| 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
Use of split entry concept under OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS 2012)
- Issued
- Record type
- Interpretation
- Historical standard
- HCS 2012 (historical)
- Current standard
- HCS 2024, as amended
ILPI assessment: Generally consistent with the current HCS
The HCS does not permit the described risk-based “split entry” adjustment to substitute for its hazard-classification criteria. Actual workplace exposure controls or a different anticipated aerosol size do not, by themselves, justify downgrading the chemical’s intrinsic hazard.
Use hazard classification under paragraph (d) and the applicable acute-toxicity criteria in Appendix A.1, including the relevant evidence and inhalation-specific provisions. EU classifications do not automatically establish U.S. HCS compliance.
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.
April 2, 2013
Mr. Brian Karlovich
Bayer Material Science
100 Bayer Road
Pittsburg, PA 15205
Dear Mr. Karlovich:
Control access to your facility with admittance signs and floor markers from Safety Emporium.
Thank you for your January 22, 2013, letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Your letter was referred to OSHA's Directorate of Enforcement Programs for a response to your specific questions regarding the Hazard Communication standard (HCS 2012 [ILPI: Original HCS 2012 context · Current HCS]), 29 CFR 1910.1200, which is now aligned with the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation only of the requirements herein, and may not be applicable to any questions not delineated within your original correspondence. Your paraphrased questions and our responses are below.
Scenario: For classification of acute inhalation toxicity, the European Union allows the use of the split entry concept as discussed in Inhalation Toxicology: Methodological and Regulatory Challenges by Jurgen Pauluhn, published in Experimental Toxicology and Pathology. This concept allows for a modified GHS classification in certain situations. For example, when the aerosol size in the laboratory tests differs from the size expected in the workplace, it leads to the conclusion that there is less risk for workers and therefore a lower classification may be warranted. In this case, if the animal data would result in a category 3 classification, the use of the split entry concept suggests that a category 4 classification may be more appropriate.
Question 1: Does HCS 2012 [ILPI: Original HCS 2012 context · Current HCS] support the use of the split entry concept?
Response: No. OSHA outlines its classification criteria in Appendices A [ILPI: Original HCS 2012 context · Current HCS] and B [ILPI: Original HCS 2012 context · Current HCS] to 29 CFR 1910.1200 [ILPI: Original HCS 2012 context · Current HCS]. We reviewed the article you referenced and found that it did not meet the classification process required by the HCS 2012 [ILPI: Original HCS 2012 context · Current HCS] . The article appears to rely on risk based principles that are not appropriate under OSHA's adoption of the GHS.
[ILPI note: At issuance: HCS 2012. Current classification duties and Appendix A.1 acute-toxicity criteria govern; workplace risk management is not a substitute for hazard classification.]
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA's requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our letters of interpretation do not create new or additional requirements but rather explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. From time to time, letters are affected when the Agency updates a standard, a legal decision impacts a standard, or changes in technology affect the interpretation. To assure that you are using the correct information and guidance, please consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact the Office of Health Enforcement at (202) 693-2190.
Sincerely,
Thomas Galassi, Director
Directorate of Enforcement Programs
The original official public domain version of this document is available from OSHA at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2013-04-02.