{"id":8375,"date":"2024-05-20T12:02:50","date_gmt":"2024-05-20T16:02:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/oshadefensereport.com\/?p=8375"},"modified":"2026-03-20T13:27:56","modified_gmt":"2026-03-20T17:27:56","slug":"what-you-need-to-know-about-oshas-updated-hazard-communication-chemical-right-to-know-standard","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/what-you-need-to-know-about-oshas-updated-hazard-communication-chemical-right-to-know-standard\/","title":{"rendered":"What You Need to Know About OSHA\u2019s Updated Hazard Communication (Chemical Right-to-Know) Standard"},"content":{"rendered":"

By <\/em>Valerie Butera<\/em><\/a> and <\/em>Kate McMahon<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

On May 20, 2024, OSHA published a significant revision to the Hazard Communication Standard<\/a> (HCS) in an effort to better align the HCS with the United Nations\u2019 Globally Harmonized System of Classification, primarily Revision 7 (GHS).\u00a0 This final rule also seeks to clarify ambiguities left unresolved by the last set of revisions to the HCS and to improve alignment with other federal agencies and international trading partners.\"Ghs<\/a><\/p>\n

In making these changes, OSHA has created a host of new regulatory hurdles for chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and downstream users.\u00a0 The final rule becomes effective July 20, 2024, but offers a grace period during which the regulated community may comply with the final rule or the prior version of the HCS.<\/p>\n

CMC sat down with Maureen Ruskin<\/a>, the now-former OSHA official who led the effort to align the HCS with the GHS, to discuss the changes in this final rule.\u00a0 Our conversation informed this Client Alert, which begins with an overview of the biggest impacts the final rule will have on the regulated community and the timeline for coming into compliance with the new and changed requirements, provides a detailed discussion of what the final rule says and means, explores significant changes between the language of the proposed rule and what was actually adopted in the final rule, and explores tips and strategies for compliance.<\/p>\n

Implications for the Regulated Community<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The final rule impacts nearly every aspect of hazard communication \u2013 from chemical classification to the content of Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) \u2013 and everything in between.\u00a0 The most critical changes include the following:<\/p>\n

Manufacturers\/Importers<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Manufacturers\/Importers will be the most affected by OSHA\u2019s updates to the HCS.\u00a0 Manufacturers will need to review their chemical classifications and assess whether any of OSHA’s changes made to the HCS criteria, detailed below, will require changes to their chemical labels and\/or SDSs.\u00a0 OSHA does not expect that the amended HCS will result in any major changes in overall coverage under the standard, nor would OSHA expect any changes in the classification of the health<\/em> hazards of existing chemicals.\u00a0 However, there may be some shifts in classification for some of the physical<\/em> hazards associated with aerosols, chemicals under pressure, and desensitized explosives.<\/p>\n

Manufacturers\/Importers will also need to review their labels to ensure that the required information has been updated according to the new Appendix C in the standard, which includes some impactful updates to the mandatory precautionary statements.<\/p>\n

Finally, Manufacturers\/Importers must review the SDSs for all of their hazardous chemicals and ensure they follow the updated requirements.<\/p>\n

Distributors<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

OSHA anticipates that Distributors will continue to rely on the SDSs and labels provided by the manufacturer.\u00a0 Should a Distributor relabel and replace the manufacturers\u2019 or importers\u2019 names with their own name, they must comply with all the same HCS requirements as the Manufacturers\/Importers.<\/p>\n

Notably, OSHA has not provided a separate compliance date for Distributors, as it had done in the prior update to the HCS in 2012.\u00a0 This is because OSHA updated (f)(11), which provides an option for Distributors to either change the labels on the containers that are already packaged for shipment or to maintain the old labels and provide the downstream users with the updated labels.<\/p>\n

Downstream Users \/ Employers<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Employers, as necessary, will need to update their workplace labels, hazard communication program, and training if there are new hazards or new hazardous chemicals introduced into the workplace.<\/p>\n

The Latest Changes to OSHA\u2019s HazCom Standard<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

OSHA made numerous changes to the HCS in this new final rule.\u00a0 Below is a detailed description of the revisions to the standard:<\/p>\n

Paragraph (c) \u2013 Definitions<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

OSHA updated and added several new definitions.\u00a0 OSHA has added definitions related to classifications, including definitions for a chemical\u2019s physical state (i.e.<\/em>, gas, liquid, or solid).\u00a0 The agency finally added a definition for combustible dust, albeit a generic one.\u00a0 OSHA also added several new definitions related to new or updated requirements for labeling.\u00a0 \"Picture1<\/a>These definitions include \u201cimmediate outer package\u201d which is incorporated into provisions for small container labeling at (f)(12), \u201cReleased for shipment,\u201d which is incorporated into the updates to (f)(11) (Label Updates), and \u201cBulk Shipment,\u201d which is incorporated into the updates to (f)(5) (Transportation).\u00a0 Notably, the definition of \u201cBulk Shipment\u201d under the HCS is designed to be narrower than DOT\u2019s definition of bulk packaging (see<\/em> 49 CFR 171.8).<\/p>\n

Paragraph (d) \u2013 Classification<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

OSHA updated (d)(1) which articulates the requirements for chemical manufacturers and importers for the classification of chemicals.\u00a0 In the proposed rule, OSHA made two changes in an attempt to clarify that classification applies to chemicals under normal conditions of use and to foreseeable emergencies including changes in the chemicals\u2019 physical form.\u00a0 OSHA claims that this change was intended to reiterate the scope language under (b)(2) and to alleviate confusion about whether hazards created by chemical reactions that occur during normal conditions of use must be considered during classification and whether this information should be placed on the label and\/or the SDS.\u00a0 OSHA received volumes of comments on this change, both supportive and critical.\u00a0 OSHA determined that the proposed language lacked the clarity needed and updated the language to better articulate the clarification.\u00a0 In the final rule, OSHA revised (d)(1) by (1) removing the reference to \u201cnormal conditions of use and foreseeable emergencies\u201d and replacing it with the term \u201cintrinsic properties\u201d and (2) breaking down (d)(1) into (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii) to differentiate the chemical hazards as shipped (including changes in physical form) and chemical reaction products (known or reasonably anticipated).\u00a0 OSHA believes that this addresses the concerns of most commenters and provides the necessary guidance on the information that needs to be on the label and the SDS.<\/p>\n

To better align the HCS with GHS, OSHA also updated a number of chemical hazard classes and added one additional hazard class.\u00a0 See the discussion below on the updates to the Appendices.<\/p>\n

Paragraph (e) \u2013 Written Hazard Communication Program<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

No changes under this paragraph other than correcting a reference in (e)(4).<\/p>\n

Paragraph (f) \u2013 Labeling<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

OSHA made a number of changes to the labeling requirements.\u00a0 The first change under (f)(1) is that OSHA specifies that hazards identified under (d)(1)(ii) need only be disclosed on the SDS.\u00a0 OSHA has also specified that the responsible party\u2019s address and telephone number need to be a U.S. address and telephone number.<\/p>\n

OSHA relocated all requirements for transportation to (f)(5).\u00a0 OSHA moved C.2.3.3 to (f)(5)(iii) and updated the language to indicate that when a DOT pictogram (or placard) is on the container then the pictogram for the same hazard is not required.\u00a0 Previously OSHA specified under C.2.3.3 that the GHS pictogram \u201cshall not appear,\u201d but with updates to DOT regulations, the GHS pictogram is now allowed.\u00a0 OSHA also codified under (f)(5)(ii) OSHA\u2019s long-standing relief for labeling of chemical containers where the container is the mode of transportation.\u00a0 Under these new requirements, the label for bulk shipments must be on either the immediate container (the mode of transportation) or with the shipping papers, bills of lading, or electronic means (under the agreement of the receiving entity).<\/p>\n

OSHA provides relief for updating labels when a container has already been released for shipment at (f)(11).\u00a0 When a manufacturer is required to update labels (after they become aware of any significant information regarding the hazards of a chemical), they are required to update the label within six months.\u00a0 However, OSHA is permitting manufacturers who have already packaged and labeled the containers for shipment to continue to use the older labels already on the containers, so long as they also provide the updated label for each individual container shipped.<\/p>\n

Finally, OSHA has added a new subparagraph (f)(12) – small container labeling.\u00a0 This provision indicates how manufacturers\/importers or distributors can label small containers if they cannot feasibly fit the full label information on the label (this includes demonstrating that the use of fold-out, pullout, or tags is not a feasible option).\u00a0 OSHA has listed the required information that must be on the label for an immediate container that has a capacity of 100 ml or less, as well as the information needed on the immediate outer package.\u00a0 OSHA further provides a special consideration for containers with a capacity of 3 ml or less.<\/p>\n

Paragraph (g) \u2013 Safety Data Sheets<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

OSHA only made minor editorial changes in paragraph (g).\u00a0 The changes affecting the SDSs were codified in Appendix D (see below).<\/p>\n

Paragraph (i) \u2013 Trade Secrets<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

OSHA made some substantial changes in this paragraph.\u00a0 First, it amended the standard to allow manufacturers\/importers to claim trade secrets not only for the exact percentage of an ingredient but also for a concentration range.\u00a0 However, OSHA has put some constraints on this use of trade secrets for the concentration or concentration range.\u00a0 If the manufacturer\/importer is claiming the concentration or concentration range as a trade secret, then they must use prescribed ranges.\u00a0 These ranges are the same ranges used by Health Canada.\u00a0 This provides relief for manufacturers\/importers whose products are sold in both countries.<\/p>\n

Appendix A, Health Hazards<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

While OSHA made some significant changes to several of the health hazard classes, OSHA does not expect major (if any) changes in the classification of existing chemicals.\u00a0 These changes fell into a few buckets.<\/p>\n

In the first bucket, to maintain alignment with the GHS, OSHA updated the health hazard definitions.\u00a0 The definitions were modified to be more general and neutral with respect to test guidelines.\u00a0 In the second bucket, OSHA updated the hazard class for skin corrosion\/irradiation to reflect GHS Revision 8 as this updated the criteria to better reflect the advances of non-animal testing.\u00a0 As indicated above, OSHA does not expect manufacturers\/importers to do any retesting, and the classification of existing chemicals is expected to remain unchanged.\u00a0 OSHA also updated the guidance on the consideration of acid\/alkaline reserve for extreme pHs (< 2 or > 11.5) under the hazard class Serious eye damage.\u00a0 In the last bucket, OSHA made general updates to align with GHS Revision 7.\u00a0 Most notably, OSHA updated the acute toxicity hazard class to include clarification on the use of data from human experience, generally updated the serious eye damage\/eye irritation hazard class, and provided extensive clarification on how to classify chemicals corrosive to the respiratory tract.<\/p>\n

Appendix B, Physical Hazards<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

OSHA made some extensive changes to several physical-hazard hazard classes.\u00a0 Here, OSHA does<\/em> expect that there may be some changes in the classification of hazards but does not expect new hazardous chemicals to be identified.\u00a0 The agency states that these changes are mostly a realignment of hazards to improve the communication of these hazards.\u00a0 The main changes can be found in flammable gases, aerosols, oxidizing solids, and a new hazard category — desensitized explosive.<\/p>\n

Flammable Gases \u2013 OSHA has aligned with Revision 7 and has updated the chapter to include pyrophoric gases and chemically unstable gases.\u00a0 Additionally, OSHA has added a new subcategory, subcategory 1B which meets the criteria of subcategory 1A but has a lower flammability limit or a low fundamental burning velocity.<\/p>\n

Aerosols (formerly Flammable Aerosols) \u2013 OSHA has updated the chapter to align with Revision 7 and has added non-flammable aerosols as category 3.\u00a0 OSHA declined to use the criteria as presented in Revision 8 for non-flammable aerosols since there appeared to be an inconsistency between categories 2 and 3.\u00a0 However, OSHA did adopt Revision 8\u2019s criteria for \u201cchemicals under pressure\u201d into the aerosol.<\/p>\n

Oxidizing Solids \u2013 OSHA updated the oxidizing solids hazard class to include the new testing criteria.\u00a0 Though indicated that data from either the old test (test O.1) or the new test (test O.3) can be used in classification.<\/p>\n

Desensitized Explosives \u2013 This is a new hazard class that includes chemicals with explosive properties that have been suppressed.<\/p>\n

Appendix C, Allocation of Label Elements<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

OSHA updated the instructions in Appendix C.1-C.3 to provide additional guidance on how to apply the label elements to the label.\u00a0 \"Hazcom<\/a>Some of the notable changes include that OSHA will allow the use of the exclamation point for Hazard Not Otherwise Classified to align with Canada\u2019s requirement for these hazards.\u00a0 OSHA has also clarified that a pictogram should appear once on the label.\u00a0 The agency further explained that minor textual variations in precautionary statements are permitted as long as the message is not diluted or compromised.\u00a0 Finally, OSHA has provided guidance on the use of medical statements where multiple medical statements have been triggered.<\/p>\n

OSHA updated C.4, the series of tables for the label requirements by hazard class and category.\u00a0 These tables were updated to reflect the changes in Appendix A and B, clarify acceptable statements for corrosion to the respiratory tract, and update precautionary statements to maintain alignment with Revision 7.<\/p>\n

Appendix D, Safety Data Sheets<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

OSHA has amended the minimum requirements for an SDS to align with Revision 7, reflect the changes in (d)(1), and clarify implementation concerns from the 2012 update of the HCS.\u00a0 OSHA has updated the instructions to clarify that each section must contain all specified information, but the preparer has flexibility on how it is presented.\u00a0 The following are updates by section of the SDS:<\/p>\n