US Occupational Safety & Health Administration: Article Interpretation Presentation to the19th Trilateral Battery Working Group Meeting NEMA Dry Battery Section October 2016

OSHA Article vs. Chemical History In December 2015 LabelMaster received a Letter of Interpretation from OSHA saying that lithium and lithium ion batteries were Chemicals not Articles. The impact is that all batteries would be subject to the full OSHA Hazardous Communications Standard. (29 CFR 1910.1200) In early 2016 the PRBA held two meetings with OSHA to try to convince them that their interpretation was a mistake. These meetings did not go well. NEMA was fully involved in these meetings. In June 2016 the PRBA sent a very detailed 9-page letter to OSHA again arguing our position and asking for clarification if OSHA continued to stand by the initial Letter of Interpretation. October 20, 2016 – NEMA Hdqts 2 NEMA – TWG 2016 BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL

OSHA Article vs. Chemical What is the result of batteries being a “Chemical”? OSHA considers the battery case to be a “container” of chemicals that could expose users to the chemicals if the can is somehow breached during any point in its life span. While the initial Letter of Interpretation was limited to lithium and lithium ion, our conversations with OSHA made it very clear that OSHA interprets all batteries to be chemicals not articles. Battery Manufacturers would have to develop a fully compliant Global Harmonized System (GHS), Safety Date Sheet (SDS) for all of our batteries. These SDS would need all of the appropriate warning icons. October 20, 2016 – NEMA Hdqts 3 NEMA – TWG 2016 BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL

OSHA Article vs. Chemical Also . . . Batteries would have to be labeled with a Product Identifier, a Signal Word, Hazard Statement, Precautionary Statements, Supplier Identification and the appropriate mandatory pictograms. All employers would have to provide information to workers on the presence and hazard of chemicals in their workplace. All employers would be required to provide effective information and training to all employees on the hazard chemicals found in batteries. This would have to be done before they could work with these chemicals and would have to cover all risks. October 20, 2016 – NEMA Hdqts 4 NEMA – TWG 2016 BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL

OSHA Article vs. Chemical What do you do right now? Per our request, OSHA has not formally published their December 2015 Letter of Interpretation to LableMaster on their website. OSHA has verbally told us that they would not take any enforcement action until this issue is fully resolved. As of today, we have not seen any enforcement. We wait for a response to our June 2016 letter and then meet with them again to address issues in their response letter. PRBA is looking to start developing fully compliant GHS SDS in 2017 in anticipation of receiving a formal response from OSHA. October 20, 2016 – NEMA Hdqts 5 NEMA – TWG 2016 BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL

OSHA Article vs. Chemical Sample GHS Compliant Label October 20, 2016 – NEMA Hdqts 6 NEMA – TWG 2016 BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL

OSHA Article vs. Chemical In addition . . . . The primary battery industry should begin developing GHS SDS for all of our batteries While Japan and the EU clearly believe batteries are Articles and not Chemicals, the US and Canada will very likely continue to disagree with this interpretation If you want to ship to the US or Canada or to OEM’s who ship to the US and Canada, you will need a GHS SDS, your products will have to be labeled and you’ll have to help your customers do employee training. October 20, 2016 – NEMA Hdqts 7 NEMA – TWG 2016 BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL