Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53617 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 

and 1926 

[Docket No. H–022K] 

RIN 1218–AC20 

Hazard Communication 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Department of 

Labor. 

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM). 

SUMMARY: OSHA, other Federal 

agencies, and stakeholder 

representatives have participated in 

long-term international negotiations to 

develop a Globally Harmonized System 

of Classification and Labeling of 

Chemicals (GHS). The GHS has been 

adopted by the United Nations, and 

there is an international goal for as 

many countries as possible to 

implement the GHS by 2008. The GHS 

includes harmonized provisions for 

classification of chemicals for their 

health, physical, and environmental 

effects, as well as for labels on 

containers and safety data sheets (SDS). 

Adoption of the GHS by OSHA would 

require modifications to the Agency’s 

Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). 

For example, an order of information 

would be established for safety data 

sheets. In this notice, OSHA is 

providing further information about the 

GHS, the benefits of adopting it, and its 

potential impact on the HCS. OSHA is 

seeking input from the public on a 

number of issues related to 

implementation of the GHS. The Agency 

is simultaneously announcing the 

availability of a new guide on its Web 

site at http://www.osha.gov that 

describes the GHS. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

the following dates: 

Hard copy: Your comments must be 

submitted (postmarked or sent) by 

November 13, 2006. 

Facsimile and electronic 

transmission: Your comments must be 

sent by November 13, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by OSHA Docket No. H–

022K, by any of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov Follow the 

instructions below for submitting 

comments. 

Agency Web Site: http:// 

ecomments.osha.gov Follow the 

instructions on the OSHA web page for 

submitting comments. 

FAX: If your comments, including any 

attachments, are 10 pages or fewer, you 

may fax them to the OSHA Docket 

Office at (202) 693–1648. 

Mail, express delivery, hand delivery, 

and courier service: You must submit 

three copies of your comments and 

attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, 

Docket No. H–022K, Room N2625, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone (202) 693–2350 (OSHA’s TTY 

number is (877) 889–5627). OSHA 

Docket Office and Department of Labor 

hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 

p.m., ET. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Agency name and 

docket number (H–022K). Comments 

received will be posted without change 

on OSHA’s Web page at http:// 

www.osha.gov, including any personal 

information provided. For detailed 

instructions on submitting comments, 

see the ‘‘Public Participation’’ heading 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read comments or background 

documents received, go to OSHA’s Web 

page. Comments and submissions are 

also available for inspection and 

copying at the OSHA Docket Office at 

the address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Press inquiries: Kevin Ropp, OSHA 

Office of Communications, Room 

N3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–1999. 

General and technical information: 

Maureen O’Donnell, Industrial 

Hygienist, or David O’Connor, Health 

Scientist, Directorate of Standards and 

Guidance, Room N3718, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone (202) 693–1950. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. History of the OSHA Hazard 

Communication Standard 

B. OSHA’s Involvement in Development of 

the GHS 

C. Other OSHA Activities Related to the 

GHS 

D. Benefits of the GHS 

E. State Plan States 

II. Provisions of OSHA’s HCS and the GHS 

A. Scope of the GHS 

B. Definitions of Hazards Covered 

C. Health Hazards 

D. Physical Hazards 

E. Labels 

F. Safety Data Sheets 

III. Public Resources for Further Information 

on the GHS 

IV. Request for Input 

V. Public Participation 

VI. Authority and Signature 

I. Background 

A. History of the OSHA Hazard 

Communication Standard 

OSHA’s Hazard Communication 

Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200; 

1915.1200; 1917.28; 1918.90; and 

1926.59) was first adopted in 1983 for 

the manufacturing sector of industry (48 

FR 53280; November 25, 1983). Later, 

the Agency expanded the scope of 

coverage to all industries where 

employees are potentially exposed to 

hazardous chemicals (52 FR 31852; 

August 24, 1987). The HCS requires 

chemical manufacturers and importers 

to evaluate the hazards of the chemicals 

they produce or import. The rule 

provides definitions of health and 

physical hazards to use as the criteria 

for determining hazards in the 

evaluation process. The information 

about the hazards and protective 

measures is then required to be 

conveyed to downstream employers and 

employees by putting labels on 

containers and preparing and 

distributing safety data sheets. All 

employers with hazardous chemicals in 

their workplaces are required to have a 

hazard communication program, 

including container labels, safety data 

sheets, and employee training. (Note: 

The HCS uses the term ‘‘material safety 

data sheet’’ or MSDS, while the GHS 

uses safety data sheet or SDS. For 

convenience, safety data sheet or SDS is 

being used throughout this document.) 

OSHA has updated estimates in the 

standard’s regulatory impact analysis, 

and found that the HCS now covers over 

7 million workplaces, more than 100 

million employees, and some 945,000 

hazardous chemical products. Ensuring 

that hazard and protective measure 

information is available in workplaces 

through hazard communication 

programs helps employers design and 

implement appropriate controls for 

chemical exposures, and gives 

employees the right-to-know the 

hazards and identities of the chemicals, 

as well as allowing them to participate 

actively in the successful control of 

exposures. Together, these actions of 

employers and employees reduce the 

potential for adverse effects to occur. 

The information transmitted under the 

HCS requirements provides the 

foundation upon which a chemical 

safety and health program can be built 

in the workplace. 

The HCS is performance-oriented, i.e., 

it establishes requirements for labels 

and safety data sheets but does not 

provide the specific language to convey 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
53618 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

the information or a format in which to 

provide it. 

B. OSHA Involvement in the 

Development of the GHS 

OSHA’s HCS is designed to 

disseminate information on chemicals 

to users to precipitate changes in 

handling methods and thus protect 

those exposed to the chemical from 

experiencing adverse effects. Since the 

United States (U.S.) is both a major 

importer and exporter of chemicals, the 

manner in which the U.S. and other 

countries choose to regulate information 

dissemination on hazardous chemicals 

not only has an impact on the protection 

of employees in the U.S. but also may 

pose potential barriers to international 

trade in chemicals. 

To protect employees and members of 

the public who are potentially exposed 

to chemicals during their production, 

transportation, use, and disposal, a 

number of countries have developed 

laws that require information about 

those chemicals to be prepared and 

transmitted to affected parties. These 

laws vary with regard to the scope of 

chemicals covered, definitions of 

hazards, the specificity of requirements 

(e.g., specification of a format for safety 

data sheets), and the use of symbols and 

pictograms. The inconsistencies 

between the various laws are substantial 

enough that different labels and safety 

data sheets must often be developed for 

the same product when it is marketed in 

different nations. For example, Canada 

has established requirements for labels 

under its Workplace Hazardous 

Materials Information System (WHMIS). 

WHMIS requires that labels include 

specified symbols within a defined 

circle. U.S. chemical manufacturers 

must label chemicals accordingly for 

marketing in Canada. 

Within the U.S., several regulatory 

authorities exercise jurisdiction over 

chemical hazard communication. In 

addition to OSHA’s HCS, the 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

regulates chemicals in transport, the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC) regulates consumer products, 

and the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) regulates pesticides, as 

well as having other authority over 

labeling under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act. Each of these regulatory 

authorities operates under different 

statutory mandates, and have adopted 

varying approaches to hazard 

communication requirements. 

The diverse and sometimes 

conflicting national and international 

requirements can create confusion 

among those who seek to use hazard 

information effectively. For example, 

labels and safety data sheets may 

include symbols and hazard statements 

that are unfamiliar to readers or not well 

understood. Containers may be labeled 

with such a large volume of information 

that important statements are not easily 

recognized. Given the differences in 

hazard classification criteria, labels may 

also be incorrect when used in other 

countries. This is particularly true with 

regard to workplace hazard 

communication in the U.S. Since the 

U.S. OSHA system is performanceoriented, labels meeting the 

specification requirements of other 

countries are often seen in the U.S. 

workplace. While there are no format 

requirements in the U.S. that are 

violated by these differing formats, the 

underlying hazard criteria from another 

country may be different and that could 

make the information on the labels out 

of compliance with the U.S. HCS. 

Development of multiple sets of labels 

and safety data sheets for each product 

when shipped to different countries is a 

major compliance burden for chemical 

manufacturers, distributors, and 

transporters involved in international 

trade. Small businesses may have 

particular difficulty in coping with the 

complexities and costs involved. 

When the HCS was first issued in 

1983, the preamble included a 

commitment by OSHA to review the 

standard regularly to address 

international harmonization of hazard 

communication requirements. OSHA 

was asked to include this commitment 

in the final rule in recognition of an 

interagency trade policy that supported 

the U.S. pursuing international 

harmonization of requirements for 

chemical classification and labeling. 

The potential benefits of harmonization 

were noted in the preamble: 

* * * [O]SHA acknowledges the long-term 

benefit of maximum recognition of hazard 

warnings, especially in the case of containers 

leaving the workplace which go into 

interstate and international commerce. The 

development of internationally agreed 

standards would make possible the broadest 

recognition of the identified hazards while 

avoiding the creation of technical barriers to 

trade and reducing the costs of dissemination 

of hazard information by elimination of 

duplicative requirements which could 

otherwise apply to a chemical in commerce. 

As noted previously, these regulations will 

be reviewed on a regular basis with regard to 

similar requirements which may be evolving 

in the United States and in foreign countries. 

(48 FR 53287; November 25, 1983) 

OSHA was the only Federal agency 

that had a public commitment to pursue 

harmonization. We have actively 

participated in a number of such efforts 

in the years since that commitment was 

made, including participation in traderelated discussions on the need for 

harmonization with major U.S. trading 

partners. The Agency also issued a 

Request for Information (RFI) in the 

Federal Register in January 1990, to 

obtain input regarding international 

harmonization efforts, and on work 

being done at that time to develop a 

convention and recommendation on 

safety in the use of chemicals at work 

in the International Labor Organization 

(55 FR 2166). 

Little progress was made regarding 

international harmonization until June 

1992, when a mandate from the United 

Nations Conference on Environment 

and Development (UNCED) (Chapter 19 

of Agenda 21), supported by the U.S., 

called for development of a globally 

harmonized chemical classification and 

labeling system: 

A globally harmonized hazard 

classification and compatible labelling 

system, including material safety data sheets 

and easily understandable symbols, should 

be available, if feasible, by the year 2000. 

UNCED further noted that an 

internationally harmonized system for 

transport of dangerous goods was 

already available. However: 

* * * [G]lobally harmonized hazard 

classification and labelling systems are not 

yet available to promote the safe use of 

chemicals, inter alia, at the workplace or in 

the home. Classification of chemicals can be 

made for different purposes and is a 

particularly important tool in establishing 

labelling systems. There is a need to develop 

harmonized hazard classification and 

labelling systems, building on ongoing work. 

This international mandate initiated 

an extensive effort to develop the GHS. 

It involved numerous international 

organizations, many countries, and 

extensive stakeholder representation. 

The work was managed by the 

Coordinating Group on the 

Harmonization of Chemical 

Classification Systems, under the 

umbrella of the Interorganization 

Programme for the Sound Management 

of Chemicals. OSHA chaired the 

international coordinating group that 

managed the harmonization work. The 

technical work was divided among 

several international organizations. 

Development of criteria for health and 

environmental hazards, as well as 

mixture classification for chemicals 

having these hazards, was done under 

the auspices of the Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and 

Development (OECD). Criteria for 

physical hazards were based on the 

already harmonized criteria for 

transportation, and developed by the 

United Nations Subcommittee of 

Experts on the Transport of Dangerous 

Goods and the International Labor 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53619 

Organization. The overall management 

of the process, as well as the work on 

aspects of the system for communicating 

hazards on labels and safety data sheets, 

were done by the International Labor 

Organization. OSHA participated in all 

of this work, and took the U.S. lead on 

classification of mixtures and hazard 

communication. 

The negotiations were extensive and 

spanned a number of years. The primary 

approach involved identifying the 

relevant provisions in each of the major 

existing systems, developing 

background documents that compared, 

contrasted, and explained the rationale 

for such provisions, and undertaking 

negotiations to find an agreed approach 

that addressed the needs of the 

countries and stakeholders involved. 

The major existing systems were those 

of the U.S., Canada, and Europe, and the 

United Nations Recommendations for 

the Transport of Dangerous Goods. 

Principles to guide the work were 

established, including an agreement that 

protections of the existing systems were 

not to be reduced as a result of 

harmonization. Thus countries could be 

assured that the existing protections of 

their longstanding systems would be 

maintained or enhanced in the resulting 

harmonized approach. 

In the U.S., an interagency committee 

under the auspices of the U.S. 

Department of State coordinated the 

various agencies involved. In addition 

to the four core agencies that have 

requirements that are potentially 

impacted by the GHS, there were a 

number of other agencies involved that 

had interests related to trade or other 

aspects of the GHS process. Different 

agencies had the lead in various parts of 

the discussions. Positions for the U.S. in 

these negotiations were coordinated 

through the interagency committee. 

Interested stakeholders were kept 

informed through e-mail dissemination 

of information, as well as periodic 

public meetings. The U.S. Department 

of State also published a notice in the 

Federal Register that described the 

harmonization activities, the agencies 

involved, the principles of 

harmonization, and other information, 

as well as invited public comment on 

these issues (62 FR 15951; April 3, 

1997). Stakeholders also actively 

participated themselves in the 

discussions in the international 

organizations and were able to present 

their views directly in the negotiating 

process. 

The product resulting from this effort, 

the Globally Harmonized System of 

Classification and Labeling of Chemicals 

(GHS), was formally adopted by the new 

United Nations Committee of Experts on 

the Transport of Dangerous Goods and 

the Globally Harmonized System of 

Classification and Labelling of 

Chemicals in December 2002. In 2003, 

the adoption was endorsed by the 

Economic and Social Council of the 

United Nations. While the GHS has 

been adopted, it is considered to be a 

living document that will be updated as 

necessary to reflect new technology and 

scientific developments, or provide 

additional explanatory text. OSHA 

expects to propose adoption of the 2005 

version, Revision 1. Modifications to the 

GHS that are made after the GHS is 

adopted in the U.S. would require 

additional rulemaking. 

It should be noted that the GHS 

document consists of non-mandatory 

recommendations and explanatory text. 

It is not a model regulation or a standard 

that is to be adopted verbatim. Countries 

like the U.S., and agencies such as 

OSHA, will propose converting the 

recommendations into appropriate 

regulatory text consistent with national 

requirements while ensuring that the 

specific provisions are consistent with 

the GHS and thus harmonized. OSHA 

expects to propose modifying the HCS 

to address the changes in hazard 

criteria, adopt the specific labeling 

requirements, and adopt the SDS order 

of information. Other parts of the 

framework of the HCS (such as the 

coverage of articles, trade secrets, and 

scope) would likely remain the same. 

While the GHS text is available to 

everyone on the UN Web site, it will be 

the proposed rule to adopt the GHS that 

OSHA plans to issue rather than the 

detailed GHS document that will be of 

primary interest to U.S. stakeholders. To 

help those who are not familiar with the 

approach in the GHS, OSHA has 

prepared a guide that summarizes the 

GHS requirements, and it is available on 

our Web site (click on the Hazard 

Communication button on http:// 

www.osha.gov). In addition, the Agency 

also has a detailed comparison of the 

HCS to the GHS available on the Web 

site so that interested parties can review 

the types of changes that would need to 

be made for the current U.S. workplace 

requirements to be harmonized with the 

international approach. 

A review of these differences reveals 

that the primary impact of revising the 

HCS to adopt the GHS would be on 

compliance obligations for producers of 

hazardous chemicals. The modifications 

to the HCS would involve a review of 

the classifications of these chemicals, as 

well as preparation and distribution of 

new labels and revised safety data 

sheets. Employers who use chemicals, 

and exposed employees, would benefit 

from receiving the revised labels and 

safety data sheets prepared in a 

consistent format. The information 

should be easier to comprehend and 

access in the new approach, allowing it 

to be used more effectively for the 

protection of employees. The primary 

change in workplaces where chemicals 

are used but not produced will be to 

integrate the new approach into the 

workplace hazard communication 

program, including assuring that both 

the employers and employees 

understand the pictograms and other 

information provided on the chemicals. 

The GHS is now available for 

worldwide implementation, and 

countries have been encouraged to 

implement the GHS as soon as possible, 

with the goal of a fully operational 

system by 2008. This goal was adopted 

by countries in the Intergovernmental 

Forum on Chemical Safety, as well as 

endorsed by the World Summit on 

Sustainable Development. In addition, 

countries involved in the Asia-Pacific 

Economic Cooperation have endorsed a 

goal of 2006. The U.S. participates in all 

of these international groups, and has 

agreed to working toward achieving 

these goals. 

The U.S. is also a member of both the 

United Nations Committee of Experts on 

the Transport of Dangerous Goods and 

the Globally Harmonized System of 

Classification and Labeling of 

Chemicals, as well as the Subcommittee 

of Experts on the Globally Harmonized 

System of Classification and Labeling of 

Chemicals. These permanent UN bodies 

have international responsibility for 

maintaining, updating as necessary, and 

overseeing the implementation of the 

GHS. OSHA and other affected Federal 

agencies actively participate in these 

UN groups. In addition, OSHA, EPA and 

the U.S. State Department also 

participate in the GHS Programme 

Advisory Group that functions under 

the United Nations Institute for Training 

and Research (UNITAR). UNITAR is 

responsible internationally for helping 

countries implement the GHS, and has 

ongoing programs to prepare guidance 

documents, conduct regional 

workshops, and implement pilot 

projects in a number of interested 

nations. 

C. Other OSHA Activities Related to the 

GHS 

OSHA and the other three core 

agencies continue interagency 

discussions related to coordination of 

domestic implementation of the GHS, in 

addition to ongoing discussions and 

coordination related to international 

work to implement and maintain the 

GHS. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
53620 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

OSHA also has ongoing activities 

related to the GHS under the North 

American Free Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA) discussions on handling of 

hazardous substances, and in 

discussions with the European Union 

on issues related to the global 

management of chemicals. 

In addition, a number of organizations 

with whom OSHA has Alliances have 

expressed an interest in hazard 

communication, and in working 

together with each other on the subject. 

The Alliance program is a cooperative 

program that enables organizations 

committed to occupational safety and 

health to work with OSHA to prevent 

injuries, illnesses, and fatalities in the 

workplace (click on the Alliances button 

on OSHA’s home page for an 

explanation of the program and a list of 

participants). One of the issues they 

have identified to work together on is 

related to the GHS, and making the 

business case for GHS adoption, 

particularly for small businesses. OSHA 

has conducted a roundtable of Alliances 

interested in this topic, and will 

continue these meetings to get their 

input and work with them on products 

they identify as appropriate for 

development. Products under 

consideration include a document 

addressing frequently asked questions 

and the corresponding answers, as well 

as a document that addresses why the 

GHS is needed. 

D. Benefits of the GHS 

Development of this system required 

extensive work by a great number of 

people, and resources from many 

countries and organizations. The reason 

it received such support is that there is 

a widespread belief that there are 

significant benefits associated with 

implementation of a globally 

harmonized approach to hazard 

communication. Countries, 

international organizations, chemical 

producers and users of chemicals will 

all benefit. 

First and foremost, implementation of 

the GHS will enhance protection of 

people potentially exposed to chemicals 

and the environment. While some 

countries such as ours already have the 

benefits of protection under existing 

systems, the majority of countries do not 

have such comprehensive approaches. 

Thus implementation of the GHS will 

provide these countries with the 

important protections that result from 

dissemination of information about 

chemical hazards and protective 

measures. In our country, we expect that 

adoption of the GHS would improve 

and build on protections we already 

have. Refinement of the information 

provided would help improve 

comprehensibility and thus make it 

more likely that the information will 

result in workplace changes to protect 

employees. As has already been noted, 

the majority of affected employers and 

employees should benefit from adoption 

of the GHS through receipt of better, 

more standardized, and consistent 

information about chemicals in their 

workplaces. 

Secondly, implementation of such an 

approach would facilitate international 

trade in chemicals. It will reduce the 

burdens caused by having to comply 

with differing requirements for the same 

product, and allow companies that have 

not had the resources to deal with those 

burdens to be involved in international 

trade. This is particularly important for 

small producers who may be precluded 

currently from international trade 

because of the compliance resources 

required to address the extensive 

regulatory requirements for 

classification and labeling of chemicals. 

Third, one of the initial reasons this 

system was pursued internationally 

involved concerns about animal welfare 

and the proliferation of requirements for 

animal testing and evaluation. Where 

existing systems have different 

definitions of hazards, it often results in 

duplicative testing to produce data 

related to the varying levels of toxicity 

or cut-offs used to define the hazards in 

the different systems. Having one agreed 

definition will reduce this duplicative 

testing. It should be noted that OSHA 

has no testing requirements. The HCS is 

based on collecting and evaluating the 

best available evidence on the hazards 

of each chemical. 

Information transmittal systems 

provide the underlying infrastructure 

for the sound management of chemicals 

in a country. Those countries that do 

not have the resources to develop and 

maintain such a system can use the GHS 

to build their chemical safety and health 

programs. Unlike some other safety and 

health issues, a country’s approach to 

the sound management of chemicals 

definitely affects other countries. In 

some cases, bordering countries may 

experience pollution and other effects of 

uncontrolled chemical exposures. In all 

countries, there is a need to acquire 

sufficient information to properly 

handle the chemical when it is imported 

from other countries. Thus having a 

coordinated and harmonized approach 

to the development and dissemination 

of information about chemicals will be 

mutually beneficial to both importing 

and exporting countries. 

In the U.S., the four primary 

regulatory agencies (OSHA, EPA, CPSC, 

and DOT) that would be responsible for 

GHS implementation are not 

domestically harmonized in terms of 

definitions of hazards and other 

requirements related to classification 

and labeling of chemicals. Thus, if all 

four agencies adopt the GHS, the U.S. 

would have the additional benefit of 

harmonizing the overall U.S. approach 

to classification and labeling. Since 

most chemicals are produced in a 

workplace and shipped elsewhere, 

every manufacturer deals with at least 

two of the U.S. systems. Thus every 

producer is likely to experience some 

benefits from domestic harmonization, 

in addition to the benefits that will 

accrue to producers involved in 

international trade. 

OSHA believes that adoption of the 

GHS could also address some of the 

issues that have been discussed in the 

U.S. regarding the HCS and its 

implementation, such as improving 

labels and SDS comprehensibility 

through implementation of a 

standardized approach. The current 

regulatory system includes a 

performance-oriented approach to labels 

and SDSs, allowing the producers to use 

whatever language or format they 

choose to provide the necessary 

information. This often results in a lack 

of consistency that makes it difficult for 

some users of chemicals to properly 

identify the hazards and the protective 

measures, particularly when purchasing 

the same product from multiple 

suppliers. Having the information 

provided in the same words and 

pictograms on labels, as well as having 

a standardized order of information on 

SDSs, would help all users identify the 

critical information necessary to protect 

employees. 

E. State Plan States 

If Federal OSHA promulgates a final 

rule amending its HCS in response to 

the GHS, the 26 States and U.S. 

Territories with their own OSHAapproved occupational safety and health 

plans would be required to revise their 

standards to reflect the new amendment 

within six months of Federal 

promulgation. 29 CFR 1953.5(a). A 

revised State hazard communication 

standard must be applicable to both the 

private and public (State and local 

government employees) sectors. Some 

States may have statutory provisions 

that would require amendment in order 

to conform to a revised Federal HCS. 

Section 18(c)(2) of the OSH Act 

requires that State standards applicable 

to products distributed or used in 

interstate commerce, if not identical to 

the Federal standard, must be required 

by compelling local conditions and 

must not unduly burden interstate 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53621 

commerce, in addition to being ‘‘at least 

as effective’’ as the Federal standard. 

The amended HCS, like the original 

standard, would be ‘applicable to 

products’ in the sense that it would 

permit the distribution and use of 

hazardous chemicals in commerce only 

if they are in labeled containers 

accompanied by safety data sheets[.]’’ 48 

FR 53280, 53323, November 25, 1983. In 

order to assure that State standards do 

not pose an undue burden on interstate 

commerce, and to advance the goals of 

the GHS, OSHA would expect to closely 

scrutinize resultant State standards to 

assure not only equal or greater 

effectiveness, but also that any different 

or additional requirements do not 

conflict with, or adversely affect, the 

effectiveness of the national application 

of OSHA’s standard. 

II. Provisions of OSHA’s HCS and the 

GHS 

A. Scope of the GHS 

The GHS covers chemicals in various 

stages of their life cycle, from 

production to disposal. It is based 

primarily on the hazards of chemicals. 

The GHS is designed to allow regulatory 

authorities to choose provisions that are 

appropriate to their particular scope of 

regulation. This is referred to as the 

‘‘building block approach.’’ The GHS 

includes all of the building blocks or 

possible regulatory components that 

might be needed for classification and 

labeling requirements in the workplace 

as well as for regulation of classification 

and labeling of pesticides, chemicals in 

transport, and consumer products. 

Therefore, regulatory authorities such as 

OSHA would choose the provisions of 

the GHS that are necessary for the 

protection of employees, but would not 

adopt others that address other types of 

protection. For example, the GHS 

includes harmonized criteria for 

classifying chemicals for aquatic 

toxicity. Since OSHA does not have the 

regulatory authority to address 

environmental concerns, OSHA would 

not adopt the GHS criteria for aquatic 

toxicity. It is expected that other U.S. 

agencies that regulate environmental 

issues will consider adopting this 

definition. Similarly, the GHS safety 

data sheet format includes a section that 

addresses environmental information. 

OSHA would not require inclusion of 

environmental information for SDSs 

used in workplaces. 

The building block approach may also 

be applied in other ways when deciding 

which parts of the system to adopt. For 

example, the GHS includes 

classification criteria, labels, and SDSs. 

While workplace authorities such as 

OSHA are likely to adopt all of these 

elements, it is expected that consumer 

product authorities will not have SDS 

requirements, nor will transport 

authorities. The building block 

approach may also be applied to the 

criteria for defining hazards. For 

example, the acute toxicity criteria are 

much broader than those we currently 

have in the HCS for workplace 

exposures. This is to allow consumer 

product authorities the tools they need 

to address the protection of children 

who might accidentally be exposed. 

OSHA would not need to adopt all of 

the categories of acute toxicity in order 

to protect employees from the types of 

exposures they may have. 

In addition to the building block 

approach, the GHS also contains a 

number of areas that are left to the 

competent authority to determine how 

to apply the provision. Where OSHA is 

the competent authority, i.e., in terms of 

workplace protections in the U.S., the 

Agency expects to maintain its current 

approaches in terms of interpretations 

and accommodations regarding 

application. These approaches are based 

on the rulemaking record, as well as 

implementation experiences in the U.S., 

and have been determined to be an 

appropriate application. For example, 

the scope and application provisions in 

the GHS address the interface of the 

OSHA requirements to requirements in 

other agencies that address the same 

products. These scope interpretations 

are expected to be the same if OSHA 

adopts the GHS. 

Overall, the scope of the GHS with 

regard to chemicals covered, as well as 

types of chemicals and workplaces that 

are covered, is very similar to the HCS. 

The HCS has a very broad scope of 

coverage, ensuring that information is 

provided on all potential hazards in 

American workplaces. Adoption of the 

GHS should maintain this broad 

coverage of hazards and chemicals. It 

should be noted that the GHS, like the 

HCS, does not require any new testing 

of chemicals. Evaluations of chemical 

hazards are to be based on the best 

available evidence. 

As has been described above, the HCS 

consists of requirements for defining 

health and physical hazards, preparing 

a written hazard communication 

program, preparing and distributing 

labels on containers that are shipped as 

well as containers in the workplace, 

preparing and distributing safety data 

sheets for all hazardous chemicals, and 

employee training. The GHS addresses 

classification of health and physical 

hazards, and preparation and 

distribution of labels and safety data 

sheets. It does not include requirements 

for a written hazard communication 

program or for employee training. 

Training is noted in the GHS as an 

important adjunct to label and safety 

data sheet requirements, but the 

harmonization process did not include 

such provisions. Countries are thus free 

to determine what training will be 

applicable in their own regulatory 

approach. OSHA believes that training 

is critical to ensuring the effectiveness 

of hazard communication, and 

anticipates maintaining current HCS 

requirements that training be part of a 

hazard communication program. OSHA 

also expects to propose some additional 

training to ensure understanding of the 

new approach regarding labels and 

SDSs in the GHS. 

B. Definitions of Hazards Covered 

The HCS covers a broad range of both 

health and physical hazards. The 

standard is performance-oriented, 

providing definitions of hazards and 

parameters for evaluating the best 

available evidence to determine whether 

a chemical has a hazardous effect under 

the standard. In particular, with regard 

to health hazards, one toxicological 

study, conducted according to 

established scientific principles and 

reporting a statistically significant 

adverse health effect, is sufficient for a 

finding of hazard under the rule. The 

principle behind the standard is that it 

is to address dissemination of 

information, and thus complete 

information about all of the potential 

hazards should be disseminated to 

ensure that employers and employees 

can make appropriate decisions about 

the level of protection required in their 

particular workplaces. Hazard 

information, in combination with 

information about the exposures 

occurring in each workplace, allows 

decisions to be made by employers 

regarding the appropriate risk 

management to implement based on the 

specific conditions in their workplace. 

Chemical manufacturers and importers 

do not have information about the 

exposures to their products in each 

workplace where their product may be 

used, so they must prepare their labels 

and safety data sheets based on the 

hazards of the chemicals. 

C. Health Hazards 

The HCS thus covers every type of 

health effect that may occur, including 

both acute and chronic effects. The 

standard describes different systems of 

the body and indicates that target organ 

effects are to be considered in the 

hazard evaluation. The definitions 

provided are indicative of the wide 

range of coverage, but are not exclusive. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
53622 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Any type of adverse health effect that is 

reported and substantiated by a 

scientific study is covered. The standard 

specifically includes the following in 

the definition of ‘‘health hazard’’: 

Carcinogens 

Toxic or highly toxic agents (all routes of 

entry) 

Reproductive toxins 

Irritants 

Corrosives 

Sensitizers 

Hepatotoxins 

Nephrotoxins 

Neurotoxins 

Agents which act on the hematopoietic 

system 

Agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, 

or mucous membranes 

The GHS also has a very broad 

approach to the range of health effects 

covered: 

Acute toxicity (any route of entry) 

Skin corrosion/irritation 

Serious eye damage/eye irritation 

Respiratory or skin sensitizer 

Germ cell mutagenicity 

Carcinogenicity 

Reproductive toxicity 

Specific target organ systemic toxicity—

single exposure 

Specific target organ systemic toxicity—

repeated use 

Aspiration hazard 

Under the GHS, each hazard or 

endpoint as listed above is considered 

to be a hazard class. The classes are 

generally sub-divided into categories of 

hazard. The definitions of hazards are 

much more specific and detailed than 

what is in the HCS. For example, under 

the HCS, a chemical is either a potential 

carcinogen or it is not. The evaluation 

is a yes or no response. Under the GHS, 

there are two categories of 

carcinogenicity, based on the weight of 

the evidence involved. The hazard 

communication consequences of this 

classification also vary as a result for 

each category in a hazard class. The 

hazard communication elements 

allocated to each category reflect the 

degree of severity of the hazard. 

There are advantages to this more 

specific and delineated approach. First, 

the detailed criteria for classification 

should lead to more accurate hazard 

determinations and more consistency 

among multiple classifiers. There is less 

likely to be room for different 

interpretations of the same data. This 

addresses some of the concerns that 

have been raised about the HCS. In 

addition, introducing categories gives an 

indication of the degree of severity of 

the hazard. This is helpful to employers 

and employees determining what the 

appropriate course of action should be 

when exposures to the chemical occur. 

There may be some changes in what 

the hazard of certain chemicals is 

determined to be based on a 

consideration of the data available on a 

chemical in light of these new criteria. 

It is expected that chemical 

manufacturers and importers will be 

required to re-evaluate their chemicals 

according to the GHS criteria. But given 

the current broad nature of the HCS, it 

is not expected that the number of 

chemicals covered would change in any 

significant way. The most likely 

difference would be that the chemical 

may be characterized in categories for 

certain hazards based on the weight of 

the evidence. 

With regard to mixtures of chemicals, 

the HCS requires the evaluation of 

mixtures to be based either on data for 

the mixture as a whole, or, where that 

is not available, the mixture’s health 

hazards are to be based on the presence 

of ingredients with health hazards over 

a specified percentage. That percentage 

is 0.1% for carcinogens, and 1.0% for all 

other types of health effects. The HCS 

also recognizes that risk may remain 

below these cut-offs, and where there is 

evidence that is the case, the mixtures 

are still covered. 

The GHS has what has been described 

as a tiered approach to mixture 

evaluation. The first step is 

consideration of data on the mixture as 

a whole, similar to the HCS. The second 

step allows the use of ‘‘bridging 

principles’’ to estimate the hazards of 

the mixture based on information about 

its components. For example, if a 

chemical is considered to be acutely 

toxic, but it is diluted with something 

that is not toxic, the GHS allows the 

employer to take the dilution into 

consideration when evaluating the 

hazards of the product rather than 

simply basing it on a percentage cut-off 

approach like the HCS. This 

extrapolation of data will mean that 

fewer mixtures will be evaluated on the 

basis of the presence of a chemical 

above a specific cut-off. The third part 

of the tiered approach does involve cutoffs, but they vary by the type of effect. 

In particular, for acute effects, there is 

a formula for determining whether the 

mixture is considered to be toxic. The 

formula is based to some extent on one 

that is currently used in transport. 

Overall, the approach is generally 

consistent with the current HCS 

requirements, but provides more detail 

and specification and allows more 

extrapolation of data available on the 

components of a mixture—particularly 

for acute effects. It is thus more 

complicated than the approach in the 

HCS, and it is likely that additional 

guidance, particularly electronic tools, 

may need to be made available to assist 

with compliance. 

As a result of these differences in 

health hazard criteria and the 

accompanying approaches to classifying 

mixtures, another provision of the 

standard that is potentially impacted by 

adoption of the GHS is the process of 

hazard determination. Under the current 

rule, this process is performanceoriented, allowing for a significant 

degree of professional judgment on the 

part of the hazard evaluator. No specific 

procedures are provided, but there are 

certain parameters established. The 

scientific literature must be reviewed, 

and if there is at least one toxicological 

study, conducted according to 

established scientific principles, and 

providing statistically significant results 

indicating an adverse health effect, this 

hazard must be disclosed under the 

HCS. 

The HCS also includes references to 

sources of information that were 

identified in the rulemaking record as 

one basis for making an initial 

determination of hazard. Among these 

listed sources are OSHA’s substancespecific standards (those chemicals for 

which OSHA has promulgated a 

permissible exposure limit (PEL) in 

Subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous 

Substances), American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

(ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values 

(TLVs), International Agency for 

Research on Cancer (IARC) monographs, 

and the National Toxicology Program 

(NTP) list of carcinogens. These sources 

provide employers a list of hazardous 

chemicals. However, manufacturers and 

importers are still required to review the 

available information to determine 

specifically what the hazards of these 

chemicals are, and to disclose them on 

labels and safety data sheets. 

The GHS provides much more 

specific criteria for defining health 

hazards than the HCS does. If OSHA 

adopts the GHS, these more specific 

criteria will be part of the HCS. This 

will eliminate the need for a specific 

listing of hazardous chemicals as part of 

the hazard determination procedures. 

Chemical manufacturers and importers 

are much more likely to make consistent 

hazard determination evaluations 

following the specific criteria in the 

GHS, thus addressing the concerns that 

led to the inclusion of lists in the 

original Hazard Communication 

Standard. References to the chemicals 

for which there are ACGIH TLVs, and 

those chemicals addressed in IARC 

Monographs and the NTP lists, would 

no longer be specifically addressed in 

the HCS. Chemical manufacturers and 

importers would retain the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53623 

responsibility for evaluating all relevant 

data on the chemicals they produce or 

import. 

Similarly, the provisions for 

disclosing the hazardous ingredients of 

mixtures under the GHS are much more 

detailed than the HCS. The simple 

across-the-board cut-offs for all types of 

hazards would no longer be part of the 

rule if it is changed to adopt the GHS. 

Modifying the HCS to align with the 

GHS would also eliminate the current 

references to ACGIH TLVs as part of the 

mixture provisions. 

D. Physical Hazards 

With regard to physical hazards, the 

current definitions in the HCS are 

drawn from other standards we have 

that address such chemicals (e.g., 

flammable chemicals), or from what 

were the DOT criteria for physical 

hazards at the time OSHA promulgated 

the HCS. OSHA includes definitions for 

the following physical hazards in the 

HCS: 

Combustible liquid 

Compressed gas 

Explosive 

Flammable (aerosol, gas, liquid, solid) 

Organic peroxide 

Oxidizer 

Pyrophoric 

Unstable (reactive) 

Water-reactive 

The GHS includes criteria for the 

following physical hazards: 

Explosives 

Flammable (aerosol, gas, liquid (including 

combustible liquid), solid) 

Oxidizing (liquids, solids, gases) 

Gases under pressure 

Self-reactive substances and mixtures 

Pyrophoric (liquid, solid) 

Self-heating substances and mixtures 

Substances and mixtures which in contact 

with water emit flammable gases 

Organic peroxide 

Corrosive to metals 

DOT subsequently changed their criteria 

to be consistent with the international 

transport requirements. The 

international transport requirements for 

classification of physical hazards have 

now been incorporated into the GHS. 

While DOT must make a few changes to 

be consistent with the GHS, their 

requirements are mostly already the 

same. 

OSHA is not harmonized with current 

DOT requirements. Changing the HCS to 

adopt the GHS criteria would also 

ensure that DOT and OSHA 

requirements are consistent. This is an 

important improvement in the current 

situation where the outside of a truck 

may be placarded with a different 

hazard than the workplace labels 

convey on the containers inside the 

truck. Again, chemical manufacturers 

and importers would have to re-evaluate 

their chemicals according to the new 

criteria in order to ensure they are 

classified appropriately. However, if 

they are chemicals that are transported, 

i.e., not produced and used in the same 

workplace, this classification should 

largely be done already for purposes of 

complying with DOT’s existing 

transport provisions. This should 

minimize the additional work required 

to review the physical hazard 

classifications to be consistent with the 

GHS for purposes of workplace 

classification and labeling. 

One issue of concern is whether 

OSHA should also propose to change 

the physical hazard definitions in other 

standards when it proposes to change 

the HCS criteria to be consistent with 

the GHS. For example, if the HCS 

definitions are changed with regard to 

the definition of flammable liquids, 

there is a concern as to whether 

definitions in the flammable liquids 

standard need to be changed as well, 

and what the impact of this would be 

beyond classification and labeling. This 

is one of the areas that needs to be 

further explored in terms of impact and 

possible consequences. 

E. Labels 

The HCS requirements for labels 

simply indicate the minimal 

information required to be on them. At 

the time the standard was promulgated, 

OSHA reviewed the current industry 

consensus standards for labels, and 

basically focused on requiring 

information that was not generally 

present on most labels in use by 

industry. The additional information 

included an identity that could be 

traced to more detailed information, and 

specific information about both the 

health and physical hazards. In 

particular, OSHA did not consider a 

label statement indicating possible harm 

but no specific health effect to be a 

sufficient hazard communication. Other 

types of information such as 

precautionary statements were not 

included in the requirements. 

This performance-oriented approach 

was strongly supported by the chemical 

industry at the time the standard was 

adopted. Taking such an approach 

allowed existing labels to continue to be 

used in many situations, thus 

minimizing the impact on a number of 

producers. 

However, it also has resulted in labels 

that are not consistent, and may not 

communicate adequately to users. While 

some producers follow voluntary 

industry consensus standards, others do 

not. Many large companies have 

developed their own libraries of phrases 

to be used on labels and safety data 

sheets, and undertaken translation of 

them into multiple languages. This is a 

considerable burden for a company to 

develop and maintain. 

Other major existing systems 

considered in the harmonization 

process included specific label phrases 

to convey hazards and other 

information. Symbols and pictograms 

were also part of these systems. For 

purposes of developing an agreed 

harmonized approach, it was thus 

necessary to consider including such 

elements in the GHS. 

For each class and category of hazard 

under the GHS that OSHA is 

considering adopting, there is a 

harmonized hazard statement, a signal 

word, and a pictogram specified. This is 

referred to as the core information for a 

chemical. Thus once an employer 

classifies a chemical, the GHS provides 

the specific core information to convey 

to users on that chemical. There are 

provisions to allow supplementary 

information as well so the chemical 

manufacturer is not limited to the 

specified core information. This should 

address product liability concerns for 

U.S. employers and ensure they can 

include other information they consider 

to be necessary for that purpose. 

Precautionary statements are also 

provided as examples in the GHS, but 

they have not yet been agreed and 

harmonized. This is expected to occur 

in the future as work on the system 

continues. Figure 1 is an example of 

how the core labeling elements 

(harmonized hazard statement, signal 

word, and pictogram) are assigned in 

one hazard class covered under the 

GHS. 

These labeling provisions will likely 

be the biggest difference between the 

HCS and the GHS. There are benefits to 

this standardized approach. First, 

employers and employees will be given 

the same information on a chemical 

regardless of the supplier. This 

consistency will improve 

communication of the hazards. It may 

also improve communication for those 

who are not functionally literate, or who 

are not literate in the language written 

on the label. Literacy of both types is a 

significant concern in American 

workplaces. Secondly, having the core 

information developed already, 

translated into multiple languages, and 

readily available to whomever wishes to 

access it, will eliminate the burden of 

chemical manufacturers and importers 

developing and maintaining their own 

such systems. Thus the specification 

approach should be beneficial both to 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
53624 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

the producers and the users of 

chemicals. 

United Nations Globally Harmonized 

System of Classification and Labeling of 

Chemicals, First Revised Edition, 2005, 

Annex I. Diamond frames for pictograms 

in the top row are red. 

The use of symbols and pictograms 

will require some training and 

familiarization to be effective. One of 

the issues OSHA is considering is 

whether generic training on this aspect 

of the GHS can be developed and made 

available to employers and employees. 

There is another significant benefit 

that will be achieved by adopting a 

system that has harmonized hazard 

statements in it. ‘‘Control banding,’’ a 

guidance approach to recommending 

control measures for chemical 

exposures, is attracting significant 

attention around the world. The 

approach uses information that is 

readily available to small and mediumsized employers with chemicals in their 

workplaces to provide them with 

workplace-specific control 

recommendations. Basically, the system 

uses such information to estimate the 

degree of severity of the hazard and the 

amount of chemical present, and relates 

that to the degree of control needed. The 

control banding approach relies on 

harmonized hazard statements to allow 

the system to estimate the degree of 

severity of the hazard. Initially based on 

the European hazard classification 

system, it has now been converted to the 

GHS phrases. The use of control 

banding to provide guidance for 

chemical safety and health approaches 

in U.S. workplaces cannot be 

accomplished until harmonized hazard 

statements are readily available. 

Adoption of the GHS and its phrases 

would open up the possibility that 

control banding guidance can be used in 

the U.S. to help small and mediumsized employers select and implement 

appropriate control measures. In 

addition, the possibility of addressing 

control banding recommendations in 

GHS SDSs in the section on controls is 

also being explored. For more 

information on control banding, please 

see http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ 

ctrlbanding/. 

F. Safety Data Sheets 

Under the HCS, the SDS is the 

detailed reference source on the 

chemical. While labels provide a quick 

snapshot to remind employers and 

employees of the hazards of the 

chemical, the SDS addresses all aspects 

of hazard information as well as 

methods for handling and use. The HCS 

specifies what information must be 

included on the SDS, but does not 

specify a format or order of information. 

Again, this approach was supported by 

producers to minimize the impact of the 

standard for those who already 

developed and disseminated SDSs. 

Currently, safety data sheets under the 

HCS are required to include: 

Identification of the chemical or hazardous 

ingredients of a mixture 

Physical and chemical characteristics 

Health hazards, including signs, symptoms, 

and medical conditions that could be 

aggravated by exposure 

The primary routes of entry 

The OSHA permissible exposure limit, 

ACGIH Threshold Limit Value, and any 

other recommended exposure limits 

Whether the chemical is considered to be a 

carcinogen by OSHA, the International 

Agency for Research on Cancer, or the 

National Toxicology Program 

Precautions for safe handling and use 

Control measures 

Emergency and first aid procedures 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP12SE06.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53625 

Date of preparation of the safety data sheet 

Contact information for the responsible party 

Users of chemicals have always 

preferred a standardized approach. 

Many believe that having the 

information in the same place on every 

data sheet allows them to access it more 

effectively. OSHA published a request 

for information regarding ways to 

improve the information provided 

under the HCS (55 FR 20580; May 17, 

1990), and received around 600 

comments in response. The majority of 

them were in favor of a standardized 

format or order of information. 

As a result of the users’ expressed 

preferences, chemical manufacturers in 

the U.S. developed a voluntary industry 

consensus standard that included an 

order of information for safety data 

sheets (ANSI Z400.1). This approach 

was later adopted into international 

voluntary industry consensus standards 

as well. 

The HCS allows any format to be 

used, so many producers have been 

following the consensus standard order 

of information for some years. In 

negotiating the GHS, it was decided that 

this format should be adopted there as 

well. One change was made, reversing 

the order of sections 2 and 3 so the 

hazard information appeared earlier in 

the sheet than information on chemical 

composition. Both the national and 

international industry consensus 

standards are being changed to be 

consistent with this approach. The GHS 

data sheet is to include the following in 

this order: 

Identification 

Hazard identification 

Composition/information on ingredients 

First aid measures 

Firefighting measures 

Accidental release measures 

Handling and storage 

Exposure controls/personal protection 

Physical and chemical properties 

Stability and reactivity 

Toxicological information 

Ecological information 

Disposal considerations 

Transport information 

Regulatory information 

Other information 

Having a standardized order of 

information should improve 

comprehensibility, which has been a 

continuing issue with regard to safety 

data sheets. It should also make it easier 

for chemical producers to comply by 

providing them with a template to 

follow. Using the industry consensus 

standards should also minimize the 

burden of preparing new safety data 

sheets since many chemical producers 

already use the format specified. While 

the GHS safety data sheet does not 

address exposure limits in the titles of 

the sections, guidance on what should 

be included indicates that occupational 

exposure limits would be addressed 

under the ‘‘exposure controls’’ section. 

Countries may choose what to require in 

these sections in terms of occupational 

exposure limits, but it is anticipated that 

OSHA would require the PELs to be 

included. 

Under the auspices of the 

International Program on Chemical 

Safety (IPCS), a series of over 1300 

international chemical safety cards has 

been developed and translated into 14 

languages. These cards are developed 

and peer reviewed by participating 

institutions in a number of countries, 

including the U.S. The National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) is undertaking this 

work. The cards are similar to SDSs in 

terms of the information provided, but 

they are in a concise format of two 

pages. The cards are going to be updated 

to reflect the GHS criteria and hazard 

information. They may be found on 

NIOSH’s Web page at: http:// 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcs/nicstart.html 

OSHA also has a link to them on our 

hazard communication page. These 

cards are an excellent resource for many 

of the most common chemicals found in 

the workplace. When updated to be 

GHS-consistent, they will also be a 

useful resource for GHS compliance and 

for implementation of control banding. 

As mentioned earlier, there is 

information required on a GHS SDS that 

is outside OSHA’s jurisdiction to 

regulate. This includes environmental 

and transport information. We do not 

intend to propose requiring it on safety 

data sheets, but will provide 

information about the provisions so 

chemical producers can include it if 

they wish to be completely consistent 

with the GHS. OSHA does not preclude 

such information being on a safety data 

sheet, but will not review or enforce 

such provisions. 

III. Public Resources for Further 

Information on the GHS 

OSHA has a safety and health topic 

page on hazard communication 

available as part of our Web site. There 

is a hazard communication button on 

the Agency’s home page (http:// 

www.osha.gov) that leads to a portal 

page on the topic, including a box on 

the GHS. There is a page devoted to the 

GHS that is reached through clicking on 

this box. It gives additional background 

information, and has links to the GHS 

official text, Web pages of other U.S. 

agencies, international organizations, 

and countries involved in GHS 

implementation. 

As noted earlier, a substantive guide 

to the GHS is available on this page to 

describe the system in more detail for 

those who are interested. There is also 

a detailed comparison of the HCS to the 

GHS that notes the areas of difference 

that would have to be addressed in 

adopting the GHS. 

IV. Request for Input 

In order to prepare for rulemaking 

proposing adoption of the GHS and 

modification of the HCS to accomplish 

that, OSHA is seeking input from the 

public on a number of issues related to 

implementation. This information will 

be used by OSHA to prepare cost 

analyses and other documents required 

to support the rulemaking. These 

requests are divided into several 

categories of information below. Please 

provide comments, evidence, data, and 

other input for those categories that 

affect you or for which you have 

relevant information. The details for 

submitting this information are 

specified in Section V. 

Current situation. Modifying the HCS 

to adopt the GHS would have the 

greatest impact on chemical 

manufacturers, importers, and 

employers who produce or distribute 

hazardous chemicals as currently 

covered under the HCS. In order to be 

harmonized, the hazard classifications 

of each product will need to be 

reviewed according to the classification 

criteria of the GHS, and new labels and 

safety data sheets will have to be 

prepared. 

1. How many hazardous chemicals as 

defined by the HCS do you produce, 

import or distribute? How many 

hazardous chemicals do you export? 

How many different labels or data 

sheets do you need to prepare for each 

chemical you export? 

2. Who is responsible for reviewing 

the data on chemicals and preparing 

appropriate labels and safety data 

sheets? What is their professional 

background? Do you make independent 

determinations or rely largely on labels 

or data sheets developed by others 

(suppliers, materials available on the 

Internet, etc.)? 

3. How long does it take on average 

for each hazardous chemical to 

complete the review and prepare new 

labels and safety data sheets? How 

much does it cost for each chemical 

product? Please break down the cost for 

the classification, preparation of a new 

label, and revision of a safety data sheet. 

4. Would the time required to prepare 

a GHS SDS be more, less, or about the 

same as currently required for preparing 

an SDS? What time and costs would be 

required to convert existing SDSs to the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
53626 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

GHS format? Would the costs depend on 

the amount of time allowed for the 

conversion process? 

5. Please describe any electronic tools 

you have to assist with this process, 

such as systems that classify chemicals 

or prepare labels or safety data sheets. 

How long would it take to update those 

systems to make them GHS-consistent? 

6. How many of your employees 

receive hazard communication training? 

How many hours of training at what 

frequency (on hire, annually, as needed, 

etc.)? How long would it take to teach 

employees to recognize GHS 

pictograms? Would more standardized 

labels and SDSs make it easier to use the 

available hazard communication 

information? 

7. What savings will you incur when 

you only have to classify a chemical 

once instead of multiple times 

depending on how many agencies and 

countries are involved? What other 

benefits do you anticipate? 

Timing. As has been noted, the 

international goal is for as many 

countries as possible to adopt the GHS 

by 2008. Since OSHA has longstanding 

requirements for labels and safety data 

sheets, the Agency expects to allow a 

significant phase-in period for 

compliance in order to give people 

sufficient time to review their 

classifications and amend them as 

necessary, and subsequently revise 

labels and safety data sheets to reflect 

the new requirements. It seems probable 

at this point that the revised 

requirements could potentially be in 

place by 2008, but the phase-in period 

for compliance may have to extend 

beyond that time period. 

8. What is a reasonable time period 

for phasing in the modifications? 

Should the phasing be done by size of 

business? Are there any other factors 

that should be considered to 

differentiate the phasing? 

9. What is the normal cycle for 

updating labels and safety data sheets? 

10. Do you have stockpiles of product 

that are already labeled? How long will 

those stockpiles last? 

11. Do you have any other 

information or data that would help 

OSHA determine the appropriate 

phasing in of the new requirements or 

other issues related to timing? 

Technical issues. As discussed, the 

scope of hazards covered by the GHS is 

similar to that of the HCS. OSHA 

anticipates adopting all of the health 

and physical hazard criteria in the GHS. 

Definitions in the HCS will need to be 

the same as the GHS in order to be 

harmonized. However, there are some 

determinations that are left to countries 

to decide in terms of whether all 

categories and all hazards are adopted. 

12. Are there any health or physical 

hazards that are currently covered by 

the HCS that you think are not 

adequately addressed in the GHS 

criteria? What are they and why do you 

think they are not adequately 

addressed? Are there any health or 

physical hazards that aren’t covered in 

either the HCS or the GHS that should 

be added? 

13. In addition to references to 

hazardous chemicals with OSHA PELs, 

should OSHA propose to include any 

other listing of hazardous chemicals 

when aligning the hazard determination 

provisions of the HCS to the GHS? 

Should OSHA propose that the mixture 

provisions only reference exceeding the 

OSHA PEL when revised to adopt the 

GHS? Should OSHA propose deleting 

the requirement that the ACGIH TLV be 

included on the SDS when the 

requirements are changed to be 

consistent with the GHS? Should other 

recommended exposure limits be 

included on the SDS? 

14. Within the health hazard criteria, 

are there any categories of hazard that 

should not be adopted in the HCS? For 

example, should OSHA adopt all of the 

categories addressed in the acute 

toxicity criteria? If not, what categories 

would be appropriate to address 

anticipated workplace exposures? 

15. If OSHA changes the HCS to adopt 

the physical hazard criteria, how will 

that impact other OSHA standards that 

use the same criteria as the HCS? Does 

OSHA need to change those criteria at 

the same time the HCS is changed? 

Storage and handling requirements for 

flammable liquids are one example that 

has been identified as a potential 

problem if different definitions apply, 

and information on a safety data sheet 

is linked to the definition in the HCS 

but not consistent with other 

definitions. 

16. Are there any other technical 

issues that need to be considered in 

adopting the GHS? Please explain. 

Compliance Assistance and Outreach. 

OSHA is interested in getting input on 

the types of materials or products that 

would assist employers in 

understanding whatever modifications 

OSHA makes to the HCS to adopt the 

GHS, and to help them achieve 

compliance. To this end, we would like 

to get input now on the types of 

outreach that would be most helpful. As 

has been noted, there are some 

explanatory documents that are already 

available on OSHA’s Web site. 

17. What products would be most 

useful to employers? Employees? Do 

you prefer paper publications? 

Electronic tools? 

18. What subjects would be of most 

interest? Classification criteria and 

procedures for substances and mixtures? 

Labels? Safety data sheets? 

19. What is the best way to distribute 

the materials to reach affected 

employers and employees? 

20. Are there any types of materials 

that would be especially appropriate for 

small businesses? Most small businesses 

would be users of chemicals, rather than 

producers, so they will be receiving 

labels and safety data sheets prepared 

according to the new approach. Are 

there training materials that would be 

helpful to learn or teach about the new 

approach? In particular, would training 

on symbols or pictograms be of use? 

V. Public Participation 

You may submit comments in 

response to this document by (1) hard 

copy, (2) fax transmission (facsimile), or 

(3) electronically through the OSHA 

Web page or the Federal Rulemaking 

Portal. Because of security-related 

problems, there may be a significant 

delay in the receipt of comments by 

regular mail. Please contact the OSHA 

Docket Office at (202) 693–2350 for 

information about security procedures 

concerning the delivery of materials by 

express delivery, hand delivery, and 

courier service. 

All comments and submissions are 

available for inspection and copying at 

the OSHA Docket Office at the above 

address. Comments and submissions 

posted on OSHA’s Web page are 

available at http://www.osha.gov (click 

on ‘‘Dockets & E-Comments’’). OSHA 

cautions you about submitting personal 

information such as Social Security 

numbers and birth dates. Contact the 

OSHA Docket Office for information 

about materials not available through 

the OSHA Web page and for assistance 

in using the Web page to locate docket 

submissions. 

Electronic copies of this Federal 

Register notice, as well as news releases 

and other relevant documents, are 

available on OSHA’s Web page. 

VI. Authority and Signature 

This document was prepared under 

the direction of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., 

Assistant Secretary for Occupational 

Safety and Health, U.S. Department of 

Labor. It is issued pursuant to sections 

4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 

655, 657), 29 CFR part 1911, and 

Secretary’s Order 5–2002 (67 FR 65008). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53627 

Issued at Washington, DC, this 6th day of 

September 2006. 

Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 06–7584 Filed 9–7–06; 9:37 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD05–06–092] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone: Fireworks Display, Trent 

River, New Bern, NC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes the 

establishment of a 1000 foot safety zone 

around a fireworks display for the North 

Carolina Parks and Recreation 

Conference occurring on November 12, 

2006, on the Trent River, New Bern, NC. 

This action is intended to restrict vessel 

traffic on the Trent River. This safety 

zone is necessary to protect mariners 

from the hazards associated with 

fireworks displays. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

October 12, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, 2301 

East Fort Macon Road, Atlantic Beach, 

NC 28512. Sector North Carolina 

maintains the public docket for this 

rulemaking. Comments and material 

received from the public. As well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, will 

become part of this docket and will be 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Federal Building Fifth Coast Guard 

District between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

CWO Christopher Humphrey, 

Prevention Department, Coast Guard 

Sector North Carolina, at (252) 247–

4525. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related material. If you 

do so, please include your name and 

address, identify the docket number for 

this rulemaking CGD05–06–092, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. Please submit all comments 

and related material in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying. If you would like 

to know they reached us, please enclose 

a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. We will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period. We may charge 

this proposed rule in view of them. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for a meeting by writing to Commander, 

Sector North Carolina at the address 

under ADDRESSES explaining why one 

would be beneficial. If we determine 

that one would aid this rulemaking, we 

will hold one at a time and place 

announced by a later notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

On November 12, 2006, the North 

Carolina Parks and Recreation 

Conference fireworks display will be 

held adjacent to the Trent River, New 

Bern, NC. Spectators will be observing 

from both the shore and from vessels. 

Due to the need of protection of 

mariners and spectators from the 

hazards associated with the fireworks 

display, vessel traffic will be 

temporarily restricted. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 

safety zone on specified waters of the 

Trent River. The regulated area will 

consist of a 1000 foot safety zone around 

a fireworks display from the southern 

shore of the City of New Bern, NC. The 

safety zone will be enforced from 6 p.m. 

to 8 p.m. on November 12, 2006. 

General navigation in the safety zone 

will be restricted during the event. 

Except for participants and vessels 

authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, no person or vessel may 

enter or remain in the regulated area. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office 

of Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. It is not 

‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory 

policies and procedures of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. Although this 

regulation restricts access to the 

regulated area, the effect of this rule will 

not be significant because: (i) The COTP 

may authorize access to the safety zone; 

(ii) the safety zone will be in effect for 

a limited duration; and (iii) the Coast 

Guard will make notifications via 

maritime advisories so mariners can 

adjust their plans accordingly. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

This rule will affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 

entities: The owners and operators of 

vessels intending to transit or anchor in 

that portion of the Trent River from 6 

p.m. to 8 p.m. on November 12, 2006. 

The safety zone will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, because the 

zone will only be in place for a few 

hours and maritime advisories will be 

issued, so the mariners can adjust their 

plans accordingly. If you think that your 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS