Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents|
| Standard Number:||1910.1200|
September 10, 1987
Mr. J. Andrew Doyle
Counsel National Paint & Coatings Association
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Doyle:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the National Paint and Coatings Association's (NPCA) Health Effects Labeling Approach (Advance Supplement to Volume II May 7, 1987).
The guidance provided in the labeling guide should serve as a practical tool for professionals responsible for hazard determination under the Hazard Communication Standard. When used in conjunction with the Hazard Communication Standard the manual will greatly assist employers in making proper compliance decisions. However, the use of the "Approach" may not guarantee that an employer will always be in compliance with the standard. Compliance officers will judge the adequacy of an employer's hazard determination decisions based on the scientific facts and the standard's requirements on a case by case basis.
The need for professional judgment relative to the Hazard Communication Standard is established by the very nature of the regulation. Accordingly, the application of specifications or cut-offs is incompatible with the performance orientation of the standard. For this reason, the concept of a numerical threshold for determining labeling obligations is not consistent with the intent of the Hazard Communication Standard. Professionals will generally agree that some threshold level is necessary, but they will rarely agree on the level for a single chemical. We are pleased to see the NPCA agrees with this concept. The Agency supports the use of the "Approach" and believes that when NPCA members use it correctly and in conjunction with the Hazard Communication Standard compliance will be achieved.
Once Again, thank you for permitting us to review your work. Please feel free to call on us again.
Deputy Assistant Secretary
|Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents|