| 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
Hazard Communication Standard
- Issued
- Record type
- Interpretation
- Historical standard
- 1910.1200, 1987 expanded rule (PDF)
- Current standard
- HCS 2024, as amended
ILPI assessment: Workplace alternatives remain conditional; immediate use does not cross employees or shifts
This letter addresses the obsolete 1987 version of the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). Its main HazCom conclusions remain consistent: workplace label alternatives work only with effective hazard information/training, and the immediate-use exception does not cover containers used by other employees or on later shifts.
Under the current HCS, apply workplace labeling, immediate-use exception, and the complete definition. Historical workplace (f)(5) and immediate-use (f)(7) are now (f)(6)/(f)(8); the enclosed question's misnumbered references are preserved with the OSHA corrections. Do not remove or deface incoming labels unless the container is immediately marked with required information under (f)(9). shipped-container label elements and Appendix C remain separate from workplace alternatives. The exact old CPL 2-2.38B text has not been independently verified here; the later 1998 CPL 2-2.38D is not its original. Current enforcement counterpart: current HCS inspection procedures.
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.
July 17, 1990
Ronald V. Ludlow, C.I.H.
Corporate Manager
Industrial Hygiene Affairs
Thiokol Corporation
2475 Washington Boulevard
Ogden, Utah 84401
Dear Mr. Ludlow:
Thank you for your letter of June 12, regarding the labeling requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), 29 CFR 1910.1200 [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS].
Safety Emporium carries NFPA signs and labels like these ones. Plus a whole lot more!
In your letter, you make reference to Secretary of Labor v. Hilton-Davis Chemical Company, et. al., OSHRC Docket No. 86-494, in which it was concluded that the "appropriate hazard warnings" required under subparagraph (f) (1) of the HCS [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS] for labels on shipped containers of hazardous chemicals must include information on the target organ effects that are associated with exposure to the hazardous chemical. Your letter poses several questions regarding employers' responsibilities for labeling of in-plant containers of hazardous chemicals. [Your letter incorrectly refers to subparagraph (f)(4) [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS; now 1910.1200(f)(6)]; (f)(5) [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS; now 1910.1200(f)(6)] is the subparagraph of the HCS that sets forth in-plant labeling requirements.] In your letter, you requested clarification on three specific labeling situations:
Question 1: Our portable containers, not intended for immediate use, are labeled with a system similar to the paint manufacturers labeling system in the Hilton-Davis case. Do we need to add target organ effects to these labels in order to meet the courts interpretation of "Appropriate Hazard Warnings"?
Appendix A of the HCS [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS; appendix content reorganized; see assessment] makes it clear that employees must be apprised of "the change in body function" associated with employee exposure and the "signs and symptoms that may occur." OSHA's program directive on Hazard Communication, CPL 2-2.38B, "Inspection Procedures for the Hazard Communication Standard" states that the definition of "hazard warning" under the HCS must convey the hazards of the chemical and is intended to include target organ effects. The same Instruction also discusses the effectiveness of in-plant labeling systems, specifically systems that "rely on numerical and/or alphabetic codes to convey the hazards." The Instruction provides as guidance this discussion:
Although these labeling systems may not convey the target organ effects, the intent of the standard is to permit the use of these systems for in-plant labeling as long as the entire Hazard Communication Program (HCP) is effective. CSHOs [Compliance Safety and Health Officers] shall evaluate the effectiveness of in-plant labeling systems through a review of the employer's training program and MSDS procedures. An effective program is one that ensures that employees are aware of hazardous effects (including target organ effects) of the chemicals they are potentially exposed to as well as meeting the other basic requirements of the standard. Hazard warnings used as part of in-plant labeling systems, in combination with the HCP [Hazard Communication Program], are effective when they promote safe handling and use of hazardous chemicals in the workplace.
Keep informed about workplace hazards with proper labeling techniques and safety posters available from Safety Emporium.
This means that employers relying on a labeling system such as the HMIS system must augment their hazard communication employee training program to specifically address the target organ effects that may not be discernable from a numerical warning system.
Question 2: We provide uniform labels on all materials coming into our facility. These labels are what employees are trained to recognize under our hazard communications program, and are produced as a result of a review of the manufacturers MSDS and label, and a review of the available literature on the hazards of the ingredients in the manufacturers material. Would labels under this type of system need to have target organ effects included on them?
As discussed above in our response to your first question, the Agency has recognized employer use of existing numerical or otherwise coded labeling systems for in-plant labeling situations, but does require the augmentation of the use of such a system if target organ effects are not conveyed by those labels. If you are developing your own in-plant labeling system for all materials coming into your facility, you may want to consider including target organ effects on the labels you are developing to eliminate the need for increased employee training in this area.
Question 3: We have processes which must run continuously until completed, overlapping several shifts. These processes have need of chemicals in small quantities which are used only in the immediate production process, and which all shifts of employees are familiar with. Could the containers for these chemicals be considered exempt from labeling requirements under the "immediate use" exclusion of 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(6) [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS; now 1910.1200(f)(8)]? [Your letter incorrectly refers to paragraph (f)(6) [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS; now 1910.1200(f)(8)], the immediate use provisions are set forth in paragraph (f)(7) [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS; now 1910.1200(f)(8)].]
No. The provisions at (f)(7) [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS; now 1910.1200(f)(8)] are applicable only to containers that will be used by the person who transferred the chemical from the labeled container. Containers containing hazardous chemicals that will be utilized by employees other than the one performing the transfer, including employees on other shifts, must be labeled with the information required by paragraph (f)(5) [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS; now 1910.1200(f)(6)].
[ILPI note: At issuance: 1910.1200, 1987 expanded rule (PDF). Current counterpart: immediate use and its definition. Control/use must remain with the transferring employee within that workshift; workplace labels otherwise follow (f)(6).]
We hope this information has been helpful to you in addressing the concerns you raised. Please feel free to contact us again if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Gerard F. Scannell
Assistant Secretary
June 12, 1990
Gerald Scannel
Assistant Secretary of Labor
Occupational Safety & Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
Get your GHS-compliant labels and signs from Safety Emporium.
Dear Mr. Scannel: We have found a great deal of confusion within industry and within the OSHA system concerning employer labeling requirements. Would you provide us with an opinion from your office on our responsibilities for labeling, based on the following information.
The judge in the recently concluded Hilton-Davis case1 found that "appropriate hazard warnings", in the Hazard Communications Standard, means "Target Organ Effects"2. This language is used not only in the labeling requirements for manufacturers, but also in the labeling requirements for employer generated labels in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(4) [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS; now 1910.1200(f)(6)]:
...the employer shall ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace is labeled, tagged, or marked with the following information:
(i) Identity of the hazardous chemical(s) contained therein; and (ii) Appropriate hazard warnings." (emphasis added)
As an employer we have three circumstances which need to be addressed:
- Our portable containers, not intended for immediate use, are labeled with a system similar to the paint manufacturers labeling system in the Hilton-Davis case. Do we need to add target organ effects to these labels in order to meet the courts interpretation of "Appropriate Hazard Warnings"?
- We provide uniform labels on all materials coming into our facility. These labels are what employees are trained to recognize under our hazard communications program, and are produced as a result of a review of the manufacturers MSDS and label, and a review of the available literature on the hazards of the ingredients in the manufacturers material. Would labels under this type of system need to have target organ effects included on them?
- We have processes which must run continuously until completed overlapping several shifts. These processes have need of chemicals in small quantities which are used only in the immediate production process, and which all shifts of employees are familiar with. Could the containers for these chemicals be considered exempt from labeling requirements under the "immediate use" exclusion of 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(6) [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS; now 1910.1200(f)(8)]?
I appreciate the help I have always received from OSHA personnel.
Sincerely,
Ronald V. Ludlow C.I.H.
Corporate Manager
- Industrial Hygiene Affairs
1Occupational Safety and Health Cases, 13 OSHC 1182, The Bureau of National Affairs
2 Ibid, 1186, [2]
The original official public domain version of this document is available from OSHA at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1990-07-17.