September 2013 Spray 33 fer (along with what is considered to be a small container). • “Hazards not Otherwise Classified” (HNOC) are treated significantly differently between HPR and Hazcom 2012. The HPR proposal provides a much higher level of guidance, breaking them down into physical and health hazards. The label and SDS requirements for HNOC are dramatically different in the two countries. • Hazcom 2012 allows for non-applicable hazard statements to be removed from labels, whereas the HPR does not. • The existing Canadian rules for trade secret status on MSDS will not be harmonized with the U.S. rules. The last point, in my view, is the most significant. Under the U.S. rules, there are three scenarios where a company does not need to list an exact percentage concentration for a hazardous ingredient on an SDS: 1. If there is batch-to-batch variations in the concentration 2. If the SDS covers multiple “chemically similar” products 3. Or if the exact percentage is a trade secret. Under Hazcom 2012, companies make their own determinations of trade secret status (although these can be audited by the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration OSHA). In Canada, the same three scenarios apply under the HPR proposal. However, in Canada, a company cannot simply claim trade secret status—they need to apply to the government for that status, pay the associated filing fees and risk having the claim rejected. As the regulation stands now, companies will need to list exact percentages on their SDS, unless they apply for an application or one of the two other scenarios hold. I expect this will be the most contentious part of the proposal and expect to see many companies request a change in this area. Therefore, please, get your comments in by the Sept. 15, 2013 deadline. If you have any questions on the new regulation, be sure to contact me at info@nexreg.com. SPRA Y
SpraySep13
To see the actual publication please follow the link above