GHS paperwork package Master92309

Note To Reviewer
The proposal making the requirements of the current Hazard Communication Standard consistent
with the provisions of the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) would impose a one-time total burden of 2,125,414 hours with
a capital cost of $32,055,258. These costs are for firms to purchase any necessary computer
software to achieve compliance with proposed revisions to hazard communication requirements
(see Item 13 of this supporting statement).
Employers will have three years to comply with the proposed revisions to the collection of
information requirements, incurring annually 708,471 hours at a cost of $10,685,086 as
calculated in this supporting statement. Future renewal packages would remove this burden and
contain additional burden reductions due to production efficiencies in creating and revising
Safety Data Sheets as a result of the modified rule.

1

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR THE
INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS IN
THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE
HAZARD COMMUNICATIONS STANDARD
(OMB CONTROL NO. 1218-0072 (September 2009))
Justification
1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or
administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of
each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

The main objective of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (i.e., “The Act”) 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). To achieve this
objective, the Act authorities “the development and promulgation of occupational safety and
health standards” (29 U.S.C. 651).
Section 6(b)(7) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651 et. seq. states
that any occupational safety or health standard promulgated by the Secretary of Labor under
section 6(b) rulemaking authority "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 of exposure." In promulgating substance-specific rules to address the
hazards of a particular chemical, OSHA followed this Congressional directive. However, given
the universe of chemicals present in American workplaces (as many as 900,000 hazardous
chemical products), and the time-consuming nature of OSHA's rulemaking process, it became
clear that little information would be available to employees if this substance-by-substance
approach was the only avenue pursued. Workers exposed to chemicals would continue to
encounter a myriad of hazards. Many chemicals cause acute injuries or illnesses such as rashes,
burns and poisoning, or chronic effects such as cancer or liver damage. Also, chemicals can
pose physical hazards to workers by contributing to accidents such as fires and explosions. To
prevent such occupational hazards, the Agency addressed the issue of hazard information
transmittal on a generic basis.
The purpose of the existing Hazard Communications Standard (HCS)(29 CFR 1910.1200) and
its collection of information requirements is to ensure that the hazards of chemicals produced or
imported are evaluated and that information concerning these hazards is transmitted to employers
and employees. This purpose is accomplished through hazard determination, labels, material
safety data sheets, written hazard communication programs and training. These collections of
information requirements are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under OMB Control Number 1218-0072.
The purpose of the modification to the HCS is to standardize the hazard communication
requirements for products used in U.S. workplaces, and thus provide employees with consistent
hazard communication information. Hazard communication is currently addressed by many
different international, national, and State authorities.

2

The existing requirements are not always consistent and often contain different definitions of
hazards and varying provisions for what information is required on labels and safety data sheets.
The proposed revisions are consistent with the internationally negotiated set of criteria and
provisions and therefore would facilitate international trade. The proposed standard contains a
number of changes to improve the performance of the United States hazard communication
system: (1) revised criteria for more consistent classification of chemical hazards; (2)
standardized signal words, pictograms, hazard statements, and precautionary statements on
labels; and (3) a standardized format for SDSs. 1
OSHA's collection of information requirements contained in the HCS standard expires on
October 31, 2009. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on August 31, 2009,
OSHA published a sixty day notice soliciting comments on the existing Information Collection
Request. Also, in accordance with PRA, OSHA submitted a separate ICR to OMB for
the HCS/GHS NPRM. To avoid confusion, a new ICR requesting a separate OMB control
number was submitted to OMB for the NPRM.
2.

Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new
collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current
collection.

The proposal would affect employers and employees in many different industries across the
economy. The HCS covers over five million workplaces 2 in which employees are potentially
exposed to hazardous chemicals.
The proposed modifications would make the requirements of the current HCS consistent with the
provisions of the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals (GHS). In addition to standardizing the hazard communication requirements for
products used in U.S. workplaces, the modifications will also define and revise specific
classifications and categories of hazards.
OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the proposed modifications will improve the
quality and consistency of information provided to employers and employees regarding chemical
hazards and associated protective measures. Thus, modifications are expected to result in
increased safety and health for the affected employees and to reduce the numbers of accidents,
fatalities, injuries, and illnesses associated with exposures to hazardous chemicals.
The proposed revisions impacting the HCS paperwork requirements include: (1) revised criteria
for classification of chemical hazards; (2) revised labeling provisions that include requirements
for use of standardized signal words, pictograms, hazard statements, and precautionary
statements; (3) a specified format for safety data sheets; and (4) related revisions to definitions of
1

In the revised rule, the term “material safety data sheet” (MSDS) has been modified to “safety data sheet” (SDS) to
reflect the terminology of the GHS.
2

As shown in the PP&E report prepared under contract to the Department of Labor (and as reproduced in the
preamble as Table VII-2)

3

terms used in the standard, requirements for employee training on labels and safety data sheets.
OSHA is also proposing to modify provisions in a number of substance-specific health standards
to ensure consistency with the modified HCS requirements.
The Agency assumes that additional training would be necessary to ensure that employees
understand the elements of the new system. The existing standard requires that employee training
include at least the details of the employer’s hazard communication program, including an
explanation of the labeling system and how employees can obtain and use the appropriate hazard
information. The proposed modifications to the training requirements include changes to (1)
revise training for new employees, (2) train employees in the new labeling for shipped
containers, workplace labeling, and SDSs, including the order of information, and (3) change the
written hazard communication program, if necessary, to reflect the new format and content of
SDSs and labels. The Agency is therefore proposing to modify training requirements to address
the new label elements and the SDS format that would be required under the revised standard.
Training will support and enhance the effectiveness of the new label and SDS requirements.
While there are revisions to the training requirements, OSHA continues to maintain that the
proposed revisions are considered performance-oriented since they do not specify how
employers must conduct the training, or how many hours employers must expend training their
employees; further, employers do not need to maintain employee training records. Therefore, the
Agency is not taking a burden for the modifications to the proposed training provisions since
they are performance-oriented.
The following paragraphs identify the paperwork requirements contained in the modification to
the HCS. Burden hours and costs are discussed under Item 12.
Hazard Classification
§1910.1200(d)(1) - Chemical manufacturers and importers shall evaluate chemicals produced in
their workplaces or imported by them to classify their health and physical hazards in accordance
with this section. For each chemical, the chemical manufacturer or importer shall determine the
hazard classes, and the category of each class, that apply to the chemical being classified.
Employers are not required to classify chemicals unless they choose not to rely on the
classification performed by the chemical manufacturer or importer for the chemical to satisfy this
requirement.
§1910.1200(d)(2) - Chemical manufacturers, importers or employers classifying chemicals shall
identify and consider the full range of available scientific literature and other evidence
concerning the potential hazards. There is no requirement to test the chemical to determine how
to classify its hazards. Appendix A to §1910.1200 shall be consulted for classification of health
hazards, and Appendix B to §1910.1200 shall be consulted for the classification of physical
hazards.
Mixtures §1910.1200(d)(3)(i) - Chemical manufacturers, importers, or employers evaluating
chemicals shall follow the procedures described in Appendixes A and B to §1910.1200 to

4

classify the hazards of the chemicals, including determinations regarding when mixtures of the
classified chemicals are covered by this section.
§1910.1200(d)(3)(ii) - A chemical manufacturer or importer of a mixture shall be responsible for
the accuracy of the classification of the mixture even when relying on the classifications for
individual ingredients received from the ingredient manufacturers or importers on the safety data
sheets.

Labels and other forms of warning §1910.1200(f)
Labels on shipped containers
§1910.1200(f)(1)
The chemical manufacturer, importer, or distributor shall ensure that each container of classified
hazardous chemicals leaving the workplace is labeled, tagged or marked with the following
information:
§1910.1200(f)(1)(i) - Product identifier;
§1910.1200(f)(1)(ii) - Signal word;
§1910.1200(f)(1)(iii) - Hazard statement(s);
§1910.1200(f)(1)(iv) - Pictogram(s);
§1910.1200(f)(1)(v) - Precautionary statement(s); and,
§1910.1200(f)(1)(vi) - Name, address, and telephone number of the chemical
manufacturer, importer, or other responsible party.
§1910.1200(f)(2) - For unclassified hazards, the label shall include the name of the chemical, the
name, address, and telephone number of the manufacturer, importer, or other responsible party,
and, provide as supplementary information, a description of the unclassified hazards and
appropriate precautionary measures to ensure the safe handling and use of the chemical.
§1910.1200(f)(3) - The chemical manufacturer, importer, or distributor shall ensure that the
information provided under (f)(1)(i) through (v) is in accordance with Appendix C, Allocation of
Label Elements, for each hazard class and associated hazard category for the hazardous
chemical, prominently displayed, and in English (other languages may also be included if
appropriate).
§1910.1200(f)(4) - The chemical manufacturer, importer, or distributor shall ensure that the
information provided under (f)(1)(ii) through (iv) is located together on the label, tag, or mark.

5

§1910.1200(f)(5)(i) - For solid metal (such as a steel beam or a metal casting), solid wood, or
plastic items that are not exempted as articles due to their downstream use, or shipments of
whole grain, the required label may be transmitted to the customer at the time of the initial
shipment, and need not be included with subsequent shipments to the same employer unless the
information on the label changes;
§1910.1200(f)(5)(ii) - The label may be transmitted with the initial shipment itself, or with the
safety data sheet that is to be provided prior to or at the time of the first shipment; and,
§1910.1200(f)(5)(iii) - This exception to requiring labels on every container of hazardous
chemicals is only for the solid material itself, and does not apply to hazardous chemicals used in
conjunction with, or known to be present with, the material and to which employees handling the
items in transit may be exposed (for example, cutting fluids or pesticides in grains).
§1910.1200(f)(6) - Chemical manufacturers, importers, or distributors shall ensure that each
container of hazardous chemicals leaving the workplace is labeled, tagged, or marked in
accordance with this section in a manner which does not conflict with the requirements of the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and regulations issued under
that Act by the Department of Transportation.
Workplace labeling (§1910.1200(f)(7)) - Except as provided in paragraphs (f)(8) and (f)(9) of
this section, the employer shall ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the
workplace is labeled, tagged or marked with either:
§1910.1200(f)(7)(i) - The information specified under (f)(1)(i) through (v) for labels on shipped
containers; or,
§1910.1200(f)(7)(ii) - Product identifier and words, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof,
which provide at least general information regarding the hazards of the chemicals, and which, in
conjunction with the other information immediately available to employees under the hazard
communication program, will provide employees with the specific information regarding the
physical and health hazards of the hazardous chemical.
§1910.1200(f)(8) - The employer may use signs, placards, process sheets, batch tickets,
operating procedures, or other such written materials in lieu of affixing labels to individual
stationary process containers, as long as the alternative method identifies the containers to which
it is applicable and conveys the information required by paragraph (f)(7) of this section to be on
a label. The employer shall ensure the written materials are readily accessible to the employees
in their work area throughout each work shift.
§1910.1200(f)(9) - The employer is not required to label portable containers into which
hazardous chemicals are transferred from labeled containers, and which are intended only for the
immediate use of the employee who performs the transfer. For purposes of this section, drugs
which are dispensed by a pharmacy to a health care provider for direct administration to a patient
are exempted from labeling.

6

§1910.1200(f)(10) - The employer shall not remove or deface existing labels on incoming
containers of hazardous chemicals, unless the container is immediately marked with the required
information.
§1910.1200(f)(11) - The employer shall ensure that workplace labels or other forms of warning
are legible, in English, and prominently displayed on the container, or readily available in the
work area throughout each work shift. Employers having employees who speak other languages
may add the information in their language to the material presented, as long as the information is
presented in English as well.
§1910.1200(f)(12) - Chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, or employers who become
newly aware of any significant information regarding the hazards of a chemical shall revise the
labels for the chemical within three months of becoming aware of the new information, and shall
ensure that labels on containers of hazardous chemicals shipped after that time contain the new
information. If the chemical is not currently produced or imported, the chemical manufacturer,
importer, distributor, or employer shall add the information to the label before the chemical is
shipped or introduced into the workplace again.
Safety Data Sheets §1910.1200(g)
§1910.1200(g)(2) - The chemical manufacturer or importer preparing the safety data sheet shall
ensure that it is in English (although the employer may maintain copies in other languages as
well), and includes the following section numbers and headings, and associated information
under each heading, in the order listed (See Appendix D to §1910.1200--Safety Data Sheets, for
the specific content of each section of the safety data sheet.)
§1910.1200(g)(2)(i) - Section 1, Identification;
§1910.1200(g)(2)(ii) - Section 2, Hazard(s) identification;
§1910.1200(g)(2)(iii) - Section 3, Composition/information on ingredients;
§1910.1200(g)(2)(iv) - Section 4, First-aid measures;
§1910.1200(g)(2)(v) - Section 5, Fire-fighting measures;
§1910.1200(g)(2)(vi) - Section 6, Accidental release measures;
§1910.1200(g)(2)(vii) - Section 7, Handling and storage;
§1910.1200(g)(2)(viii) -Section 8, Exposure controls/personal protection;
§1910.1200(g)(2)(ix) - Section 9, Physical and chemical properties;
§1910.1200(g)(2)(x) - Section 10, Stability and reactivity;

7

§1910.1200(g)(2)(xi) - Section 11, Toxicological information.
Note 1 to paragraph (g)(2): To be consistent with the GHS, an SDS must also include the
following headings in this order:
Section 12, Ecological information;
Section 13, Disposal considerations;
Section 14, Transport information; and
Section 15, Regulatory information.
Note 2 to paragraph (g)(2): OSHA will not be enforcing information requirements in
sections 12 through 15, as these areas are not under its jurisdiction.
§1910.1200(g)(2)(xii) - Section 16, Other information, including date of preparation or
last revision.
§1910.1200(g)(5) - The chemical manufacturer, importer or employer preparing the safety data
sheet shall ensure that the information provided accurately reflects the scientific evidence used in
making the hazard classification. If the chemical manufacturer, importer or employer preparing
the safety data sheet becomes newly aware of any significant information regarding the hazards
of a chemical, or ways to protect against the hazards, this new information shall be added to the
safety data sheet within three months. If the chemical is not currently being produced or
imported the chemical manufacturer or importer shall add the information to the safety data sheet
before the chemical is introduced into the workplace again.
§1910.1200(g)(11) - Safety data sheets shall also be made readily available, upon request, to
designated representatives, the Assistant Secretary, and the Director, in accordance with the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1020(e). OSHA does not believe the modification to the SDS will
change the frequency that employees and OSHA will ask to access the records required by the
Standard.
Trade Secrets (§ 1910.1200(i))
The proposed rule would add percentage composition information to the Safety Data Sheet. This
introduces the possibility that trade secret claims will be made for this type of information, as
well as specific chemical identities. The proposal revises the text of the current rule to add
consideration of percentage composition everywhere specific chemical identity is addressed in
the provisions. Overall, since these provisions were promulgated in the current HCS, it appears
that fewer claims of trade secrecy have been made, and fewer requests for trade secret
disclosures have been received, than were anticipated during the rulemaking process. OSHA
does not believe adding the percentage composition information to the SDS will increase the
existing burden for employers to respond to request from employees, their representatives, and
health professional for trade secret information. Burden hours and costs are accounted for under

8

the existing Hazard Communication Standard, OMB Control Number 1218-0072.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting
this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce
burden.

To the extent practical, the proposed modifications to the HCS minimize burdens on employers,
including technical and legal burdens. The proposal allows for electronic access, microfiche, and
other alternatives to developing and maintaining paper copies of the SDSs, so long as no barriers
to immediate employee access are created by such options. There are no known technical or
legal obstacles to reducing the information collection burden through improved information
technology.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available
cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.

Within the U.S., several regulatory authorities exercise jurisdiction over chemical hazard
communication. In addition to OSHA’s HCS, the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates
chemicals in transport, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulates consumer
products, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates pesticides, as well as having
other authority over labeling under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Each of these regulatory
authorities operates under different statutory mandates, and has adopted distinct hazard
communication requirements.
Tracking the hazard communication requirements of different regulatory authorities is a burden
for manufacturers, importers, distributors, and transporters engaged in commerce in the domestic
arena. This burden is magnified by the need to develop multiple sets of labels and safety data
sheets for each product in international trade. Small businesses may have particular difficulty in
coping with the complexities and costs involved. The problems associated with differing national
and international requirements were recognized and discussed when the HCS was first issued in
1983. The preamble to the final rule included a commitment by OSHA to review the standard
regularly to address international harmonization of hazard communication requirements.
OSHA has actively participated in a number of such efforts in the years since that commitment
was made, including trade-related discussions on the need for harmonization with major U.S.
trading partners. The Agency also issued a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register
in January 1990 to obtain input regarding international harmonization efforts, and on work being
done at that time by the International Labor Organization (ILO) to develop a convention and
recommendations on safety in the use of chemicals at work (55 FR 2166, January 22, 1990). On
a closely related matter, OSHA published an RFI in May 1990 requesting comments and
information on improving the effectiveness of information transmitted under the HCS (55 FR
20580, May 17, 1990). Possible development of a standardized format or order of information
was raised as an issue in the RFI. Nearly 600 comments were received in response to this
request. The majority of responses expressed support for a standardized SDS format, and the

9

majority of responses that expressed an opinion on the topic favored a standardized format for
labels as well.
In June 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development issued a
mandate (Chapter 19 of Agenda 21), supported by the U.S., calling for development of a globally
harmonized chemical classification and labeling system:
A globally harmonized hazard classification and compatible labelling system,
including material safety data sheets and easily understandable symbols, should
be available, if feasible, by the year 2000.
This international mandate initiated a substantial effort to develop the GHS, involving numerous
international organizations, many countries, and extensive stakeholder representation.
A coordinating group comprised of countries, stakeholder representatives, and international
organizations was established to manage the work. This group, the Inter-organization
Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals Coordinating Group for the Harmonization
of Chemical Classification Systems, established overall policy for the work and assigned tasks to
other organizations to complete. The Coordinating Group then took the work of these
organizations and integrated it to form the GHS. OSHA served as chair of the Coordinating
Group.
The work was divided into three main parts: classification criteria for physical hazards;
classification criteria for health and environmental hazards (including criteria for mixtures); and
hazard communication elements, including requirements for labels and safety data sheets. The
criteria for physical hazards were developed by the United Nations Subcommittee of Experts on
the Transport of Dangerous Goods and were based on the already harmonized criteria for the
transport sector. The criteria for classification of health and environmental hazards were
developed under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The ILO developed the hazard communication elements. OSHA participated in all of this work,
and served as U.S. lead on classification of mixtures and hazard communication.
Four major existing systems served as the primary basis for development of the GHS. These
systems were the requirements in the U.S. for the workplace, consumers and pesticides; the
requirements of Canada for the workplace, consumers and pesticides; European Union directives
for classification and labeling of substances and preparations; and the United Nations
Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. The requirements of other systems
were also examined as appropriate, and taken into account as the GHS was developed. The
primary approach to reconciling these systems involved identifying the relevant provisions in
each system; developing background documents that compared, contrasted, and explained the
rationale for the provisions; and undertaking negotiations to find an agreed approach that
addressed the needs of the countries and stakeholders involved. Principles to guide the work
were established, including an agreement that protections of the existing systems would not be
reduced as a result of harmonization. Thus countries could be assured that the existing
protections of their systems would be maintained or enhanced in the GHS.

10

An interagency committee under the auspices of the Department of State coordinated U.S.
involvement in the development of the GHS. In addition to OSHA, DOT, CPSC, and EPA, there
were a number of other agencies involved that had interests related to trade or other aspects of
the GHS process. Different agencies took the lead in various parts of the discussions. Positions
for the U.S. in these negotiations were coordinated through the interagency committee. Interested
stakeholders were kept informed through e-mail dissemination of information, as well as
periodic public meetings. In addition, the Department of State published a notice in the Federal
Register that described the harmonization activities, the agencies involved, the principles of
harmonization, and other information, as well as invited public comment on these issues (62 FR
15951, April 3, 1997). Stakeholders also actively participated in the discussions at the
international level and were able to present their views directly in the negotiating process.
The GHS was formally adopted by the new United Nations Committee of Experts on the
Transport of Dangerous Goods and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals in December 2002. In 2003, the adoption was endorsed by the Economic
and Social Council of the United Nations. The GHS will be updated as necessary to reflect new
technology and scientific developments, or provide additional explanatory text. This proposed
rule is based on Revision 3 of the GHS, published in 2009.
OSHA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on the GHS in
September of 2006 (71 FR 53617, September 12, 2006). The ANPR provided information about
the GHS and its potential impact on the HCS, and sought input from the public on issues related
to GHS implementation. Over 100 responses were received, and the comments and information
provided were taken into account in the development of the modifications to the HCS included in
this proposed rule. At the same time the ANPR was published, OSHA made a document
summarizing the GHS available on its website (http://www.osha.gov).
OSHA remains engaged in a number of activities related to the GHS. The U.S. is a member of
both the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and the
Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, as well as the
Subcommittee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling 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
Department of State also participate in the GHS Programme Advisory Group under the United
Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). UNITAR is responsible for helping
countries implement the GHS, and has ongoing programs to prepare guidance documents,
conduct regional workshops, and implement pilot projects in a number of nations. OSHA also
continues to be involved in interagency discussions related to coordination of domestic
implementation of the GHS, and in discussions related to international work to implement and
maintain the GHS.
OSHA’s basis for adopting the GHS arose due to both domestic and international regulatory
concerns. The first concern was the thresholds used to classify chemicals are sometimes
inconsistent from one country to another and from one federal agency to another. This usually
results in chemicals being classified into entirely different hazard classes by different entities.

11

These differences cause confusion among workers who rely on information by several different
federal agencies and cannot easily determine what precautionary steps they must take while
handling, distributing, and storing hazardous chemicals. The second concern is the performanceoriented requirements of the existing hazard communication standard do not specify how the
information should be presented in SDSs have led manufacturers to provide widely varying and
confusing information about identical chemicals. The new standard would require that the
content and format of SDSs and labels for workplace chemicals conform to the uniform GHS
requirements.
5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities (Item 5 of OMB Form 83I), describe any methods used to minimize burden.

OSHA has analyzed the potential impact of the proposed rule on small entities, and has prepared
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis (IRFSA) in conjunction with this rulemaking
to describe the potential effects on small entities. As a result of the analysis of the potential
impact on small entities, OSHA concludes and certifies that the rulemaking would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
6. Describe the consequences to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is
conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

The information required under the HCS concerning the hazards of chemicals and appropriate
protective measures reduce the incidence of chemical-source illnesses and injuries in employees
exposed to chemical hazards. Making this information available to employees provides some
protection to them in the absence of substance-specific rules; the vast majority of hazardous
chemicals to which employees are exposed are not regulated by a substance-specific standard. A
reduction in the number of incidents of chemical-source illnesses and injuries in employees
exposed to chemical hazards occur from the improved protections implemented by employers
because of the HCS, and from employees who understand these measures better and, therefore,
will take effective steps to protect themselves.
7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a
manner:
requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;
requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer
than 30 days after receipt of it;
requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-inaid, or tax records for more than three years;
in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that
can be generalized to the universe of study;
requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by
OMB:
that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or
regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the
pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible

12

confidential uses; or
requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secret, or other confidential information unless
the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information’s
confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

No special circumstances exist that require employers to collect information using the procedures
specified by this item. The requirements of the Standard are within the guidelines set forth in 5
CFR 1320.5.
8.

If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal
Register of the agency’s notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information
collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that
notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address
comments received on cost and hour burden.
Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of
data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting
format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.
Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who
must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years – even if the collection of information
activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation
in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

The proposed modification to the existing Hazard Communication Standard contains collection
of information (paperwork) requirements that are subject to review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., and OMB’s regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The collection of information requirements
associated with these proposed revisions have been submitted to OMB as a new collection of
information. The existing collections of information are titled Hazard Communication (29 CFR
parts 1910.1200, 1915.1200, 1917.28, 1918.90, 1926.59 and 1928.21), OMB Control Number
1218-0072.
As discussed under Item 4 of this Supporting Statement, OSHA has worked extensively with
other Federal and International government agencies and organizations in developing the GHS
proposal. The Agency also issued a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register in
January 1990 to obtain input regarding international harmonization efforts, and on work being
done at that time by the International Labor Organization (ILO) to develop a convention and
recommendations on safety in the use of chemicals at work (55 FR 2166, January 22, 1990). On
a closely related matter, OSHA published an RFI in May 1990 requesting comments and
information on improving the effectiveness of information transmitted under the HCS (55 FR
20580, May 17, 1990). Possible development of a standardized format or order of information
was raised as an issue in the RFI.
OSHA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on the GHS in
September of 2006 (71 FR 53617, September 12, 2006). The ANPR provided information about
the GHS and its potential impact on the HCS, and sought input from the public on issues related
to GHS implementation.
13

On September 30, 2009, OSHA published the NPRM on GHS. Members of the public who wish
to comment on the paperwork requirements in this proposal should send their written comments
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room
10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attn: OSHA Desk
Officer (RIN 1218-AC20). The Agency encourages commenters also to submit their
comments on these paperwork requirements to the rulemaking docket, along with their
comments on other parts of the proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by using the
Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments and submissions
are posted without change; therefore OSHA cautions commenters about submitting
personal information such as social security numbers and date of birth. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and access the docket
is available at the website’s “User Tips” link. Commenters have ninety days, from the
publication of the NPRM to submit comments.
9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than renumeration of
contractors or grantees.

The Agency will not provide payments or gifts to the respondents.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in
statute, regulation, or agency policy.

The HCS requires that the specific chemical identity of a hazardous chemical be disclosed, but if
such information is a valid trade secret, the rule permits chemical producers or importers to limit
disclosure of this information based on their need and ability to maintain confidentiality (See 29
CFR 1910.1200 paragraph (i)). OSHA is proposing to add percentage composition information
to the SDS. Employers may determine that this information is a trade secret. However, the
criteria for an employer to withhold specific chemical information as a trade secret have not been
modified.
In addition to the provisions of this rule, the OSH Act requires the Agency to maintain the
confidentiality of trade secret information provided directly to its representatives (29 U.S. C.
664).
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and
attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification
should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made
of the information, the explanation to be give to persons from whom the information is requested, and
any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

The paperwork requirements being modified by the proposal do not require collection of
sensitive information.
12.

Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:
Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an
explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not
conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates.

14

Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour
burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or
complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance.
Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business
practices. If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden
estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens in Item 13.
Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collection of
information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of Contracting out
or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here.
Instead, this cost should be included in Item 14.

Burden Hour and Cost Determination
The burden hours and costs associated with compliance with the proposed revisions to the HCS
will be incurred by the affected establishments as a one-time transition burden over the phase-in
period of three years. The methodology used for estimating the number of burden hours and
costs resulting from the information collection requirements of the Standard are discussed below.
The burden hour estimates and cost estimates, including wage rates, are taken from the
Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) for the proposed modifications to the HCS. Refer to
Table 1 below summarizes the burden hours and costs associated with complying with the
proposed revisions.
The HCS covers workplaces in which employees are potentially exposed to hazardous
chemicals. For establishments producing hazardous chemicals, which are generally part of the
chemical manufacturing industry, the revisions to the standard would involve reclassifying
chemicals in accordance with the new classification system and revising safety data sheets
(SDSs) and labels associated with hazardous chemicals, and affixing the new labels to containers
containing the chemical and dispatching new SDSs with new shipment of chemicals. The
agency’s estimates of the number of employees covered by the standard are based on the
determination that all production employees in manufacturing would be covered.
Safety Data Sheets and Labels
For firms with 500 or more employees, the Agency assumes employers will spend 3 hours per
SDS to reclassify their chemicals and change SDSs and labels to a GHS- compliant regulation.
The agency based this time estimate on the actual experience of three firms, two firms that
comply with the recent Japanese labeling regulations 3 and one large firm that currently uses a
state-of–the-art database system.
In firms with 100-499 employees, the Agency estimates that employers will spend a total of 5
hours per SDS to convert to the new system. This estimate includes 3 hours to obtain and
3

Several countries have already promulgated GHS-compliant regulations. Japan was the first country to comply
with the GHS labeling requirements in July 2007.

15

reorganize the SDS’s information into the 16 – section format, change the label formats, and
input the data. These employers will spend 2 hours maintaining their SDSs and labels in
commonly used word processing system and expect to perform chemical classification
calculations in regulating simple methods. These firms are already producing 9 – section
performance-oriented SDSs.
The Agency estimates that firms with 20-99 employees have not yet converted to the 16-section
SDSs and therefore would not be as efficient in converting to the new system. Therefore, the
Agency assumes these firms will spend 7 hours per SDS to reclassify chemicals and make
changes to SDSs and labels.
Firms with 1-19 employees produce fewer products than those firms in the 20-99 and above
category and also continue to use the 9-section format. The agency assumes it will take these
firms 7 hours per SDS to reclassify their chemicals and revise their SDSs and labels.
OSHA is proposing to modify existing labeling requirements contained in substance-specific
health standards that would require employers to insert specific information currently not
required on the label. Previously, these employers incurred no burden hours and cost, under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, since the Standard provides specific language for the required
signs and the labels. 4 Burden hours and costs for those employers to create the new labels are
accounted for in this analysis. Notations, if necessary, will be made to the following ICRs,
stating that the burden hours and costs for employers to prepare labels are taken under the
revised HCS. See Table A below for a list of the health standards with modified labeling
requirements.

4

Controlling Paperwork Burden on the Public, 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)

16

Table A - Health Standards with modified labeling requirements
Paragraph
General Industry
Asbestos in General Industry §1910.1001(j)(1) and (j)(5)(i)&(ii)
13 Carcinogens §1910.1003 (e)(1)
Vinyl chloride §1910.1017 (l)(1) and (l)(3)(i)
Inorganic arsenic §1910.1018(j)(2)(vii) and (p)(1)
Lead §1910.1025(g)(2)(vii) and (m)(1)
Chromium §1910.1026(l)(1)
Cadmium §1910.1027(m)(1) and (m)(3)(i) and (ii)
Benzene §1910.1028(j)(1)
Coke oven emissions §1910.1029(l)(1) and (l)(3)
1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane §1910.1044 (j)(2)(v) and (o)(1)(i)
Acrylonitrile §1910.1045 (p)(1) & (3)
Ethylene oxide §1910.1047(j)(1) and (j)(2)(ii)
Formaldehyde §1910.1048(h)(2)(ii)(B) and (m)(1)
Methylenedianiline §1910.1050(i)(2)(v) and (k)(1)
1,3-Butadiene §1910.1051(l)(1)
Methylene chloride §1910.1052(k)
Maritime Industry
Asbestos in Shipyards §1915.1001(k)(7)(i) & (ii)
Chromium (VI) §1915.1026 (g)(2)(iv) & (j)(1)
Construction Industry
Methylenedianiline §1926.60(j)(2)(v) and (l)(1)
Lead §1926.62(g)(2)(vii) and (l)(1)(i)
Asbestos §1926.1101(k)(1)(ii) and (k)(8)(ii)
Chromium §1926.1126(g)(2)(iv) and (j)(1)
Cadmium §1926.1127(i)(2)(v) and (m)(1)

OMB Control Number
1218-0134
1218-0085
1218-0010
1218-0104
1218-0092
1218-0252
1218-0185
1218-0129
1218-0128
1218-0101
1218-0126
1218-0108
1218-0145
1218-0184
1218-0170
1218-0179
1218-0195
1218-0252
1218-0183
1218-0189
1218-0134
1218-0252
1218-0186

Table 1 - Burden Hours and Costs for Revisions
to Safety Data Sheets and Labeling Requirements

Establishment
Size

# of SDSs

1-19
20-99
100-499
500+

102,113
76,390
127,820
573,937

Total

880,260

Hours/SDS

Hourly
Wage

7
7
5
3

$47
$47
$47
$47

PreCompliance
%
1%
5%
25%
75%

% Not in
Compliance

Total
Burden
Hours
(rounded)

Total
Burden Cost

99%
95%
75%
25%

707,643
507,994
479,325
430,453

$33,259,221
$23,875,718
$22,528,275
$20,231,279

2,125,414

$99,894,505

Employers will have three years to complete the proposed revisions to the HCS. Therefore, OSHA has
annualized the burden hours and costs over a three year period, yielding 708,471 hours at a cost of
$33,298,168.

17

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the
collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden show in Item 12 and 14).
The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and startup cost component
(annualized over its expected useful like); and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of
services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating,
maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to
estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of
capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred.
Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such
as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and
record storage facilities.
If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and
explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information
collection services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates,
agencies may consult with a sample of respondents(fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB
submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis
associated with the rule making containing the information collection, as appropriate.
Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services , or portions thereof,
made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not
associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep
records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

Many of employers in the 100-500+ firm categories will incur costs to purchase or modify
software that can be used to classify chemicals and to produce corresponding SDSs and labels.
This software is available from a variety of vendors and may be purchased or used on a
subscription basis. In addition, some firms may purchase custom or proprietary software from
private vendors to achieve compliance with proposed revisions to hazard communication
requirements. Based on industry data these costs were apportioned on a per-SDS basis and
estimated to be $200 per SDS, on average. The purchase of commercially available chemical
management software cannot generally be justified for firms with fewer than 99 employees.
Unless a firm produces 250 products and changes their SDSs at least every three years such a
purchase may not, in most cases, be justifiable. Therefore, the Agency estimates that these firms
will continue to rely on commonly used word processing or spreadsheet programs and will not
incur any additional software costs.

Establishment
Size

# of
SDSs

Software
Costs

% Purchasing
Software

Pre-Compliance
%

% Not in
Compliance

1-19
20-99
100-499
500+
Total

102,113
76,390
127,820
573,937
880,260

$200
$200
$200
$200

0%
0%
25%
95%

0.01
0.05
0.25
0.75

0.99
0.95
0.75
0.25

Total
Burden
Cost
$0
$0
$4,793,250
$27,262,008
$32,055,258

Employers will have three years to complete the proposed revisions to the HCS. Therefore, OSHA has
annualized the cost yielding $10,685,086 per year.

18

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the
method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such
as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and nay other expense that would not have been
incurred without this collection of information. Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from Items
12, 13, and 14 in a single table.

The information collection requests in the HSC GHS Proposed Rulemaking do not impose costs
on the Federal government.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments.

OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the proposed modifications will improve the
quality and consistency of information provided to employers and employees regarding chemical
hazards and associated protective measures. Thus, modifications are expected to result in
increased safety and health for the affected employees and to reduce the numbers of accidents,
fatalities, injuries, and illnesses associated with exposures to hazardous chemicals.
The proposed rulemaking would result in an annualized program increase of 708,471 hours (see
item 12 of this supporting statement) and $10,685,086 (see item 13 of the supporting statement).
The increase in burden hours and costs is associated with reclassifying chemicals, changing all
safety data sheets to conform to the new regulation, and updating all labels and conversion to
new software. Employers will have to gather data on hazards and other characteristics of their
chemicals, apply the GHS criteria to determine the hazard categories, establish a uniform system
for revising existing Safety Data Sheets and labels and make the necessary revisions. This
burden will be removed in the future as employers complete reclassification of chemicals,
modifying data sheets and labels.
The Agency estimates a 450,000 burden hour reduction after the Final has been in effect for
three years resulting from less time developing safety data sheets and labels. Further, there will
be a wage hour cost (see item 12 of the supporting statement) reduction of 21 million hours three
years after publication of the Final as a result of a reduction of supervisory time.
16. For collection of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation, and
publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for
the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information completion of
report, publication dates, and other actions.

OSHA will not publish the information collected under the Standard.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection,
explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

There are no forms associated with this collection of information on which to display the
expiration date.

19

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of the OMB 83-I.

OSHA is not requesting an exception to the certification statement on the OMB 83-I.

20