Jun 14, 1990 - OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard.Jun 14, 1990 - OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard.
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
ILPI assessment: Coverage principles retained; update deadlines and exemptions need modern distinctions
This letter addresses the obsolete 1987 version of the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). Its main HazCom conclusion remains useful: familiar household ingredients can present occupational hazards, and actual workplace exposure matters. The HCS is not a single list of products requiring sheets, but its current format and hazard criteria differ from the historical discussion.
The old statement that both SDS and label updates occur within three months is superseded: current SDS updates generally use three months, while label updates use six months, with their specified conditions and shipment provisions. These duties and current label elements should not be inferred from the old summary.
Occupational health hazards to veterinarians.() The HazCom concern remains relevant: veterinary employees may need chemical hazard information for anesthetics, disinfectants, hazardous drugs and other materials.
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.
The Honorable Lamar Smith House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Smith:
Thank you for your letter of April 18, addressed to Mr. Mike Turner, Chief, Office of Legislative Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), on behalf of your constituent, Dr. Guy A. Sheppard, of the West Veterinary Clinic in San Angelo, Texas. Dr. Sheppard wrote to you concerning OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), 29 CFR 1910.1200 [ILPI:Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS].
In the letter you enclosed from Dr. Sheppard, he states "This code calls for the maintenance of a 'library' of Material Safety Data Sheets for all hazardous substances used in our hospitals. On the surface, these requirements sound reasonable. They lose reason when one sees a copy of the form that is required. The requirements become even more ridiculous when the list of substances which require an MSDS is examined. Common products found in most households are included such as acetic acid (vinegar), aspirin, gasoline, iodine, kaolin (found in Kaopectate), saccharin, silica (sand), starch, sucrose (table sugar) and turpentine."
The HCS [ILPI:Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS] establishes uniform requirements to ensure that the hazards of all chemicals imported into, produced or used in U.S. workplaces are evaluated and that this hazard information is transmitted to all affected employers and exposed employees via labels and material safety data sheets (MSDSs) for those products. All employers are required to provide information to their employees about the hazardouschemicals to which they are exposed at their workplaces. The HCS, however, does not include a list of chemicals nor does it apply to "food, drugs or cosmetics intended for personal consumption by employees while in the workplace" (Section (b)(6)(vi) of the HCS [ILPI:Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS]). Further, any consumer product (such as the turpentine or gasoline mentioned in Dr. Sheppard's letter) that is used in a workplace in such a way that the duration and frequency of use are the same as that of a consumer is not required to be included in an employer's hazard communication program and is, in fact, not subject to the requirements of the standard at all. It is, however, Dr. Sheppard's responsibility to make this determination for his workplace by assessing the exposure potential of the consumer products he may utilize and ensuring that the frequency and duration of use of these products by his employees are not greater than that of normal consumer use.
Dr. Sheppard also states that it is his responsibility "to know which products require an MSDS...." Under the HCS [ILPI:Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS], chemicalmanufacturers and importers are responsible for performing a hazard determination on the chemicals they produce to determine if, under normal conditions of use, their product could result in a hazardous exposure situation for downstream employees who will be working with or otherwise handling that product. "Chemical" is broadly defined in the HCS as "any element, chemical compound, or mixture of elements and/or compounds," and therefore includes food and food additives. Food products (such as vinegar and starch mentioned in Dr. Sheppard's letter), like any other chemical product, must be evaluated for their downstream hazardous exposure potential. If there is no potential for worker exposure to any health or physical hazard (as defined in Appendix A of the standard [ILPI:Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS; appendix content reorganized; see assessment]), then the product is not subject to the provisions of the HCS and no material safety data sheet need be prepared for it or kept by the receiving employer.
In addition, all shipments must be labeled with the chemical identity, the name and address of the chemicalmanufacturer and an appropriate hazard warning. Therefore, if Dr. Sheppard receives a product labeled with hazard warnings in accordance with the HCS [ILPI:Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS] and his employees are or could potentially be exposed to the chemical beyond that of a consumer, then he would need to maintain the MSDS for that chemical on site and ensure that it is readily available to his employees.
Dr. Sheppard also expresses concern about being responsible for knowing when a new MSDS is required. When any new or significant information becomes available to the chemicalmanufacturer or importer, that party is responsible (not the downstream user or employer) for updating the MSDS and/or the label within three months. The new MSDS/label must be transmitted with the next shipment of the product to the downstream user. Dr. Sheppard will know that the information on the MSDS has changed whenever he receives a new MSDS from the chemical manufacturer, and he will then be required to incorporate this new information into his hazard communication program.
We hope this discussion adequately addresses your constituent's concerns; we will now address the issues raised in your cover letter. In your letter you state that while you agree that regulations for worker safety are reasonable, you specifically questioned whether there was "any evidence that such items such as starch or sucrose (table sugar) are dangerous to employees."
As discussed above, it is the employer is responsibility to assess the exposure potential of all hazardous chemicals utilized at his workplace and the duty of the importer, chemical manufacturer or distributor to conduct a hazard assessment of all the chemicals they produce or import. While in most circumstances neither will be a hazard, in some work environments starch and sucrose may represent a significant explosion hazard when suspended in air. This information is required to be transmitted via the MSDS to employers who then must assess the hazard potential created by usage of these materials in their workplace.
You further inquired as to whether "the benefits of imposing such regulations outweigh the costs?" OSHA conducted an economic and technological feasibility evaluation as well as a cost effectiveness study for this standard as it does for all standards. After careful analysis, the benefit of reduction of chemically related occupational injuries and illnesses was found to outweigh the cost of compliance. The results of this analysis are detailed in pages 31867-31876 of the August 24, 1987, Federal Register which contained the final rule for Hazard Communication. A copy of this section of the Federal Register is included for your information.
With regard to your question concerning the number of violations for failure to place warning labels on regular household goods, section (b) of the HCS [ILPI:Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS] specifically exempts food, food additives, and color additives from the labeling requirements of the HCS when they are subject to the labeling requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which are enforced by the Food and Drug Administration. Foods, drugs, cosmetics, or alcoholic beverages in a retail establishment, which are packaged for sale to consumers, are also excluded from the labeling requirements of the HCS [ILPI:Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS].
You also asked, "Has any action been taken to reevaluate the list of hazardous substances?" As previously stated, the HCS does not contain or reference a specific list of chemicals. Chemicals must be evaluated for both potential physical and health hazards by the chemical importer, manufacturer or distributor to ascertain whether an MSDS must be prepared.
The intent of the HCS [ILPI:Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS] can only be met when employers obtain and transmit hazard information on the chemical products in their workplaces to their employees who are or may be exposed to them during the course of their employment. We hope this discussion adequately addresses your concerns. We are enclosing a copy of two booklets on OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard [ILPI:Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS] that may be useful as a further reference source on the requirements of the HCS. Please feel free to contact us again if we can be of further assistance.