| The Home page of ILPI's Safety Data Sheet (SDS) Resource, the leader in SDS information since 1995! | |
| The history and philosophy behind this resource. | |
| A curated collection of books and reference materials concerning Safety Data Sheets and closely related topics. | |
| Paste your plain text SDS into the SDS-Demystifier, and it will be converted into a hypertext-enriched document with links to detailed explanations of each key term. | |
| An extensive list of frequently asked questions about Safety Data Sheets including regulations, content, compliance, and more. | |
| A humorous take on Safety Data Sheet jargon. Fill in the blanks on our entry form to generate a personalized Unsafety Data Sheet to share with your coworkers. | |
| Since 1995, we've maintained this massive curated list of the best places to find Safety Data Sheets on the Internet. | |
| Way more than a glossary, this hypertext-enhanced resource covers hundreds of SDS-related terms and expert knowledge. Each entry includes both the SDS relevance and links to additional authoritative resources. | |
| Archived results of Safety Data Sheet related polls taken by some of our millions of site visitors | |
| You are here! The OSHA regulations behind SDS regulations, including the inspection guidelines and over 400 official interpretations letters under the Hazard Communication Standard | |
| Commercial suppliers of SDS authoring and management software as well as cloud compliance services. | |
| Commercial companies that will create SDS's for your specific needs as well as SDS translation companies. |
Safety signs, banners, and scoreboards? Get yours at Safety Emporium!
OSHA Hazard Communication Letters of Interpretation
MSDS and label requirements for an antiknock compound containing EDB, EDC, and tetraethyl lead.
- Issued
- Record type
- Interpretation
- Historical standard
- 1910.1200, original 1983 rule (PDF)
- Current standard
- HCS 2024, as amended
ILPI assessment: Disclosure principle retained; classification and labeling rules changed
This letter addresses the original 1983 Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), which is now obsolete. Its central point remains relevant: a severe acute hazard does not justify omitting applicable chronic hazards. However, the letter's advice about choosing “appropriate” warnings is not a substitute for current shipped-container label requirements and Appendix C. Workplace labels have separate provisions in paragraph (f)(6).
For Question 2, lower ingredient concentration alone does not establish that a mixture is noncorrosive or free of other hazards. Under the current HCS, use the applicable mixture criteria in Appendix A.2.3 and, for eye effects, A.3.3, including bridging principles only when their conditions are satisfied. This letter does not establish the current classification of a particular ZDDP formulation.
For Questions 1 and 3, apply current mixture carcinogenicity criteria and SDS disclosure requirements, including the Section 11 information on IARC, NTP and OSHA carcinogen listings. Neither a personal judgment about which hazard deserves emphasis nor confidentiality alone permits omission of required information; trade-secret claims have specific conditions.
Last reviewed: .
About this ILPI assessment
This comparison with current requirements is not a finding that OSHA has formally withdrawn this letter. This assessment reflects editorial judgment informed by human review and AI assistance. It is an opinion, may contain errors or omissions, and is not an official OSHA determination. For guidance on how OSHA requirements apply to your circumstances, contact your local OSHA office.
OSHA's notice about interpretation letters
The following notice is published on OSHA's interpretation pages; it is general guidance, not a letter-specific withdrawal notice.
OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.
Source: OSHA's original letter page.
September 4, 1985
Mr. Thomas S. Allen
Product Label Specialist
Ethyl Corporation
Post Office Box 14799
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898
Dear Tom:
Thank you for your letter of June 13, 1985, regarding questions you have concerning interpretations of the Hazard Communication Standard. [ILPI note: At issuance: original 1983 rule (PDF). Current counterparts: hazard classification, labels, and SDSs.] The responses are as follows.
In your first question, you asked whether a material safety data sheet (MSDS) and/or label for your antiknock compound should reflect the chronic hazards of EDB or EDC when the acute hazard of tetraethyl lead is so severe. The MSDS for a compound must reflect all valid evidence concerning both the acute and chronic hazards of the constituents. Your company is free to make whatever statements seem appropriate regarding the relative hazards based upon the composition, but the evidence must be reported. That is the essence of a "right-to-know" standard.
On the label, the standard required "appropriate hazard warnings." There is obviously a need for professional judgment to determine what is "appropriate" in each situation. However, in areas where a judgment must be made, it would be prudent to err on the side of disclosure. This approach is consistent with the intent of the standard. Given the high percentage of both EDB and EDC present in your compound, my personal opinion is that the chronic hazards should certainly be on the label as well as on the MSDS.
[ILPI note: For shipped containers, required label elements now follow paragraph (f)(1) and Appendix C. The old discretion over “appropriate hazard warnings” does not replace these requirements. Workplace labeling is addressed separately.]
With regard to question no. 2, I think it would be reasonable to assume that if a component that is corrosive by itself is not shown to be so when tested in a mixture where it comprises 25% of the compound, it would also not render the mixture corrosive when it comprises 1-5%. Of course, that assumption is also based upon the diluent being the same, and not something which could produce a synergistic effect. When you state that the label would only cover the acute hazards of the mixture, I assume that you mean there are no chronic hazards associated with the mixture. I am also assuming that corrosivity is the only health hazard ZDDP contributes to the mixture.
[ILPI note: Apply current skin corrosion/irritation and eye damage/irritation mixture criteria. Bridging from tested mixtures requires supporting information and satisfaction of the applicable conditions; the historical concentration comparison is not a general exemption from classification.]
The answer to question no. 3 is related to no. 1. Again, the MSDS is a compilation of everything known about a chemical, whereas some degree of judgment is required to determine what is "appropriate" to put on a label. Certainly, the IARC information must be on the MSDS. And unless there is a scientifically defensible reason not to, I would indicate the cancer hazard on the label as well.
[ILPI note: Use current carcinogenicity criteria for mixtures and their concentration limits, rather than an unrestricted choice to omit a cancer warning. See SDS Section 11 for carcinogen-listing information and Appendix C for shipped-label elements.]
I hope this information is helpful to you. If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Jennifer C. Silk
Health Scientist
Health Standards Programs
JUNE 13, 1985
Miss Jennifer Silk
U.S. Department of Labor - OSHA
Room N3663
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20210
Dear Jennifer:
I very much appreciate your willingness to answer in writing several questions that were causing us concern in the MSDS and label areas.
Keep informed about workplace hazards with proper labeling techniques and safety posters available from Safety Emporium.
Question No. 1
For our antiknock compound with the composition
Tetraethyl lead 61.45% EDB 17.85% EDC 18.80% Inerts & Dye 1.90%
We currently classify the product as highly toxic by ingestion, absorption, and inhalation.
In developing new labels and MSDS to comply with current OSHA Hazard Communication Rule we wonder if we should show on the MSDS and/or label the chronic hazards associated with the EDB and EDC?
In our judgment the PEL of TEL at 75 ug/m3 coupled with the industrial hygiene required to avoid toxicity from TEL will result in no meaningful risk from either EDB or EDC. In addition to respiratory protection where overexposure might occur, protective clothing, foot protection, goggles and impermeable gloves are required.
Because of the wide PEL difference between TEL at 0.075 mg Pb/m3 we are concerned that emphasizing the chronic hazard from EDB will detract from the emphasis needed to protect from the organic lead hazard.
[ILPI note: The exposure figures and ingredient descriptions in this 1985 inquiry are historical, not a verification of current exposure limits or a current classification of the product.]
Question No. 2
For some our lube oil additives containing ZDDP (Zinc Dialkyldithiophosphate) we would like to know if our toxicologist can use judgment for those mixtures containing substantially less ZDDP than a tested mixture? Specifically, we have found that oil mixtures containing less than 25 wt % of ZDDP are not corrosive. We feel that mixtures containing 5% or 1% could be considered not corrosive on a judgment without test.
In these cases the MSDS would list the ZDDP as being present but it would not state that the ZDDP was itself corrosive or that the mixture was corrosive.
The label would of course cover only the acute hazards of the mixture.
Question No. 3
Many of our products contain from 1 to 15% of an aromatic oil listed in IARC as an animal carcinogen. The exact amount is confidential. We would of course show this aromatic oil as present. We would, however, use the judgment of the toxicologist in determining when to list the chronic hazard on the label. We would do this depending on the amount of diluent oil we judge to be a cancer hazard. Is this policy in accord with the interest of the OSHA rule?
[ILPI note: Current trade-secret provisions govern withholding an ingredient identity or concentration. A confidentiality assertion does not remove required hazard disclosure.]
As I explained to you on the phone, all of us within Ethyl Corporation are enthusiastic in complying with all facets of the OSHA rule. It was in fact this enthusiasm that caused honest differences of opinion within the group and lead to this inquire. These few answers will greatly aid us in fulfilling our corporate obligations in this area.
We very much appreciate your helping us on this matter.
Sincerely,
Thomas S. Allen
Product Label Specialist
ETHYL CORPORATION Technical Center
Toxicology and Industrial Hygiene Department
P.O. Box 14799
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898
Telephone (504)389-7600
The original official public domain version of this document is available from OSHA at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1985-09-04.