 2012, Document ID 0063). A follow-up NIOSH study found some improvement in SDS preparation since implementation of the 2012 HCS; however, the study also found that there are still serious deficiencies in providing adequate information on the inherent health and safety hazards of engineered nanomaterials, including 
handling and storage (Hodson, 2019, Document ID 0067). 
Inadequate information on the 
chemical hazards and risk management practices required on SDSs can lead to overexposure to chemical hazards and puts workers at risk. The studies described above demonstrate the need for ongoing review and refinement to make certain the standard is addressing comprehensibility issues and staying relevant with current occupational 
safety and health tools, science, and 
technology. Using information gained through the experience of global stakeholders, the GHS is updated with revisions and improvements every two years. These changes have been outlined in brief in Section III (Events Leading to the Proposed Modifications to the Hazard Communication Standard) of this NPRM. The proposed updates to appendix D, which are based in part on recent revisions to the GHS, seek, among other things, to remedy the issues that have been identified by clarifying the information needed in the SDS. For example, the change in section 9 (physical characteristics to include particle characteristics) will identify exposure issues that are not addressed by the current format. This should, among other things, improve the hazard information required for nanomaterials. 
Furthermore, the GHS has been 
updated to reflect the development of non-animal test methods for use in hazard determination and classification. The development of these test methods led to updates in Chapter 3.2 on skin corrosion/irritation that incorporated new in vitro test methods, and computational and in silico techniques, 
to classify chemicals for this category of hazard (UN GHS, 2018, Document ID 0242). And techniques and processes developed in the behavioral sciences have led to the development of more effective communication practices for occupational safety and health purposes (NIOSH, 2019, Document ID 0126).
5 
Studies evaluating the effectiveness of precautionary statements and 
pictograms used in the GHS have led to their evolution and continued revisions (Fagotto, 2003, Document ID 0125; Ta, 2010, Document ID 0115; Ta, 2011, Document ID 0194; Chan, 2017, Document ID 0017). 
In addition to directly enhancing 
worker protections through improved hazard communication, updating the HCS (based on the GHS) will also 
improve the availability of important information to support larger efforts to address workplace hazards. For example, NIOSH is exploring the use of aggregate exposures (exposures to a specific chemical or hazard from several different sources) and cumulative risk models for use in setting occupational exposure limits and assessing impacts on worker health (Lentz, 2015, Document ID 0071; Redingert, 2015, Document ID 0100). A real-world example of the potential effects of aggregate exposure comes from the increased use of nanosilver in consumer products. A recent NIOSH review of nanosilver indicates that the current OSHA PEL for silver is adequate to protect workers from silver’s adverse health effects (NIOSH, 2018, Document ID 0188). However, a 2013 study looking at the increased presence of nanosilver in consumer products (e.g., use of 
nanosilver as an antimicrobial in 
clothing and materials that come into contact with food), and the increased environmental exposures from the manufacture, use, and disposal of these consumer products, indicates that the OSHA PEL may be inadequate to protect workers if nanosilver continues to be added to new consumer products (Balcher, 2013, Document ID 0097). This example highlights the importance of an effective overarching hazard communication strategy in understanding and managing exposures and risk. 
Regularly updating the HCS to align 
with international practices also eases compliance for regulated entities because it provides greater international consistency (Bechtold, 2014, Document ID 0061). Industry groups, such as the American Petroleum Institute (API), have indicated their support for regular HCS updates as long as there is sufficient input from stakeholders (API, 2009, Document ID 0167). During the 2012 rulemaking, numerous safety organizations (including NIOSH, the American Chemical Society (ACS), the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE), and the Society for Chemical Hazard Communication (SCHC)) have publicly supported OSHA’s continued updates to the HCS (see 77 FR 17585, 17603, 17604). The Society of Toxicology has also expressed support for updating the HCS to align with the GHS as this ‘‘is ani important step toward creating consistent communication about the hazards of chemicals used around the world.’’ (see 77 FR 17585). 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:25 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29583 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
B. Cooperating With International 
Trading Partners and Other Federal Agencies 
In support of the second goal of this 
NPRM, OSHA expects that the proposed 
updates to the HCS will facilitate cooperation with international trading partners and other Federal agencies. With respect to the U.S. and Canada specifically, the two countries participate in the RCC, which has a goal to ‘‘reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary regulatory differences between both countries while maintaining high levels of protection for health, safety, and the environment’’ (US-Canada MOU, 2018, Document ID 0252). OSHA continues to work with Health Canada through the RCC to develop guidance documents pertaining to hazard communication issues the two countries share and to work cooperatively through the UN GHS subcommittee (see Section III, Events Leading to the Proposed Modifications to the Hazard Communication Standard). In addition, OSHA and Health Canada share regular updates on regulatory activity. As explained in the Summary and Explanation (see Section XV), a number of the updates OSHA is proposing in this NPRM would align 
U.S. and Canadian hazard communication practices, thereby facilitating cooperation between the two countries, easing compliance for employers who participate in both markets, and strengthening worker protections by providing harmonized hazard communication standards across trade borders. 
In addition, OSHA is proposing to 
update the requirements for bulk shipment under paragraph (f)(5), Transportation to provide additional 
clarity for shipments that are also regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). For bulk shipments, the proposed new paragraph would increase flexibility by allowing labels to be placed on the immediate container or transmitted with shipping papers, bills of lading, or by other technological or electronic means so that they are immediately available to workers in printed form on the receiving end of the shipment. And in another effort to facilitate inter-agency cooperation, OSHA is proposing new language for paragraph (f)(5) providing that where a pictogram required by the DOT appears on the label for a shipped container, the HCS pictogram for the same hazard may also be provided, but is not required. C. Responding to Stakeholder 
Experiences Implementing the 2012 HCS 
Finally, some of the proposed changes 
in this NPRM, those related to labeling of small containers and relabeling 
requirements for chemicals that have been released for shipment, were developed in response to feedback and comments received from stakeholders since the promulgation of the 2012 updates to the HCS (Collatz, 2015, Document ID 0174; Ghosh, 2015, Document ID 0180). With respect to the labeling of small containers, issues raised by stakeholders included concerns about insufficient space on the label to highlight the most relevant safety information, problems with the 
readability of information on small labels, and challenges associated with 
using fold-out labels for certain small containers that need special handling (Watters, 2013, Document ID 0200; Collaltz, 2015, Document ID 0174; Blankfield, 2017, Document ID 0170). The proposed updates to the HCS related to the labeling of small containers are designed to address these 
issues. Furthermore, OSHA believes that 
adopting a uniform standard for the labeling of small containers will enhance worker protections by providing more clarity and certainty about the hazards posed by the chemicals contained in such containers (see Section X Summary and Explanation for (f)(12), Small container labelling). 
Similarly, the proposed revisions to 
paragraph (f)(11), which address the relabeling of chemicals that have been released for shipment, are designed to address stakeholder concerns about the difficulty some manufacturers have in complying with paragraph (f)(11), especially in the case of chemicals that travel through long distribution cycles (Kenyon, 2017, Document ID 0182). Many products have straightforward supply chains and are packaged, labeled, and promptly shipped downstream. Other products, for example in the agrochemical sector, are packaged and labeled when they leave the chemical manufacturer’s facility, but may reside at a warehouse or distribution facility for extended periods of time (e.g., several years) 
before being shipped downstream. There are also instances where products may be returned from the downstream users to the distribution facility and then shipped to other customers (NGFA, 2016, Document ID OSHA–2016–0005– 0018; AFIA, 2016, Document ID OSHA– 2016–0005–0017). OSHA believes the proposed revisions to paragraph (f)(11) to provide that relabeling is not required for chemicals that have been released for shipment and are awaiting future distribution will accommodate these concerns; the proposal would also maintain worker protections by requiring the chemical manufacturer or importer to provide an updated label for each individual container with each shipment. 
V. Pertinent Legal Authority A. Background 
The purpose of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the 
‘‘OSH Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’) (29 U.S.C. 651 et 
seq.) is ‘‘to assure so far as possible 
every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.’’ 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to promulgate occupational safety and health standards pursuant to notice and comment. 29 U.S.C. 655(b). An occupational safety and health standard is a standard ‘‘which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.’’ 29 U.S.C. 652(8). 
The OSH Act also authorizes the 
Secretary to ‘‘modify’’ or ‘‘revoke’’ any occupational safety or health standard, 29 U.S.C. 655(b), and under the Administrative Procedure Act, regulatory agencies generally may revise their rules if the changes are supported by a reasoned analysis. See Encino 
Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, U.S., 136 S. 
Ct. 2117, 2125–26 (2016); Motor Vehicle 
Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 
Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983). In passing the OSH Act, Congress 
recognized that OSHA should revise 
and replace its standards as ‘‘new 
knowledge and techniques are developed.’’ S. Rep. 91–1282 at 6 (1970). The Supreme Court has observed that administrative agencies ‘‘do not establish rules of conduct to last forever, and . . . must be given ample latitude to adapt their rules and policies to the demands of changing circumstances.’’ Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 
42 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 
Before the Secretary can promulgate 
any permanent health or safety standard, he must make a threshold finding that significant risk is present and that such risk can be eliminated or lessened by a change in practices. Indus. 
Union Dep’t v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 
U.S. 607, 642 (1980) (plurality opinion) 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29584 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
6The last sentence of section 6(b)(7) requires 
consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. OSHA briefed NIOSH on this 
proposal during a collaboration meeting held in December 2018, which was attended by the Director of NIOSH, and NIOSH expressed its support. NIOSH also supported OSHA’s update of the HCS in 2012. See 77 FR 17603. (‘‘Benzene’’). As explained more fully 
below, OSHA need not make additional findings on risk for this proposal because OSHA previously determined that the HCS addresses a significant risk. 77 FR 17603–17604. 
In promulgating a standard under, 
and making the determinations required by, the OSH Act, OSHA’s determinations will be deemed conclusive if they are ‘‘supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole.’’ 29 U.S.C. 655(f). OSHA must use the ‘‘best available evidence,’’ which includes ‘‘the latest available scientific data in the field’’; ‘‘research, demonstrations, experiments, and such other information as may be appropriate’’; and ‘‘experience gained under this and other health and safety laws.’’ 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5). 
B. Authority—Section 6(b)(5) 
The HCS is a health standard 
promulgated under the authority of 
section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act. See Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Brock, 862 F.2d 63, 67–68 (3d Cir. 
1988); United Steelworkers of Am. v. 
Auchter, 763 F.2d 728, 735 (3d Cir. 
1985); 77 FR 17601. Section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act provides that in promulgating health standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents, the Secretary must ‘‘set the standard which most adequately 
assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity even if such employee has regular exposure to the hazard dealt with by such standard for the period of his working life.’’ 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5). Thus, once OSHA determines that a significant risk due to a health hazard is present and that such risk can be reduced or eliminated by an OSHA standard, section 6(b)(5) requires OSHA to issue the standard, based on the best available evidence, that ‘‘most adequately assures’’ employee protection, subject only to feasibility considerations. As the Supreme Court has explained, in passing section 6(b)(5), Congress ‘‘place[d] . . . worker health above all other considerations save those making attainment of this ‘benefit’ unachievable.’’ Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 
490, 509 (1981) (‘‘Cotton Dust’’). 
C. Other Authority 
The HCS is also promulgated under 
the authority of section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act. See United Steelworkers, 763 F.2d at 730; 77 FR 17601. Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act provides in part: ‘‘Any standard promulgated under this 
subsection shall prescribe the use of labels or other appropriate forms of warning as are necessary to insure that employees are apprised of all hazards to which they are exposed, relevant symptoms and appropriate emergency treatment, and proper conditions and precautions of safe use or exposure.’’ 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7). Section 6(b)(7)’s labeling and employee warning requirements provide basic protections for employees in the absence of specific permissible exposure limits, particularly by providing employers and employees with information necessary to design work processes that protect employees against exposure to hazardous chemicals in the first instance. 
The last sentence of section 6(b)(7) 
provides that the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may by rule promulgated pursuant to section 553 of Title 5, make appropriate modifications in the foregoing requirements relating to the use of labels or other forms of warning, monitoring or measuring, and medical examinations, as may be warranted by experience, information, or medical or technological developments acquired subsequent to the promulgation of the relevant standard. 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7). OSHA used the authority granted by this paragraph to promulgate the 2012 
revisions to the HCS, 77 FR 17602, and this provision provides additional authority for the current proposal. 
This proposal to update the HCS fits 
well within the authority granted by the last sentence of section 6(b)(7). The changes proposed would constitute a ‘‘modification’’ of the HCS regarding ‘‘the use of labels or other forms of warning.’’ As explained more fully elsewhere in this preamble, OSHA believes the proposed updates to be ‘‘appropriate’’ based on ‘‘experience, information, or medical or technological developments acquired subsequent to the promulgation of the relevant standard.’’ The updates found in GHS 
Rev. 7 may be considered a 
‘‘technological development’’ that has 
occurred since the promulgation of the 
HCS in 2012 and are also ‘‘warranted by 
experience [and] information.’’ The GHS was negotiated and drafted through the 
involvement of labor, industry, and 
governmental agencies, and thus 
represents the collective experience and information on hazard communication gathered by the participants in these sectors over the last several decades. See 71 FR 53617, 53618–53619.
6See also Section III of this preamble, Events 
Leading to the Proposed Modifications to the Hazard Communication Standard. 
Authority for the HCS is also found in 
section 8, paragraphs (c) and (g), of the OSH Act. Section 8(c)(1) of the OSH Act empowers the Secretary to require employers to make, keep, and preserve records regarding activities related to the OSH Act and to make such records available to the Secretary. 29 U.S.C. 657(c)(1). Section 8(g)(2) of the OSH Act empowers the Secretary to ‘‘prescribe such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out [his] responsibilities’’ under the Act. 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2). 
D. Significant Risk 
As required for standards 
promulgated under section 6(b)(5) of the 
OSH Act, OSHA determined that the HCS would substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm. Most OSHA health standards protect employees by imposing requirements when employees are exposed to a concentration of a hazardous substance that OSHA has found creates a significant risk of material health impairment. Thus, in making the significant risk determination in these cases, OSHA measures and assesses the hazards of employee exposures in order to determine the level at which a significant risk arises. 
OSHA took a different approach to its 
significant risk determination when first promulgating the HCS in 1983. Rather than attempting to assess the risk associated with exposures to each hazardous chemical in each industry to determine if that chemical posed a significant risk in that industry, OSHA took a more general approach. It relied 
on NIOSH data showing that about 25 million or about 25 percent of American employees were potentially exposed to one or more of 8,000 NIOSH-identified chemical hazards and that for the years 1977 and 1978 more than 174,000 illnesses were likely caused by exposure to hazardous chemicals. 48 FR 53282. OSHA then noted the consensus evident in the record among labor, industry, health professionals, and government that an ‘‘effective [F]ederal standard requiring employers to identify workplace hazards, communicate hazard information to employees, and train employees in recognizing and avoiding those hazards’’ was necessary to protect employee health. 48 FR 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29585 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
7Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act also exempts 
modifications to hazard communication, 
monitoring, and medical examination requirements from the standard-setting requirements of section 6(b), and so evidences Congress’ intent to provide OSHA with an expedited procedure to update these requirements. The last sentence of section 6(b)(7) merely allows these requirements to be updated to reflect the latest knowledge available. The authorization to use Administrative Procedure Act notice and comment procedures rather than the more elaborate framework established by section 6(b) demonstrates congressional intent to treat such modifications differently from rulemakings to adopt standards. Congress envisaged a simple, expedited process that is inconsistent with the idea that OSHA must undertake additional significant risk analyses before exercising this authority. See 77 FR 17602. 53283. OSHA determined that the HCS 
addressed a significant risk because ‘‘inadequate communication about serious chemical hazards endangers workers,’’ and that the practices required by the standard were ‘‘necessary or appropriate to the elimination or mitigation of these hazards.’’ 48 FR 53321. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed that ‘‘inadequate communication is itself a hazard, which the standard can eliminate or mitigate.’’ United 
Steelworkers, 763 F.2d at 735. That 
court has upheld OSHA’s determination of significant risk as sufficient to justify the HCS. See Associated Builders & Contractors, 862 F.2d at 67–68 
(discussing the history of its review of the issue). 
OSHA reaffirmed its finding of 
significant risk in adopting revisions to the HCS in 1994. See 59 FR 6126–6133. When revising the HCS to adopt the GHS model in 2012, OSHA found that there remained a ‘‘significant risk of inadequate communication’’ of chemical hazards in the workplace and that adopting the standardized requirements of the GHS would substantially reduce that risk by improving chemical hazard communications. 77 FR 17603–17604. 
In previous rulemakings, OSHA 
rejected suggestions that the hazard assessment and communication obligations of the HCS should arise only where the downstream use creates a significant risk because it is difficult, if not impossible, for OSHA or manufacturers and importers to know in advance where these risks might occur. See 48 FR 53295–53296; 59 FR 6132. Further, it is only by the provision of hazard information that downstream employers and employees can determine how to use the chemical so that exposure and risk may be minimized. See 48 FR 53295–53296; 59 FR 6132. Thus, the HCS protects employees from significant risk by requiring communications about all chemicals that may present a hazard to employees, regardless of the exposure or risk levels any particular downstream user might actually experience. See Durez Div. of Occidental Chem. Corp. v. 
OSHA, 906 F.2d 1, 3–4 (D.C. Cir. 1990); 
Gen. Carbon Co. v. OSHRC, 860 F.2d 
479, 484–85 (D.C. Cir. 1988). 
For the changes proposed in this 
NPRM, OSHA has not made a new 
preliminary finding of significant risk, but is proposing changes that are reasonably related to the purpose of the HCS as a whole. When, as here, OSHA has previously determined that its standard substantially reduces a significant risk, it is unnecessary for the agency to make additional findings on 
risk for every provision of that standard. See, e.g., Pub. Citizen Health Research 
Grp. v. Tyson, 796 F.2d 1479, 1502 n.16 
(D.C. Cir. 1986) (rejecting the argument that OSHA must ‘‘find that each and every aspect of its standard eliminates a significant risk’’). Rather, once OSHA 
makes a general significant risk finding 
in support of a standard, the next 
question is whether a particular requirement is reasonably related to the purpose of the standard as a whole. See Asbestos Info. Ass’n/N. Am. v. Reich, 
117 F.3d 891, 894 (5th Cir. 1997); Forging Indus. Ass’n v. Sec’y of Labor, 
773 F.2d 1436, 1447 (4th Cir. 1985); United Steelworkers of Am., AFL–CIO– CLC v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1237– 
38 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (‘‘ Lead I’’). 
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has 
recognized that protective measures like those called for by the HCS may be imposed in workplaces where chemical exposure levels are below that for which OSHA has found a significant risk. In Benzene, the Court recognized that the 
‘‘backstop’’ provisions of section 6(b)(7) allow OSHA to impose information requirements even before the employee is exposed to the significant risk. See Benzene, 448 U.S. at 657–58 & n.66. 
Rather than requiring a finding of significant risk, the last sentence of section 6(b)(7) provides other assurances that OSHA is exercising its authority appropriately by requiring the involvement of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and by limiting the authority only to modifications that are based on ‘‘experience, information, or medical or technological developments’’ acquired since the promulgation of the standard in the limited areas of hazard communication, monitoring, and medical examinations. Therefore, OSHA need not make any new significant risk findings; rather, the final rule is supported by the significant risk findings that OSHA made when it adopted the current HCS.
7See 77 FR 
17602. E. Feasibility 
Because section 6(b)(5) of the OSH 
Act explicitly requires OSHA to set 
health standards that eliminate risk ‘‘to the extent feasible,’’ OSHA uses feasibility analysis to make standards- setting decisions dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents. 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5); Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 509. Feasibility in this context means ‘‘capable of being done, executed, or effected.’’ Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 508– 
09. Feasibility has two aspects, economic and technological. Lead I, 647 
F.2d at 1264. A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be expected to be developed. See id. at 1272. A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass on the cost of compliance without threatening its long-term profitability or competitive structure. See Cotton Dust, 
452 U.S. at 530 n.55; Lead I, 647 F.2d 
at 1265. As discussed more fully in Section VII.E of this preamble, Technological Feasibility, OSHA has preliminarily determined that compliance with the proposed revisions to the HCS is technologically feasible for all affected industries because 
compliance can be achieved with readily and widely available technologies. As discussed more fully in Section VII.G, Economic Feasibility and Impacts, OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposed changes to the HCS are economically feasible because employers can comply without threatening the long-term profitability or competitive structure of any affected industries. 
VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 
A. Overview 
OSHA is proposing to revise the 
Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), 
29 CFR 1910.1200, which contains collection of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and OMB regulations at 5 
CFR part 1320. The agency is planning to revise and update the existing previously-approved paperwork package under OMB control number 1218–0072. 
The PRA defines ‘‘collection of 
information’’ to mean ‘‘the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29586 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
format.’’ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Under 
the PRA, a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves it and the agency displays a currently valid OMB control number. 44 U.S.C. 3507. Also, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no employer shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 44 U.S.C. 3512. 
B. Solicitation of Comments 
OSHA prepared and submitted an 
Information Collection Request (ICR) to 
OMB proposing to revise certain collection of information currently contained in that paperwork package in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). The agency solicits comments on the revision of the collection of information requirements and reduction in estimated burden hours associated with these requirements, including comments on the following items: 
•Whether the collection of 
information are necessary for the proper performance of the agency’s functions, 
including whether the information is useful; 
•The accuracy of OSHA’s estimate of 
the burden (time and cost) of the 
collection of information, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; 
•The quality, utility, and clarity of 
the information collected; and 
•Ways to minimize the compliance 
burden on employers, for example, by using automated or other technological techniques for collecting and transmitting information. 
C. Proposed Information Collection 
Requirements 
As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) 
and 1320.8(d)(2), the following paragraphs provide information about 
the ICR. 
1. Title: Hazard Communication 
Standard. 
2. Description of the ICR: The 
proposal would revise the currently approved Hazard Communication ICR and change the existing collection of information requirements currently approved by OMB. 3. Brief Summary of the Information 
Collection Requirements: This proposal 
would revise and clarify the collection of information contained in the existing ICR. Specifically, OSHA is proposing to (1) add to paragraph (d)(1) that the chemical manufacturer or importer shall determine for each chemical the hazard classes, and where appropriate, the category of each class that apply to the chemical being classified under normal conditions of use and foreseeable emergencies; (2) add language to paragraph (f)(1) requiring that the chemical manufacturer, importer, or distributor ensure labels on shipped containers bear the date the chemical is released for shipment; (3) revise paragraph (f)(5) by adding two new provisions related to bulk shipments of chemicals; (4) revise paragraph (f)(11) by adding a provision related to release for shipment that requires updated labels accompany each shipment; and (5) add new labeling requirements for small containers at paragraph (f)(12). See Table 1. 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.001</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29587 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.002</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29588 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.003</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29589 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 
4. OMB Control Number: 1218–0072. 5. Affected Public: Business or other 
for-profit. 6. Number of Respondents: 2,206,700. 
7. Frequency of Responses: Varies. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.004</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29590 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
8This calculation (a) converts the costs and cost 
savings of the rule from 2019 dollars to 2016 dollars 
using the BEA (2020) implicit price deflator for Gross Domestic Product, and (b) discounts the first year costs by five years, to reflect the five years between 2016 and 2021, the scheduled year of publication of this NPRM. For further details, see Document ID 0049, tab Tables, E.O. 13771 Summary Table. 8. Number of Reponses: 74,019,955. 
9. Average Time per Response: Varies. 
10. Estimated Annual Total Burden 
Hours: 7,023,513. 
11. Estimated Annual Total Cost 
(Operation and maintenance): 
$45,676,443. 
D. Submitting Comments 
Members of the public who wish to 
comment on the revisions to the 
paperwork requirements in this proposal must send their written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Department of Labor, OSHA (RIN–1218–AC93), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, email: OIRA_
submission@omb.eop.gov. The agency 
encourages commenters also to submit their comments on the paperwork requirements to the rulemaking docket (Docket Number OSHA–2019–0001) along with comments on other parts of the proposed rule. For instructions on submitting these comments to the rulemaking docket, see the sections of this Federal Register document titled 
DATES and ADDRESSES . Comments 
submitted in response to this document are public records; therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers and dates of birth. 
E. Docket and Inquiries 
To access the docket to read or 
download comments and other 
materials related to this paperwork determination, including the complete ICR (containing the Supporting Statement with attachments describing the paperwork determinations in detail) use the procedures described under the section of this document titled 
ADDRESSES . 
You also may obtain an electronic 
copy of the complete ICR by visiting the web page at: http://www.reginfo.gov/ public/do/PRAMain, scroll under 
‘‘Currently Under Review’’ to ‘‘Department of Labor (DOL)’’ to view all of the DOL’s ICRs, including those ICRs submitted for proposed rulemakings. To make inquiries, or to request other information, contact Ms. Seleda Perryman, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, telephone (202) 693–2222. 
VII. Preliminary Economic Analysis 
and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
A. Introduction and Summary 
Under Executive Order 12866, OMB’s 
Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a regulatory action is significant and, 
therefore, subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12866 and OMB review. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an action that is likely to result in a rule that (1) has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affects in a material way a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as economically significant); (2) creates serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alters the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866. Upon review, OMB has determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action (‘‘Other Significant’’) under Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), OIRA 
designated that this rule is not a ‘‘major rule,’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 
OSHA has made a preliminary 
determination that this action is not an economically significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 because it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost-savings of this rule can be found in the economic analysis below. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; tailor the regulation to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; and in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 recognizes that some benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitatively values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts. 
OSHA has prepared this Preliminary 
Economic Analysis (PEA), including a Preliminary Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Certification, for the proposed 
modifications to the HCS. Supporting materials prepared by OSHA (including spreadsheets) are available in the public docket for this rulemaking, Docket ID OSHA–2019–0001, through www.regulations.gov. OSHA invites 
comment on any aspects of this PEA. 
In this PEA, OSHA estimates that the 
proposed amendments to the HCS would result in annualized net cost savings of $26.8 million at a 7 percent discount rate. Annualized at a 3 percent discount rate, OSHA estimates that the proposed amendments to the rule would lead to net cost savings of $27.5 million per year. Under a perpetual time horizon to allow for cost comparisons under Executive Order 13771, OSHA estimates that at a discount rate of 7 percent the net cost savings of the proposed amendments to the HCS would be $19.6 million per year in 2016 dollars.
8OSHA expects that the 
proposed revisions to the HCS would also result in modest improvements in worker health and safety above those already being achieved under the current HCS, but the agency is unable to quantify the magnitude of these benefits. 
B. Need for Regulation 
Employees in work environments 
covered by OSHA’s HCS are exposed to 
a variety of significant hazards associated with chemicals used in the workplace that can and do cause serious injury, illness, and death. The HCS serves to ensure that both employers and employees are provided the information they need about these chemical hazards. The current HCS contains a set of requirements for chemical products, including mandatory hazard classification, labeling requirements, provisions for providing detailed information (in SDSs), and label updating requirements. These requirements are based on Revision 3 of the GHS, which was adopted by the UN Committee and Sub- Committee of Experts on the GHS in December 2008. 
OSHA has preliminarily determined 
that the proposed revisions to the HCS would make employers’ hazard communication programs more worker- protective, efficient, and effective through standardizing practices nationally and internationally. In addition, aligning with the GHS Rev. 7 would continue to facilitate 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29591 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
9A 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. 10See https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/ 
trans/doc/2018/dgac10c4/ST-SG-AC10-C4-70e.pdf, pp. 12–13 (UN GHS, 2018, Document ID 0040). 
11According to the U.S. International Trade 
Commission, U.S. imports of chemicals and related products increased 23 percent from 2015 ($260.4 billion) to 2019 ($320.1 billion); and U.S. exports of chemicals and related products increased 7 percent from 2015 ($227.7 billion) to 2019 ($243.7 billion). See https://usitc.gov/research_ and_
analysis/trade_ shifts_ 2019/chemicals.htm, accessed 
October 2, 2020 (Document ID 0234). The International Trade Administration reported that the U.S. chemical industry accounted for 18 percent of global chemical shipments. See https://www.selectusa.gov/chemical-industry-united-states, accessed October 2, 2020 (Document ID 0236). The American Chemistry Council reported that in 2019, total U.S. chemical exports accounted for 10 percent of all U.S. goods exports and 10 percent of all global chemical exports. See https://www.americanchemistry.com/Policy/Trade/US- Chemicals-Trade-by-the-Numbers.pdf, accessed 
October 2, 2020 (Document ID 0235). international trade, as a number of U.S. 
trading partners are also preparing to align with the GHS Rev. 7. 
The proposed revisions to the HCS 
include the following notable changes to improve the U.S. hazard communication system: 
•Maintain alignment with the GHS 
ÆAdding classification categories for 
aerosols, desensitized explosives, 
and flammable gases; and 
ÆUpdating select hazard and 
precautionary statements for clearer and more precise hazard information. 
•Address issues identified in 
implementing the HCS 2012 
ÆUpdating labeling requirements for 
small containers; and 
ÆUpdating labeling requirements for 
packaged containers that have been released for shipment. 
As discussed in Section F of this PEA, 
the estimated costs and cost savings resulting from the proposed revisions to the HCS consist of five main categories: (1) The cost of reclassifying affected chemicals and revising the corresponding SDSs and labels to achieve consistency with the reclassification (per proposed changes to appendix B), and the cost of revising SDSs and labels to conform with new precautionary statements and other new mandatory language in the appendices to the HCS (per proposed changes to appendices C and D); (2) the cost of management familiarization and other management-related costs (associated with all of the proposed revisions to the standard); (3) the cost of training employees as necessitated by the proposed changes to the HCS (see existing 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1)); (4) the cost savings resulting from the new released-for-shipment provision (proposed revisions to 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(11)); and (5) the cost savings from limiting labeling requirements for certain very small containers (proposed 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(12)). The first three categories are considered to be one-time costs and the last two categories are cost savings that would accrue to employers annually. 
The proposed changes to the HCS 
would maintain the uniformity of hazard information with the GHS and would, accordingly, serve to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing hazard communication system in the U.S., ensure that updated and advanced HCS methods are recognized, and reduce unnecessary barriers to trade. In short, the GHS is a ‘‘uniformity standard’’ for the presentation of hazard information (Hemenway, 1975, Document ID 0050). Much like other 
uniformity standards, such as driving on the right side of the road (in the U.S.), screw threads for fire hose connectors, ‘‘handshake’’ protocols for communication between computers, and, for that matter, language, the GHS provides significant efficiencies and economies.
9 
Since publication of the update to the 
HCS in 2012, there continues to be 
movement by U.S. trading partners toward maintaining standardization, consistent with the revisions in the GHS. However, OSHA does not believe that full and comprehensive standardization in accordance with the GHS, or the goal of harmonizing the U.S. system with the international one, can be achieved voluntarily in the absence of regulation. 
First, the market alone will not ensure 
alignment with the GHS Rev. 7. In some cases (e.g., aerosols, desensitized 
explosives), the GHS Rev. 7 contains different hazard classes or classification criteria than the current HCS, and it would be impermissible for a manufacturer to comply with the GHS Rev. 7 rather than the criteria in the existing HCS. Moreover, making compliance with the latest revision of the GHS optional undermines the goal of harmonizing classification criteria and label elements. Second, while the costs of creating SDSs and labels are borne directly by the chemical producers, maintaining alignment with the GHS benefits the users of hazardous chemicals. These users include employers who are direct customers of chemical manufacturers, employees who use or are exposed to workplace chemicals, and emergency responders who typically have no market 
relationship with the chemical producers. Even if market forces could ensure the socially optimal approach to SDSs between chemical manufacturers and their customers, there are limited market forces at work between the chemical manufacturer and two key sets of users—the employees and the emergency response community. Therefore, the benefits achieved by maintaining alignment with the GHS are unlikely to be obtained in the private market without regulation. 
OSHA recognizes that there will be 
some market pressure to align with the 
GHS Rev. 7 as its adoption expands 
internationally.
10Some firms in the U.S. 
may think that they have no need to 
follow the GHS because they do not ship their products internationally. These firms may not realize the extent to which they are involved in international trade. There are probably few companies that have products that are never involved in international trade or that never import chemical products requiring hazard information.
11 
Nonetheless, even the small percentage of U.S. companies that only conduct business domestically are required to identify and communicate hazards to workers under the HCS. Many chemical producers ship their products to distributors and are unaware of where their products are ultimately used. These distributors might well put pressure on their suppliers to maintain compliance with the GHS. Further, small companies sell chemicals to larger companies. The larger companies may use those chemicals to make other products that are exported. These larger companies might also pressure their small-firm suppliers to align with the GHS. Nevertheless, relying solely on market pressures would surely involve a long transition period, with attendant 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29592 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
12The Census Bureau defines an establishment as 
a single physical location at which business is 
conducted or services or industrial operations are performed. The Census Bureau defines a business firm or entity as a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments in the same state and industry that are specified under common ownership or control. The firm and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. For each multi-establishment firm, establishments in the same industry within a state will be counted as one firm; the firm employment and annual payroll are summed from the associated 
establishments. (U.S. Census Bureau, Document ID 0047). 13The NAICS industries estimated to be affected 
by the proposed requirement to reclassify aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases are the following: 211130 Natural Gas Extraction, 324110 Petroleum Refineries, 325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing, 325120 Industrial Gas 
Manufacturing, 325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing, 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing, 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing, 325520 Adhesive Manufacturing, 325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing, 325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing, 325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing, 325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing, and 325920 Explosives Manufacturing. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2020). Occupational Employment Statistics—May 2019 (Released March 3, 2020). Available at https:// 
www.bls.gov/oes/#data (Accessed April 3, 2020) 
(Document ID 0223). 
14The 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. 
15For the 2019 SBA U.S. Small Business 
Administration Table of Small Business Size Standards matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes (Effective August 19, 2019),(see SBA, 2019, Document ID 0225). 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 proposed changes to the HCS 
would involve costs and cost savings mainly for manufacturers and importers. Manufacturers and importers of chemicals would also achieve benefits— in part because they themselves benefit as both producers and users, and in part as a result of foreign trade benefits. Some manufacturers may not obtain trade benefits unless they engage in chemical export. International harmonization of hazard communication requirements may also make it easier for small companies to engage in international trade if they so desire (see additional discussion below in VII.D. Health and Safety Benefits and Unquantified Positive Economic Effects). 
Of more significance to the concerns 
of the OSH Act, the proposed changes would also provide health benefits from improved hazard classification and communication; although unquantified in this proposal, these benefits would include reductions in worker illnesses, injuries, and fatalities (see additional discussion below in VII.D. Health and Safety Benefits and Unquantified Positive Economic Effects). 
Because many of the health and safety 
benefits and cost savings described in this analysis require uniformity and are dispersed among a network of producers and users, only some of which have direct market relationships with each other, OSHA believes maintaining a single, uniform standard can best achieve the full benefits available from a hazard communications system. 
C. Profile of Affected Industries, 
Establishments, and Employees 
The proposed modifications to the 
standard include revised criteria for classification of certain health and physical hazards; revised labeling provisions for small containers and packages that have been released for shipment; revised trade secret disclosure requirements; updates to certain aspects of SDSs and precautionary statements; and related revisions to definitions of terms used in the standard. 
In this section, OSHA presents a 
preliminary profile of industries affected by this proposal to revise the HCS. The profile data in this section are based upon the 2012 HCS final economic analysis (FEA), updated in this PEA with the most recent data available. As a first step, OSHA identifies the 
North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) industries affected by the proposed changes to the HCS. Next, OSHA provides statistical information on the affected industries, including the number of affected entities and establishments; the number of workers whose exposure to the chemicals subject to the HCS could result in injury, illness, or death (‘‘affected relevant employees’’); and the average revenues and profits for affected entities and establishments by six-digit NAICS 
industry.
12This information is provided 
for each affected industry as a whole, as 
well as for small entities, as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA), and for ‘‘very small’’ entities, defined by OSHA as those with fewer than 20 employees, in each affected industry (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020a, Document ID 0231; U.S. Census Bureau, 2020b, Document ID 0232). 
The revisions to the HCS would affect 
establishments in a variety of different industries in which employees are exposed to hazardous chemicals or in which hazardous chemicals are produced. The proposed changes to the HCS are not expected to change the overall list of affected industries or establishments. However, the changes are expected to affect certain establishment groupings that manufacture aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases. These proposed changes are also expected to affect certain manufacturers of hazardous chemicals that are packaged in small containers and manufacturers of chemicals that are not immediately distributed after being released for shipment. 
The proposed revisions define and 
revise specific classifications and categories of hazards, but the scope of the requirements under which a chemical (whether a substance or mixture of substances) becomes subject to the standard is not substantially different from the current version of the HCS. Therefore, OSHA believes that the revisions would have little or no effect on whether specific establishments fall within the scope of the standard. OSHA requests comments on its preliminary determinations about the scope of the proposed revisions to the HCS and the details within the industrial profile presented in this section. 
OSHA’s estimates of the number of 
employees who will require new training under the proposed revisions to the standard are based on BLS’ (2020) Occupational Employment Statistics data for May 2019, specifically the estimates of the number of employees in SOC 51–0000 Production Occupations and SOC 13–1081 Logisticians working in firms in the NAICS industries that would be affected by the proposed requirements to reclassify aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases.
13(See the analysis and discussion 
of training costs below in VII.F. Compliance Costs and Cost Savings.) 
Table VII–1 provides an overview of 
the estimated numbers of firms, establishments, and employees in each covered NAICS industry; the estimated number of employees in covered occupations (e.g., logistics personnel); 
and the estimated numbers of affected firms, affected establishments, and affected employees in covered occupations.
14Tables VII–2 and VII–3, 
respectively, provide parallel information for all affected business entities defined as small by the SBA
15 
and all affected very small business entities, defined by OSHA as those with fewer than 20 employees. The data in 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29593 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
16U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. 
Businesses, 2017 https://www.census.gov/data/ tables/2017/econ/susb/2017-susb-annual.html 
(Document ID 0231) and https://www.census.gov/ data/datasets/2017/econ/susb/2017-susb.html (Document ID 0232) (accessed August 14, 2020). these tables update the estimates 
provided in the FEA in support of the 2012 HCS final rule (Document ID 0005, Section VI) and rely on the most recent comprehensive set of data (including revenues) available from the U.S. 
Census Bureau (2020a; 2020b).
16 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29594 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.005</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29595 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.006</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29596 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.007</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29597 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.008</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29598 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.009</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29599 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.010</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29600 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.011</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29601 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.012</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29602 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.013</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29603 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.014</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29604 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.015</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29605 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.016</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29606 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C The costs and cost savings of some of 
the proposed provisions (new classification criteria for select hazards 
and labels on very small containers) are 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.017</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29607 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
17As reflected in Table VI–4, OSHA assumes one 
outer packaging with an additional label for every 
two 2.5-gallon containers; one outer packaging with an additional label for every four 1-liter, 2-liter, and 
1-gallon containers; and one outer packaging with an additional label for every eight containers smaller than 1 liter. driven by the number of SDSs (and 
labels) that manufacturers must redesign as a result of the new criteria and the number of labels on very small containers. In support of the cost analysis to follow later in this PEA, Table VII–4 presents OSHA’s preliminary estimate of the number of labels per container by container size (and type).
17Starting with the fifth row 
(container type: 250 ml container), Table VII–4 is drawn from data in a table (Table VI–5) presented in the FEA in support of the 2012 HCS final rule (77 FR 17640), but OSHA has updated the data to include smaller containers to permit evaluation of the impacts of the small container and very small container labeling provisions proposed in paragraph (f)(12). Also, the term ‘‘jug’’ has been changed to the more generic term ‘‘container.’’ The figures in Table VII–4 are slightly different than some of the figures in Table VI–5 of the 2012 FEA due to a change in OSHA’s approach to rounding and the reporting of more significant digits. 
TABLE VII–4—C HEMICAL CONTAINER ESTIMATED TYPICAL SHIPMENT WEIGHTS  
Container type Estimated shipment weight (lbs.) Number of 
labels per 
containera Minimum Typical Maximum 
3 ml container .................................................................................................. 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.13 
30 ml container ................................................................................................ 0.06 0.08 0.13 1.13 
60 ml container ................................................................................................ 0.12 0.16 0.26 1.13 
125 ml container .............................................................................................. 0.25 0.33 0.54 1.13 
250 ml container .............................................................................................. 0.50 0.67 1.08 1.13 
500 ml container .............................................................................................. 0.92 1.26 2.08 1.13 
1 liter container ................................................................................................ 1.84 2.51 4.16 1.25 
2 liter container ................................................................................................ 3.57 4.92 8.22 1.25 
1 gallon container ............................................................................................ 6.83 9.38 15.63 1.25 
2.5 gallon container ......................................................................................... 18.00 24.38 40.00 1.50 
5 gallon drum ................................................................................................... 34.95 47.71 78.95 1.00 
30 gallon drum ................................................................................................. 202.00 278.56 46 6.00 1.00 
55 gallon drum ................................................................................................. 371.00 511.37 85 5.00 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 8 2,500.00 0.00 
Tank Truck—7.0k g ......................................................................................... 43,400.00 61,265.00 1 05,000.00 0.00 
Rail Car—20k g ............................................................................................... 128,805.00 181,825 .77 311,625.00 0.00 
Rail Car—30k g ............................................................................................... 186,000.00 262,564 .29 450,000.00 0.00 
Barge ............................................................................................................... 2,670,774.0 0 3,770,160.58 6,461,550.00 0.00 
aAssumes 8 units per package for containers smaller than 1 liter, 4 units per package for containers from 1 liter to 1 gallon in volume, and 2 
units per package for 2.5-gallon containers. 
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health. 
As will be discussed at greater length 
below in Section VII.F. Compliance Costs and Cost Savings, it is OSHA’s understanding that chemical manufacturers and importers periodically review, revise, and update the electronic templates they use to create SDSs and labels. Changes are made, for example, as information regarding specific hazards becomes available, new information about protective measures is ascertained, or revisions are made to product information and marketing materials. Labels and SDSs are also produced and modified when products are first introduced to the market or when products change. In this PEA, the terms ‘‘electronic templates’’ and ‘‘electronic files’’ are used interchangeably with, and as proxies for, the term ‘‘SDS.’’ All three terms refer to the electronic files that are used to generate SDSs and labels. Table VII–5 provides, by covered NAICS industry, estimates of the total number of labels, the number of labels on very small containers (containers of 3 ml capacity or less), the total number of SDSs, and the number of labels and SDSs affected by the proposed revisions to the HCS classification criteria. The 
term ‘‘SDS’’ in the column headers and in the discussion below represents the estimated number of electronic templates (files) that are used to create SDSs and labels. The derivation of these estimates is discussed below. OSHA invites public comment on its understanding about the use of electronic template files to create SDSs and labels. 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:25 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29608 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.018</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29609 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C OSHA’s estimate of the total number 
of SDSs per NAICS industry, as presented in Table VII–5, was 
developed by its contractor to support 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.019</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29610 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
18Technical and analytical support for this 
preliminary economic analysis was provided by 
Eastern Research Group, Inc. under Contract No. DOL–OPS–16–D–0012. 
19This methodology was not challenged by 
commenters during the rulemaking that resulted in the 2012 final rule. 20The estimated percentages for the transported 
goods identified as hazardous non-consumer 
products were presented in the 2012 HCS FEA cost model. See ERG/OSHA, 2012, Document ID 0029). 
At the time OSHA developed this PEA, the final 2017 CFS data was not yet available. Therefore, 2012 CFS data was the most recent information available. OSHA requests public comments on the estimated percentages for the transported goods identified as hazardous non-consumer products in this preliminary profile. 21For example, NAICS 211130—Natural Gas 
Extraction is categorized as a basic chemicals manufacturer, or Code 20 in the SCTG commodity coding system. Across the range of container types and container weights shown in Table VII–4, the analysis led to an estimate of the total number of labels (474,629,165) required by all SCTG Code 20 manufacturers (see Document ID 0049, tab ‘‘Labels per NAICS’’, cell O11). The percentage of receipts (22.3 percent) for NAICS 211130 relative to total receipts for SCTG Code 20 employers (Document ID 0049, tab ‘‘Labels per NAICS’’, cells N11–P11) was then applied to this total number of labels. The result, shown in Column 3 in Table VII–5, is an estimated 105,723,103 labels for NAICS 2111130. Note that multiplying factors may yield a slightly different total due to rounding of the factors in the table (but not in the spreadsheet). the agency’s FEA for the 2012 final 
standard.18The analysis started with the 
number of SDSs per establishment by 
establishment size, as originally derived in the economic analysis in support of the 2009 proposed HCS rule (Document ID 0029) using a sampling of company websites and the SDSs posted there.
19 
The analysis then combined the estimated number of SDSs per establishment by establishment size with the estimated number of establishments to estimate the weighted average number of SDSs per establishment in a given NAICS industry. This estimate was then multiplied by the average number of establishments per firm to estimate the number of SDSs per firm for each NAICS industry. Multiplying by the number of firms per NAICS industry yields the total number of SDSs in each NAICS industry (as shown in Column 5 of Table VII–5). Although OSHA has preliminarily determined that this methodology remains sound, the agency invites public comment on the reasonableness of this methodology for the current analysis. 
OSHA’s estimate of the number of 
labels per NAICS industry is constructed using the same methodology developed in the 2012 HCS final rule (Document ID 0005, pp. 17634–17643), but with more recent data. The steps in the analysis, elaborated on below, can be summarized as follows: 
•Begin with data on shipment weight 
by commodity code and shipment weight class. 
•Estimate the average weight per 
container for containers of various sizes. 
•Allocate the tons shipped in each 
shipment weight class for certain sizes of containers. 
•Divide the tons shipped by the 
average container weight to estimate total containers. 
•Multiply the containers by the 
average number of labels per container to estimate total labels. 
•Allot the labels among NAICS codes 
using receipts data. 
The label analysis begins with the 
U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s jointly- produced Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a, Document ID 0024) data on shipment characteristics by commodity and shipment weight. This dataset includes the number of tons shipped for a range 
of shipment weight classes by Standard Classification of Transported Goods (SCTG) code. The number of tons is converted to pounds, and limited to hazardous non-consumer products ( i.e., 
those that would have the HCS labeling).
20This estimate is used in 
conjunction with another CFS dataset (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014b, Document ID 0030) that has shipment data by NAICS industry (but not by shipment weight) to divide the detailed shipment weight data into shipments coming from manufacturers and distributors. 
The next step in the methodology 
estimated the representative weight per container for a variety of types of containers (ranging in size from a 3- milliliter vial to a rail car) and substances (such as antifreeze, diesel fuel, paint). Using representative substances, OSHA estimated the shipment weight for one container of each size as Shipment Weight = (Product Weight per gallon × Container 
Capacity) + Container Weight. Because of a lack of available data establishing the percentage of products shipped by container type (i.e., the breakdown of 
the types of products shipped by each container type), the calculation for each product and container type relied on professional judgment (by OSHA and its economic contractor, ERG) to select a ‘‘typical’’ product weight per gallon and container weight for each container type. Next, the analysis estimated shipment weight per container by multiplying the average product weight per gallon times the number of gallons per container, plus the container weight. 
To convert the CFS data on tons (or 
pounds) shipped by container size into a number of containers, the analysis estimated the percentage of each shipment class likely to be shipped in certain sizes of containers. Shipments of lower weights are generally estimated to be shipped in smaller containers, and vice versa. Then the total non-consumer hazardous pounds shipped (from the CFS data) was multiplied by the estimated percentage shipped in each container type to yield the number of non-consumer hazardous pounds in each container type. Finally, the non- consumer hazardous pounds in each container type was divided by the average weight per container type to yield an estimate of the total number of containers. 
To estimate the number of labels that 
would be used on these containers, the analysis first estimated the average number of labels on a single container for each container size (from Table VII– 4 above). As previously noted, these estimates account for the fact that some containers have outer packaging that would require an additional label under this proposed rule (e.g., kits containing 
containers less than 100 ml where tags 
and fold out labels are infeasible) or are shipped with several containers grouped into a single outer container with a label. This average number of labels per container for each shipment size class was then multiplied by the 
number of containers to estimate the 
total number of labels. 
The final step in the analysis was to 
allocate the number of labels shipped from SCTG codes to NAICS codes. The NAICS-to-SCTG mapping was adapted from the mapping used in the FEA in support of the 2012 HCS final rule 
analysis, but with NAICS categories updated from 2007 to 2017 categories. 
U.S. Census (2020a; 2020b) Statistics of U.S. Businesses data was used to estimate each NAICS industry’s share of total receipts for the SCTG code with which it corresponds, and then the number of labels in each SCTG was allocated proportionally. (This calculation was performed separately for shipments from manufacturers and from distributors for purposes of estimating cost savings due to the proposed released-for-shipment provision in paragraph (f)(11)). This resulted in the estimated number of labels shown in Column 3 of Table VII– 5.
21 
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 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29611 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
22Note that OSHA’s cost estimates for 
reclassifying affected chemicals and revising the 
corresponding SDSs and labels to achieve consistency with the reclassification (per proposed changes to Appendix B), and for revising SDSs and labels to conform with new precautionary statements and other new mandatory language in the appendices to the HCS (per proposed changes 
to Appendices C and D), are based on the costs associated with chemical manufacturers editing their electronic files (which are used to produce labels and SDSs) for each product for which reclassification would be required as a result of the proposed rule. They are not based on the number of labels or SDSs actually produced or used. labels on very small containers is shown 
in Column 4 of Table VII–5. 
Not every SDS and label, and not 
every label on very small containers, 
would be affected by the proposed rule. Only SDSs and labels for certain products (aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases) would be affected by the new classification criteria. Only certain very small containers would be covered by proposed paragraph (f)(12)(iii), which would eliminate some labeling requirements in certain circumstances. In particular, under proposed paragraph (f)(12)(iii), only a product identifier would be required on the immediate outer package of very small containers (3 ml or less) where the manufacturer, 
importer, or distributor can demonstrate that a label would interfere with the normal use of the container and that it is not feasible to use pull-out labels, fold-back labels, or tags containing the full label information. Thus, in addition to the estimated total number of SDSs, labels, and labels on very small containers, Table VII–5 shows the number of each estimated to be affected by this proposed rule.
22 Tables VII–6 and VII–7, respectively, 
provide information on total numbers of 
SDSs, labels, and labels on very small containers, and on the numbers of SDSs and labels (including labels on very small containers) affected by reclassification and the provisions for labels on very small containers, for all covered small entities and very small entities. 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29612 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.020</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29613 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.021</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29614 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.022</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29615 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
Table VI–8 shows average estimated 
profit rates for affected NAICS industries based on IRS (2016) SOI Tax 
Stats—Corporation Source Book profit data for each of the 14 years 2000– 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.023</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29616 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
23IRS, 2016, Document ID 0004. 24Note that the provisions that are projected to 
result in cost savings are not included in Table VII– 
10 because, for those provisions, OSHA estimates a percentage of product, rather than a percentage of 
entities or establishments, that would be affected. 2013.23Table VII–9 presents estimates 
of total revenues and total profits by 
NAICS industry code for all entities, small entities, and very small entities affected by this proposed rule. OSHA calculated total profits per NAICS industry by multiplying the average profit rate (NAICS industry) (IRS, 2016, Document ID 0004) by total revenues (NAICS industry) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020a, Document ID 0231; U.S. Census Bureau, 2020b, Document ID 0232). Table VII–10 shows, by NAICS 
industry code, OSHA’s best estimates of the percentage of establishments or entities estimated to be affected for each element of the proposed revisions to the HCS that is projected to result in costs (see Section VII.F. Compliance Costs and Cost Savings in this PEA for an explanation of the cost categories presented in this table).
24 Finally, Table VII–11 summarizes key 
estimates for the combined covered 
industries, labels, and SDSs affected by this proposed rule. The data in this table are drawn from profile tables presented earlier in this PEA and summarize both the magnitude of the global profile metrics (within the scope of Federal OSHA jurisdiction) and the magnitude of affected inputs critical to the agency’s analysis of preliminary economic impacts. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:25 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29617 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.024</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29618 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.025</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29619 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.026</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29620 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.027</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29621 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.028</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29622 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.029</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29623 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.030</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29624 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.031</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29625 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.032</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29626 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.033</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29627 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.034</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29628 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2
EP16FE21.035</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29629 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
25As described above, OSHA estimated that the 
2012 revisions to the HCS would result in benefits 
equal to one percent of the health and safety benefits previously estimated for the standard (77 FR 17620–17624). In the 2012 rulemaking, OSHA 
and stakeholders collectively noted the considerable uncertainty inherent in estimating benefits that are additional (incremental) to the set of benefits associated with the original rule (see 77 FR 17620–17624). The agency stated: ‘‘OSHA believes that a reasonable range for the magnitude of the health and safety benefits resulting from the proposed revisions would be between 0.5 percent 
and 5 percent of the benefits associated with the current HCS.’’ (77 FR 17621 (n 14)). In addition, OSHA stated in the 2012 FEA that ‘‘[i]t is conceivable that actual benefits might be somewhat lower, but because the GHS is expected to result, in some situations, in more timely and appropriate 
treatment of exposed workers, OSHA expects that actual benefits may be larger, perhaps several times larger.’’ (77 FR 17621) 
26The EU, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand 
have also indicated that they are proposing updates to align with the 7th revision to the GHS (Report of the Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals on its thirty-fifth session ST/SG/ AC.10/C.4/7, Document ID 0040). TABLE VII–11—C HARACTERISTICS OF INDUSTRIES AND LABELS /SDS SAFFECTED BY OSHA’ SPROPOSED REVISIONS TO  
THEHCSa 
Total Percentage 
affected Affected 
Firms .......................................................................................................................... .................. 6,077,430 1.91 115,758 
Establishments ................................................................................................................. ............ 7,780,863 1.96 152,427 
Relevant Employees ............................................................................................................. ....... 148,004,068 2.82 4,178,738 
Labels Being Revised Due to Chemical Reclassification and Labels Revisions ........................ 1,512,219,200 63.55 961,053,9 93 
Labels for Very Small Containers ............................................................................................... . 147,599,473 17.21 25,394,066 
Firms w/Warehoused Labels that Change .................................................................................. 230 1.00 2.30 
SDSs ............................................................................................................................................ 1,519,506 94.40 1,434,377 
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020a (Document ID 0231); U.S. Census Bureau, 2020b (Document ID 0232); U.S. Census Bureau, 2019a 
(Document ID 0227); BLS, 2020 (Document ID 0223); U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory A nalysis- 
Health. 
Note: Due to rounding, data derived by applying the percentages shown in the table to the figures shown in the ‘‘Total’’ column may not be 
identical to the figures shown in the ‘‘Affected’’ column. 
aThe data in this table are drawn from tables presented earlier in this PEA (for firms, establishments and employees, see Table VII–1; for la-
bels and SDSs, see Table VII–5). 
D. Health and Safety Benefits and 
Unquantified Positive Economic Effects 
As part of the rulemakings that 
resulted in promulgation of the original HCS in 1983, and the 1987 updates, OSHA conducted research to identify and estimate expected health and safety benefits, as described in the preambles to those final rules (48 FR 53327–53329; 52 FR 31868–31869). Combining the 
1983 and 1987 rulemakings, OSHA estimated that the HCS would prevent 31,841 non-lost-workday injuries and illnesses, 20,263 lost-workday injuries and illnesses, 6,410 chronic illnesses, and 4,260 fatalities (77 FR 17621). In the 2012 final rule to modify the HCS to conform with the GHS, OSHA estimated that compliance with those revisions to the HCS would result in additional health and safety benefits equal to one percent of the previously-estimated health and safety benefits—that is, they would result in the prevention of an additional 318 non-lost-workday injuries and illnesses, 203 lost-workday injuries and illnesses, 64 chronic illnesses, and 43 fatalities annually (77 FR 17620–17624). 
Relative to the HCS rulemakings that 
resulted in the promulgation of final rules in 1983, 1987, and 2012, these proposed revisions to the HCS are incremental and minor. Accordingly, OSHA expects that the proposed revisions to the standard will result in more modest improvements in employee health and safety than the estimated benefits OSHA attributed to the earlier rulemakings. But OSHA expects that the promulgation of the proposed revisions to the HCS will 
result in an increased degree of health and safety for affected employees and a corresponding reduction in the annual numbers of injuries, illnesses, and fatalities associated with workplace exposures to hazardous chemicals. Aligning with the GHS Rev. 7 will 
improve worker health and safety by ensuring the provision of more and better hazard information to employers and workers. For example, OSHA anticipates that the improved criteria for aerosols and flammable gases and the new hazard class for desensitized explosives, along with updated precautionary statements, will better differentiate the hazards associated with those chemicals. In addition, the proposed released-for-shipment provisions will remove the risk of injury and chemical exposures for employees who previously would have confronted the possibility of, for example, having to break down pallets of sealed, shrink- wrapped, packaged containers to replace labels when new hazards were identified. 
Although OSHA expects that the 
proposed revisions to the HCS would reduce injuries, illnesses, and fatalities, the limited scope and nature of the changes being proposed have led OSHA to a preliminary determination that it cannot reasonably quantify an estimate of how many injuries, illnesses, and fatalities would be prevented. As the agency noted in the 2012 FEA, any assessment of benefits that are incremental to the original estimated benefits, e.g., benefits associated with 
minor improvements to an existing standard, broaden the range of uncertainty associated with the original estimates (77 FR 17621).
25OSHA invites interested parties to provide comments and evidence on how the proposed revisions to the HCS are likely to affect worker safety and health. 
In addition to the aforementioned 
health and safety benefits, OSHA expects that the proposed revisions to the HCS would result in other positive economic effects. For example, being better aligned with the GHS would help facilitate international trade, thereby enhancing competition, increasing export opportunities for U.S. businesses, reducing costs for imported products, and generally expanding the selection of chemicals and products available to U.S. businesses and consumers. As a result of the direct savings expected to result from better harmonization and the associated increase in international competition, prices for the affected chemicals and products, and the corresponding goods and services that use them, should decline, even if only to a limited extent. 
Similarly, better alignment between 
the HCS and the GHS would have the additional benefit of meeting the international goals for adoption and implementation of the GHS that have been supported by the U.S. government.
26Maintaining alignment 
with the GHS in U.S. laws and policies through appropriate legislative and 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS29630 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 
27https://2009-2017.state.gov/e/oes/eqt/ 
chemicalpollution/83012.htm (SAICM, 2006, 
Document ID 0039). 28OSHA annualized costs for this proposed rule 
over a 10-year period in accordance with Executive 
Order 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 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 regulatory action was anticipated by the 
U.S. when it supported international mandates regarding the GHS in the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, and the United Nations. It is also consistent with the established goals of the Strategic Approach to International Chemical Management that the U.S. helped to craft.
27 
E. Technological Feasibility 
In accordance with the OSH Act, 
OSHA is required to demonstrate that occupational safety and health standards promulgated by the agency are technologically feasible. A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be expected to be developed. See Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1272. 
OSHA has reviewed the requirements 
that would be imposed by the proposed rule and has assessed their technological feasibility. As a result of this review, OSHA has preliminarily determined that compliance with the requirements of the rule is technologically feasible for all affected industries. 
The proposed revisions to OSHA’s 
HCS would require manufacturers and importers to reclassify aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases in accordance with the new classification criteria and make corresponding revisions to SDSs and labels. Compliance with these requirements would mainly involve revisions to the presentation of information and is not expected to involve any technological obstacles. 
The proposed changes to the 
requirements for the labeling of very small containers, which would eliminate full labeling requirements for some containers with a volume capacity of 3 ml or less, is expected to address current feasibility issues related to labeling these small containers. When a label would interfere with the normal use of the container, and it is not feasible to use pullout labels, fold-back labels, or tags containing full label information, the proposal would require the container to bear only the product identifier, which could be etched onto the container itself. Similarly, the proposed released-for-shipment provisions would alleviate employer concerns regarding the practicability of breaking down pallets of sealed, shrink- wrapped packaged containers to replace labels when new hazards are identified. OSHA requests public comment on any employer concerns associated with the proposed provision for labeling very small containers or with the proposed provision addressing the relabeling of containers that have been released for shipment. 
OSHA has preliminarily determined 
that compliance with all of the requirements of the proposed revisions to the HCS can be achieved with readily and widely available technologies. No new technologies are required for compliance with the proposed modifications to the HCS. Therefore, OSHA believes that there are no technological constraints associated with compliance with any of the proposed revisions to the HCS. OSHA invites comment on these preliminary findings of technological feasibility. 
F. Compliance Costs and Cost Savings Introduction 
This section presents OSHA’s 
estimates of the costs and cost savings 
expected to result from the proposed revisions to the HCS. The estimated costs and cost savings are based on employers achieving full compliance with the new requirements of the proposed rule. They do not include prior costs and cost savings associated with firms whose current practices are already in compliance with the proposed requirements (where prior compliance is possible). 
The estimated costs and cost savings 
resulting from the proposed revisions to the HCS consist of five main categories: (1) The cost of revising SDSs and labels for select hazardous chemicals to reflect chemical reclassifications (per proposed changes to appendix B) and to conform to language criteria in precautionary statements and other mandatory language (per proposed changes to appendices C and D); (2) the cost of management familiarization and other management-related costs (associated with all of the proposed revisions to the standard); (3) the cost of training employees as necessitated by the proposed changes to the HCS (see existing 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1)); (4) the cost savings due to the new released-for- shipment provision (proposed revisions to 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(11)); and (5) the cost savings from limiting labeling requirements for certain very small containers (proposed 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(12)). The first three categories are considered to be one-time costs and the last two categories are cost savings that would accrue to employers annually. Although OSHA has preliminarily determined that these are the only elements of the proposed revisions to the HCS that are expected to result in more than de minimis costs 
or cost savings, OSHA requests comments on whether any other proposed changes to the standard could cause employers to incur costs or obtain cost savings. 
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. 
OSHA expects that such effects, if any, will not be significant, but the agency would welcome input from stakeholders. This is consistent with the determination OSHA made with regard 
to reclassification costs for the 2012 
final rule (77 FR 17625). 
In order to present compliance costs 
and cost savings on a consistent and comparable basis across various regulatory activities, they are expressed in annualized terms. Annualized costs and cost savings represent the most appropriate measure for assessing the longer-term potential impacts of this proposed 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 PEA (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.
28The economic effects 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Feb 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16FEP2.SGM 16FEP2khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2