| 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 and Consumer Products.
- Issued
- Record type
- Interpretation
- Historical standard
- 1910.1200, 1987 expanded rule (PDF)
- Current standard
- HCS 2024, as amended
ILPI assessment: Actual purpose, duration and frequency remain the exemption test
This letter addresses the obsolete 1987 version of the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). Its central HazCom conclusion remains consistent: a consumer label does not establish that repeated occupational use qualifies for exemption. The employer must be able to demonstrate that its actual use meets the exemption's conditions.
Use the full current consumer-product exemption (FAQ explanation) and distinguish CPSC-related labeling exemption from complete relief. No universal number of uses per day settles every product or task; actual purpose, duration and frequency control. The Safeway case strategy and hearing date are historical, not a general present no-citation promise. See current information and training requirements and SDS access for covered work.
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.
August 15, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR: BYRON R. CHADWICK, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
THROUGH: LEO CAREY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FIELD PROGRAMS
FROM: PATRICIA K. CLARK, DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS
SUBJECT: Hazard Communication and Consumer Products
Delineate your eye wash and safety shower locations with floor marking solutions from Safety Emporium.
This is in response to your memorandum of May 15 requesting clarification of the application of 29 CFR 1910.1200 [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS] to retail establishments which use consumer products for cleaning purposes. This is also in follow-up to several telephone conversations between our staff members on the specific case involved, Safeway, Inc., Store #914, for which a hearing date of August 13 has been set.
Your memo requested National Office guidance regarding citation strategy and litigation priorities for violations of consumer product use in a workplace which is not specifically exempted under 1910.1200(b)(6)(vii) [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS; now 1910.1200(b)(6)(ix)], i.e., employee use of consumer products which is of a greater frequency and duration than normal consumer use. The performance-oriented nature of the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS] makes it difficult to draw clear, exacting lines for the number of times a consumer product can be used in a workplace before the provisions of the rule apply. However, where an employer is uncertain whether the duration and frequency of exposure to these products is comparable to that of a consumer, he or she should "obtain or develop the MSDS and make it available to employees" (see 52 FR, pg. 31862, August 24, 1987). It is the employer's responsibility to assess his workers' exposures and determine if and when the requirements of the standard apply.
[ILPI note: At issuance: 1910.1200, 1987 expanded rule (PDF). Current counterpart: consumer-product exemption (FAQ explanation). The employer must demonstrate the conditions; similarity of brand or packaging alone does not suffice.]
During the course of an inspection, it is imperative that the compliance officer document that any employee use of a consumer product containing hazardous ingredients at his or her workplace is of a "frequency or duration" that clearly exceeds what a reasonable person would concede to be "normal consumer" use in a home or household environment. Situations where employee use of a product is close or similar to the way or to the amount of times a consumer could be envisioned to use a product should not be cited as violations of the HCS [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS].
It is important to note that the use of consumer products can be hazardous. The fact that a product is labeled in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act and exempt from OSHA HCS labeling, does not render that product "safe" to use by workers. This is especially pertinent when, as a condition of employment, an employee must utilize a (hazardous) consumer product with a greater frequency and resultant greater duration of exposure than what is typical of a normal consumer or household use. In these situations, the employee has a "right to know" about the hazards of the chemicals he or she is expected to work with and therefore is exposed to. This is the obvious intent of the standard with regard to workplace consumer product exposure.
Slash your extinguisher maintenance costs with the revolutionary Rusoh Eliminator Self-Service Refillable ABC Fire Extinguishers from Safety Emporium.
We have been advised by the Solicitor's Office that in cases involving employee workplace exposures to hazardous consumer products, the employer has the initial burden of proving that the product is used in its workplace in a manner contemplated by the exemption language of 1910.1200(b)(6)(vii) [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS; now 1910.1200(b)(6)(ix)]. That is, the employer must demonstrate that the consumer product is used by employees in the same manner as normal consumer use and that the duration and frequency of exposure is not greater than that experienced by the general public.
Employers must be able to demonstrate that an employee is using, for example, a can of sink cleanser with the same frequency or duration of use as would be expected at home. If it is the employee's job to clean sinks all day, or part of the day, with such frequency that is greater than one would be expected to be experienced at home, then the employee is entitled to the hazard communication information available through the MSDS and required employee training provisions of the HCS [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS]. Under this example, it is essential that OSHA establish through employee interviews that the worker did in fact repeatedly clean sinks throughout his or her workshift in a manner that any reasonable person would agree resulted in exposures significantly greater than those of a consumer. This evidence would be used to rebut the employer's potential offer of proof that his or her employees used the hazardous cleanser in a manner similar to that of a normal consumer.
While we agree that clear lines delineating when the HCS [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS] applies and when it would not apply may be difficult to define for all workplace situations and depends on specific workplace conditions, the intent of the HCS, to provide employees information on hazardous chemicals they work with, is clear.
We hope this discussion will be useful to you in this pending case and in future situations.
The original official public domain version of this document is available from OSHA at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1991-08-15-1.