44144 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 
Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration 
29 CFR Part 1910 
[Docket No. OSHA–2019–0001] 
RIN 1218–AC93 
Hazard Communication Standard 
AGENCY : Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA), Labor. 
ACTION : Final rule. 
SUMMARY : OSHA is amending the 
Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) 
to conform to the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), primarily Revision 7 (Rev. 7), address issues that arose during the implementation of the 2012 update to the HCS, and provide better alignment with other U.S. agencies and international trading partners, while enhancing the effectiveness of the standard. Consistent with Executive Order 13563 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which call for assessment and, where appropriate, modification and improvement of existing rules, OSHA has reviewed the existing HCS. The agency has determined that the revisions in this final rule will enhance the effectiveness of the HCS by ensuring employees are appropriately apprised of the chemical hazards to which they may be exposed, thus reducing the incidence of chemical-related occupational illnesses and injuries. The modifications to the standard include revised criteria for classification of certain health and physical hazards, revised provisions for updating labels, new labeling provisions for small containers, new provisions related to trade secrets, technical amendments related to the contents of safety data sheets (SDSs), and related revisions to definitions of terms used in the standard. 
DATES : This final rule is effective July 
19, 2024. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this final rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 19, 2024. The incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in the rule was approved by the Director as of July 15, 2019. 
ADDRESSES : In compliance with 28 
U.S.C. 2112(a), the agency designates Edmund C. Baird, Associate Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of the Solicitor, Room S–4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, as the recipient of petitions for review of 
this final rule. 
Docket: To read or download 
comments or other material in the docket, go to Docket No. OSHA–2019– 0001 at www.regulations.gov index; 
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through that website. All comments and submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Documents submitted to the docket by OSHA or stakeholders are assigned document identification numbers (Document ID) for easy identification and retrieval. The full Document ID is the docket number plus a unique four- digit code. For example, the Document ID number for the 2021 HCS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is OSHA–2019–0001–0258. Some Document ID numbers also include one or more attachments. 
When citing exhibits in the docket, 
OSHA includes the term ‘‘Document ID’’ followed by the last four digits of the Document ID number. For example, document OSHA–2019–0001–0258 would appear as Document ID 0258. Citations may also include the attachment number (designated ‘‘Att.’’) or other attachment identifier, if applicable, page numbers (designated ‘‘p.’’, or ‘‘Tr.’’ for pages from a hearing transcript), and in a limited number of 
cases a footnote number (designated ‘‘Fn.’’). 
This information can be used to 
search for a supporting document in the docket at www.regulations.gov. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693– 2350 (TTY number: 877–889–5627) for assistance in locating docket submissions. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION : 
For press inquiries: Contact Frank 
Meilinger, Director, Office of Communications, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone: (202) 693–1999; email: meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. 
For general information and technical 
inquiries: Contact Tiffany DeFoe, 
Director, Office of Chemical Hazards— Metals, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone: (202) 693–1950; email: defoe.tiffany@dol.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
Table of Contents 
I. Executive Summary 
II. Introduction III. Events Leading to the Revised Hazard 
Communication Standard IV. Need and Support for the Revised Hazard 
Communication Standard 
V. Pertinent Legal Authority VI. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis 
VII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 
VIII. Federalism IX. State Plans X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act XI. Protecting Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks 
XII. Environmental Impacts XIII. Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments 
XIV. Summary and Explanation of the Final 
Rule 
XV. Issues and Options Considered List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910 Authority and Signature 
I. Executive Summary 
The Globally Harmonized System of 
Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) has been implemented around the world. In 2012, OSHA revised its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), 29 CFR 1910.1200, to align with Revision 3 (Rev. 3) of the GHS (77 FR 17574). However, the GHS is updated with improvements and clarifications every two years. This rulemaking amends the HCS primarily to align with Revision 7 (Rev. 7) of the GHS, published in 2017, where appropriate. OSHA is also finalizing updates to address specific issues that 
have arisen since the 2012 rulemaking and to provide better alignment with 
other U.S. agencies and international 
trading partners, while enhancing the effectiveness of the standard. This action is consistent with Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review’’ (January 18, 2011), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) which require 
retrospective analysis of rules that may be out-of-date, ineffective, or excessively burdensome. 
OSHA is required by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) 
to assure, as far as possible, safe and healthful working conditions for workers. As part of this effort, OSHA first promulgated the HCS in 1983 to provide a standardized approach to workplace hazard communication associated with exposure to hazardous chemicals. The HCS requires chemical manufacturers or importers to classify the hazards of chemicals they produce or import. It also requires all employers to provide information to their employees about the hazardous chemicals to which they are exposed, by means of a hazard communication program, labels and other forms of warning, safety data sheets (SDSs), and information and training. This final rule 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444145 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
does not change the fundamental 
structure of the HCS. 
OSHA has determined that the 
amendments to the HCS contained in this final rule enhance the effectiveness of the standard by ensuring that employees are appropriately apprised of the chemical hazards to which they may be exposed. The modifications to the standard include revised criteria for classification of certain health and physical hazards to better capture and communicate the hazards to downstream users; revised provisions for labels (including provisions addressing the labeling of small containers and the relabeling of chemicals that have been released for 
shipment); amendments related to the contents of SDSs; and new provisions relating to concentrations or 
concentration ranges being claimed as trade secrets. 
Additionally, in accordance with 
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), OSHA has prepared a Final Economic Analysis (FEA), including a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Certification, for the final modifications to the HCS (see the full FEA in Section VI of this notice). Supporting materials prepared by OSHA, such as cost-estimate spreadsheets, are available in the public docket for this rulemaking, Docket ID OSHA–2019–0001, through www.regulations.gov. 
In the FEA, OSHA estimates that, 
annualized at a 7 percent discount rate, the final rule would result in net cost 
savings of $29.8 million per year, as shown in Table ES–1 below (a summary of annualized costs by affected industry). Annualized at a 3 percent discount rate, OSHA estimates that the final rule would result in net cost savings of $30.7 million per year. OSHA also expects that the final revisions to the HCS will result in modest improvements in worker health and safety above those already being achieved under the current HCS, but the agency was unable to quantify the magnitude of these health and safety benefits (see Section VI.D: Health and Safety Benefits and Unquantified Positive Economic Effects). 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444146 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.135</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444147 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
II. Introduction 
This preamble includes a review of 
the events leading to the final rule, a 
discussion of the reasons why OSHA finds these modifications to the HCS necessary, the final economic analysis and regulatory flexibility analysis for the standard, and an explanation of the specific revisions OSHA is making to the standard. 
Section XIV: Summary and 
Explanation of the Final Rule is organized by paragraph of regulatory text affected by this update, followed by the appendices to the regulatory text. Stakeholders can examine the redline strikeout of the regulatory text (changes from 2012 HCS to this final) at OSHA’s HCS web page (https://www.osha.gov/ dsg/hazcom/) to view all of the changes to the 2012 HCS made in this final rule. 
III. Events Leading to the Revised 
Hazard Communication Standard 
OSHA first promulgated the HCS in 
1983, covering only the chemical manufacturing industry (48 FR 53280). The purpose of the standard was to provide a standardized approach for communicating workplace hazards associated with exposure to hazardous chemicals. OSHA updated the HCS in 1987 to expand coverage to all industries where workers are exposed to hazardous chemicals (52 FR 31852). In 1994, OSHA promulgated an additional update to the HCS with technical changes and amendments designed to ensure better comprehension and greater compliance with the standard (59 FR 6126). In adopting the original HCS in 1983, the agency noted the benefits of an internationally harmonized chemical hazard communication standard (48 FR 53287), and actively participated in efforts to develop one over the subsequent decades. In 2012, the agency officially harmonized the HCS with the third revision of the GHS (Document ID 0085) (77 FR 17574). 
On February 16, 2021, OSHA 
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to modify the HCS, to bring it into alignment with the seventh revision of the GHS (Document ID 0060) (86 FR 9576), to address specific issues that have arisen since the 2012 rulemaking, and to provide better alignment with other U.S. agencies and international trading partners. On September 21–23, 2021, the agency held an informal public hearing to gather additional input from interested stakeholders. OSHA received more than 170 public submissions (e.g., written comments, exhibits, and briefing materials) during the public comment period. This rulemaking finalizes the 
amendments proposed in 2021 with modifications based on stakeholder input through the public comment process. 
The HCS requires periodic revision to 
maintain consistency with the GHS and incorporate the progression of scientific principles and best approaches for classification and communication of workplace hazards related to hazardous chemical exposure. Several international and domestic activities have impacted the direction of the HCS 
and led to the updates of this rule, including international negotiations at 
the United Nations (UN), coordination with other U.S. agencies, OSHA’s participation in the U.S.–Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) with Health Canada, and information OSHA has received from HCS stakeholders. Below, the agency provides information on the events that have occurred since promulgation of the 2012 HCS, with additional information on the development of the GHS and its relationship to the HCS, and explains the impetus for this rule. 
A. International Events Affecting the 
Standard 
The evolution of what was to become 
the GHS had its early beginnings with the work started in 1956 by the UN Economic and Social Council Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) and continued in the 1990s through the UN Conference on Environment and Economic Development (UNCED), the 
UN International Labour Organization (ILO), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (Document ID 0053). The overarching goal was to provide an internationally harmonized system to convey information to 
workers, consumers, and the general 
public on the physical, health, and 
environmental effects of hazardous 
chemicals across the globe, as well as to provide a foundation for the safe management of those chemicals. 
Finalized by the UN in 2002, the GHS 
is intended to harmonize elements of hazard communication, including SDSs and labels, by providing a unified classification system of chemicals based on their physical and health-related hazards. The GHS is updated and revised every two years based on information and experience gained by regulatory agencies, industry, and non- governmental organizations (Document ID 0052). 
Since OSHA’s adoption of Rev. 3 in 
2012, the GHS has been updated six times; the latest revision, Rev. 9, was published in July 2021 (https://
unece.org/transport/standards/ transport/dangerous-goods/ghs-rev9- 2021). Updates to the GHS in Rev. 4 
(2011) included changes to hazard categories for chemically unstable gases and non-flammable aerosols and updates to, and clarification of, precautionary statements (Document ID 0240). Changes in Rev. 5 (2013) included a new test method for oxidizing solids; miscellaneous provisions intended to further clarify the criteria for some hazard classes (skin corrosion/irritation, severe eye damage/ irritation, and aerosols) and to complement the information to be included in the SDS; revised and simplified classification and labeling summary tables; a new codification system for hazard pictograms; and 
revised precautionary statements (Document ID 0241). Rev. 6 (2015) included a new hazard class for desensitized explosives and a new hazard category for pyrophoric gases; miscellaneous provisions intended to clarify the criteria for some hazard classes (explosives, specific target organ toxicity following single exposure, aspiration hazard, and hazardous to the aquatic environment); additional information to be included in Section 9 of the SDS; revised precautionary statements; and a new example in Annex 7 addressing labelling of small packages (Document ID 0197). Changes in Rev. 7 (2017) included revised criteria for categorization of flammable gases within Category 1; miscellaneous amendments intended to clarify the definitions of some health hazard classes; additional guidance regarding the coverage of Section 14 of the SDS (which is non-mandatory under the HCS); and a new example in Annex 7 addressing labeling of small packages with fold-out labels (Document ID 0094). Rev. 8 (2019) added a table for the classification criteria versus only relying on the decision logics for chemicals under pressure; minor changes to precautionary statements for skin irritation and serious eye damage; new provisions for use of non-animal test methods for the skin irritation/ corrosion hazard class; and new precautionary pictograms for ‘‘keep out of reach of children’’ (Document ID 0065). Rev. 9 (2021) included changes to chapter 2.1 to better address explosive hazards when not in transport, revisions to decision logics, revisions to Annex 1—classification and labeling summary tables, revisions to precautionary statements, and updates to OECD test guidelines in Annexes 9 and 10 ( https:// 
unece.org/transport/standards/ 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444148 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
transport/dangerous-goods/ghs-rev9- 
2021). 
I. U.S. Participation at the United 
Nations and Interagency Coordination 
OSHA leads the U.S. Interagency GHS 
Coordinating Group, an interagency group that serves as a U.S. delegation to the UN (‘‘Interagency Group’’). The Interagency Group works to ensure that modifications to the GHS continue to reflect U.S. agencies’ key priorities and do not conflict with U.S. hazard communication and associated requirements. The group meets regularly to discuss issues related to the domestic implementation of the GHS, as well as international work being done at the UN Sub-Committee of Experts on the GHS (UNSCEGHS). It consists of representatives from OSHA, the Department of State, the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Coast Guard, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and other agencies as appropriate. To date, OSHA is the only U.S. agency to have implemented the GHS, although CPSC regulations contain elements of the GHS (e.g., precautionary statements) (Document ID 0175). EPA (which initiated the U.S. working group) finalized changes to its regulations governing significant new uses of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that would align with the HCS and the GHS as well as with OSHA’s respiratory protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134) 
and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) respirator certification requirements (87 FR 39756). 
II. U.S.–Canada Coordination 
An additional international activity 
impacting the HCS is OSHA’s 
participation in the RCC. The RCC was established in 2011 to promote economic growth, job creation, and other benefits through increased regulatory coordination and transparency between the U.S. and Canada (Document ID 0057; 0199). In June 2018, U.S.–Canada RCC principles were reaffirmed through a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Treasury Board of Canada. Since the RCC’s inception, OSHA and Health Canada, Canada’s corresponding governmental agency, have developed joint guidance products and consulted on respective regulatory activities. In keeping with the RCC’s goal of regulatory cooperation, this final rule contains several updates to the HCS that will align with Canada’s Hazardous Products Regulations (HPR), such as changes to exemptions for labeling small containers and using prescribed concentration ranges when claiming 
trade secrets (Document ID 0051). 
B. Stakeholder Engagement 
Since updating the HCS in 2012, 
OSHA has engaged stakeholders in 
various ways in order to keep them apprised of changes to the GHS that may have an impact on future updates to the HCS, as well as to gather information about stakeholders’ experience implementing the standard. For example, in November 2016, OSHA convened a meeting to inform the public that OSHA was beginning rulemaking efforts to maintain alignment of the HCS with more recent revisions of the GHS (International/Globally Harmonized System (GHS), Docket No. OSHA–2016– 0005). Meeting attendees discussed topics and issues that OSHA should consider during the rulemaking. In addition, attendees provided suggestions as to the types of publications (such as guidance products) that would be helpful in complying with the standard and the topics they would like OSHA to address in future compliance assistance materials. 
OSHA has also engaged stakeholders 
through Interagency Group public meetings held prior to each UNSCEGHS Session to discuss the issues and proposals being presented at the UN. During this forum, stakeholders have 
the opportunity to provide comments 
regarding the various proposals under discussion. Stakeholders are also able to provide comments on these proposals in writing via OSHA’s docket for International/Globally Harmonized System (GHS) (Docket No. OSHA–2016– 0005). The Interagency Group considers the comments and information gathered at these public meetings and in the docket when developing the U.S. position on issues before the UN. 
Additionally, in December 2018, the 
RCC held a stakeholder forum in Washington, DC. The purpose of the forum was to ‘‘bring together senior regulatory officials, industry, and other interested members of the public from both sides of the border to discuss recent accomplishments and new opportunities for regulatory cooperation’’ (Document ID 0057). OSHA led the session regarding chemicals management and workplace 
chemicals. 
C. OSHA Guidance Products, Letters of 
Interpretation, and Directives 
Since OSHA’s publication of the 2012 
HCS update, the agency has published 
guidance documents, issued letters of interpretation (LOIs), and implemented 
an enforcement directive. These guidance documents are available at: https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/ guidance.html. OSHA will continue to 
develop guidance documents to assist employers and employees with their understanding of the HCS. 
OSHA has issued several LOIs in 
response to questions from the regulated community. These LOIs provide clarification on provisions in the 2012 update to the HCS and how they apply in particular circumstances. Some of the major issues covered in the LOIs include the labeling of small containers, the labeling of chemicals released for shipment, and the use of concentration ranges for trade secrets. OSHA’s LOIs on the HCS may be found at https:// 
www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standard
interpretations/standardnumber/1910/ 1910.1200%20-%20Index/result. Several of the updates in this final rule clarify specific elements of the enforcement guidance the agency has already provided in LOIs and the directive. The agency anticipates publishing an updated directive to provide guidance to OSHA compliance officers; however, the 2015 directive is still in force until rescinded or updated (Document ID 0007). 
OSHA requested comments in the 
NPRM on types of guidance documents that the public may find useful to understand the updated HCS. The American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP) suggested that OSHA ‘‘create training modules focused on the changes to the HCS once the rule is finalized’’ (Document ID 0284, p. 2). Hugo Hidalgo suggested that the agency ‘‘leverage technology to effectively communicate hazards of chemicals to customers and end-users once the information becomes available’’ (Document ID 0297, p. 4). Other comments received in response to OSHA’s request for comments on guidance documents are highlighted in Section XV., Issues and Options Considered. OSHA has considered all requests for guidance and is evaluating the best approaches to implement those requests and suggestions. 
IV. Need and Support for the Revised 
Hazard Communication Standard 
Hazardous chemical exposures in 
workplaces in the United States present 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444149 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
1The ILO and the World Health Organization 
(WHO) have also adopted an evergreen approach to 
workplace hazard communication (i.e., an approach that ensures systems for hazard communication remain relevant and up-to-date). The ILO and WHO produce international chemical safety cards (ICSC) and maintain a database of approximately 1,700 data sheets designed to provide safety and health information on hazardous chemicals in a format consistent with the GHS. While not exactly like SDSs, ICSCs use phrases similar to GHS precautionary statements to convey safety and health information about workplace chemicals in a consistent, internationally accessible manner. ICSCs also display classification information (hazard pictograms, signal words, and hazard statements) in line with GHS classification criteria—this information is added during updates. With participation by experts from government agencies around the world, including the U.S. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)/NIOSH), Canada (Quebec–CNESST), Japan (National Institute of Health Sciences), and several European countries, ICSCs are prepared and periodically updated to account for the most recent scientific developments. Due to the robust process of preparation and peer review, the ICSCs are considered authoritative in nature and a significant asset for workers and health professionals across the globe, including in the United States (ILO, 2019, Document ID 0069). 
2SDSs, 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). a serious and ongoing danger to 
workers. Acute and chronic exposures to hazardous chemicals in the workplace can have serious health consequences. As described in the 2012 HCS, chemical exposures are either directly responsible for or contribute to serious adverse health effects including cancer; heart, lung, reproductive, and immunological diseases; hearing loss; and eye and skin damage (77 FR 17584). In addition to health effects, exposure to hazardous chemicals can result in physical hazards, such as fires, explosions, and other dangerous incidents (77 FR 17584). Recognition of the significant risk posed by these workplace hazards was the impetus for OSHA to promulgate the original hazard communication standard in order to promote responsible chemical 
management practices (48 FR 53282– 
53283). 
Hazard communication is a 
fundamental element of sound chemical management practices. As stated in the GHS, ‘‘[a]vailability of information about chemicals, their hazards, and ways to protect people, will provide the foundation for national programmes for the safe management of chemicals’’ (Document ID 0060, p. iii). An anonymous comment on the NPRM stated that ‘‘[a]rming employers with this information, since the 1980s, has undoubtedly reduced the potential for, and severity of, chemical and toxic substance injuries and illnesses, to include a reduced number of fatalities. Globally harmonizing the system for classification and labeling across a big part of the world was also beneficial as it provided consistency, and more simplicity, especially for foreign products utilized domestically’’ (Document ID 0300, p. 1). The commenter went on to state that ‘‘[p]roviding safety and health information to product users is imperative. Ultimately, this information equals a form of protection’’ (Document ID 0300, p. 1). 
OSHA recognized the importance of a 
robust hazard communication strategy as early as the 1980s, when the agency first promulgated the HCS (48 FR 53282–53284). The agency also recognized the need for a global strategy and was instrumental in the development of the GHS (48 FR 53287). From its inception, OSHA indicated that the HCS would be updated periodically to keep pace with the advancement of scientific principles underlying the hazard determination process as well as improvements in communication systems (48 FR 53287). In hearing 
testimony and post-hearing briefs, NIOSH provided documentation supporting the continual updating of 
occupational safety and health information, stating that the ‘‘process should be a never-ending loop of research and translation, allowing for ongoing integration of effective approaches’’ (Document ID 0456, Att. 15, p. 4). 
The ‘‘research and translation’’ 
described by NIOSH is at the heart of the GHS and HCS process—continually evaluating and updating to improve worker protections and make hazard communication clearer and more effective for both workers and employers. In addition to directly enhancing worker protections through improved hazard communication, updating the HCS to maintain alignment with the GHS also improves the availability of important information to support larger efforts to address workplace hazards. Commenters on the NPRM recognized this principle. For 
example, Ameren stated that the modifications to the HCS ‘‘takes a positive approach in our efforts of eliminating risk events’’ (Document ID 0309, p. 2). ASSP commented, ‘‘[w]e believe that aligning the HCS to international regulations is beneficial overall to the OSH profession and our members will assist in ensuring employers use these enhanced requirements to better protect their workers’’ (Document ID 0284, p. 1). The following sections provide more detailed information on the need for the updates being finalized in this final rule. 
A. Maintaining Alignment With the GHS 
and Ensuring That the Standard Reflects the Current State of Science and Knowledge on Relevant Topics 
Periodic updates to the HCS are 
needed to maintain pace with the general advancement of science, technology, and our understanding of the processes involved in effective communication. As stated in a report published by the ILO in 2008, ‘‘[c]ontinuous improvement of occupational safety and health must be promoted. This is necessary to ensure that national laws, regulations, and technical standards to prevent occupational injuries, disease, and deaths are adapted periodically to social, technical, and scientific progress and other changes in the world of work’’ (ILO, 2008, Document ID 0181).
1While 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. 
The changes finalized in this update 
to the HCS will result in better alignment between the standard and the continually evolving GHS. The first edition of the GHS, adopted in December 2002 and published in 2003, implemented the 16-section format for SDSs
2that is now standard across much 
of the globe. As information has improved, the GHS has updated the form and content of SDSs to improve readability, minimize redundancies, and ensure hazards are communicated appropriately (Document ID 0060; Document ID 0237). 
Information OSHA has collected since 
publication of the 2012 update to the HCS indicates that aligning the HCS with the GHS has had a positive impact on workplace hazard communication. Data from published studies indicate that the hazard communication 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444150 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
3Holistic programs such as NIOSH’s Total 
Worker Health program, where behavioral science 
is integrated into more traditional risk-management practices, require robust hazard communication practices (Tamers, 2019, Document ID 0076). approach taken in the 2012 HCS has 
been effective, when implemented appropriately, in enabling workers to understand, avoid, and mitigate exposures to hazardous chemicals in the workplace (Bechtold, 2014, Document ID 0061; Elliott, 2016, Document ID 0119). Industry representatives have indicated that workers responded positively to training on pictograms and hazard statements because it explained distinctions between acute toxicity and chronic health effects (Bechtold, 2014, Document ID 0061). Consistent labeling requirements have also enabled employers to identify the most hazardous materials in the workplace, understand more about the health effects of these chemicals, and address which hazardous chemicals they may want to replace with safer alternatives 
(Bechtold, 2014, Document ID 0061). 
Labels and SDSs are often the first 
indication to a worker that they are 
handling a hazardous chemical, so it is 
imperative that labels and SDSs be as accurate and complete as possible. While the HCS does not require testing of chemicals, it does require that labels and SDSs have accurate information based on all available evidence and that manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers provide the complete information on the hazards available to them. Without a complete picture of the hazards associated with a particular chemical, workers cannot know how to adequately protect themselves or safely handle these chemicals. North America’s Building Trades Unions (NABTU) commented that ‘‘[It] is really important to have . . . the labels on the products that are being used because that’s the first source of information. The SDS is the backup source ....  
[Labels and SDSs are] where they’re going to get information on the hazards of what they’re using and the precautions that need to be taken, including . . . any engineering controls or any personal protective equipment’’ (Document ID 0464, p. 2). 
Several studies published since the 
2012 HCS adopted the 16-section SDS format indicate that the new format has improved comprehension in the workplace (Elliott, 2016, Document ID 0119; Boelhouver, 2013, Document ID 0107). However, other recent studies have shown that the system can still be improved upon. Multiple studies in various industries have demonstrated that while comprehension has improved, many SDSs lack information vital to worker protection. Problems include insufficient information on the identification of substances/mixtures; 
inadequate hazard identification and classification information ( e.g., missing information on carcinogens and sensitizers, incorrect chemical classifications); lack of precautionary statements on safe handling; missing information on exposure controls/ personal protective equipment; and missing toxicological information (Jang, 2019, Document ID 0110; Allen, 2017, Document ID 0117; DiMare, 2017, Document ID 0118; Tsai, 2016, Document ID 0016; Friis, 2015, Document ID 0120; Saito, 2015, Document ID 0191; Suleiman, 2014, Document ID 0192; Lee, 2012, Document ID 0070). A 2014 study concluded that the contents of the SDSs evaluated were generic and incomplete, lacking important safety measures and health information (Suleiman, 2014, Document ID 0192). A study on mixtures found that information on individual ingredients within mixtures was sometimes completely missing and that information on hazard characterization and classification was ambiguous and almost entirely incorrect (LeBouf, 2019, Document ID 0183). Furthermore, a 2012 study conducted by NIOSH found that SDSs for certain classes of chemicals lacked sufficient information to communicate the appropriate hazards and remedies related to engineered nanomaterials (Eastlake, 2012, Document ID 0063). A follow-up NIOSH study found some improvement in SDS preparation since implementation of the 2012 HCS; however, the study also found that there are still serious deficiencies in providing adequate information on the inherent health and safety hazards of engineered nanomaterials, including handling and storage (Hodson, 2019, Document ID 0167). 
Inadequate information on the 
chemical hazards and risk management practices required on SDSs can lead to overexposure to chemical hazards and puts workers at risk. An anonymous commenter stated that ‘‘[i]naccurate information makes it difficult for downstream users who have to rely on inaccurate or incomplete information . . . ’’ (Document ID 0308, p. 1). The studies described above demonstrate the need for ongoing review and refinement to make certain the standard is addressing comprehensibility issues and staying relevant with current occupational safety and health tools, science, and technology. This final rule’s updates to Appendix D, which are based in part on recent revisions to the GHS, seek, among other things, to remedy the issues that have been identified by clarifying the information needed in the SDS. For example, a change in Section 9 (physical characteristics to include particle 
characteristics) will identify exposure issues that were not addressed by the previous format. This should, among other things, improve the hazard information required for nanomaterials. 
Furthermore, the GHS has been 
updated to reflect the development of non-animal test methods for use in hazard determination and classification. The development of these test methods led to updates in Chapter 3.2 (which correspond to updates in this final rule to Appendix A.2 of the HCS) on skin corrosion/irritation that incorporated new in vitro test methods, and computational or in silico techniques, to classify chemicals for this category of hazard (Document ID 0242). And techniques and processes developed in the behavioral sciences have led to the development of more effective communication practices for occupational safety and health purposes (NIOSH, 2019, Document ID 0126).
3 
Studies evaluating the effectiveness of precautionary statements and pictograms used in the GHS have led to 
their evolution and continued revisions (Fagotto, 2003, Document ID 0125; ISHN, 2019, Document ID 0068; Ta, 2010, Document ID 0115; Ta, 2011, Document ID 0194; Chan, 2017, Document ID 0017). 
Regularly updating the HCS to align 
with international practices also eases compliance for global corporations because it provides greater international consistency (Bechtold, 2014, Document ID 0061). Industry groups such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) have indicated their support for regular HCS updates as long as there is sufficient input from stakeholders (Document ID 0167). During the 2012 rulemaking, numerous safety organizations (including NIOSH, the American Chemical Society (ACS), the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), the American 
Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE), the 
Center for Protection of Workers’ Rights 
(CPWR), and the Society for Chemical 
Hazard Communication (SCHC)) publicly supported OSHA’s continued updates to the HCS (see 77 FR 17585, 17603). The Society of Toxicology (SOT) also expressed support for updating the HCS to align with the GHS as this ‘‘creates consistent communication about the hazards of chemicals across the globe’’ (see 77 FR 17585). 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444151 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
B. Cooperating With International 
Trading Partners and Other Federal Agencies 
OSHA expects that the updates to the 
HCS will facilitate cooperation with international trading partners and other federal agencies. The U.S. and Canada participate in the RCC, which has a goal to ‘‘enhance regulatory cooperation and economic competitiveness that maintain high standards when it comes to health, safety, and the environment’’ (Document ID 0127). OSHA continues to work with Health Canada through the RCC to develop guidance documents pertaining to hazard communication issues the two countries share and to work cooperatively through the UNSCEGHS subcommittee. In addition, OSHA and Health Canada share regular updates on regulatory activity. As explained in the Section XIV., Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule, several updates in this final rule will align U.S. and Canadian hazard communication practices, thereby facilitating cooperation between the two countries, easing compliance for employers who participate in both markets, and strengthening worker protections by providing harmonized hazard communication standards across trade borders. 
In addition, OSHA is updating the 
requirements for bulk shipment under paragraph (f)(5) to provide additional clarity for shipments that are also regulated by the DOT. For bulk shipments, the finalized new paragraph should increase flexibility by allowing labels to be placed on the immediate container or transmitted with shipping papers, bills of lading, or by other technological or electronic means so that they are immediately available to workers in printed form on the receiving end of the shipment. This allows for the full label information to be available to the downstream user upon receipt while recognizing the unique DOT placarding issues for bulk shipments. And in another effort to facilitate inter-agency cooperation, OSHA is finalizing new language for paragraph (f)(5) providing that where a pictogram required by the DOT appears on the label for a shipped container, the HCS pictogram for the same hazard may also be provided, but is not required to acknowledge that the DOT regulations allow for the GHS pictogram to be on the shipped container (49 CFR 172.401(c)(5)). 
C. Responding to Stakeholder 
Experiences Implementing the 2012 HCS 
Finally, some of the changes in this 
final rule, including those related to labeling of small containers and relabeling requirements for chemicals that have been released for shipment, were developed in response to feedback and comments received from stakeholders since the promulgation of the 2012 updates to the HCS (Collatz, 2015, Document ID 0174; Ghosh, 2015, Document ID 0180). With respect to the labeling of small containers, issues raised by stakeholders included concerns about insufficient space on the label to highlight the most relevant safety information, problems with the 
readability of information on small 
labels, and challenges associated with using fold-out labels for certain small containers that need special handling (Watters, 2013, Document ID 0200; Collaltz, 2015, Document ID 0174; Blankfield, 2017, Document ID 0170). This final rule includes revisions designed to address these issues with small container labeling as well as revisions addressing other issues raised by commenters. Furthermore, OSHA believes that adopting a uniform approach to labeling small containers will enhance worker protections by ensuring that critical information on the hazards posed by the chemicals is included on the label regardless of the size of the container. For a full discussion of this change, see the Summary and Explanation for (f)(12). 
Similarly, the finalized revisions to 
paragraph (f)(11), which address the relabeling of chemicals that have been released for shipment, are designed to address stakeholder concerns about the difficulty some manufacturers have in complying with the HCS’s requirements to update labels when new information becomes available, especially in the case of chemicals that travel through long 
distribution cycles (Kenyon, 2017, 
Document ID 0182). This final rule 
revises paragraph (f)(11) to address 
these concerns while maintaining 
worker protections. 
V. Pertinent Legal Authority 
A. Background 
The purpose of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH 
Act or Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is ‘‘to 
assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.’’ 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to promulgate occupational safety and health standards after notice and comment. 29 U.S.C. 655(b). An occupational safety and health standard is a standard ‘‘which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, 
operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.’’ 29 U.S.C. 652(8). 
The OSH Act also authorizes the 
Secretary to ‘‘modify’’ or ‘‘revoke’’ any occupational safety or health standard, 29 U.S.C. 655(b), and under the Administrative Procedure Act, regulatory agencies generally may revise their rules if the changes are supported by a reasoned analysis. See Encino 
Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, U.S., 136 S. 
Ct. 2117, 2125–26 (2016); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 
Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983). In passing the OSH Act, Congress recognized that OSHA should revise and replace its standards as ‘‘new knowledge and techniques are developed.’’ S. Rep. 91–1282 at 6 (1970). The Supreme Court has observed that administrative agencies ‘‘do not establish rules of conduct to last forever, and . . . must be given ample latitude to adapt their rules and policies to the demands of changing circumstances.’’ Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n , 463 U.S. at 
42 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 
Before the Secretary can promulgate 
any permanent health or safety standard, they must make a threshold finding that significant risk is present and that such risk can be eliminated or lessened by a change in practices. Indus. Union Dep’t v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 
U.S. 607, 642 (1980) (plurality opinion) 
(‘‘Benzene’’). As explained more fully in Section V.D., Significant Risk, OSHA need not make additional findings on risk for this final rule because OSHA previously determined that the HCS addresses a significant risk. 77 FR 17603–17604. 
In promulgating a standard under, 
and making the determinations required by, the OSH Act, OSHA’s determinations will be deemed conclusive if they are ‘‘supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole.’’ 29 U.S.C. 655(f). OSHA must use the ‘‘best available evidence,’’ which includes ‘‘the latest available scientific data in the field’’; ‘‘research, demonstrations, experiments, and such other information as may be appropriate’’; and ‘‘experience gained under this and other health and safety laws.’’ 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5). 
B. Authority—Section 6(b)(5) 
The HCS is a health standard 
promulgated under the authority of 
section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act. See Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc . 
v. Brock, 862 F.2d 63, 67–68 (3d Cir. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444152 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
4The last sentence of section 6(b)(7) requires 
consultation with the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services. OSHA briefed NIOSH on the proposal for this rule during a collaboration meeting held in December 2018, which was attended by the Director of NIOSH, and NIOSH 
expressed its support. NIOSH continued to express support in its comments on the proposed rule (Document ID 0281) and also supported OSHA’s update of the HCS in 2012, see 77 FR 17603. 1988); United Steelworkers of Am . v. 
Auchter, 763 F.2d 728, 735 (3d Cir. 
1985); 77 FR 17601. Section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act provides that ‘‘in promulgating health standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents,’’ the Secretary must ‘‘set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity even if such employee has regular exposure to the hazard dealt with by such standard for the period of his working life.’’ 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5). Thus, once OSHA determines that a significant risk due to a health hazard is present and that such risk can be reduced or eliminated by an OSHA standard, section 6(b)(5) requires OSHA 
to issue the standard, based on the best 
available evidence, that ‘‘most adequately assures’’ employee 
protection, subject only to feasibility 
considerations. As the Supreme Court has explained, in passing section 6(b)(5), Congress ‘‘place[d] . . . worker health above all other considerations save those making attainment of this ‘benefit’ unachievable.’’ Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 
490, 509 (1981) (‘‘Cotton Dust’’). 
C. Other Authority 
The HCS is also promulgated under 
the authority of section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act. See United Steelworkers, 763 
F.2d at 730; 77 FR 17601. Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act provides in part: ‘‘Any standard promulgated under this subsection shall prescribe the use of labels or other appropriate forms of warning as are necessary to insure that employees are apprised of all hazards to which they are exposed, relevant symptoms and appropriate emergency treatment, and proper conditions and precautions of safe use or exposure.’’ 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7). Section 6(b)(7)’s labeling and employee warning requirements provide basic protections for employees, particularly in the absence of specific permissible exposure limits, by providing employers and employees with information necessary 
to design work processes that protect employees against exposure to hazardous chemicals in the first instance. 
The last sentence of section 6(b)(7) 
provides that the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may issue a rule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to ‘‘make appropriate modifications in the foregoing requirements relating to the use of labels or other forms of warning . . . as may be warranted by experience, information, or medical or technological 
developments acquired subsequent to the promulgation of the relevant standard.’’ 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7). OSHA used the authority granted by this paragraph to promulgate the 2012 revisions to the HCS, 77 FR 17602, and this provision provides additional authority for this final rule. 
This final rule, which is an update to 
the existing HCS, fits well within the authority granted by the last sentence of section 6(b)(7). The changes in the final rule constitute a ‘‘modification’’ of the HCS regarding ‘‘the use of labels or other forms of warning.’’ As explained more fully elsewhere in this preamble, OSHA has determined the updates are ‘‘appropriate’’ based on ‘‘experience, information, or medical or technological developments acquired subsequent to the promulgation of the relevant standard.’’ The updates found in GHS Rev. 7 are a ‘‘technological development’’ that has occurred since the 2012 revisions to the HCS and are also ‘‘warranted by experience [and] information.’’ The GHS was negotiated and drafted through the involvement of labor, industry, and governmental agencies, and thus represents the collective experience and information on hazard communication gathered by the participants in these sectors over the last several decades. See 71 FR 53617, 53618–53619;
4see also Section III.: 
Events Leading to the Revised Hazard Communication Standard in this preamble. 
Authority for the HCS is also found in 
Section 8, paragraphs (c) and (g), of the OSH Act. Section 8(c)(1) of the OSH Act empowers the Secretary to require employers to make, keep, and preserve records regarding activities related to the OSH Act and to make such records available to the Secretary. 29 U.S.C. 657(c)(1). Section 8(g)(2) of the OSH Act empowers the Secretary to ‘‘prescribe such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out [his] responsibilities’’ under the Act. 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2). 
D. Significant Risk 
As required by section 6(b)(5) of the 
OSH Act, OSHA originally determined 
that the HCS would substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm when promulgating the standard in 1983. Many OSHA health standards protect employees by imposing requirements when employees are exposed to a concentration of a hazardous substance that OSHA has found creates a significant risk of material health impairment. Thus, in making the significant risk determination in those cases, OSHA measures and assesses the hazards of employee exposures to determine the level at which a significant risk arises. 
OSHA took a different approach to its 
significant risk determination when first promulgating the HCS. Rather than attempting to assess the risk associated with exposures to each hazardous chemical in each industry to determine if that chemical posed a significant risk in that industry, OSHA took a more general approach. It relied on NIOSH data showing that about 25 million or about 25 percent of American employees were potentially exposed to one or more of 8,000 NIOSH-identified chemical hazards and that for the years 1977 and 1978 more than 174,000 illnesses were likely caused by exposure to hazardous chemicals. 48 FR 53282. OSHA then noted the consensus evident in the record among labor, industry, health professionals, and government that an ‘‘effective [F]ederal standard requiring employers to identify workplace hazards, communicate hazard information to employees, and train employees in recognizing and avoiding those hazards’’ was necessary to protect employee health. 48 FR 53283. Based on that evidence, OSHA determined that the HCS addressed a significant risk because ‘‘inadequate communication about serious chemical hazards endangers workers,’’ and that the practices required by the standard were ‘‘necessary or appropriate to the elimination or mitigation of these hazards.’’ 48 FR 53321. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed that ‘‘inadequate communication is itself a hazard, which the standard can eliminate or mitigate.’’ United Steelworkers, 763 F.2d at 735. That 
court has upheld OSHA’s determination of significant risk as sufficient to justify the HCS. See Associated Builders & Contractors, 862 F.2d at 67–68 
(discussing the history of its review of the issue). 
OSHA reaffirmed its finding of 
significant risk in adopting revisions to the HCS in 1994. See 59 FR 6126–6133. When revising the HCS to adopt the GHS model in 2012, OSHA found that there remained a ‘‘significant risk of inadequate communication’’ of chemical hazards in the workplace and 
that adopting the standardized requirements of the GHS would 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444153 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
5Section 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. 
6https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202210&RIN=1218- AC93. substantially reduce that risk by 
improving chemical hazard communications. 77 FR 17603–17604. 
For the changes in this final rule, 
OSHA has not made a new finding of significant risk but is making changes that are reasonably related to the purpose of the HCS as a whole. When, as here, OSHA has previously determined that its standard substantially reduces a significant risk, it is unnecessary for the agency to make additional findings on risk for every provision of that standard. See, e.g., 
Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. 
Tyson, 796 F.2d 1479, 1502 n.16 (D.C. 
Cir. 1986) (rejecting the argument that OSHA must ‘‘find that each and every aspect of its standard eliminates a significant risk’’). Rather, once OSHA makes a general significant risk finding in support of a standard, the next question is whether a particular requirement is reasonably related to the purpose of the standard as a whole. See Asbestos Info. Ass’n/N. Am. v. Reich, 
117 F.3d 891, 894 (5th Cir. 1997); Forging Indus. Ass’n v. Sec’y of Labor, 
773 F.2d 1436, 1447 (4th Cir. 1985); United Steelworkers of Am., AFL–CIO– CLC v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1237– 
38 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (‘‘Lead I’’). 
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has 
recognized that protective measures like those called for by the HCS may be imposed in workplaces where chemical exposure levels are below that for which OSHA has found a significant risk. In Benzene, the Court recognized that the ‘‘backstop’’ provisions of section 6(b)(7) allow OSHA to impose information requirements even before the employee is exposed to the significant risk. See Benzene, 448 U.S. at 657–58 & n.66. Rather than requiring a finding of significant risk, the last sentence of section 6(b)(7) provides other assurances that OSHA is exercising its authority appropriately by requiring the involvement of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and by limiting the authority only to modifications that are based on ‘‘experience, information, or medical or technological developments’’ acquired since the promulgation of the standard in the limited areas of hazard communication, monitoring, and medical examinations. Therefore, OSHA need not make any new significant risk findings; rather, the final rule is supported by the significant risk findings that OSHA made when it adopted the current HCS.
5See 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 analyses 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.’’ Id. at 508–09. Feasibility has two aspects, economic and technological. Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1264. 
A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be expected to be developed. See id. at 1272. A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass on the cost of compliance without threatening its long-term profitability or competitive structure. See Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 530 n.55; 
Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1265. OSHA’s determinations regarding feasibility are discussed more fully in Section VI.E., Technological Feasibility, and Section VI.G., Economic Feasibility and Impacts, in this preamble. 
VI. Final Economic Analysis and 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
A. Introduction and Summary 
Under Executive Order 12866 (E.O.) 
12866, OIRA determines whether a 
regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the requirements of E.O. 12866 and OMB review. Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094, defines a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an action that is likely to result in a rule that: (1) has an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more, or adversely affects in a material way a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as significant under Section 3(f)(1)); (2) creates serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alters the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866. Upon review, OMB has determined that this final rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
6Pursuant to 
the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 
801 et seq.), OIRA designated that this 
rule is not a ‘‘major rule,’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 
OIRA has made a determination that 
this action is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094, because it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more. Nor is this final standard a major rule under the Congressional Review Act because this rule will not result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; nor (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign- based enterprises in domestic and export markets. 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Details on the estimated cost-savings of this rule can be found in the economic analysis below. 
E.O. 13563 directs agencies to adopt 
a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; tailor the regulation to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; and in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 recognizes that some benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitatively values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts. 
Because section 6(b)(5) of the OSH 
Act explicitly imposes the ‘‘to the extent feasible’’ limitation on the setting of health standards, OSHA is not permitted to use cost-benefit analysis to make its standards-setting decisions (see 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5); Cotton Dust, 452 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444154 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
7A 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. U.S. at 509). In addition to determining 
economic feasibility, OSHA estimates the costs and benefits of its proposed and final rules to ensure compliance with other requirements such as those in E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. 
In this FEA, OSHA estimates that the 
proposed amendments to the HCS would result in annualized net cost savings of $29.8 million at a seven percent discount rate. Annualized at a three percent discount rate, OSHA estimates that the proposed amendments to the rule would lead to net cost savings of $30.7 million per year. OSHA expects that the revisions to the HCS will also result in modest improvements in worker health and safety above those already being achieved under the current HCS, but the agency is unable to quantify the magnitude of these benefits. 
The remainder of this FEA includes 
the following sections: 
B. Need for Regulation 
C. Profile of Affected Industries, 
Establishments, and Employees 
D. Health and Safety Benefits and 
Unquantified Positive Economic Effects 
E. Technological Feasibility F. Compliance Costs and Cost Savings G. Economic Feasibility and Impacts H. Final Regulatory Flexibility Screening 
Analysis and FRFA Certification 
B. Need for Regulation 
Employees in work environments 
covered by OSHA’s HCS are exposed to 
a variety of significant hazards associated with chemicals used in the workplace that can and do cause serious injury, illness, and death. The HCS serves to ensure that both employers and employees are provided the information they need about these chemical hazards. The HCS contains a set of requirements for chemical products, including mandatory hazard classification, labeling requirements, provisions for communication of detailed information (in SDSs), and label updating requirements. These requirements are based on Rev. 3 of the GHS, which was adopted by the UNSCEGHS in December 2008. 
OSHA, in the 2021 Preliminary 
Economic Analysis (PEA), determined that the revisions to the HCS would make employers’ hazard communication programs more worker-protective, 
efficient, and effective through 
standardizing practices nationally and 
internationally (86 FR 9590). In 
addition, OSHA found that aligning 
with the GHS Rev. 7 would continue to 
facilitate international trade, as a 
number of U.S. trading partners are also 
preparing to align with Rev. 7 (86 FR 
9590–91). The revisions to the HCS include the 
following notable changes: 
•Maintaining 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. 
•Addressing issues identified in 
implementing the 2012 HCS: 
ÆUpdating labeling requirements for 
small containers; 
ÆUpdating labeling requirements for 
packaged containers that have been 
released for shipment or that constitute bulk shipping; and 
ÆAllowing the withholding of 
concentration ranges of substances for reasons related to trade secrets. 
As discussed in Section VI.F., 
Compliance Costs and Cost Savings, of this FEA, the estimated costs and cost savings resulting from the final revisions to the HCS consist of five main categories: (1) the cost of reclassifying affected chemicals and revising the corresponding SDSs and labels to achieve consistency with the reclassification (per changes to Appendix B), and the cost of revising SDSs and labels to conform with new precautionary statements and other new mandatory language in the appendices to the HCS (per changes to Appendices C and D); (2) the cost of management familiarization and other management- related costs (associated with all of the revisions to the standard); (3) the cost of training employees as necessitated by the changes to the HCS (see paragraph (h)(1) of the 2012 HCS); (4) the cost savings resulting from the new released- for-shipment provision (revisions to paragraph (f)(11)); and (5) the cost savings from limiting labeling requirements for certain very small containers (proposed paragraph (f)(12)). The first three categories are considered to be one-time costs and the last two categories are cost savings that would accrue to employers annually. 
The changes to the HCS will maintain 
the uniformity of hazard information with the GHS and will, accordingly, serve to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing hazard communication system in the U.S., ensure that updated and advanced HCS methods are recognized, and reduce unnecessary barriers to trade. In short, the GHS is a ‘‘uniformity standard’’ for the presentation of hazard information (Document ID 0050). And much like other uniformity standards, such as driving on the right side of the road (in the U.S.), screw threads for fire hose connectors, ‘‘handshake’’ protocols for communication between computers, 
and, for that matter, language, the GHS provides significant efficiencies and economies.
7 
Since publication of the update to the 
HCS in 2012, there continues to be movement by U.S. trading partners toward maintaining standardization, consistent with the revisions in the GHS. However, OSHA does not believe that full and comprehensive standardization in accordance with the GHS, or the goal of harmonizing the U.S. system with the international one, can be achieved voluntarily in the absence of regulation. 
First, the market alone will not ensure 
timely alignment with the GHS as it undergoes revision periodically. Additionally, in some cases ( e.g., 
aerosols, desensitized explosives), Rev. 7 contains different hazard classes or 
classification criteria than the 2012 HCS, and it would be impermissible for a manufacturer to comply with Rev. 7 rather than the criteria in the existing HCS. Second, while the costs of creating SDSs and labels are borne directly by the chemical producers, maintaining alignment with the GHS benefits the users of hazardous chemicals. These users include employers who are direct customers of chemical manufacturers, employees who use or are exposed to workplace chemicals, and emergency responders who typically have no market relationship with the chemical producers. Even if market forces could ensure the socially optimal approach to SDSs between chemical manufacturers and their customers, there are limited market forces at work between the chemical manufacturer and two key sets of users: the employees and the emergency response community. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444155 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
8See UN, 2018, pp. 12–13 (Document ID 0040). 
9According to the U.S. International Trade 
Commission, U.S. imports of chemicals and related 
products increased 23 percent from 2015 ($260.4 billion) to 2019 ($320.1 billion); and U.S. exports of chemicals and related products increased 7 percent from 2015 ($227.7 billion) to 2019 ($243.7 billion) (Document ID 0234). And the American Chemistry Council reported that in 2019, total U.S. chemical exports accounted for 10 percent of all U.S. goods exports and 10 percent of all global chemical exports (Document ID 0235). 10For this FEA, OSHA used 2017 NAICS industry 
categorization and nomenclature. Although the 2017 NAICS categorization was updated in 2022, OSHA notes that all profile data presented in this FEA were published in 2022 or earlier years but are pre-2022 in content, and therefore were assigned 2017 NAICS IDs. 
11The Census Bureau defines an establishment as 
a single physical location at which business is conducted or services or industrial operations are performed. The Census Bureau defines a business firm or entity as a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments in the same state and industry that are specified under common ownership or control. The firm and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. For each multi-establishment firm, establishments in the same industry within a state will be counted as one firm; the firm employment and annual payroll are summed from the associated establishments (Document ID 0047). 12According to the SBA, ‘‘The size standards are 
for the most part expressed in either millions of dollars (those preceded by ‘‘$’’) or number of employees (those without the ‘‘$’’). A size standard is the largest that a concern can be and still qualify as a small business for Federal Government programs. For the most part, size standards are the average annual receipts or the average employment of a firm. How to calculate average annual receipts and average employment of a firm can be found in 13 CFR 121.104 and 13 CFR 121.106, respectively’’ (SBA, 2019, Table of Small Business Size Standards—Effective Aug 19, 2019, Document ID 0225)). In December 2022, SBA published an update to the table of small business size standards. However, the schedule for this final HCS rulemaking did not allow for a timely adoption of the 2022 table. 
13The NAICS industries estimated to be affected 
by the revised requirement to reclassify aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases are the following: 211130 Natural Gas Extraction, 
Continued Therefore, the benefits achieved by 
maintaining alignment with the GHS are unlikely to be obtained in the private market without regulation. 
OSHA recognizes that there will be 
some market pressure to align with Rev. 
7 as its adoption expands internationally.
8Some 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.
9Many 
chemical producers ship their products to distributors and are unaware of where their products are ultimately used. These distributors might well put pressure on their suppliers to maintain compliance with the GHS. Further, small companies sell chemicals to larger companies. The larger companies may use those chemicals to make other products that are exported. These larger companies might also pressure their small-firm suppliers to align with the GHS. Nevertheless, relying solely on market pressures would surely involve a long transition period, with attendant losses in worker protection and production efficiencies, and it is unlikely that the market alone will ensure full alignment with the GHS for reasons described above. 
The changes to the HCS will involve 
costs and cost savings mainly for manufacturers, importers, and distributors. Manufacturers and importers of chemicals will also achieve benefits, in part because they themselves benefit as both producers and users, and in part because of foreign trade benefits. Some manufacturers may not obtain trade benefits unless they engage in chemical export. International harmonization of hazard communication requirements may also make it easier for small companies to engage in international trade if they so desire (see additional discussion below in VI.D., Health and Safety Benefits and Unquantified Positive Economic Effects). Of more significance to the concerns 
of the OSH Act, the changes will also 
provide health benefits from improved hazard classification and communication; although unquantified in this final rule, these benefits include reductions in worker illnesses, injuries, 
and fatalities (see additional discussion below in VI.D., Health and Safety Benefits and Unquantified Positive Economic Effects). 
Because many of the health and safety 
benefits and cost savings described in this analysis require uniformity and are dispersed among a network of producers and users, only some of whom have direct market relationships with each other, OSHA believes maintaining a single, uniform standard will best achieve the full benefits available from a hazard communications system. 
C. Profile of Affected Industries, 
Establishments, and Employees 
In this section, OSHA presents a final 
profile of industries affected by this revision to the HCS. The profile data in this section are based upon the 2012 HCS FEA and the PEA supporting the 2021 HCS NPRM, updated in this FEA with the most recent data available. 
As a first step, OSHA identifies the 
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industries affected by the changes to the HCS.
10Next, 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.
11This information is provided 
for each affected industry as a whole, as well as for small entities, as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA)
12and for ‘‘very small’’ entities, 
defined by OSHA as those with fewer 
than 20 employees, in each affected industry (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020a, Document ID 0231; U.S. Census Bureau, 2020b, Document ID 0232). 
The revisions to the HCS affect 
establishments in a variety of different industries in which employees are exposed to hazardous chemicals or in which hazardous chemicals are produced. The changes to the HCS do not change the overall list of affected industries or establishments. However, some changes specifically affect certain establishment groupings that manufacture aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases. Other 
changes affect certain manufacturers of hazardous chemicals that are packaged in small containers and manufacturers of chemicals that are not immediately distributed after being released for shipment. 
The revisions define and revise 
specific classifications and categories of hazards, but the scope of the requirements under which a chemical (whether a substance or mixture of substances) becomes subject to the standard is not substantially different from the 2012 version of the HCS. Therefore, OSHA believes that the revisions have little or no effect on whether specific establishments fall within the scope of the standard. 
OSHA’s estimates of the number of 
employees who will require new training under the revisions to the standard are based on BLS’s (2023) Occupational Employment Statistics data for May 2022, specifically the estimates of the number of employees in SOC 51–0000 Production Occupations and SOC 13–1081 Logisticians working in firms in the NAICS industries that are affected by the revised requirements to reclassify aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases.
13(See 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444156 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
324110 Petroleum Refineries, 325110 Petrochemical 
Manufacturing, 325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing, 325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing, 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing, 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing, 325520 Adhesive Manufacturing, 325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing, 325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing, 325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing, 325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing, and 325920 Explosives Manufacturing. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2023). Occupational Employment Statistics—May 2022 (Released April 25, 2023). Available at https:// 
www.bls.gov/oes/#data (Accessed April 27, 2023) 
(Document ID 0482). 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 Document ID 0225. In Table VI–2 in the PEA, the numbers shown for Total Employees and Employees in Covered Occupations (columns 5 and 6) erroneously understated the correct estimates. However, because OSHA’s underlying calculations utilized the correct estimates, the errors in that table did not affect compliance cost estimates or any other results derived in the PEA. 
16U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. 
Businesses, 2017 (Document ID 0231; 0232). the analysis and discussion of training 
costs below in VI.F., Compliance Costs and Cost Savings.) 
Table VI–1 provides an overview of 
the estimated numbers of firms, establishments, and employees in each covered NAICS industry; the estimated number of employees in covered occupations (e.g., logistics personnel); 
and the estimated numbers of affected 
firms, affected establishments, and affected employees in covered 
occupations.
14Tables VI–2 and VI–3, 
respectively, provide parallel information for all affected business entities defined as small by the SBA
15 and all affected very small business entities, defined by OSHA as those with fewer than 20 employees. The data in these tables update the estimates provided in the PEA in support of the 2021 HCS NPRM (Document ID 0258) and rely on the most recent comprehensive set of data (including revenues) available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2023) and the U.S. Census Bureau (2022a; 2022b; 2022c).
16 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444157 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.136</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444158 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.137</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444159 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.138</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444160 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.139</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444161 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.140</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444162 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.141</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444163 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.142</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444164 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.143</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444165 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.144</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444166 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.145</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444167 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.146</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444168 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.147</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444169 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C The PEA and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis in the NPRM did not include the construction industry 
(NAICS 23) within its scope and in 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.148</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444170 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
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. In the PEA, OSHA requested public comment on the label-container specifications presented in Table VI–4. OSHA received no comments addressing the specifications proposed in Table VI–4; therefore, in this FEA Table VI–4 remains unchanged from its preliminary appearance. written comments the Construction 
Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) questioned the basis for the exclusion (Document ID 0335, pp. 2–3). In response, OSHA notes that the scope 
and application of the final standard primarily refers to manufacturers, importers, and distributors. OSHA anticipates that the compliance burden of this rule, and therefore the economic impacts, will primarily be borne by the general industry sectors noted above, and although the construction industry is not exempted from the scope and application of the final standard, any economic impact upon construction employers will likely take the form of downstream effects as consumers of affected chemical products. 
To the extent that there are costs for 
the construction industry associated with training workers on new SDSs, OSHA believes that these costs will be de minimis. As OSHA notes below in the section on training costs, the agency estimated training costs for health and safety personnel, but not users of chemicals with new hazards because OSHA concluded that there would only be a trivial amount of training associated with reclassification for those users. OSHA’s understanding of the 
construction industry is that there are 
relatively few employees who are affected by the HCS standard who are not users of the chemicals, and therefore has not taken costs for that industry. 
The costs and cost savings of some of 
the revised provisions (new classification criteria for select hazards and labels on very small containers) are driven by the number of SDSs (and labels) that manufacturers must redesign as a result of the new criteria and the number of labels on very small containers. In support of the cost analysis that appears later in this FEA, Table VI–4 presents OSHA’s estimate of the number of labels per container by container size (and type).
17Starting with the fifth row (container type: 250 ml container), Table VI–4 is drawn from data in a table (Table VI–5) presented in the FEA in support of the 2012 HCS final rule (77 FR 17639–40), but OSHA has updated the data to include smaller containers to permit evaluation of the impacts of the small container and very small container labeling provisions introduced in (new) paragraph (f)(12). Also, the term ‘‘jug’’ has been changed to the more generic term ‘‘container.’’ The figures in Table VI–4 are slightly different than some of the figures in Table VI–5 of the 2012 FEA due to a change in OSHA’s approach to rounding and the reporting of more significant digits. 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444171 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 
As will be discussed at greater length 
below in Section VI.F., Compliance 
Costs and Cost Savings, it has been 
OSHA’s understanding that chemical manufacturers and importers periodically review, revise, and update the electronic templates they use to create SDSs and labels. Changes are made, for example, as information regarding specific hazards becomes available, new information about protective measures is ascertained, or 
revisions are made to product information and marketing materials. Labels and SDSs are also produced and modified when products are first introduced to the market or when products change. In the PEA, the terms ‘‘electronic templates’’ and ‘‘electronic files’’ were used interchangeably with, and as proxies for, the term ‘‘SDS.’’ All three terms refer to electronic files that are used to generate SDSs and labels. Table VI–5 provides, by covered NAICS industry, estimates of the total number of labels, the number of labels on very small containers (containers of 3 ml capacity or less), the total number of SDSs, and the number of labels and SDSs affected by the proposed revisions to the HCS classification criteria. The term ‘‘SDS’’ in the column headers and in the discussion below represents the 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.149</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444172 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
18Technical and analytical support for the PEA 
and this FEA was provided by Eastern Research 
Group, Inc. (ERG) under Contract No. DOL–OPS– 16–D–0012. 19This methodology was not challenged by 
commenters during the rulemaking that resulted in 
the 2012 final rule. estimated number of electronic 
templates (files) that are used to create SDSs and labels. The derivation of these estimates is discussed below. 
OSHA’s estimate of the total number 
of SDSs per NAICS industry, as presented in Table VI–5, was developed by its contractor to support the agency’s FEA for the 2012 final standard.
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 VI–5). 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444173 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.150</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444174 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C OSHA’s preliminary estimate of the 
number of labels per NAICS industry was constructed using the same 
methodology developed in the 2012 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.151</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444175 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
20For example, NAICS 211130—Natural Gas 
Extraction is categorized as a basic chemicals 
manufacturer, or Code 20 in the SCTG commodity coding system. Across the range of container types and container weights shown in Table VI–4, the analysis led to an estimate of the total number of labels (600,645,446) required by all SCTG Code 20 manufacturers (see Document ID 0481, tab ‘‘Labels per NAICS’’, cell O11). The percentage of receipts (30.7 percent) for NAICS 211130 relative to total receipts for SCTG Code 20 employers (Document ID 0481, tab ‘‘Labels per NAICS’’, cells N11–P11) was then applied to this total number of labels. The result, shown in Column 3 in Table VI–5, is an estimated 184,330,155 labels for NAICS 2111130. Note that multiplying factors may yield a slightly different total due to rounding of the factors in the table (but not in the spreadsheet). HCS final rule (Document ID 0005, pp. 
17634–17643), but with more recent data. 
The steps in the analysis, elaborated 
on below, were summarized in the PEA as follows: 
•Begin with data on shipment weight 
by commodity code and shipment weight class. 
•Estimate the average weight per 
container for containers of various sizes. 
•Allocate the tons shipped in each 
shipment weight class for certain sizes of containers. 
•Divide the tons shipped by the 
average container weight to estimate total containers. 
•Multiply the containers by the 
average number of labels per container to estimate total labels. 
•Allot the labels among NAICS codes 
using receipts data. (86 FR 9610) 
The label analysis in the PEA began 
with the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s jointly produced Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a, Document ID 0024) data on shipment characteristics by commodity and shipment weight. This dataset includes the number of tons shipped for a range of shipment weight classes by Standard Classification of Transported Goods (SCTG) code. The number of tons is converted to pounds, and limited to hazardous non-consumer products ( i.e., 
those that would have the HCS labeling). 
The estimated percentages for the 
transported goods identified as hazardous non-consumer products were presented in the 2012 HCS FEA cost model (See ERG/OSHA, 2012, Document ID 0029). At the time OSHA developed the PEA, the final 2017 CFS data was not yet available. Therefore, 2012 CFS data was the most recent information available. OSHA requested public comments, and received none, on the estimated percentages for the transported goods identified as hazardous non-consumer products in the preliminary profile. For this FEA, OSHA has revised the preliminary percentages of hazardous non-consumer products to reflect data from the 2017 CFS (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020d, Document ID 0474), which is the most recent available. 
The CFS-based percentage estimates 
are used in conjunction with another CFS dataset (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020e, Document ID 0475) that has shipment data by NAICS industry (but not by shipment weight) to divide the detailed shipment weight data into shipments coming from manufacturers and distributors. 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, and no commenters provided data that contradicted this approach. Next, the analysis estimated shipment weight per container by multiplying the average product weight per gallon times the number of gallons per container, plus the container weight. 
To convert the CFS data on tons (or 
pounds) shipped by container size into a number of containers, the analysis estimated the percentage of each shipment class likely to be shipped in certain sizes of containers. Shipments of lower weights are generally estimated to be shipped in smaller containers, and vice versa. Then the total non-consumer hazardous pounds shipped (from the CFS data) was multiplied by the estimated percentage shipped in each container type to yield the number of non-consumer hazardous pounds in each container type. Finally, the non- consumer hazardous pounds in each container type were divided by the average weight per container type to 
yield an estimate of the total number of 
containers. 
To estimate the number of labels that 
would be used on these containers, the 
analysis first estimated the average number of labels on a single container for each container size (from Table VI– 4 above). As previously noted, these estimates account for the fact that some containers have outer packaging that would require an additional label under this proposed rule (e.g., kits containing 
containers less than 100 ml where tags and fold out labels are infeasible) or are shipped with several containers grouped into a single outer container with a label. This average number of labels per container for each shipment size class was then multiplied by the number of containers to estimate the total number of labels. The final step in the analysis was to 
allocate the number of labels shipped 
from SCTG codes to NAICS codes. The NAICS-to-SCTG mapping was adapted from the mapping used in the FEA in support of the 2012 HCS final rule analysis, but with NAICS categories updated from 2007 to 2017 categories. U.S. Census (2022) Statistics of U.S. Businesses data was used to estimate each NAICS industry’s share of total receipts for the SCTG code with which it corresponds, and then the number of labels in each SCTG was allocated proportionally. (This calculation was performed separately for shipments from manufacturers and from distributors for purposes of estimating cost savings due to the proposed released-for-shipment provision in 
paragraph (f)(11)). This resulted in the estimated number of labels shown in Column 3 of Table VI–5.
20 
To estimate the number of labels on 
very small containers (those on containers with a volume capacity of 3 ml or less), the same analysis was performed, but it was limited to containers in that size range. The resulting estimates of the number of labels on very small containers are shown in Column 4 of Table VI–5. 
Not every SDS and label, and not 
every label on very small containers, would be affected by the rule. Only SDSs and labels for certain products (aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases) would be affected by the new classification criteria. And only certain very small containers would be covered by proposed paragraph (f)(12)(iii), which would eliminate some labeling requirements in certain circumstances. In particular, under paragraph (f)(12)(iii), only a product identifier would be required on very small containers (3 ml or less) where the manufacturer, importer, or distributor can demonstrate that a label would interfere with the normal use of the container and that it is not feasible to use pull-out labels, fold-back labels, or tags containing the full label 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444176 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
21Note that OSHA’s cost estimates for 
reclassifying affected chemicals and revising the 
corresponding SDSs and labels to achieve consistency with the reclassification (per changes to Appendix B), and for revising SDSs and labels to conform with new precautionary statements and other new mandatory language in the appendices to the HCS (per changes to Appendices C and D), are based on the costs associated with chemical manufacturers editing their electronic files (which are used to produce labels and SDSs) for each product for which reclassification would be required as a result of the final rule. They are not based on the number of labels or SDSs produced or used. The number of labels and labels affected by revision in the tables provided represent the total number produced; that number is provided to include all relevant information even though it is not being used in calculating costs. information, although the immediate 
outer packaging would need to include the full label. Thus, in addition to the estimated total number of SDSs, labels, and labels on very small containers, Table VI–5 shows the number of each estimated to be affected by the revised standard.
21 
Although OSHA preliminarily 
determined that this methodology remains sound, in the NPRM the agency invited public comment on the reasonableness of this methodology for the current analysis and on its understanding about the use of electronic template files to create SDSs 
and labels. One commenter, Ameren Corporation (Ameren), directly addressed OSHA’s nomenclature for SDS electronic files and the ability of stakeholders to understand the agency’s preliminary methodology for estimating SDSs and labels, with the comment, ‘‘Ameren agrees with OSHA’s understanding of electronic template files to create SDSs and labels’’ (Document ID 0309, p. 5). Another commenter, Michele Sullivan, noted that ‘‘every HCS SDS will need to be revised’’ due to the changes in Appendix D. As shown in Table VI–5, OSHA already estimates that almost every SDS will be revised due to the provisions in the final rule. 
Responsible Industry for a Sound 
Environment (RISE) and CropLife America (CropLife) noted that the labeling requirements of the HCS do not apply to pesticides that are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), but Table VI–5 lists over 23 
million labels affected by this revision for the Pesticide and Other Agricultural 
Manufacturing industry. RISE and CropLife requested clarification on this apparent conflict (Document ID 0343, pp. 3–4). 
In response to the concerns expressed 
by the two trade associations about the number of pesticide labels affected by the revised HCS, OSHA notes that the agency lacks data indicating what proportion of chemicals produced by the Pesticide and Other Agricultural Manufacturing industry fall within FIFRA’s definition of pesticide, which is the category of chemicals exempt from the HCS. The agency has chosen to err on the side of caution and to the extent that the preliminary estimate overstates the actual number of labels affected, any such differential would only over- estimate the costs of the rule. This assumption has no bearing on the scope of the HCS and the HCS is clear that pesticides that meet FIFRA’s definition are exempt. 
Several commenters described the 
common practices found within their industry for updating SDSs and labels, which support OSHA’s understanding of the use of electronic templates for SDSs and labels. The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA) surveyed their membership on several of the technical and economic issues raised in the NPRM. Based on 16 responses to the ILMA survey, all from the association’s manufacturing members, ILMA stated that ‘‘[t]he majority of ILMA members responding to the survey indicated that they rely on third-party services to generate SDS and labels, whether it be software or contracted work’’ (Document ID 0460, Att. 1, p. 5). 
On the topic of the outsourcing of 
SDS software development, the National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) polled a few of their member companies on how employers process SDSs. At least one member company noted that they outsourced the creation of their SDSs to a firm that specializes in that work because ‘‘like many NACD members, most of whom are small businesses,’’ their staff do not have time to do that work (Document ID 0446, p. 2). 
The Hach Company (Hach), a 
manufacturer of chemical reagents and instruments for water quality analysis, indicated during testimony at the public hearing and in a post-hearing comment that it used software it purchased from an outside vendor to create its SDSs (Document ID 0427, pp. 1–2). Tables VI– 6 and VI–7, respectively, provide information on total numbers of SDSs, labels, and labels on very small containers, and on the numbers of SDSs and labels (including labels on very small containers) affected by reclassification and the provisions for labels on very small containers, for all covered small entities and very small entities. 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444177 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.152</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444178 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.153</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444179 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.154</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444180 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C Table VI–8 shows average estimated 
profit rates for affected NAICS industries based on Internal Revenue 
Service (IRS) (2016) SOI Tax Stats— 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.155</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444181 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
22In the PEA, OSHA requested public comment 
on the estimated profit rates presented in Table VI– 
8. OSHA received no comments addressing the estimates proposed in Table VI–8; therefore, in this FEA Table VI–8 remains unchanged from its preliminary appearance. 23Note that the provisions that are projected to 
result in cost savings are not included in Table VI– 10 because, for those provisions, OSHA estimates a percentage of product, rather than a percentage of entities or establishments, that would be affected. Corporation Source Book profit data for 
each of the 14 years 2000–2013. OSHA’s 
final estimate of average profit rates by six-digit NAICS industry replicate the agency’s preliminary estimate of profit rates
22(Document ID 0004). 
Table VI–9 presents OSHA’s final 
estimates of total revenues and total profits by NAICS industry code for all entities, small entities, and very small entities affected by the revised standard rule. For this FEA, OSHA extrapolated the receipts reported in the 2017 Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) by NAICS industry to 2022 dollars using the Bureau of Economic Advisors (BEA) GDP deflator. To assign revenue for 2022 at the six-digit NAICS level, OSHA benchmarked per-establishment revenue to per-establishment payroll based on 2017 SUSB revenue-payroll ratios and projected to 2022 dollars using the BEA GDP deflator. 
OSHA calculated total profits per 
NAICS industry by multiplying the average profit rate (NAICS industry) (Document ID 0004) by total revenues (NAICS industry) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022a, Document ID 0476; U.S. Census Bureau, 2022b, Document ID 0477). 
Table VI–10 shows, by NAICS 
industry code, OSHA’s best estimates of the percentage of establishments or entities affected for each element of the proposed revisions to the HCS that is projected to result in costs (see Section VI.F., Compliance Costs and Cost Savings, in this FEA for an explanation of the cost categories presented in this table).
23 
Finally, Table VI–11 summarizes key 
estimates for the combined covered industries, labels, and SDSs affected by the final rule. The data in this table are drawn from profile tables presented earlier in this FEA and summarize both the magnitude of the global profile metrics (within the scope of OSHA jurisdiction) and the magnitude of affected inputs critical to the agency’s analysis of the final economic impacts. 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444182 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.156</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444183 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.157</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444184 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.158</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444185 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.159</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444186 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.160</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444187 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.161</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444188 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.162</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444189 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.163</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444190 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.164</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444191 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.165</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444192 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.166</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444193 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.167</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444194 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.168</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444195 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 
D. Health and Safety Benefits and 
Unquantified Positive Economic Effects 
As part of the rulemakings that 
resulted in the promulgation of the original HCS in 1983 and the 1987 updates, OSHA conducted research to identify and estimate expected health and safety benefits, as described in the preambles to those final rules (48 FR 53327–53329; 52 FR 31868–31869). Combining the estimates from the 1983 rulemaking with those from the 1987 update, OSHA estimated that the HCS would prevent 31,841 non-lost-workday injuries and illnesses, 20,263 lost- workday injuries and illnesses, 6,410 chronic illnesses, and 4,260 fatalities annually (77 FR 17621). In the 2012 final rule to modify the HCS to conform with the GHS, OSHA estimated that compliance with those revisions to the HCS would result in additional health and safety benefits equal to 1 percent of the previously-estimated health and safety benefits—that is, they would result in the prevention of an additional 318 non-lost-workday injuries and 
illnesses, 203 lost-workday injuries and illnesses, 64 chronic illnesses, and 43 fatalities annually (77 FR 17620–17624). 
Relative to the HCS rulemakings that 
resulted in the promulgation of final rules in 1983, 1987, and 2012, the revisions to the HCS finalized in this current rulemaking are incremental and minor. Accordingly, OSHA expects that the revisions to the standard will result in more modest improvements in employee health and safety than the estimated benefits OSHA attributed to the earlier rulemakings. But OSHA expects that the promulgation of the revisions to the HCS will result in an 
increased degree of health and safety for affected employees and a corresponding reduction in the annual numbers of 
injuries, illnesses, and fatalities associated with workplace exposures to hazardous chemicals. Aligning with Rev. 7 will improve worker health and safety by ensuring the provision of more and better hazard information to employers and workers. For example, OSHA anticipates that the improved 
criteria for aerosols and flammable gases and the new hazard class for desensitized explosives, along with updated precautionary statements, will better differentiate the hazards associated with those chemicals. In addition, the revised released-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, or packaged containers to replace labels when new hazards were identified. 
Although OSHA expects that the 
revisions to the HCS will reduce injuries, illnesses, and fatalities, the limited scope and nature of the changes 
being finalized have led OSHA to a determination that it cannot reasonably quantify an estimate of how many injuries, illnesses, and fatalities will be prevented. As the agency noted in the 2012 FEA, any assessment of benefits that are incremental to the original 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.169</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444196 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
24As described above, OSHA estimated that the 
2012 revisions to the HCS would result in benefits 
equal to 1 percent of the health and safety benefits previously estimated for the standard (77 FR 17620–17624). In the 2012 rulemaking, OSHA and stakeholders collectively noted the considerable uncertainty inherent in estimating benefits that are additional (incremental) to the set of benefits associated with the original rule (see 77 FR 17620– 17624). The agency stated: ‘‘OSHA believes that a reasonable range for the magnitude of the health and safety benefits resulting from the proposed revisions would be between 0.5 percent and 5 percent of the benefits associated with the current HCS’’ (77 FR 17621 (n 14)). In addition, OSHA stated in the 2012 FEA that ‘‘[i]t is conceivable that actual benefits might be somewhat lower, but because the GHS is expected to result, in some situations, in more timely and appropriate treatment of exposed workers, OSHA expects that actual benefits may be larger, perhaps several times larger’’ (77 FR 17621). 
25The European Union (EU), Canada, Australia, 
and New Zealand have also indicated that they are proposing updates to align with Rev. 7 (Report of the Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals on its thirty-fifth session ST/SG/ AC.10/C.4/7, Document ID 0040). For the history of U.S. government support for adoption and implementation of the GHS, see the 2012 Final HCS Rule, Document ID OSHA–H022K–2006–0062– 0656, Section II. Events Leading to the Revised Hazard Communication Standard (77 FR 17577). estimated benefits, e.g., benefits 
associated with minor improvements to 
an existing standard, broadens the range of uncertainty associated with the original estimates (77 FR 17621).
24In 
the NPRM, OSHA invited interested parties to provide comments and evidence on how the proposed revisions to the HCS are likely to affect worker safety and health. 
NABTU commented that the 
organization ‘‘strongly supports OSHA’s proposal to improve elements of the standard, as it is imperative to have accurate information available to workers on the hazards of the chemicals to which they are exposed’’ (Document ID 0334, p. 1). NIOSH commended OSHA for proposing to update the HCS to reflect revisions to the GHS and for applying ‘‘sound reasoning’’ as the basis for using Rev. 7 as the primary guidance (Document ID 0281, Att. 2, p. 2). Also voicing broad approval of the proposed standard was the Ameren, who stated, ‘‘whenever worker knowledge is increased on the hazards of working with chemicals, such as is done in the proposed revision to the HCS, worker safety will be increased’’ (Document ID 0309, p. 5). Furthermore, Ameren concurred with OSHA’s preliminary assessment of the benefits of the proposed standard, noting that it agreed with OSHA that the proposed changes would enhance the clarity and accessibility of hazard information and workers would receive better training (Document ID 0309, p. 2). 
OSHA received many other comments 
supporting the positive impact of specific provisions on worker safety. 
Several commenters argued that the proposed changes would reduce worker safety and referred to specific proposed changes (see, e.g., Document ID 0322, 
Att. 1, p. 1; 0354, p. 1). OSHA has addressed both kinds of comments and explained why it disagrees with commenters suggesting that the rule will negatively impact worker safety throughout the relevant parts of Section XIV., Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule. 
In addition to health and safety 
benefits, OSHA expects that the revisions to the HCS will result in other positive economic effects. For example, being better aligned with the GHS will help facilitate international trade, thereby enhancing competition, increasing export opportunities for U.S. businesses, reducing costs for imported 
products, and generally expanding the 
selection of chemicals and products available to U.S. businesses and consumers. As a result of the direct savings expected to result from better harmonization and the associated increase in international competition, prices for the affected chemicals and products, and the corresponding goods and services that use them, should decline, even if only to a limited extent. 
Similarly, better alignment between 
the HCS and the GHS will have the additional benefit of meeting the international goals for adoption and implementation of the GHS that have been supported by the U.S. government.
25Maintaining alignment 
with the GHS in U.S. laws and policies through appropriate legislative and regulatory action was anticipated by the U.S. when it supported international mandates regarding the GHS in the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, and the United Nations. It is also consistent with the established goals of the Strategic Approach to International Chemical Management that the U.S. helped to craft (SAICM, 2006, Document ID 0039). 
E. Technological Feasibility 
In accordance with the OSH Act, 
OSHA is required to demonstrate that 
occupational safety and health standards promulgated by the agency are technologically feasible. A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available technology, or can be created 
with technology that can reasonably be expected to be developed. See Lead I, 
647 F.2d at 1272. 
OSHA has reviewed the requirements 
that will be imposed by the final rule 
and determined that compliance with the final rule is technologically feasible for all affected industries. 
The revisions to OSHA’s HCS will 
require manufacturers and importers to reclassify aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases in accordance with the new classification criteria and make corresponding revisions to SDSs and labels. Compliance with these requirements will mainly involve revisions to the presentation of information and is not expected to involve any technological obstacles. 
On the question of the technological 
feasibility of compliance with the proposed provisions for reclassification criteria and the subsequent revisions to SDSs and labels, ILMA expressed concern about ‘‘whether software will even be capable of adopting the proposed rule changes. Currently, the technology aims to make it easy to select applicable fields for inclusion in the final SDS, but under the proposed rule, the software would likely need narrative fields for explanation, something that is not included in the widely-used authoring programs’’ (Document ID 0460, Att. 1, p. 5). The agency believes ILMA’s membership misunderstands the extent of what was intended by the addition of clarifying language in paragraph (d), as discussed elsewhere. Many commenters indicated a belief that the information required on the SDS would be much more extensive and comprehensive than OSHA intends. Because these revisions will not in fact require a fundamental change to how SDSs and labels are prepared, the agency does not believe that the available software is incapable of generating compliant SDSs and labels. Additionally, even if ILMA’s understanding of the impact of these revisions was correct, sample product data sheets and SDSs submitted into the record by NABTU (see, for example, Document ID 0450, Atts. 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7) indicate that narrative text is routinely provided in succinct form for sections on hazard identification and safety warning, and thus there should be existing software capable of including 
narrative content, contrary to ILMA’s statement. Further, as an industry partner with a large number of chemical producers, importers, and distributors, ILMA seemingly would have access to a wide range of SDSs for chemicals handled by ILMA members and would therefore encounter multiple examples of the use of narrative fields in SDS 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444197 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
26OSHA annualized costs for this final rule over 
a 10-year period in accordance with E.O. 13563, 
which directs agencies ‘‘to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.’’ In addition, OMB Circular A–4 states that regulatory analysis should include all future costs and benefits using a ‘‘rule of reason’’ to consider for how long it can reasonably predict the future and limit its analysis to this time period. The 10-year annualization period is the one OSHA has traditionally used in rulemakings. Note, however, that OSHA used a 20-year annualization period for the 2012 HCS final rule (77 FR 17625), but that was because of the 5-year phase-in of some provisions. This HCS final rule does not have any phase-in provisions longer than 42 months, supporting OSHA’s decision to use a 10-year annualization period for this FEA. ). production. Regardless, even if some 
programs do not currently have this feature, a requirement is not technologically infeasible simply because existing software programs are not tailored to that requirement. See Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1272. ILMA has not demonstrated that technological barriers prevent the development of compliant software or otherwise hinder compliance with the revised requirements for reclassification criteria on SDSs. 
The revised requirements for the 
labeling of very small containers, which would eliminate full labeling requirements for some containers with a volume capacity of three ml or less, are expected to address current feasibility issues related to labeling these containers. When a label would interfere with the normal use of the container, and it is not feasible to use pullout labels, fold-back labels, or tags containing full label information, the rule will permit the container to bear only the product identifier, which could be etched onto the container itself. Similarly, the revised released-for- shipment provisions will alleviate employer concerns regarding the practicability of breaking down pallets of sealed, shrink-wrapped packaged containers to replace labels when new hazards are identified. 
OSHA requested public comment on 
any employer concerns about technological feasibility associated with the provisions for labeling very small containers or addressing the relabeling of containers that have been released for shipment. No commenter challenged the feasibility of the revised provisions. For comments affirming the benefits of adopting this new labeling flexibility, see the section on paragraph (f) in Section XIV, Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule. 
OSHA has determined that 
compliance with all of the requirements of the final rule can be achieved with widely available technologies. No new technologies are required for compliance with the modifications to the HCS. Therefore, OSHA finds that there are no technological constraints associated with compliance with any of the provisions in this final rule. 
F. Compliance Costs and Cost Savings I. Introduction 
This section presents OSHA’s 
estimates of the costs and cost savings 
expected to result from the revisions to the HCS. The estimated costs and cost savings are based on employers achieving full compliance with the new requirements of the rule. They do not include prior costs and cost savings associated with firms whose current practices are already in compliance with the revised requirements (where prior compliance is possible). 
The estimated costs and cost savings 
resulting from the revisions to the HCS consist of five main categories: (1) the cost of revising SDSs and labels for select hazardous chemicals to reflect chemical reclassifications (per changes to Appendix B) and to conform to 
language criteria in precautionary 
statements and other mandatory language (per changes to Appendices C and D); (2) the cost of management familiarization and other management- related costs (associated with all of the revisions to the standard); (3) the cost of training employees as necessitated by the revisions to the HCS (see paragraph (h)(1)); (4) the cost savings due to the new released-for-shipment provision (revisions to paragraph (f)(11)); and (5) the cost savings from limiting labeling requirements for certain very small containers (paragraph (f)(12)). The first three categories are considered to be one-time costs and the last two categories are cost savings that will accrue to employers annually. Although OSHA in the PEA preliminarily determined that these were the only elements of the revisions to the HCS that were expected to result in more than de minimis costs or cost savings, 
the agency requested comments on whether any other changes to the standard could cause employers to incur costs or obtain cost savings. 
The discussion following this 
introduction addresses public comments on OSHA’s preliminary analysis of compliance costs for each of the five main cost categories listed above, as well as a section on costs of the proposed changes regarding trade secrets, which OSHA received several comments about. 
The estimated compliance costs do 
not include any indirect costs or impacts that may result from the reclassification or relabeling of chemicals and products already subject to the HCS, such as possible changes in production or in demand for products. Theoretically, such impacts, if any, with regard to possible changes in the uses and applications of affected chemicals, could result in costs or cost savings. In the PEA, OSHA requested input from stakeholders on such changes but received none. Therefore, no costs or other impacts resulting from significant changes in the use or application of affected chemicals are assessed in this FEA. This is consistent with the determination OSHA made with regard to reclassification costs for the 2012 final rule (77 FR 17625). 
This FEA presents compliance costs 
and cost savings on a consistent and comparable basis across various regulatory activities and expresses all costs in annualized terms in the final summation. Annualized costs and cost savings represent the most appropriate measure for assessing the longer-term potential impacts of this rulemaking and for purposes of comparing net costs across diverse regulations with a consistent metric. In addition, annualized net costs are often used for accounting purposes to assess the cumulative net costs of regulations on the economy or specific parts of the economy across different regulatory programs or across years. 
As presented in this FEA (unless 
otherwise specified), a seven-percent discount rate was applied to costs and cost savings arising in future years to calculate the present value of these costs and cost savings for the base year in which the standard becomes effective, and the same discount rate was then applied to the total present value costs, over a 10-year period, to calculate the annualized cost.
26The economic effects 
using a three-percent discount rate are also provided in the Excel spreadsheets that support this FEA, which can be found in the docket (Document ID 0481). 
For the purpose of calculating loaded 
wage rates, OSHA did not include an overhead labor cost in the FEA in support of the 2012 HCS final standard. The Department of Labor (DOL) has since determined that it is appropriate, in some circumstances, to account for overhead expenses as part of the methodology used to estimate the costs and economic impacts of OSHA 
regulations. For this FEA, in addition to 
applying fringe benefits to hourly (‘‘base’’) wages, OSHA also applied an overhead rate when estimating the marginal cost of labor in its primary cost calculation. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444198 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
27This methodology was modeled after an 
approach used by the EPA. More information on 
this approach can be found at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program, June 10, 2002 (Document ID 0046). This analysis itself was based on a survey of several large chemical manufacturing plants: Heiden Associates, Final Report: A Study of Industry Compliance Costs under the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, Prepared for the Chemical Manufacturers Association, December 14, 1989 (Document ID 0048). 
28In March 2023, the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
(BLS) reported: ‘‘Total employer compensation costs for civilian workers averaged $42.48 per hour 
worked in December 2022 . . . Wages and salaries cost employers $29.32 while benefits cost $13.17. . .’’ The fringe markup of 31 percent of total compensation ($13.17/$42.48) is equivalent to a benefits markup of 45.0 percent (technically 0.449, or 0.45 after rounding) in relation to the base wage ($13.17/$29.32). (BLS, 2022b, Document ID 0471). Overhead costs are indirect expenses 
that cannot be tied to producing a 
specific product or service. Common examples include rent, utilities, and office equipment; however, there is no general consensus on the cost elements that fit the definition of overhead in the context of occupational safety and health. The lack of a common definition has led to a wide range of overhead estimates. Consequently, the treatment of overhead costs needs to be case- specific. For this FEA, OSHA has adopted an overhead rate of 17 percent of base wages, which is consistent with the overhead rate and methodology used for, among others: (1) sensitivity analyses in the FEA in support of the 2017 final rule delaying the deadline for submission of OSHA Form 300A data (82 FR 55761, 55765); and (2) the FEA 
in support of OSHA’s 2016 final 
standard on Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica (81 FR 
16285, 16488–16492).
27 
To calculate the total labor cost for an 
occupational category, OSHA added 
together three components: base wage + fringe benefits (45 percent of the base wage)
28+ applicable overhead costs (17 percent of the base wage). For example, 
the median hourly wage of an Occupational Health and Safety Specialist is $37.77. Applying a fringe markup of 45 percent (applied to the base wage) and an overhead rate of 17 percent (applied to the base wage) yields a fully-loaded hourly wage of $61.18 ($37.77 × .450 = $17.00; $37.77 
× 0.17 = $6.42; $37.77 + $17.00 + $6.42 
= $61.18 (unrounded)). Using this methodology, OSHA calculated the fully-loaded labor cost for four occupational categories: (1) Manager, Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 11–0000, $83.62; (2) Logistics Personnel, SOC code 13–1081, $60.37; (3) Production Worker, SOC code 51–0000, $31.09; and (4) Occupational Health and Safety Specialist, SOC code 19–5011, $61.18. (For further details, see Document ID 0481, tab ‘‘Wages’’.) 
Table VI–12 shows the estimated 
annualized compliance costs and cost savings by cost category and by industry sector. All costs and cost savings are reported in 2022 dollars. As shown in Table VI–12, the total annualized net cost savings of compliance with the final rule is estimated to be $29.8 million—consisting of about $5.1 million of annualized costs and $35.0 million of annual cost savings. Note that where tables in this FEA report estimated annualized costs, as in Table VI–12, cost savings appear as a negative number. 
As shown by the three-digit NAICS 
Subsectors 325 (for Chemical Manufacturing) and 424 (for Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods) in 
Table VI–12, most of the estimated 
compliance costs and cost savings associated with the final rule will be incurred or realized by the chemical manufacturing industry and its distributors. However, the table also shows that familiarization costs will be spread across most manufacturing and wholesale industries in the U.S. economy subject to OSHA’s jurisdiction, reflecting the fact that employee exposures to hazardous chemicals occur in many industry sectors. 
For purposes of annualizing costs for 
this FEA, OSHA estimated that all compliance costs will be incurred in the first year. This simplifying methodological assumption may upwardly bias the compliance costs for chemical reclassification, revised precautionary statements, management familiarization, and training, insofar as the final rule schedules compliance dates in phases of 18 months, 24 months, 36 months, and 42 months after the effective date. Nonetheless, despite the simplifying assumption of an immediate implementation of all provisions in the final rule, OSHA believes that its final determination of economic feasibility and regulatory flexibility certification is supported by the rulemaking evidence. 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444199 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.170</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444200 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.171</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444201 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.172</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444202 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.173</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444203 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
29The final standard requires that the revisions 
become effective 60 days after publication 
(paragraph (j)(1)); chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors evaluating substances comply with all modified provisions within eighteen months after the effective date (paragraph (j)(2)(i)); employers updating alternative labeling, hazard communication programs, and training for substances comply with all modified provisions within two years after the effective date (paragraph (j)(2)(ii)); chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors evaluating mixtures comply with all modified provisions within three years after the effective date (paragraph (j)(3)(i)); and employers updating alternative labeling, hazard communication programs, and training for mixtures comply with all modified provisions within three and a half years (paragraph (j)(3)(ii)). II. Estimation of Compliance Costs and 
Cost Savings 
The remainder of this section explains 
how OSHA calculated the estimated compliance costs and cost savings arising from the final rule by describing the data and methodology used and addresses relevant comments from stakeholders. 
As explained above, the major 
elements of the revisions to the HCS that involve compliance costs or cost savings are: (1) the cost of revising SDSs and labels for select hazardous chemicals to reflect chemical reclassifications (per changes to Appendix B) and to conform to language criteria in precautionary statements and other mandatory language (per changes to Appendices C and D); (2) the cost of management familiarization and other management-related costs necessary to ensure compliance with the revised standard (associated with all of the revisions to the standard); (3) the cost of training employees as necessitated by the changes to the HCS (see HCS 2012 paragraph (h)(1)); (4) cost savings from the new released-for-shipment provision (revisions to paragraph (f)(11)); and (5) cost savings from limiting labeling requirements for certain very small containers (new paragraph (f)(12)). 
The estimated compliance costs and 
cost savings presented in this analysis of the revisions to the HCS are based partly on analysis conducted in support of the 2012 HCS final rule (77 FR 17605– 17683) and partly on new analysis prepared with the assistance of OSHA’s contractor, ERG. 
The estimated costs of compliance 
with most provisions of the final rule involve wages paid for the labor hours required to fulfill the requirements. In some cases, compliance could be achieved by purchasing services or products in lieu of paying employees directly. The estimated compliance costs are intended to capture the resources required for compliance regardless of how individual establishments may choose to achieve compliance. 
With the exception of the provisions 
addressing precautionary statements and other mandatory language, for this cost analysis OSHA estimated a baseline compliance of zero percent. The agency’s estimate of baseline compliance for the revisions in Appendices C and D addressing precautionary statements and other mandatory language are discussed below in the section titled Revisions to SDSs and Labels Due to Revised Precautionary Statements. III. Costs Associated With Reclassifications and Revisions to Safety Data Sheets and Labels 
The revisions to the HCS will not 
change the existing requirement for firms that sell hazardous chemicals to employers to provide information about the associated hazards. Information must be presented in an SDS in the format specified in the standard, and some information must also be presented on product labels. The final rule will require affected chemical manufacturers to revise SDSs and labels 
for select hazardous chemicals to reflect 
chemical reclassifications (Appendix B) and to conform to language criteria in precautionary statements and other mandatory language (Appendices C and D). 
It is OSHA’s understanding that 
chemical manufacturers and importers periodically review, revise, and update the electronic templates they use to create SDSs and labels. Changes are made, for example, as information regarding specific hazards becomes available, new information about protective measures is ascertained, or revisions are made to product information and marketing materials. Labels and SDSs are also produced and modified when products are first introduced to the market or when products change. Therefore, there is a regular cycle of change for these documents (see the FEA of the 2012 final rule (77 FR 17634–17637) for a discussion of factors that compel employers to update SDSs and labels voluntarily). OSHA received comments 
from the American Cleaning Institute 
(ACI) indicating that a longer compliance window would facilitate companies only needing to make one round of revisions to their labels because if a company knows they already need to make one revision to an SDS or label within a certain window of time they will make all changes at the same time, thereby reducing costs (Document ID 0424, Tr. 53–54). As explained in the paragraph (j) discussion in Section XIV., Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule), OSHA is extending the phase-in period beyond what the agency proposed in the NPRM. 
Also similar to the rule in 2012, 
OSHA anticipates that many firms have implemented or are beginning to implement hazard reclassifications, SDS revisions, software modifications, and other changes associated with this proposed rule, because these provisions are generally anticipated to be adopted as part of the implementation of the GHS in countries and regions around the world and Canada has already 
amended the HPR to align with Rev. 7. Since some other countries are already implementing the GHS, companies in the U.S. that ship to those countries are already having to comply with the GHS 
for products being exported (77 FR 17636). 
The final rule requires limited 
changes to some SDSs and labels. Given 
the phase-in period for the changes to the standard,
29which OSHA has 
extended from what was proposed in 
the NPRM, the agency expects that chemical manufacturers and importers will be able to phase in revisions to their labels and SDSs in accordance with the normal cycle of change, and therefore will not need to replace existing labels or SDSs. 
OSHA has, however, estimated costs 
for the time it will take to update the electronic files that will be used to generate new SDSs and labels in accordance with the revisions to the HCS. OSHA developed cost estimates based on the methodology used in its FEA in support of the 2012 HCS final rule (77 FR 17634–17637). The estimated compliance costs represent the incremental costs that will be incurred to achieve compliance with the final rule. These estimated costs will be in addition to the costs that already need to be incurred to comply with applicable requirements of the 2012 HCS that remain in place and represent the time it will take to identify the changes that need to be made to the relevant computer files (i.e., the files 
that are used to generate SDSs and labels) and then to make those changes. 
Producers of affected chemicals 
already had an obligation under the 2012 HCS, which continues unchanged in this final rule, to ensure that the information provided in their SDSs and labels is accurate and current (paragraphs (f)(2) and (g)(5)). They also are generally required to revise SDSs and labels in accordance with new information regarding hazards that may be associated with their products 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444204 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
30In this section OSHA uses the terms ‘‘SDSs’’ 
and ‘‘SDSs and labels’’ interchangeably because the 
agency’s understanding is that one electronic file is used, from which both SDSs and labels can be generated, and therefore there is not a separate calculation of the number of electronic files for labels. 31Note that OSHA estimated no baseline 
compliance for chemical manufacturers already having revised electronic files to reflect reclassified chemicals as specified in the proposed rule; the current HCS does not allow SDSs or labels to display chemical classifications that are not in conformance with the current rule. (paragraphs (f)(11) and (g)(5)). For every 
affected product that is newly created, reformulated, mixed with new ingredients, modified with new or different types of additives, or has any changes made in the proportions of the ingredients used, chemical manufacturers and importers are required, under the 2012 HCS and this final rule, to review the available hazard information (paragraph (d)(2)), to classify the chemical in accordance with applicable hazard criteria (paragraph (d)(1)), and to develop corresponding SDSs (paragraph (g)) and labels (paragraph (f)). OSHA is not estimating costs for activities already required; rather, the agency is estimating costs for activities that will be newly conducted in conformance with the proposed revisions to chemical reclassifications 
(Appendix B) and language criteria in 
precautionary statements and other mandatory language (Appendices C and 
D). 
IV. Revisions to SDSs and Labels Due to 
Chemical Reclassification 
In the PEA, OSHA identified the 
NAICS industries involved in the manufacture of aerosols, desensitized 
explosives, or flammable gases and affected by the proposed requirements for chemical reclassification. Of course, not all chemicals covered in these NAICS industries are aerosols, desensitized explosives, or flammable gases. In the PEA, OSHA estimated that approximately 50 percent of the SDSs (or more specifically, 50 percent of the electronic templates (files) that are used to produce SDSs and labels)
30in these 
NAICS industries would be affected by the proposed requirements for aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases. 
OSHA in the PEA derived the number 
of directly affected electronic files for SDSs and labels by applying the 50 percent factor to the overall number of affected SDSs (electronic files). For example, in NAICS 211130, the overall number of affected SDSs (technically, the number of electronic files) was 15,810 (Table VI–5 in the PEA). Applying a factor of 50 percent, OSHA estimated the number of SDSs (electronic files) that would be directly affected by the reclassification provision as 7,905. All of the preliminary estimates of directly affected SDSs (electronic files) were similarly derived from Table VI–5 (in the PEA), but only 
those NAICS industries with affected SDSs (electronic files) were reported in the PEA. 
The estimated compliance costs 
associated with the reclassification of hazards and related changes to SDSs and labels are directly related to the number of chemicals for which electronic files will need to be updated in order to prepare updated SDSs and labels. OSHA developed estimates of the number of potentially affected SDSs for each of the industries producing the corresponding chemicals and products (based on estimates of the total number of SDSs (and the supporting electronic files) by industry as shown in Table VI– 5). In the PEA, OSHA expected that downstream users, distributors, and wholesalers would continue to rely on SDSs and labels provided by manufacturers to fulfill their obligations under the OSHA standard and would not incur costs associated with chemical reclassification under the proposed revisions to the HCS. It was OSHA’s understanding that this has been the practice for decades, and no comments in the record challenged that understanding. 
In the PEA, OSHA presented 
preliminary estimates of the amount of time the agency expected it will take to update electronic files for SDSs and labels under the proposed revisions to the standard. OSHA believed that the estimates provided in the PEA were reasonable because they reflected only the incremental time needed to identify affected labels and SDSs (electronic files) and to update electronic files through modification of the templates that are used to prepare labels and SDSs, without allocating costs to any time that would be spent updating files in the absence of any revisions to the HCS. 
OSHA also believed that the 
estimated time to update SDSs and labels (electronic files) used in this analysis represented a reasonable average for most chemicals. In the FEA in support of the 2012 HCS final rule (77 FR 17635–17637), OSHA estimated that a Health and Safety Specialist would spend between three and seven hours per SDS requiring reclassification—with smaller entities, having fewer SDSs, incurring larger 
costs per SDS. The revisions to the HCS in this final rule are significantly more limited in scope than the 2012 final rule, with fewer affected hazard categories and more limited changes; however, they still present opportunities for scale efficiencies in reclassification. As a result, OSHA estimated that a Health and Safety Specialist would spend about 25 
percent as much time to reclassify a chemical as OSHA estimated for the 2012 HCS rule—depending on establishment size, from 0.75 hours to 1.75 hours per SDS (electronic file) requiring reclassification (1.75 hours per SDS for establishments with fewer than 100 employees; 1.25 hours per SDS for establishments with 100–499 employees; and 0.75 hours per SDS for establishments with 500 or more employees).
31At a loaded hourly wage 
(including overhead) of $58.00 for a Health and Safety Specialist, this resulted in unit costs in the PEA of $101.51, $72.51, and $43.50 per SDS for small, medium, and large establishments, respectively. Multiplying these unit costs by the estimated number of affected chemicals (i.e., electronic files) and summing the 
totals yielded an undiscounted one-time estimated cost of $6.4 million for affected employers to comply with this provision. Annualizing this one-time cost using a seven percent discount rate over a ten-year period results in estimated annualized costs of approximately $915,095. OSHA invited public comments on its preliminary projection that 50 percent of the electronic files for SDSs and labels would be affected in these industries and the other preliminary assumptions and unit estimates presented in the PEA and described above. 
OSHA received some comments on its 
general analysis in this section. NACD characterized the updates to SDSs as ‘‘a major undertaking for chemical 
manufacturers and distributors’’ and further noted, ‘‘[t]aking into account not only the actual updates to these documents by vendors or company personnel, but also company staff review time, supply chain communications, and training, NACD members estimate that the cost of updating a single SDS ranges from $400 to nearly $1600’’ (Document ID 0465, p. 2). 
As noted earlier in this FEA, ILMA 
surveyed its members on impacts of the proposed standard. On the question of the incremental costs of updating SDSs, ILMA submitted the following summary of survey responses. They noted that, of 16 respondents, 12 indicated they authored 400 or more SDSs (one company reported between 7,000 and 8,000), and that they estimated the cost 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444205 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
of updating each SDS as $400–600. 
They also stated that ‘‘Some respondents to the survey noted that, while updates to labels and SDS occur on a regular basis, these updates usually involve editorial changes made to incorporate information such as name changes. Therefore . . . the $400–$600 cost estimate to review each and every 
SDS needs to be included as incremental costs, as those costs would not be part of the companies’ ‘routine’ compliance costs’’ (Document ID 0444, Att. 1, pp. 1–2). 
In their comments, the North 
American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) described the contractual arrangements and operational practices typically conducted by their members when there arises the need for updating SDSs and labels. In particular, they noted that every time a change is made to a label, the manufacturer must redesign the entire label to make sure it all fits on the packaging, which is expensive, and some label printers still use printing plates which need to be replaced. They also noted that they spent time reviewing materials received from contractors and getting labels translated into other languages, and that there were often costly delays in receiving packaging materials. They argued that OSHA needed to account for these costs (Document ID 0461, pp. 3–4). Several commenters discussed costs of labels specifically. The American Coatings Association (ACA) testified that member employers would incur substantial additional expense to update labels if the proposed revisions were published as the final rule and stated that members had indicated costs between $300,000 and $800,000 to update their labels alone. They also noted that disposal of existing labels can be two to three percent of labeling costs and that small businesses cannot absorb these costs as operating expenses (Document ID 0425, Tr. 109–110). Similarly, Ameren stated ‘‘Ameren would incur an additional cost for having to re-print and replace current labels based on the new OSHA changes. The cost is estimated at $5 [m]illion and would take over two years to complete’’ (Document ID 0309, p. 5). OSHA notes that ACA and Ameren did not provide details underlying their estimates so the magnitude and severity of the cost increase cannot be evaluated by OSHA without further information on baseline costs and company revenue that factor into these estimates. Moreover, the final standard does not include the proposed requirement that a released-for-shipment date appear on the label, which will lower the labeling costs for manufacturers, importers, and 
distributors compared to what they anticipated at the time comments were submitted. 
The Sporting Arms and Ammunition 
Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) voiced concerns similar to those of ACA with regard to labeling costs and noted the costs of new printing plates and disposal of existing labels, particularly for manufacturers who may have as many as 4,000 products that need to go through this process (Document ID 
0423, Att. 1, Tr. 84). Hach also noted 
skepticism regarding the idea that these costs could be absorbed under the normal costs of business, partly due to the limited space on their labels (Document ID 0425, Tr. 102). Hach further commented on the costs of the proposed rule by providing information on its cost data for SDS templates provided by a software service vendor. They provided data on two different vendors, one of which cost $230,000 to purchase, $120,000 in annual maintenance costs for global regulatory updates and another $1,100 for annual maintenance specific to SDSs for the United States. The other vendor cost $60,215 for the initial implementation of the templates and $100,825 for an annual license (Document ID 0427, p. 2). 
OSHA does not agree with these 
commenters’ arguments that the preliminary cost analysis did not account for the costs for new or updated printing plates, the disposal of existing labels, and other operational changes associated with the proposed revisions to the reclassification requirements in HCS. As noted earlier, OSHA’s understanding is that in many cases responsible parties would have needed to update their SDSs and labels within the extended compliance time frame even if there were no updates to the HCS, and therefore some of these costs (such as label disposal and new printing plates) would already be incurred. The 
agency expects that responsible parties 
will fold the HCS updates into those 
standard updating cycles so that they 
only need to incur these costs once and 
this means the HCS updates are not 
creating those costs. Therefore, OSHA is not persuaded that the compliance burden described by the stakeholders discussed above will exceed the customary and usual business practices or the business practices expected during the implementation timeline prescribed in final paragraph (j) for chemical employers affected by the final rule and is thus not taking additional costs for those issues. OSHA is, 
however, adjusting the time it expects it to take responsible parties to update the electronic SDS and label files, partly 
based on the content of these comments (see discussion below). 
OSHA also received several 
comments expressing concerns 
regarding the economic costs of the proposed language in paragraph (d)(1). The United States Beet Sugar Association, the National Grain and Feed Association, the North American Millers Association, Corn Refiners Association, the National Oilseed Processors Association, and the United States Chamber of Commerce (USBSA et 
al.) stated that the proposed language in 
(d)(1) would ‘‘greatly increase the cost of chemical classification’’ (Document ID 0325, p. 9). The American Chemistry Council (ACC) surveyed their membership to identify and characterize current practices on communicating hazards within their industry. Based on that information, ACC stated that OSHA had failed to account for hazard classification costs associated with the proposed revisions to paragraph (d)(1), including the large number of SDSs that would need to be changed, the amount of time required to produce the SDSs, and the software costs associated with needing new or updated technology to comply. They argued that this could cost manufacturers and importers millions of dollars (Document ID 0468, pp. 3–5). The ACC survey results included statements from their membership with estimates about the time and costs associated with the proposed paragraph (d)(1), including an estimate that it would take about 16 hours to update each SDS and about 50 percent of products would require communication with customers to ascertain downstream uses, which would result in an additional 17,500– 70,000 hours of work. Concern was also expressed that this would cover as many as 5,000–7,000 products that were not previously within the scope of the HCS (Document ID 0468, p. 10). 
The NAIMA expressed concerns 
about the proposed implementation schedule and the costs of compliance moving forward under the proposed language in paragraph (d)(1). Specifically, they noted ‘‘it appears that every newly discovered hazard of the substance identified by a chemical manufacturer’s ongoing investigation of downstream hazards would trigger the three- and six-month updating provisions of the HCS for SDSs and labels, which could lead to a continuous series of reclassifications triggering those updating requirements’’ and argued that ‘‘[e]ach SDS revision cascading down would incur costs 
which do not seem to have been adequately accounted in OSHA’s cost- 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444206 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
32Note that OSHA estimated no baseline 
compliance for chemical manufacturers already 
having revised electronic files to reflect reclassified chemicals as specified in the final rule; the current HCS does not allow SDSs or labels to display chemical classifications that are not in conformance with the current rule. benefit analysis’’ (Document ID 0461, p. 
2). 
The American Composite 
Manufacturers Association (ACMA) stated that the proposed changes to paragraph (d)(1) would result in upstream chemical suppliers needing to perform a hazard analysis similar to what is required under OSHA’s Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (PSM) standard and that ‘‘[t]he [process hazard analyses (PHAs)] that would be required by OSHA’s proposed change to 1910.1200(d)(1) would extend to every hazardous chemical in the U.S. and would cover every use of a flammable liquid or gas as a fuel.’’ They also noted that ‘‘[a]ccording to EPA, the TSCA chemical inventory contains 86,557 chemicals of which 41,864 are active. Any reasonably chosen ratio of the number of active hazardous chemicals in the EPA inventory to the 110 HHCs covered by the PSM standard suggests the costs of compliance with OSHA’s proposed change to 1910.1200(d)(1) would be enormous’’ (Document ID 0318, p. 8). OSHA notes that ACMA also asserted in their comment that the proposed language in paragraph (d)(1) is economically infeasible but did not provide financial data to corroborate the assertion. As explained in Section G of this FEA, OSHA has determined based on the record evidence that the requirements of this final rule are economically feasible. 
The Plastics Industry Association 
(PLASTICS) also likened the proposed language in paragraph (d)(1) to PHAs and discussed the associated burden of collecting the process safety information for ‘‘nearly one million hazardous chemical products . . . previously estimated . . . to be in U.S. workplaces’’ as well as the need to determine foreseeable emergencies, ‘‘some of which may produce new chemicals’’ (Document ID 0314, Att. 1, p. 12) (footnote omitted). They indicated that such a requirement would require upstream suppliers to hire personnel to collect the necessary information as well. They argued that OSHA needed to incorporate the costs of this provision and stated that OSHA had not done so (Document ID 0314, Att. 1, pp. 10–12). They stated that ‘‘[f]or a chemical with broad applications, classifying it to include all of the classified hazards of every downstream reaction, and then creating an SDS to cover all of these issues would be a monumental, infeasible and counterproductive task.’’ (Document ID 0467, p. 21). ACC’s survey of its members also discussed the 
role of PHAs in company operations and the rigorous procedures necessary to develop and communicate such 
analyses (Document ID 0468, pp. 6–7). 
In the Summary and Explanation for 
paragraph (d), OSHA responds to the concerns voiced by stakeholders about the scope of paragraph (d) and the comparisons to PHAs. In its response, OSHA states that it did not intend for an upstream supplier or manufacturer to identify and classify every single hazard associated with the downstream use of 
chemicals, only those where the 
manufacturer knows or can reasonably anticipate the chemical’s uses. OSHA has changed the language in paragraph (d)(1) from the proposed language in the NPRM to clarify this scope and concludes that many of the comments discussing the economic ramifications of this proposed language were based on this misunderstanding of what OSHA intended SDS and label preparers to do. 
In response to the comments on 
OSHA’s preliminary unit cost estimates for chemical reclassification on SDSs and labels in relation to paragraph (d)(1), the agency has reviewed the preliminary number of affected SDSs and labels and the preliminary time estimates for updating and expanding the use of SDSs and labels. 
As noted earlier, OSHA in the PEA 
derived the number of directly affected electronic files for SDSs and labels by applying the 50 percent factor to the overall number of affected SDSs (electronic files) from Table VI–5. None of the public criticisms quoted above specifically referenced the 50 percent factor. Many of the commenters indicated that they believed the HCS updates to paragraph (d)(1) would impact many more SDSs than OSHA accounted for in its PEA but, as OSHA states in the Summary and Explanation for paragraph (d), this requirement already existed under the 2012 HCS and the language in paragraph (d) is merely a clarification of the existing requirements. Because many commenters misinterpreted the scope of what OSHA was proposing, the agency 
does not believe these comments are representative of the number of SDSs that will need to be updated and the agency does not take costs associated with clarifications that do not change the underlying requirements of the standard. Therefore, for this FEA OSHA has maintained the percentage factor of 
affected SDSs and labels estimated in 
the PEA at 50 percent and the industries 
it expects will be impacted by 
reclassification requirements. 
As discussed earlier in this section, 
OSHA presented in the PEA estimates of 
the amount of time it will take to update 
electronic files for SDSs and labels 
under the proposed revisions to the standard. OSHA’s estimates in the PEA 
reflected the agency’s initial assessment of the incremental time needed to identify affected labels and SDSs (electronic files) and to update electronic files through modification of the templates that are used to prepare labels and SDSs, without allocating costs to any time that would be spent updating files in the absence of any revisions to the HCS. 
In the FEA in support of the 2012 
HCS final rule (77 FR 17635–17637), OSHA estimated that a Health and Safety Specialist would spend between three and seven hours per SDS requiring reclassification—with smaller entities, having fewer SDSs, incurring larger costs per SDS. The revisions to the HCS in this final rulemaking are significantly more limited in scope than the 2012 final rule, with fewer affected hazard categories and more limited changes; nonetheless, based on public comments, OSHA recognizes that affected employers may face adjustments to their schedule for updating SDSs and labels due to chemical reclassification. OSHA also recognizes based on comments that it may have underestimated in the 2012 HCS FEA and the 2021 PEA the time and costs associated with identifying hazards from downstream uses. While those costs have already been incurred for all existing products because this is an existing requirement, OSHA recognizes that for the products undergoing reclassification (aerosols, flammable gases, and desensitized explosives), these costs will be incurred again and is therefore adjusting upwards its time estimates. As a result, OSHA in this FEA estimates that a Health and Safety Specialist would spend about 30 percent (increased from 25 percent in the PEA) as much time to reclassify a chemical as OSHA estimated for the 2012 HCS rule—depending on establishment size, from 0.90 hours to 
2.10 hours per SDS (electronic file) requiring reclassification (2.10 hours per SDS for establishments with fewer than 100 employees; 1.50 hours per SDS for establishments with 100–499 employees; and 0.90 hours per SDS for establishments with 500 or more employees).
32At a loaded hourly wage 
(including overhead) of $61.18 for a Health and Safety Specialist, this would result in unit costs of $128.48, $91.77, and $55.06 per SDS for small, medium, and large establishments, respectively. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444207 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
Multiplying these unit costs by the 
estimated number of affected chemicals (i.e., electronic files) and summing the 
totals yields an undiscounted one-time estimated cost of $8.2 million for affected employers to comply with this provision. Annualizing this one-time cost using a 7 percent discount rate over a 10-year period results in estimated annualized costs of approximately $1,168,932 for reclassification in accordance with the criteria specified in the revisions to the HCS. 
OSHA does not agree, however, with 
commenters who argued that the proposed language in paragraph (d)(1) would create burdens that are cost prohibitive. First, as discussed, the requirement to classify based on downstream hazards already existed and OSHA is simply clarifying that requirement by adding this language to paragraph (d)(1). Additionally, OSHA received comments and testimony from 
several entities regarding existing SDSs that include information about downstream hazards and companies that maintain product stewardship programs to address these issues. 
NABTU cited field observation of companies who routinely include on SDSs and labels information on reasonably anticipated downstream use of products: ‘‘[i]t is . . . worth noting that there are companies producing building materials that are responsibly anticipating the downstream uses of their products and creating product stewardship programs aimed at improving recognition and control of hazards during the life cycle of their products. Where it is reasonable to assume that manufacturers can anticipate their products’ ‘normal conditions of use,’ it is equally reasonable—and critically important— to require those manufacturers to include the attendant chemical reaction hazard information on their SDSs and labels, and to do so in a consistent manner’’ (Document ID 0464, p. 5). 
NIOSH stated that they are aware of 
more manufacturers developing this 
type of product stewardship to inform downstream users (Document ID 0423, Tr. 39; 0456, Att. 2, p. 2). ACC also submitted information on several 
product stewardship programs their organization undertakes to inform downstream users of potential hazards that may result upon use of their chemicals (Document ID 0468, p. 5). ACC product stewardship resources 
include technical and regulatory data sheets, literature, product handling guidelines, site visits, and special instructions for safe handling of materials of more concern (Document ID 0468, p. 5). 
These comments highlight the 
significant and ongoing stewardship initiatives among chemical producers, importers, and distributors and substantiate OSHA’s preliminary judgment of the economic feasibility of the revised HCS standard. Therefore, in OSHA’s view, the modest adjustment to the preliminary unit cost estimate in this FEA reflects, in approximate terms, current industry practices in the reclassification of chemical hazards on SDSs and labels. 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444208 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.174</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444209 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.175</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444210 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.176</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444211 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
33See discussion in the preamble to the 2012 HCS 
final rule (77 FR 17634). 34By comparison, the 2012 rule changes included 
completely revised SDS formats, the addition of 
pictograms, and various other revisions for specific SDS sections and chemical designations. Note that there are no estimated new software costs associated with the proposed revisions to the standard, as there were for the 2012 final rule, because OSHA expects that the necessary software is already in place in those larger firms for which the software is economically justified. 
35As noted above, because the current HCS does 
not allow SDSs or labels to display chemical classifications that are not in conformance with the current rule, OSHA estimated no baseline compliance for chemical manufacturers already having revised electronic files to reflect reclassified chemicals as specified in the proposed rule. With respect to the mandatory language proposed in Appendices C and D, however, SDSs and labels could present standards stricter than seen under previous GHS revisions (for example, if mandatory language is adopted internationally by consensus) and still remain in conformance with the current HCS standard. Therefore, baseline compliance can be non-zero for industry practices involving use of precautionary statements and other mandatory language. 
36That is, mathematically, (1—the relevant 
baseline compliance rate). Estimated non- compliance rates are shown in Column 6 of Table VI–14 by employment size for each affected NAICS industry. BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 
V. Revisions to SDSs and Labels Due to 
Revised Precautionary Statements, etc. 
The revisions to the HCS require 
establishments to revise their electronic templates for SDSs and labels to conform to formatting and language criteria in precautionary statements and other mandatory language specified in Appendices C and D. Under the changes to the standard, affected establishments must update labels and SDSs for select hazardous chemicals to include updated signal word(s), hazard statement(s), pictogram(s), and precautionary statement(s) for each hazard class and associated hazard category (see paragraphs (f) and (g)). The modification of SDSs and labels under the revisions in Appendices C and D involves conforming to formatting and language standards, but does not require any testing, studies, or research. As previously stated, OSHA believes that chemical manufacturers and importers generally review, revise, and update their electronic templates for SDSs and labels periodically, such that there is a regular cycle of change for these documents.
33The changes to the 
appendices require only limited changes to the electronic content of SDSs and labels, and, as explained previously and in the PEA, OSHA expects that the phase-in period for the changes to the standard will allow chemical manufacturers and importers to take advantage of the normal cycle of change to phase in the revisions to their labels and SDSs, and therefore that it will not be necessary to replace existing labels or SDSs. OSHA also believes that the extended phase-in period will accommodate the need for the purchase of software packages or renewal of licenses for SDSs and labels, impacts noted by ILMA at the public hearings (Document ID 0404, Att. 1, p. 2). 
The estimated compliance costs for 
revising electronic templates for SDSs and labels to conform to formatting and language criteria in precautionary statements and other mandatory language specified in the revisions to Appendices C and D represent the 
incremental costs that will be incurred 
to achieve compliance with the final 
changes to the appendices. In the PEA, 
OSHA estimated that the time needed to 
revise electronic templates for labels 
and SDSs to comply with the proposed revisions to Appendices C and D would vary by establishment size and would be 
equal to 10 percent of the unit time 
(from three to seven hours per SDS (electronic template)) estimated in the 
2012 FEA (77 FR 17635–17637), as the changes the proposed revisions would require are relatively minor in comparison to the types of changes costed in 2012.
34OSHA estimated that 
Health and Safety Specialists would spend 0.7 hours per SDS (electronic template) in small establishments with fewer than 100 employees; 0.5 hours per SDS in medium establishments with 100 to 499 employees; and 0.3 hours per SDS in large establishments with 500 or more employees to comply with the proposed mandatory changes to Appendices C and D. 
As in the FEA for the 2012 HCS final 
rule, OSHA anticipates that some manufacturers, particularly larger ones heavily involved in international trade, are more likely because of their size to have created SDSs and labels that need to be GHS-compliant and therefore are likely to have already adopted the mandatory language proposed in Appendices C and D. For the affected NAICS industries, OSHA estimates baseline compliance rates of 75 percent for establishments with 500 or more employees, 25 percent for establishments with 100 to 499 employees, 5 percent for establishments with 20 to 99 employees, and 1 percent for establishments with fewer than 20 employees.
35These baseline 
compliance rates are the same ones OSHA used in the 2012 FEA (77 FR 17636). 
Multiplying the number of affected 
SDSs (electronic files) by the unit cost of Health and Safety Specialists, and accounting for the relevant non- compliance rates,
36results in an estimated total one-time cost of $18.9 
million associated with revising SDSs and labels to conform to the proposed appendix language on precautionary statements and other mandatory language. Annualizing this one-time cost using a seven percent discount rate over a 10-year period results in estimated annualized costs of approximately $2.7 million for affected employers to revise SDSs and labels to comply with the proposed revisions to Appendices C and D. 
OSHA requested comments on the 
preliminary unit cost estimates and other underlying assumptions for the preliminary cost analysis of revisions to the mandatory appendices. There were no comments specifically addressing the unit cost estimates and other methodological assumptions underlying OSHA’s preliminary cost estimate. 
Earlier in this FEA, OSHA responds to 
the comments voiced by commenters about label costs specifically. To the extent that new precautionary statements are needed on labels due to reclassification, OSHA believes it has incorporated those costs into its upward adjustment of the costs of reclassification and will not double count those costs by also increasing its estimate of costs for updating precautionary statements and other 
mandatory language. Thus, for this final analysis of the incremental compliance costs associated with the mandatory appendices, OSHA applied the unit labor time and baseline compliance assumptions from the PEA, and, combined with fully-loaded 2022 wage rates, generated final cost estimates, by NAICS category. As noted earlier, these estimated costs are in addition to the costs that are already incurred to comply with applicable requirements of the existing HCS. 
NACD questioned OSHA’s 
preliminary time allocation to the employer class sizes (small, medium and large companies) in the estimation of costs. NACD cited an estimate for a member company that has ‘‘10,000 SDSs to review to meet the new standard and 4,000 to update. Even at OSHA’s .7 hours per SDS, that is 16 months of dedicated work’’ (Document ID 0329, p. 11). Additionally, they stated that ‘‘OSHA’s estimates are only somewhat realistic if a company has in-house SDS authoring software and has maintained formulas and data used in classification. If updated formulas or other data need to be obtained . . . these documents will take significantly longer to update.’’ Alternatively, they noted that if 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444212 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
companies use a vendor, they will likely 
be charged between $400 and $800 for the production of an SDS and label for a single product (Document ID 0329, p. 11). 
To the extent that NACD is concerned 
that some chemical distributors may need additional time to comply, either with additional in-house staff or with contractors, OSHA has updated the final rule to provide for eighteen to thirty-six months (depending on the nature of the chemical compound) following publication of the rule for chemical distributors to implement compliance with all modified provisions. To the extent that NACD is arguing that OSHA has underestimated the in-house labor 
costs for updating SDSs and labels, they have only argued that OSHA has possibly underestimated for a subset of companies and has not provided data on how OSHA could differentiate which companies this would be true for or how significant they think OSHA’s underestimates are, so OSHA is unable to evaluate this claim. And finally, to 
the extent that NACD is arguing that the vendor prices will result in higher costs than the agency estimates, as OSHA has previously stated it believes that updates are going to be folded into the normal cycle of updates for which companies would also use these contractors so the full cost of a contractor producing an SDS or label is not attributable to the HCS updates as NACD suggests. 
Table VI–14 shows the estimated 
costs associated with modifications to electronic templates for SDSs and labels to conform to formatting and language criteria in precautionary statements and other mandatory language specified in 
the revisions to Appendices C and D by NAICS industry and establishment size. The NAICS industries listed in Columns 1 and 2 of Table VI–14 are those that OSHA expects will need to update SDSs and labels under the revisions to Appendices C and D. The industries included are the ones OSHA identified as incurring costs for SDSs in the FEA 
in support of OSHA’s 2012 HCS final rule (77 FR 17644–17650). The estimated costs associated with the revisions to the appendices are directly related to the number of SDSs (or, in other words, the number of electronic templates) affected. These numbers were previously derived and presented in Tables VI–5, VI–6, and VI–7. 
The estimates of total costs in Table 
VI–14 are included within a broader cost category shown earlier in the aggregate costs presented in Table VI– 12. Column 5 of Table VI–12 displays, by NAICS code, the combined annualized cost estimates for reclassifying chemicals (from Table VI– 13) and revising SDSs and labels to be consistent with the precautionary statements and other language specified in the revisions to the mandatory appendices (from Table VI–14). 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444213 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.177</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444214 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.178</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444215 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.179</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444216 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.180</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444217 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.181</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444218 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.182</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444219 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.183</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444220 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.184</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444221 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.185</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444222 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
37Larger employers were estimated to have 
greater familiarization costs for the 2012 HCS final 
rule because they have more managers. 
38Wholesalers in NAICS 424910 and NAICS 
424950 are not expected to incur costs for revising SDSs/labels or for training employees, but OSHA expects that they will be affected by the provisions of the proposed rule that are anticipated to result in cost savings. 39Note that the numbers of small, medium, and 
large establishments reported above are derived in the ‘‘Rule Fam’’ tab of the OSHA spreadsheets in support of this proposed rule (see Document ID 0049). VI. Management Familiarization and 
Other Management-Related Costs 
In order to implement the new 
requirements in the HCS or determine whether they need to implement any of the revisions to the standard, all employers currently covered by the standard will need to become familiar with the updates OSHA is making in this final rule. The nature and extent of the familiarization required will vary depending on the employer’s business. 
In the 2012 HCS final rule (77 FR 
17637–17638), OSHA estimated that eight hours of time per manager, or an equivalent cost, would be associated with the necessary familiarization and implementation of revisions to hazard communication programs in affected establishments in the manufacturing sector.
37This final rule requires some 
changes to hazard communication programs in affected establishments, but those changes are significantly less extensive than those required by the 2012 rule. Therefore, OSHA believes that much less time will be needed for familiarization and implementation under this rule than was necessary under the 2012 rule. 
For the present rule, OSHA in the 
PEA estimated that management familiarization time would vary by establishment size and would also vary depending on whether an establishment would simply be familiarizing itself with the revised standard or would also need to take further action because it would be affected by one or more of the revisions to the standard. Above in Section VI.C, Profile of Affected Industries, Establishments, and Employees, Table VI–10 presents, by NAICS industry, the percentage of establishments (and for training, 
entities) expected to be affected by rule familiarization and whether those establishments or entities will incur additional costs or no additional costs— that is, whether those establishments or entities will incur additional costs for revising SDSs/labels or for training employees as a result of the final rule.
38 
In terms of manufacturing establishments that would have costs in addition to management familiarization costs, OSHA in the PEA estimated that there are 38,018 small establishments (those with fewer than 20 employees), 11,273 medium establishments (those with 20 to 499 employees), and 394 large establishments (those with 500 or more employees). In terms of establishments that would not have costs other than management familiarization costs, OSHA estimated in the PEA that there are 79,500 small establishments, 22,657 medium establishments, and 467 large establishments; their only costs associated with this final standard would be as a result of rule familiarization.
39 
To estimate unit costs, OSHA in the 
PEA first considered establishments that would incur costs, in addition to rule familiarization costs, because of the proposed rule. As noted earlier, for the 2012 FEA OSHA applied a Manager hourly wage to estimate familiarization costs (Document ID 0005, Section VI, pp. 17612–17613, 17623; Document ID 0029). For the PEA, because the new requirements are significantly less extensive than those in the 2012 rule, OSHA expected that the employer will delegate to a Health and Safety Specialist the responsibility for management familiarization of the new requirements found within this proposed standard. OSHA invited public comment on the agency’s preliminary assumptions for estimating the cost of management familiarization. As discussed above in the section on the revised hazard classification provisions, commenters tended to focus on the overall effect of the proposed standard on labor efforts required to update SDS software and labels. For example, in response to a request for comment on costs for management familiarization in relation to the proposed rule, Ameren stated that it did not agree with OSHA’s assumptions on the cost of management familiarization but based that statement on the time required to train all of the employees, which is a separate cost that OSHA accounts for (Document ID 0309, p. 8). 
CISC, however, disagreed with 
OSHA’s preliminary assessment of the unit time burden for management familiarization and specifically noted that the estimate of 4 hours, 1 hour, and .25 hours for large, medium, and small establishments that are not chemical manufacturers respectively were too low and particularly for small entities who were unlikely to employ a safety and health specialist and therefore would need more time for familiarization (Document ID 0335, p. 2). In estimating costs for establishments 
that would incur costs in addition to 
rule familiarization costs, for small establishments OSHA preliminarily estimated management familiarization costs of 0.5 hours of a Health and Safety Specialist’s labor time. For medium establishments, OSHA in the PEA estimated two hours of a Health and Safety Specialist’s labor time. For large establishments, OSHA estimated eight hours of a Health and Safety Specialist’s labor time for the purpose of estimating costs of management familiarization. Multiplying these labor burdens by the loaded hourly wage of $58.00 resulted in preliminary management familiarization costs per establishment of $29.00, $116.01, and $464.04 for small, medium, and large establishments, respectively. 
For this FEA, based on the evidence 
submitted by commenters regarding the complexity of some of the updates, as well as the need for managers to understand the substantive revisions to the Appendices, OSHA believes that it would be appropriate to double the preliminary time estimates for management familiarization for employers affected by other provisions in the revised standard. Therefore, for small establishments, OSHA in this FEA estimates management familiarization costs of one hour of a Health and Safety Specialist’s labor time. For medium establishments, OSHA in this FEA estimates four hours of a Health and Safety Specialist’s labor time. For large establishments, OSHA estimates 16 hours of a Health and Safety Specialist’s labor time for the purpose of estimating costs of management familiarization. Multiplying these labor burdens by the loaded hourly wage of $61.18 results in final management familiarization costs per establishment of $61.18, $244.73, and $978.92 for small, medium, and large establishments, respectively. 
For establishments that would not 
incur other costs as a result of the proposed rule (below, these employers are termed ‘‘indirectly affected establishments’’), OSHA in the PEA estimated that rule familiarization will take half as long as the time estimated in the PEA for establishments that would incur other costs under the proposed rule. In those cases, management will not need to devote as much time to considering (or making compliance decisions about) the provisions in the proposed rule that are expected to result in costs, and they would primarily need to familiarize themselves with the rule only to the extent of understanding that they did 
not fall within the scope of the changes being made. Therefore, OSHA adopted 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444223 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
estimates of 0.25 hours, 1 hour, and 4 
hours of a Health and Safety Specialist’s labor time for small, medium, and large establishments, respectively. CISC’s comment on the estimate of hours required for indirectly affected establishments did not provide evidence to support the argument that OSHA’s 
understanding of these management familiarization costs was incorrect because they did not provide information about how many small entities might not employ a Safety and Health Specialist, what person other than a Health and Safety Specialist would perform the work, or how long it would take them, nor did they explain how downstream users would be more directly impacted by any of the proposed changes, so OSHA has left unchanged the preliminary per- establishment labor burden estimates for indirectly affected establishments. Multiplying the labor burdens by the loaded hourly wage of $61.18 results in management familiarization costs per establishment of $15.30 for small establishments, $61.18 for medium establishments, and $244.73 for large establishments. 
These management familiarization 
costs per establishment are multiplied by the relevant number of small, 
medium, and large establishments, resulting in an estimated undiscounted one-time familiarization cost of $8.0 million. Annualizing this one-time cost using a seven percent discount rate over a 10-year period results in an estimate of annualized costs of $1.1 million. Table VI–15 presents the detailed unit values factoring into OSHA’s estimate of management-related costs. The distribution of these management- familiarization costs by NAICS code is displayed in Column 3 of Table VI–12. 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 
VII. Costs Associated With Training Employees 
In the PEA, OSHA estimated the 
incremental costs to train health and safety personnel who are covered by the HCS and are already trained in accordance with the 2012 standard but would need to receive additional training to become familiar with the updates to SDSs and labels for impacted aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases. This analysis is described below. OSHA preliminarily concluded that 
these would be the only training costs 
associated with the revisions to the HCS. The agency requested comments on this determination and received comments, from NACD, indicating that they believed OSHA should include training costs for retraining workers across all areas (Document ID 0329, p. 11). 
As OSHA noted in the PEA, however, 
OSHA did not estimate any training costs for users of aerosols, desensitized explosives, or flammable gases in the workplace because the agency does not believe that these users would need to dedicate more than a trivial amount of 
time to training associated with the reclassification of these chemicals. This is because the hazards associated with these chemicals have not changed; the only thing that is changing under the revisions to the HCS is the way the hazards are classified. For example, users of pyrophoric gases should already have received training on the fire- and explosive-related hazards associated with these chemicals, whereas health and safety personnel 
who are processing the inputs to the gases upstream or reviewing revised SDSs and labels for the first time may 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.186</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444224 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
40OSHA anticipates that, in practice, training 
would be organized more efficiently at the 
corporate (firm) level than at the establishment level. need additional training to learn about 
the hazards. At most, downstream users might require notification of a change in the classification of those chemicals. Similarly, even though ‘‘desensitized explosives’’ is a new hazard classification, the explosion hazards were and are well-known and should have been included in prior hazard training. For example, should the water or other wetting solution dry out, an explosion could occur. In this case, even the hazard pictogram (flames) remains unchanged. For this final analysis of costs for training, OSHA declines to add costs for retraining because such additional time would double-count the costs associated with both (1) the baseline training already assigned costs in the 2012 FEA and (2) the incremental training estimated in this FEA. Therefore, OSHA does not agree with NACD that it should take costs for all the workers who are required to receive training under the HCS. 
OSHA also received a comment from 
NAIMA indicating that ‘‘NAIMA and its members conduct training, but the cost would not be in more training, but in the review of the training materials to make certain that the different changes are captured in the training materials’’ (Document ID 0461, p. 3). OSHA notes that, as indicated in Table VI–16 below, the agency has already incorporated the cost for the preparation of training materials and has used an estimate of 2.5 hours of labor for a safety and health specialist to develop the materials necessary for instructing personnel on chemical hazards communicated through the revised standard. 
OSHA considered whether some 
increase in user training might be required for some aerosols, since a small portion of these may not currently be classified as either flammable aerosols or gas under pressure; as noted in the discussion of Appendix B in Section XIV., Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule, such aerosol containers differ from pressurized gas cylinders in terms of container characteristics and failure mechanisms. Training for non- flammable aerosols might include their revised classification and hazard avoidance measures (such as: keep away from heat, hot surfaces, sparks, open flames and other ignition sources; no smoking; do not pierce or burn, even after use). However, based on observation of the industry over time, OSHA believes that aerosols that are neither flammable nor fall under gases under pressure are fairly uncommon and, therefore, OSHA preliminarily concluded that the total user training time required for non-flammable aerosols not under pressure would also be negligible. 
As discussed above, under the final 
rule, some health and safety personnel who are covered by, and are already trained in accordance with, the existing standard will need to receive additional training to become familiar with the updates to SDSs and labels for impacted aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases. OSHA expects that the incremental training costs for these 
employees to become familiar with the revisions to the HCS will be small. In 
certain cases, affected employers will be able to integrate the necessary training into existing training programs and related methods of distributing safety and health information to employees; those employers would not incur any meaningful additional costs. 
In the PEA, OSHA estimated that each 
affected chemical manufacturing firm 
40 
would need to devote 2.5 hours of a Health and Safety Specialist’s time to preparing new training under the proposed rule, and that each affected logistics or production worker would spend 12 minutes receiving the training. Multiplying these unit time estimates by the respective hourly wage and by the number of affected firms (2,754), the number of affected logistics managers (1,179), and the number of affected production workers (76,447) yielded a preliminary undiscounted one-time cost of $843,940. Annualizing this one-time cost using a seven percent discount rate over a 10-year period resulted in estimated annualized costs of $120,158. 
OSHA invited interested parties to 
provide comments on the preliminary total cost estimates and the assumptions underlying them. Specifically, the agency requested comments on its preliminary conclusions regarding training time for users of reclassified chemicals. 
Ameren described the scope of their 
organization’s current GHS training 
program and outlined the impact of the 
proposed training requirements in 
OSHA’s 2021 NPRM. They estimated 
that for their corporation, which has 
9,231 employees, the total spent on training would be approximately $3,000,000 and it would take one year to update all of their training materials. This estimate was based on an assumption that they would need to retrain all of their employees, including on the combustible dust provisions and the labels on small containers (Document ID 0309, p. 4). As discussed above, however, OSHA 
has concluded that the training times 
necessary for informing workers will be trivial because they will not need to be trained on fundamental changes to hazards. The information Ameren provided only indicated that they thought they needed to train all of their workers on all of the changes but did not provide estimates of how much time each worker would need to spend on receiving such training under their assumptions, and therefore their comment is difficult to compare with OSHA’s assumption that only a trivial amount of time will be spent on training based on these updates for users of chemicals. Similarly, NAIMA briefly commented on the compliance burden imposed by the proposed training requirements, stating workers would need to be trained on the new hazard class and hazard categories and that OSHA needed to account for these costs (Document ID 0338, p. 4). In response, OSHA notes that this FEA accounts for the incremental compliance burden imposed by the proposed training requirements and that NAIMA did not elaborate further on the costs of employee training, nor did the association provide any quantitative details on the expected cost burden that would allow comparison with the estimates in the PEA. 
Therefore, because stakeholders in 
this rulemaking provided few if any details on specific changes in OSHA’s preliminary estimate of incremental training costs necessary to align with employer expectations of changes to training programs, and because these expectations are based on an incorrect assumption about the amount of 
training required, the agency has no basis in the record to depart from its preliminary estimate of incremental training costs and believes that it adequately reflects the real-world changes among affected employers. 
Multiplying the labor burden for each 
labor category by the loaded hourly wages of $61.18 for a Health and Safety Specialist, $60.37 for logistics personnel, and $31.09 for production workers, results in unit costs of $152.96, $12.07, and $6.22, respectively. 
As shown in Table VI–16, expressed 
in 2022 dollars, the incremental one- time undiscounted final training costs are expected to total $0.96 million and, annualized over ten years, incremental final training costs are expected to total $136,953 at a 7 percent discount rate. The unit values that factored into OSHA’s estimate of training costs are 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444225 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
41The estimated number of affected firms, 
logistics managers and production workers are 
derived in Document ID 0481, tab ‘‘Training’’. The affected number of firms (3,469) can also be calculated by matching the NAICS codes with 
training costs from Table VI–12 with the number of affected firms in the identical NAICS codes in Table 
VI–1 and multiplying by 50 percent (only 50 
percent are estimated to require training). 
42In principle, pesticide manufacturers would 
also be affected by the revision to the standard, but pesticide labeling in the United States is covered by the U.S. EPA under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). 
For that reason, any cost savings due to OSHA’s proposed revisions to paragraph (f)(11) would not apply to manufacturers in NAICS 325320: Pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing. shown in Table VI–16.41The 
distribution of these training costs by NAICS code is displayed in Column 4 
of Table VI–12. 
VIII. Cost Savings Associated With the New Released for Shipment Provisions 
In paragraph (f)(11) of the 2012 HCS, 
chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, or employers who become newly aware of any significant information regarding the hazards of a chemical must revise the labels for the chemical within six months of becoming aware of the new information and ensure that labels on containers of hazardous chemicals shipped thereafter contain the new information. In the NPRM, OSHA proposed to modify paragraph (f)(11) such that chemicals that have been released for shipment and are awaiting future distribution need not be relabeled; however, if the manufacturer or importer opts not to relabel the chemicals they must provide an updated label for each individual container with each shipment. Relatedly, OSHA also proposed in the NPRM to add new paragraph (f)(1)(vii) to require the inclusion of a released for shipment date on labels on shipped containers. 
OSHA anticipated that these proposed 
modifications to paragraph (f)(11) would provide cost savings to manufacturers and distributors of certain products— those with large (and typically infrequent) production runs and lengthy shelf lives (often five years or longer) that, during production, are labeled, boxed, palletized, and shipped, and then go through the distribution chain usually without the chemical contents, packaging, or label being disturbed. OSHA invited public comment on the agency’s preliminary determination that the proposed modifications to paragraph (f)(11) would generate cost savings and on its preliminary analysis of the factors that would contribute to the cost savings. Specifically, in its preliminary determination of technological feasibility, OSHA invited public comment ‘‘on any employer concerns associated with . . . the proposed provision addressing the relabeling of containers that have been released for shipment. 
In the PEA, OSHA identified six 
industries (four manufacturing and two wholesale) that it expected would be impacted by the proposed modifications to paragraph (f)(11).
42These are 
primarily fertilizer manufacturers, paint manufacturers, and wholesalers of related farm and paint supplies. OSHA invited comments on whether other industries are potentially affected by this proposed modification to paragraph (f)(11) and whether there might be other health or economic effects of this proposed modification that OSHA had not considered in its proposal. 
The Society of Chemical 
Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA) supported proposed (f)(11) and noted that ‘‘SOCMA . . . believes it will significantly reduce the compliance burdens for chemicals that have been released for distribution’’ (Document ID 0447, p. 3). 
Ameren commented that it ‘‘would 
incur an additional cost for having to re- print and replace current labels based on the new OSHA changes. The cost is 
estimated at $5 Million and would take over two years to complete’’ (Document ID 0309, p. 6). The National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) also addressed the cost associated with the addition of a released for shipment date. They 
indicated that there are at least 40 million propane gas cylinders that are up to 20 pounds and another 10 million tanks and cylinders that range from 33.5 to 420 pounds. They estimated that the cost of updating all the labels to add a released for shipment date would be about $55 million, with a $1 cost per label for the smaller size tanks and a cost of $1.50 per label for the larger tanks (Document ID 0440, pp. 1–2). Carbide Industries LLC also indicated concerns with the requirement to add a release for shipment date and noted that ‘‘the additional cost to chemical manufacturers, importers, or distributors of implementing and complying with [the] proposed requirement will be significant in many cases (Document ID 0290, p. 1). Industrial Minerals Association—North America (IMA–NA) stated their belief that ‘‘[t]his exemption, while well- meaning will not alleviate any burden to manufacturers’’ because of the released for shipment date requirement’’ (Document ID 0363, pp. 7–8). 
In response to these and other 
comments discussed in the discussion of paragraph (f) in Section XIV., Summary and Explanation of the Final 
Rule, OSHA has removed the proposal 
to include a released for shipment date, 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.187</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444226 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
and therefore the costs that these 
commenters highlight for needing to update all labels to include the release for shipment date will not be incurred. 
Commenters also expressed concerns 
about the costs of this provision that indicated they did not understand the provision is optional. ACI argued that ‘‘Complying with these proposed requirements could slow the release of products, needlessly complicate the timing of shipments, and cause confusion on labels with a process that has an unclear safety outcome. These requirements could also cascade down to the storage and distribution chain causing logistical burdens and additional labor costs’’ (Document ID 0319, p. 2). NACD stated that the impacts of the proposed requirement to send printed labels with each shipment ‘‘would be prohibitively expensive’’ and that tracking shipments on label status is ‘‘not feasible.’’ NACD further stated that ‘‘[e]xtensive new programming and software would be needed to handle this’’ (Document ID 0465, p. 3). 
The language that was proposed and 
is being finalized in paragraph (f)(11) only creates a new option for companies to comply with the HCS. If they want to, they can choose not to relabel chemicals that have been released for shipment, in which case they would have to provide an updated label with the shipment (although the label no longer includes the proposed requirement for the release for shipment date). OSHA believes that this revision to the proposed regulatory text addresses comments about the feasibility of this provision. However, if the company believes that choosing to not relabel their chemicals before shipment would, as ACI indicated, slow the release of products or create additional labor costs, or would be prohibitively expensive, as NACD suggested, then they can simply choose to relabel the chemicals before they are shipped, as is already allowed by the standard. OSHA believes that these companies are rational actors who will choose to relabel their shipments if choosing the option to not relabel would be more expensive. Regardless of whether the company chooses to relabel or not, they would need to create an updated label, just as they do under the 2012 HCS, so the creation of the label 
itself is not a new cost. Therefore, OSHA is not accounting for additional costs when these companies have the option to continue complying with the HCS as they have and therefore will not face an increase in compliance costs above their current baseline. 
For the PEA, the first factor used to 
estimate the cost savings resulting from the proposed changes to paragraph (f)(11) was the avoided economic loss for affected manufacturers or wholesalers who would otherwise have to relabel products being held in storage. To estimate the potential economic loss avoided, OSHA relied on comments submitted to the agency by the Council of Producers & Distributors of Agrotechnology (CPDA) on April 21, 2017 (Document ID 0006). The CPDA comments included a summary of cost estimates associated with relabeling non-pesticide agricultural chemical products in distribution. Those estimates were obtained from an industry survey and were based on the following unit costs: shipping costs to move product out of and back into the warehouse (for off-site package opening and replacement); relabeling space per square foot per month; safety equipment and training per employee involved in relabeling; labor and materials to break down pallets and shrink-wrap and redo product packaging in new plastic bags; and labor and materials to move liquid to new containers and dispose of old containers (Document ID 0006, pp. 4–6). 
For OSHA’s purposes, the critical 
costing information from CPDA was the estimate of summary relabeling costs presented as a percentage of the value of the products requiring relabeling. According to the CPDA survey results, these summary costs range from 1.5 percent to 204 percent of the value of the product, depending on product type (e.g., liquid versus dry), container type 
(plastic bags, etc.), and the volume and value of the product (Document ID 0006, p. 8). As a practical matter, OSHA expects that manufacturers and wholesalers would simply discard a product rather than incur relabeling costs in excess of the value of the product. Of course, there may be some disposal costs for the discarded material, but there may also be some salvage value for the improperly-labeled product. If one assumes that the disposal cost and the salvage value are relatively minor and, on net, offset each other, then the upper limit on the 
relabeling costs for any product would 
be approximately 100 percent of the 
value of the product. With an effective 
range of labeling costs from 1.5 percent to 100 percent of the value of the product, OSHA estimated, without further information on the distribution of the costs, that the average labeling cost would be approximately 50 percent of the value of the products requiring relabeling. While this cost estimate as a percentage of the value of the product was developed from data on relabeling non-pesticide agricultural chemical products in distribution, OSHA assumed that this same estimate would 
also apply to relabeling paints and related chemical products in distribution. 
The agency invited comments on this 
assumption. No commenters addressed specifically the estimate of 50 percent of product value as a measure of cost savings. As discussed above, several commenters broadly criticized OSHA’s preliminary analysis of costs for paragraph (f)(11) for omitting substantial administrative and handling expenses but did not provide specific data with which OSHA could evaluate these purported costs. Based on professional judgment in evaluating these comments, OSHA is not convinced that it has underestimated costs associated with the provision and has decided to leave unchanged the preliminary product- value cost savings of 50 percent for the final cost analysis of paragraph (f)(11). The agency anticipates that the above clarification of the intent of paragraph (f)(11) along with the discussion on (f)(11) in Section XIV., Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule, will address any misconceptions concerning additional compliance burden imposed by final paragraph (f)(11). 
The 50 percent average cost savings 
estimate would apply only to those products that previously required relabeling and are likely to take advantage of this option under (f)(11). In order to estimate the expected cost savings for all products in the NAICS codes affected by the revisions to paragraph (f)(11), OSHA also needed to estimate three other factors (in addition to the average cost savings of 50 percent): (1) what percentage of the products in these NAICS industries would be warehoused for more than six months; (2) what percentage of products warehoused for more than six months would, under the 2012 HCS, be relabeled in any particular year due to a manufacturer becoming newly aware of significant information regarding the hazards of the product; and (3) the percentage of all products in the NAICS industries that are covered by the HCS. 
OSHA was unable to identify data 
relevant to factors (1) and (2) above and instead worked with its contractor, ERG, to develop estimates of both of these factors. For (1) above, OSHA expected that the percentage of products 
warehoused for more than six months would be quite low because it is expensive to hold inventory over long periods of time. Therefore, OSHA estimated that just 5 percent of the products in the six NAICS industries potentially impacted by the proposed modifications to paragraph (f)(11) would be warehoused for more than six 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444227 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
43A review of the products covered under the 
manufacturing NAICS codes reveals they are all, or 
almost all, chemicals. 
442012 Economic Census of the United States, 
Table EC1242SLLS1—Wholesale Trade: Subject Series—Product Lines: Product Lines Statistics by 
Industry for the U.S. and States: 2012 (Document ID 0043). 45Under the revisions to paragraph (f)(11), when 
relabeling is not required for chemicals that have been released for shipment, the chemical manufacturer or importer would still be required to provide an updated label for each individual container with each shipment. However, the manufacturer and importer already had to provide an updated label under the 2012 HCS, so this is not a new cost. 
462017 Economic Census for Wholesale Trade: 
All Sectors: Industry by Products for the U.S. and States. (Series EC1700NAPCSINDPRD) Release Date: December 16, 2021. (Document ID 0479). According to the census data for wholesale trade, OSHA derived an estimate of 37.1 percent of wholesale agricultural chemicals and fertilizers that are affected by the released-for-shipment provision for NAICS 424910 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers—derived as product line sales as a percentage of total sales of all establishments for North American Product Code System code 4004550015 Other agricultural chemicals and fertilizers. For NAICS 424950 Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers, based on the wholesale trade census data, OSHA estimated that 82.0 percent of wholesale paints and related chemicals are affected by the released-for-shipment provision (merchant wholesalers product line sales as a percentage of total sales of all establishments for NAPCS products codes 4004875003 Architectural coatings, enamels, primers, stains, solvents, and lacquers; 4004875006 Industrial/ Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) coatings; and 4005485012 Special purpose coatings, including automotive, refinish, marine, and traffic coatings). (Document ID 0481, tab ‘‘Variables’’) 
47Derived for each NAICS by dividing Column 3 
of Table VI–9 (total industry revenues) by Column 7 of Table VI–1 (number of affected firms). 
48Obtained from Column 7 of Table VI–1. months. For (2) above, OSHA 
anticipated that manufacturer-initiated relabeling would be rare and estimated that only 1 percent of products warehoused for more than six months would be relabeled in any particular year due to a manufacturer-initiated labeling change. OSHA invited comments on the preliminary estimates described above and received no comments specifically on the estimates. 
For factor (3) above, OSHA assumed 
that 100 percent of the products in the four NAICS manufacturing industries are covered by the HCS.
43For the two 
wholesale industries, however, a substantial portion of the covered products do not qualify as hazardous chemicals covered by the HCS or are not subject to the HCS labeling requirements. For NAICS 424910: Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers, a significant majority of the wholesale supplies are non-fertilizers, such as grains (e.g., alfalfa, hay, livestock feeds) 
and nursery stock (e.g., plant seeds and 
plant bulbs) that are not subject to the HCS. Based on data from the 2012 Economic Census,
44ERG estimated that 
41.7 percent of the wholesale supplies in NAICS 424910 would be fertilizers affected by the proposed released-for- shipment provision (Document ID 0049, tab ‘‘RF Shipment’’). For NAICS 424950: Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers, some proportion of the wholesale supply consists of non-paints and non-chemicals, such as wallpaper and painting supplies such as paintbrushes, rollers, and spray-painting equipment. Based on data from the 2012 Economic Census, ERG estimated that 77.6 percent of the wholesale supplies in NAICS 424950 would be paints and related chemicals affected by the proposed released-for-shipment provision (Document ID 0049, tab ‘‘Variables’’). OSHA used ERG’s estimates to develop the expected cost savings attributable to the proposed revisions to paragraph (f)(11). The agency invited comments on the preliminary estimates of factor (3) in the cost model and received no comments specifically on the estimates.
45 
For this FEA, OSHA updated factor 
(3) to reflect the affected product line sales data (as a percentage of total sales) reported in the 2017 Economic Census for the two affected NAICS industries in the wholesale sector. OSHA estimated that 37.1 percent of the wholesale 
supplies in NAICS 424910 would be fertilizers affected by the released-for- shipment provision. For NAICS 424950, OSHA estimated that 82.0 percent of the wholesale supplies would be paints and related chemicals affected by the released-for-shipment provision.
46 Column 3 of Table VI–18 shows the 
average product value (revenue) for each of the six NAICS industries that OSHA expects will be affected by the modification to paragraph (f)(11).
47And 
Column 4 of Table VI–18 shows the number of affected firms (entities) for each of these six NAICS industries.
48 
Column 5 of Table VI–18 shows the estimated loss avoided due to the released-for-shipment provision for each of these six NAICS industries as a percentage of that industry’s revenues. That percentage is the product of the four factors estimated above: (1) the costs of relabeling as a percentage of the value of the products requiring relabeling; (2) the percentage of the products in these NAICS industries that will be warehoused for more than six months; (3) the percentage of products warehoused for more than six months that would have required generation of a new label in any particular year due to a manufacturer-initiated labeling change; and (4) the percentage of all products in the NAICS industries covered by the HCS. 
Table VI–17 presents, by NAICS 
industry, these four factors and the calculated percentage loss in revenue OSHA anticipates will be avoided under the revised released-for-shipment provision. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444228 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
The estimated cost savings for each of 
the six affected industries arising from 
the modifications to paragraph (f)(11) then is simply the product of Columns 3, 4, and 5 in Table VI–18. Summing the cost savings for each of the six industries yields an estimated annual 
cost savings of $33.3 million. 
In the PEA OSHA requested 
comments on the reasonableness of the agency’s preliminary cost estimate for the proposed revision to paragraph (f)(11) and the assumptions underlying it (including the various factor percentage estimates listed in Table VI– 17). Ameren agreed that there are ‘‘potential cost savings’’ resulting from the revision to (f)(11) (Document ID 0309, p. 11) and SOCMA agreed that this would ‘‘reduce the compliance burdens’’ (Document ID 0447, p. 3); no other commenters addressed this issue. 
Therefore, OSHA’s estimate of cost 
savings shown in Table VI–18 reflects, in the agency’s view, a reasonable determination of the impacts of final paragraph (f)(11). Cost Savings Associated With the New 
Provisions for Labels on Very Small Containers 
Proposed new paragraph (f)(12), 
which addresses the labeling of small and very small containers, limits labeling requirements for chemical manufacturers, importers, or distributors where they can demonstrate that it is not feasible to use pull-out 
labels, fold-back labels, or tags to provide the full label information as required by paragraph (f)(1). As specified in paragraph (f)(12)(ii), manufacturers, importers, and distributors would be able to use an abbreviated label (requiring only the product identifier, pictogram(s), signal word, chemical manufacturer’s name and phone number, and a statement that the full label information is provided on the immediate outer package) on containers with a volume capacity of 
100 ml or less—referred to as ‘‘small containers’’ in this FEA. As specified in paragraph (f)(12)(iii), manufacturers, importers, and distributors would need to put only the product identifier on containers with a volume capacity of 3 ml or less—referred to as ‘‘very small containers’’ in this FEA—if they can demonstrate that any label would interfere with the normal use of the container. 
Following publication of the 2012 
updates to the HCS, stakeholders requested that OSHA clarify its enforcement policy on labels for small containers. In response, through letters of interpretation, OSHA adopted practical accommodations that specified: (1) the minimum information required for a label on the immediate container of the shipped chemical; and (2) the minimum information required 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.188</GPH> ER20MY24.189</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444229 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
49The number of very small containers in 
Column 3 of Table VI–19 for each of these six 
NAICS industries was obtained from Column 4 of Table VI–5, both in the PEA and in this FEA. 50The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers 
Association of the United States provided to OSHA (in a letter dated April 27, 2018) (Document ID 0257) a summary of survey results obtained from member companies concerning how they might benefit from relaxed OSHA labeling requirements on small containers. Those results included an estimate of $0.85 per label for small capacity containers compliant with the 2012 HCS. However, this estimate applies to expensive labels—such as pull-out labels, fold-back labels, and full- information tags—and therefore is not applicable to the cost savings associated with using only the product identifier in lieu of the abbreviated labeling specified in proposed paragraph (f)(12)(ii). In the PEA, OSHA stated that it is likely that most of the cost savings reported from the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association survey would be attributable to the expensive types of labels. Based on the unit cost data provided by the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, OSHA estimated a unit cost savings of $0.05 in 2018 dollars for the use of labels with the minimum information—the product identifier—required for very small containers (versus abbreviated labels). Updating the 2018 estimate to 2019 dollars using the BEA (2020) implicit price deflator for Gross Domestic Product, OSHA in the PEA derived an estimate of $0.05087 (or rounding, $0.051) in cost savings per label (with the unrounded estimate used in the analysis). for the outer packaging of shipped small 
containers (see, e.g., Document ID 0170; 
0174; 0200). Paragraph (f)(12)(ii) in this final rule incorporates the accommodations for small containers described in these letters of interpretation. However, the letters of interpretation did not contain any guidance unique to very small containers, which are now covered by paragraph (f)(12)(iii). 
For costing purposes, OSHA in the 
PEA estimated that no cost savings will arise from proposed paragraph (f)(12)(ii) (small containers); OSHA expected that employers are already benefitting from the practical accommodations on the labeling of small packages described in the aforementioned letters of interpretation. OSHA invited public comments on that preliminary determination and the magnitude of any cost savings that should be attributed to proposed paragraph (f)(12)(ii). OSHA received no comments on either of the two questions pertaining to the agency’s preliminary determination of current practical benefits and zero cost savings associated with paragraph (f)(12)(ii). 
In the PEA, OSHA estimated cost 
savings under proposed paragraph (f)(12)(iii) for manufacturers, importers, and distributors of very small containers (volume capacity of 3 ml or less) where the use of any label (even an abbreviated 
label as specified in proposed paragraph (f)(12)(ii)) would interfere with the normal use of the container and only the product identifier would be required. OSHA preliminarily determined that affected manufacturers would fall in only a few NAICS industries: Other Basic Chemical Manufacturing, Inorganic and Organic (NAICS 325180 and 325199, respectively) and Pharmaceutical and Medical Manufacturing (NAICS 3254— encompassing 6-digit NAICS 325411, 325412, 325413, and 325414). As shown 
in Table VI–19 in the PEA, OSHA estimated that there are approximately 63.5 million labels on very small containers in these six 6-digit NAICS manufacturing industries that could be affected by that part of the proposed rule.
49 
Even in these six NAICS industries, 
however, OSHA in the PEA expected that manufacturers would not be able to take advantage of proposed paragraph (f)(12)(iii) in all cases because that provision applies only when the manufacturer, importer, or distributor 
can demonstrate that it is not feasible to use pull-out labels, fold-back labels, or tags containing the full label information and that even an abbreviated label would interfere with the normal use of the container. Of the 63.5 million potentially affected labels on very small containers, OSHA estimated in the PEA that for only 40 percent of them, or for an estimated total of 25.4 million very small containers, would manufacturers fall under proposed paragraph (f)(12)(iii) (see Column 5 of Table VI–19 and, equivalently, Column 7 of Table VI–5 in the PEA). 
Manufacturers with containers falling 
under paragraph (f)(12)(iii) could expect to obtain cost savings from avoided labeling costs on very small containers (with only the product identifier required) versus the labeling costs of abbreviated labels (requiring the product identifier, pictogram(s), signal word, manufacturer’s name and phone number, and a statement that the full label information is provided on the immediate outer packaging). In the PEA, OSHA estimated an incremental unit cost savings of $0.051 per label for very small containers.
50That unit cost 
savings was expected to be net of the cost of providing a full label on the immediate outer package (containing a set of very small containers) per paragraph (f)(12)(iv)(A). OSHA requested public comment on the agency’s preliminary estimate ($0.051) of unit cost savings for paragraph (f)(12)(iii). OSHA did not receive any comments objecting to the preliminary estimate of unit cost savings; therefore, updating the preliminary estimate to 2022 dollars, the agency estimates unit cost savings of $0.058 per label for paragraph (f)(12)(iii). 
As shown in Table VI–19, multiplying 
the number of affected labels by the unit cost savings of $0.058 per label for very small containers yields estimated annual cost savings of $1.7 million. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444230 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
In the PEA, OSHA invited interested 
parties to provide comments on the 
preliminary cost estimates for the proposed paragraph (f)(12) and the assumptions underlying them. Elsewhere in the NPRM, the agency requested comments on the feasibility of, and any cost savings associated with, the proposed provisions for the labeling of small and very small containers and whether the proposed labeling requirements would be adequate to provide for safe handling and storage of 
chemicals in small containers. Ameren noted the costs of needing to re-print and replace current labels but stated, ‘‘experience [within Ameren] indicates there is potential cost savings associated with the proposed provisions for the labeling of small containers (both 100 ml and 3 ml and less) ....  Ameren 
agrees that the proposed labeling requirements would be adequate to provide for safe handling and storage of chemicals in small containers’’ (Document ID 0309, p. 12). OSHA infers from Ameren’s comment and the absence of any opposing comments that the proposed labeling requirement (paragraph (f)(12)) for small containers could, and in OSHA’s estimation likely will, provide cost savings. Therefore, OSHA’s final estimate of cost savings for paragraph (f)(12)(iii) is $1.7 million, as reported above and shown in Table VI– 19. 
IX. Concentration Ranges 
In addition to the five categories 
discussed above where significant costs 
or cost savings are expected, OSHA received comments on a set of provisions addressing concentration ranges in relation to confidential business information that, in OSHA’s final assessment, will not create significant economic impacts. 
IMA–NA expressed concern that 
compliance with paragraph (i) will impose labeling costs that were not 
recognized in OSHA’s economic analysis because ‘‘it will take considerable time and money to realign product lines with the new ranged approach to CBI’’ (Document ID 0363, p. 6). The Vinyl Institute warned that ‘‘a significant anti-competitive impact on the market’’ could result from too- narrow prescribed concentration ranges (Document ID 0369, Att. 2, p. 9). ILMA also predicted that the concentration range requirement would create market disruptions, noting that the majority of its members who responded to ILMA’s survey indicated that overly narrow concentration ranges would erode competitive advantage (Document ID 0460, Att. 2, p. 2). Ameren recommended that the final rule allow combinations of concentration ranges across all conceivable percentages because such flexibility would potentially yield cost savings (Document ID 0309, p. 13). 
In response to stakeholder concerns 
about the loss of competitive advantage through the reverse engineering of confidential information on chemical concentration ranges, OSHA’s final set of requirements in paragraph (i) prescribe reasonably narrow concentration ranges that may be used in combination to preserve trade secrets. 
OSHA believes that final paragraph (i) strikes a responsible balance between averting significant economic impacts among affected employers and the disclosure of sufficient information on the chemical properties of commercial products to communicate workplace hazards. And because stakeholders provide no evidence demonstrating that loss of CBI and trade secrets were likely outcomes under any scenarios that incorporate OSHA’s final set of requirements in paragraph (i), the agency foresees no additional significant costs. In response to comments that it will take time to update labels to align 
with this provision, OSHA expects that many companies have already created labels that align with Canada’s system and therefore will have already aligned 
their labels with these ranges. IMA–NA also did not provide any suggestion of what the costs might be in order to do such updating for companies that have not already aligned with Canada, so OSHA does not have any basis for incorporating an estimate of time needed for compliance. Additionally, 
because it is optional for companies to 
claim trade secrets and therefore to use these ranges, companies that are concerned about costs can simply choose not to claim trade secrets and not incur costs related to this provision. 
X. Sensitivity Analysis 
In this section, OSHA presents the 
results of a sensitivity analysis to 
demonstrate how robust the estimates of net cost savings are to changes in various cost parameters. In this analysis, OSHA made a series of isolated changes to individual cost input parameters in order to determine their effects on the agency’s estimates of annualized net cost savings, with a seven-percent discount rate as the reference point. The agency has conducted these calculations for informational purposes only. 
The methodology and calculations 
underlying the cost estimates associated with this rulemaking are generally linear and additive in nature. Thus, the sensitivity of the results and conclusions of the analysis will generally be proportional to isolated variations in a particular input parameter. For example, if the estimated time that employees will need to devote to attending new training doubles, the corresponding labor costs would double as well. 
OSHA evaluated a series of such 
changes in input parameters to test 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.190</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444231 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
whether and to what extent the general 
conclusions of this FEA held up. OSHA considered changes to input parameters that affected only costs and cost savings and determined that each of the sensitivity tests on cost parameters had only a very minor effect on total costs or net costs. On the whole, OSHA found that the conclusions of the analysis are robust, as changes in any of the cost input parameters still show significant net cost savings for the final rule. The results of the individual sensitivity tests are summarized and are described in more detail in Table VI–20. 
In the first of these sensitivity tests, 
OSHA reduced from 1 percent to 0.5 percent its estimate of the percentage of products warehoused for more than six months that require relabeling in any particular year. The effect of this change would be to reduce by 50 percent the estimated cost savings associated with the revised released-for-shipment provision. Table VI–20 shows that the estimated net cost savings from the final rule would decline by $16.6 million annually, from $29.8 million to $13.2 million annually, or by about 56 percent. 
In a second sensitivity test, OSHA 
reversed the first sensitivity test, that is, the agency increased from 1 percent to 2 percent the percentage of products warehoused for more than six months that require relabeling in any particular year. The effect of this change would be to increase by 100 percent the estimated cost savings associated with the released-for-shipment provision. Table VI–20 shows that the estimated net cost savings from the final rule would increase by $33.3 million annually, from $29.8 million to $63.1 million annually, or by about 112 percent. 
In a third sensitivity test, OSHA 
reduced from 40 percent to 20 percent the percentage of very small containers that would be affected by revised paragraph (f)(12). As shown in Table VI–20, if OSHA’s estimates of other input parameters remained unchanged, the estimated net cost savings from the final rule would decline by $0.9 million annually (after rounding), from $29.8 million to $29.0 million annually, or by about three percent. 
In a fourth sensitivity test, OSHA 
applied the same rule familiarization costs to all firms regardless of whether they are affected by other provisions of this final rule, i.e., OSHA did not reduce 
estimated familiarization time for firms that are not affected by other parts of the standard. The effect of this change would be to raise compliance costs for 100,961 establishments in 
manufacturing and wholesale trade; the estimated net cost savings from the final 
rule would be reduced by a little under $1.2 million annually, from $29.8 million to $28.7 million annually, or by about four percent. 
In a fifth sensitivity test, OSHA 
doubled the estimated labor hours assigned to revising SDSs and labels due to the reclassification of chemicals and revised mandatory language in the appendices of the HCS (from Tables VI– 13 and VI–14). The effect of this change would be to double labor costs for the affected six-digit NAICS industries; estimated net cost savings would be reduced by $3.9 million annually, from $29.8 million to $26.0 million, or by about 13 percent. 
In a sixth sensitivity test, OSHA 
excluded overhead costs from the fully loaded hourly wage rates used throughout the PEA. Overhead costs were not applied in the 2012 FEA and this sensitivity test provides consistency with the treatment of overhead in the 2012 analysis. The effect of this change would be to remove the factor of 17 percent of base wages from the hourly costs for the four job categories used in the cost analysis. Applying this change, the estimated net cost savings from the final rule would increase by $0.5 million annually, or by about two percent, resulting in a total estimate of annualized net cost savings of $30.4 million. 
Not part of this table but discussed in 
the Introduction and Summary of this 
FEA, the agency examined the effect of 
lowering the discount rate for 
annualizing costs from seven percent to 
three percent. Lowering the discount 
rate to three percent would yield annualized net cost savings of $30.7 million, approximately $908,000 more in annual cost savings than the net cost savings at a seven percent discount rate. 
XI. Regulatory Alternatives 
This section discusses two regulatory 
alternatives to the changes OSHA is 
promulgating in this final standard: (1) removing the changes to paragraph (f)(12) regarding labeling of very small containers, which would eliminate cost savings for manufacturers, importers, and distributors that label such containers; and (2) removing the changes to paragraph (f)(11) regarding labeling of containers that have been released for shipment, which would eliminate cost savings for manufacturers, importers, and distributors that have such containers. In Table VI–20, each regulatory alternative is described and analyzed relative to the final rule. Midpoint estimates are presented in all cases. Under Regulatory Alternative (1) (elimination of changes related to labeling of very small containers), cost impacts total $1.7 million (5.7 percent of baseline cost savings), resulting in a reduction of estimated annualized net cost savings to a total of $28.1 million (after rounding). Under Regulatory Alternative (2) (elimination of changes related to labels on packages that have been released for shipment), cost impacts on manufacturers, distributors, and importers total $33.3 million (112 percent of baseline cost savings), resulting in an overall estimate of annualized net costs of $3.4 million. 
In summary, these regulatory 
alternatives would result in a reduction of cost savings—a significant reduction in the case of the second alternative (resulting in positive, but modest, overall net costs). Neither alternative, however, would alter the agency’s determination of economic feasibility for the proposed revisions to the HCS as a whole. Nor would these alternatives result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities (see Section VI.G., Economic Feasibility and Impacts). 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444232 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
51OSHA, 2016, Silica FEA Chapter VI: Economic 
Feasibility Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility 
Determination, pp. VI–20 to VI–23, and Table VI– 3 (Document ID 0045). 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 
G. Economic Feasibility and Impacts 
This section presents OSHA’s analysis 
of the economic impacts of the final rule 
and an assessment of economic 
feasibility. A separate analysis of the potential economic impacts on small entities (as defined in accordance with SBA criteria) and on very small entities (those with fewer than 20 employees) is presented in the following section as part of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis, conducted in accordance with the criteria laid out in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
A standard is economically feasible 
‘‘if it does not threaten massive dislocation to, or imperil the existence of, [an] industry.’’ Lead I, 647 F.2d at 
1265 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). To determine whether a rule is economically feasible, OSHA begins with two screening tests to consider minimum threshold effects of the rule under two extreme cases: (1) a scenario in which all costs are passed through to customers in the form of higher prices (consistent with a price elasticity of demand of zero); and (2) a scenario in which all costs are absorbed by the firm in the form of reduced profits (consistent with an infinite price elasticity of demand). 
In profit-earning entities, compliance 
costs can generally be expected to be absorbed through a combination of increases in prices and reductions in profits. The extent to which the impacts of cost increases affect prices or profits depends on the price elasticity of demand for the products or services produced and sold by the entity. 
The price elasticity of demand refers 
to the relationship between changes in the price charged for a product and the resulting changes in the demand for that product. A larger price elasticity of demand implies that an entity or industry is less able to pass increases in costs through to its customers in the form of a price increase and must absorb more of the cost increase through a reduction in profits. 
If the price elasticity of demand is 
zero, and all costs can be passed to customers in the form of higher prices, the immediate impact of the rule would be observed in the form of increased industry revenues. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, OSHA generally considers a standard to be economically feasible for an industry when the annualized costs of compliance are less than a threshold level of one percent of annual revenues. Common-sense considerations indicate that potential impacts of such a small magnitude are unlikely to eliminate an industry or significantly alter its competitive structure, particularly since most industries have at least some ability to raise prices to reflect increased costs and normal price variations for products typically exceed three percent a year.
51Of course, OSHA recognizes 
that even when costs are within this range, there could be unusual circumstances requiring further analysis. 
If, however, there is infinite price 
elasticity of demand, and all costs are absorbed by affected firms, the immediate impact of the rule would be observed in reduced industry profits. OSHA uses the ratio of annualized costs to annual profits as a second check on economic feasibility. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, OSHA generally considers a standard to be 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.191</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444233 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
52OSHA, 2016, Silica FEA Chapter VI: Economic 
Feasibility Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Determination, pp. VI–20 to VI–23, and Table VI– 
5 (Document ID 0045). economically feasible for an industry 
when the annualized costs of compliance are less than a threshold level of ten percent of annual profits. This is a fairly modest threshold level, given that normal year-to-year variations in profit rates in an industry can exceed 40 percent or more.
52 
In order to assess the nature and 
magnitude of the economic impacts associated with compliance with the 
proposed rule, OSHA developed quantitative estimates of the potential economic impact of the requirements on each of the affected industry sectors. The estimated costs of compliance presented in Section VI.F., Compliance Costs and Cost Savings, of this preamble 
were compared with industry revenues and profits to provide a measure of potential economic impacts. Table VI– 21 presents data on revenues and profits for each affected industry sector at the six-digit NAICS industry level, along with the corresponding estimated annualized costs of compliance in each sector. Potential impacts in the table are 
represented by the ratios of compliance costs to revenues and compliance costs to profits. 
The nature of the revisions to the HCS 
is such that all affected firms will incur some costs, but only a small subset will 
derive the cost savings that are monetized in this FEA (although most 
or all will enjoy non-monetized benefits, e.g., in foreign trade). To examine the 
economic impacts of the revisions to the 
standard for those affected establishments that obtain no monetized cost savings from any of the final changes to the HCS, OSHA estimated the ratio of compliance costs to revenues and the ratio of compliance costs to profits using only gross positive costs (i.e., costs exclusive of cost 
savings) as the numerator in the ratio. Table VI–22 presents this part of the agency’s screening analysis. 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.192</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444234 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.193</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444235 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.194</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444236 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.195</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444237 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.196</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444238 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.197</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444239 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.198</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444240 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.199</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444241 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 
In the case of costs incurred due to 
the requirements of the revisions to the 
HCS, all businesses within each of the covered industry sectors will be subject to the same requirements. Thus, to the extent potential price increases correspond to costs associated with achieving compliance with the revised standard, the elasticity of demand for each entity will approach that faced by the industry as a whole. 
Furthermore, hazardous chemicals 
distributed in the United States will have to be in compliance with the updated provisions, and chemical producers and users in most advanced economies will be operating under comparable GHS-based requirements specific to their own country or economic union. For this reason, affected domestic establishments should not be susceptible to a loss of domestic market share resulting from the competition of foreign commercial entities not bound by the requirements of the HCS or similar GHS requirements. 
Given the small increases in prices 
potentially resulting from compliance with the revisions to the HCS in any particular industry, and the lack of readily available substitutes for the products and services provided by the covered industry sectors, demand is expected to be sufficiently inelastic in each affected industry to enable entities to substantially offset compliance costs through minor price increases without experiencing any significant reduction in revenues or profits. For example, for NAICS 324191: Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing, even if zero cost savings are obtained and gross positive costs reach OSHA’s estimated total ($1,240,097; see Table VI–22), revenue impacts (0.0063 percent, rounded to 0.01 percent) and profit impacts (0.092 percent, rounded to 0.1 percent) fall well below OSHA’s screening criteria associated with economic feasibility concerns. OSHA therefore concludes that the final rule is economically feasible. To supplement OSHA’s determination of economic feasibility, the agency conducted a final regulatory flexibility screening analysis, discussed immediately below. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.200</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444242 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
53OSHA’s screening criteria underlying the 
determination of significant economic impacts were 
developed in accordance with published guidelines for implementation of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act amendment to the Regulatory Flexibility Act; E.O.s 12866, 13563, and 13771; and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. For a recent example of the application of these screening criteria, see the FEA and FRFA for the Final Rule for Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica, Chapter VI: Economic Feasibility Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Document ID 0045. H. Final Regulatory Flexibility Screening 
Analysis and FRFA Certification 
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C. 601–612), as amended in 1996, requires the preparation of a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for rules where there would be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small firms. Under the provisions of the law, each such analysis shall contain: 
1. A statement of the need for, and 
objectives of, the rule; 
2. A statement of the significant issues 
raised by the public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments; 
3. The response of the agency to any 
comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments; 
4. A description of and an estimate of 
the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available; 
5. A description of the projected 
reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and 
6. A description of the steps the 
agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of the applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other 
significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected. 
The Regulatory Flexibility Act further 
states that the required elements of the FRFA may be performed in conjunction with or as part of any other agenda or analysis required by any other law if such other analysis satisfies the relevant provisions (5 U.S.C. 605(a)). 
As explained below, OSHA has 
determined that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and therefore a FRFA is not required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Nonetheless, OSHA has prepared a voluntary Final Regulatory Flexibility Screening Assessment (FRFSA) to assure the regulated community that the agency has considered the impacts of the final rule on small entities. While a full understanding of OSHA’s analysis and conclusions with respect to costs and economic impacts on small businesses requires a reading of the complete FEA and its supporting materials, this voluntary FRFSA will summarize the key aspects of OSHA’s analysis as they affect small businesses and includes a description of the impact of the rule on small entities, which is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
I. Final Regulatory Flexibility Screening 
Assessment 
(A). Description of the impact of the 
rule on small entities. 
To determine whether the final 
revisions to the HCS will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, OSHA evaluated the impact of compliance costs on the revenues and profits of small entities in affected industries. As discussed previously, the final rule will impose costs on impacted industries for training; for reclassification of aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases; and for becoming familiar with the final 
changes to the standard. The rule will 
also result in cost savings to the extent it limits employers’ duties with respect to the labeling of some very small containers and provides more flexible relabeling requirements for packaged chemicals released for shipment. 
Although the phase-in periods for 
evaluation and training on the hazards of chemical substances and mixtures under the final rule range from eighteen months to forty-two months, as an analytical simplification for this FEA, OSHA has estimated costs as one-time costs that will be incurred during the first year after the rule is promulgated. In addition, as mentioned above, there will be annual cost savings due to the flexibilities introduced in the provision related to the labeling of very small containers and in the released-for- shipment provision. Tables VI–23 and VI–24 present 
OSHA’s screening analysis of the impact 
of compliance costs and cost savings on revenues and profits of small and very small entities. Tables VI–25 and VI–26 present OSHA’s screening analysis of impacts on revenues and profits for small and very small entities under the scenario that zero cost savings are realized, i.e., only positive costs are 
incurred by affected employers. OSHA’s screening criteria for determining whether there are significant economic impacts on small firms assesses whether, for small entities in any given industry, the annualized costs exceed one percent of revenues or five percent 
of profits.
53 
The total annualized cost savings 
resulting from the revisions to the HCS for small entities and very small entities are estimated to be approximately $25.5 million and $1.6 million, respectively (see Tables VI–23 and VI–24). To assess the economic impact of the final rule on small entities and very small entities, OSHA calculated the ratios of compliance costs to profits and to revenues. These ratios are presented for each affected industry in Tables VI–23 (small entities) and VI–24 (very small entities). Those tables show that in no industries do the annualized costs of the revisions to the standard exceed one percent of annual revenues or five percent of annual profits, either for small entities or for very small entities. Similarly, under a cost scenario exclusive of cost savings (shown in Tables VI–25 and VI–26), in no industries do the annualized costs of the final rule exceed one percent of annual revenues or five percent of annual profits. Because no adverse revenue and profit impacts are expected to result from this revision to the HCS, OSHA certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES444243 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 May 17, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MYR4.SGM 20MYR4
ER20MY24.201</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4