“Docket No. 86-0457 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. EMERY CHEMICALS, DIVISION OF NATIONAL DISTILLERS AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Respondent.AND LOCAL UNION 14340, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Authorized Employee Representative.OSHRC Docket No. 86-0457ORDERThe Parties’ stipulation and settlement agreement isapproved.\u00a0 This order is issued pursuant to a delegation of authority to theExecutive Secretary.\u00a0 41 Fed. Reg. 37173 (1976), amended at 44 Fed. Reg. 7255 (1979).FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling, Jr.Executive SecretaryDated:\u00a0 November 18, 1987SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. EMERY CHEMICALS, DIVISION OF NATIONAL DISTILLERS AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Respondent, and LOCAL UNION 14340, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Authorized Employee Representative.OSHRC Docket No. 86-0457APPEARANCES:\u00a0 Bruce C. Heslop, Esquire, Officeof the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Cleveland, Ohio, on behalf of complainant.Robert E. Denham, Esquire, National Distillers and Chemical Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio, on behalf of respondent.Mr. Richard Smith, Chairman, Safety Committee, Local 14340, United Steelworkers of America, on behalf ofauthorized employee representative.DECISION AND ORDERSPARKS, Judge:\u00a0 Respondent, Emery Chemicals,Division of National Distillers and Chemical Corporation (\”Emery\”) owns andoperates a workplace at 4900 Este Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio, for the manufacture ofspecialty chemicals (Tr. 24).\u00a0 Uses of the respondent’s products include syntheticlubricants, cosmetics and toiletries, paints, detergents, rubber goods, plastics,adhesives and textile chemicals.On December 2, 1985, representatives of the Secretaryconducted a Special Emphasis Program inspection of Emery’s Plant (Tr. 19) designed todetermine Emery’s compliance with those elements of OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard,29 C.F.R. ? 1910.1200 et seq. (\”the Standard\”) which becameeffective on November 25, 1985 (Tr. 19, 20).\u00a0 During the course of the December 2,1985, inspection, five Material Safety Data Sheets (\”MSDS’s\”) and five labelswere provided to OSHA’s compliance safety and health officer (Tr. 21).\u00a0 On March 4,1986, a closing conference was held at Emery’s Plant. \u00a0 Thereafter, a four-itemcitation for other than serious violations was issued by OSHA on March 7, 1986, allegingvarious deficiencies in Emery’s labels and MSDS’s. \u00a0 No penalty was proposed.\u00a0The Company’s notice of contest was filed on April 3, 1986.\u00a0 Party status wasaccorded Local 14340 of the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, by order of theReview Commission dated May 19, 1986.I.The citation in this proceeding involves twoprincipal issues.\u00a0 The first is addressed by item one which alleges violationsrelating to the labels used by Emery on containers of five Emery products.\u00a0 TheSecretary contends that these labels are deficient in that they failed to contain\”appropriate hazard warnings\” as mandated by 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.1200(f)(1)(ii).\u00a0 The second main issue–addressed by items two through four–involves the MSDS forone Emery product, Emerox 1110 Azelaic Acid.\u00a0 The Secretary alleges that this MSDSdid not properly list the chemical ingredients (item two) and physical and chemicalcharacteristics (item three) of Azelaic Acid, and that emergency and first aid proceduresfor this substance were inadequate (item four).Pursuant to a stipulation by the parties at thehearing, it is found that the substances referred to in the citation, specifically Emerox1110, Emery 658, Emersol 6357, Emery 1202 and Emery 878 are produced by respondent forshipment out of the plant to manufacturing sector customers (Tr. 6).At the hearing, the Secretary moved to amend itemfour of the citation to substitute the term \”inhalation\” for\”ingestion\”[[1\/]] (Tr. 6).\u00a0 Respondent vigorously opposed the amendment atthe hearing and moved for reconsideration of the ruling granting the motion. The motion toamend was granted, and respondent afforded an opportunity to overcome any allegedprejudice although none was shown.\u00a0 Respondent did not avail itself of theopportunity to offer further evidence but has renewed its opposition to the amendment.\u00a0 After reconsideration, it is held that the amendment was proper under thecircumstances and the ruling is affirmed.II.The OSHA \”hazard communication standard,\”29 C.F.R. ? 1910.1200, provides that by November 25, 1985, chemical manufacturers andimporters shall label containers of hazardous chemicals leaving their workplaces andprovide material safety data sheets with initial shipments.[[2\/]]\u00a0 See ?1910.1200(j)(1).\u00a0 The purpose of the standard, as set forth in 1910.1200(a)(1), is:[T]o ensure that the hazards of all chemicalsproduced or imported by chemical manufacturers or importers are evaluated, and thatinformation concerning their hazards is transmitted to affected employers and employeeswithin the manufacturing sector.\u00a0 This transmittal of information is to beaccomplished by means of comprehensive hazard communication programs, which are to includecontainer labeling and other forms of warning, material safety data sheets and employeetraining.The standard is unique in its requirement for\”downstream\” disclosure of information regarding hazardous chemicals fromchemical manufacturers and importers to employer-purchasers of such products.\u00a0 See? 1910.1200(b)(1).\u00a0 The full and accurate downstream flow of information regardinghazardous chemicals is essential to complete implementation of the standard’s requirementsby manufacturing sector employers who purchase such products.\u00a0 See generally? 1910.1200(d)(1), ? 1910.1200(e) and ? 1910.1200(h).\u00a0 To initiate this downstreamflow of information, the standard requires chemical manufacturers, such as respondent, toevaluate chemical substances produced in their workplace to determine if they arehazardous, see ? 1910.1200(b)(1) and (d), to ensure that each container ofhazardous chemicals leaving its workplace is appropriately labeled, tagged or marked, see? 1910.1200(f), and to develop a material safety data sheet for each hazardous chemicalthey produce, see ? 1910.1200(g).III. Item one of the citation alleged that the labels usedon five of respondent’s products[[3\/]] failed to comply with ? 1910.1200(f)(1)[[4\/]], inthat they were not labeled, tagged or marked with \”appropriate hazardwarnings.\”\u00a0 More specifically, the Secretary contends that the labels on theproducts were deficient in that they failed to warn of the hazard to target organs.A.A threshold question is whether the materials listedin item one were hazardous chemicals which were subject to the HCS.\u00a0 The term\”hazardous chemical\” is defined in ? 1910.1200(c) as \”. . . any chemicalwhich is a physical hazard or a health hazard.\”\u00a0 The Secretary does not contendthe chemicals are physical hazards so we are concerned only with whether either is a\”health hazard.\”[[5\/]]\u00a0 Neither are any of the chemicals specifically namedon any of the lists of chemicals subject to the HCS.Appendices A and B, which are incorporated in thedefinition, \”provide[s] further definition and explanations of the scope of healthhazards covered by this section . . . and describe the criteria to be used to determinewhether or not a chemical is to be considered hazardous for purposes of thisstandard.\”\u00a0 The standard is performance oriented and requires the employer toevaluate the scientific data available and make a determination as to the informationrequired on the MSDS and labels.\u00a0 The standard does not require that an employerperform any testing but does envision a search of scientific literature to determine thereported results of studies \”which are designed and conducted according toestablished scientific principles, and which report statistically significant conclusionsregarding the health effects of a chemical\” (Appendix B, para. 4).The Secretary relied upon data shown on the MSDS and determined that four of the fiveproducts at issue, Emery 658, Emerson 6357, Emery 1202 and Emery 878, containedingredients comprising more than one percent of the product which presented a\”corrosive\” hazard (Exs. 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D; Tr. 37-38).\u00a0 Respondent does notseriously contest the determination that the four named products are properly classed ashazardous chemicals (Tr. 153) but does vigorously oppose the finding that the fifthproduct, Emerox 1110, is a hazardous chemical.\u00a0 Complainant contends that Emerox1110, which contains 80 percent azelaic acid and more than one percent of adipic acid,presents an \”irritant\” hazard (Ex. C-6).\u00a0 In support of that contention,the Secretary notes that a revised MSDS for Emerox 1110 was filed shortly after theinspection which lists the two ingredients as \”irritants\”[[6\/]]\u00a0 (Ex. C-6.section II).\u00a0 There is some confusion in the record, because the product is known byboth Emerox 1110 and its principal chemical, azelaic acid.\u00a0 On the revised MSDS, theproduct is identified as Emerox 1110 Azelaic Acid (Ex. C-6).The record as a whole does not support the conclusion that azelaic acid is an irritant.\u00a0 Patty’s Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, which is listed in Appendix C to? 1910.1200 as an \”Information Source,\” states the acute effects of azelaicacid as follows (Ex. C-5 p. 4949):Azelaic acid appears to have low acute toxicity.\u00a0 In the rabbit 500 mg azelaic acid produced only a mild skin irritation in 24 hrs.and 3 mg was only a mild eye irritant (123).Respondent’s expert toxicologist, Dr. Marian Vinegar,examined the basic data of the studies reported by Patty’s and determined that thefindings of the studies would require that azelaic acid be classed as a non-irritantpursuant to the definition in Appendix A, Section 4, of the HSC [[7\/]] (Tr. 133-134, 144).\u00a0 A study conducted under contract with the Air Force to determine the toxicity of anumber of materials, including azelaic acid, found that there was \”noirritation\” caused by azelaic acid (Ex. R-3; Tr. 135-140). Emery also commissioned atest of the toxicity of Emerox 1110, including eye irritation, which was reported in 1964(Tr. 140-141). Dr. Vinegar interpreted the results as yielding scores of only one for eyeconjunctival redness or swelling while a minimum score of at least two is required ofconjunctival swelling or redness to be deemed a \”positive reaction\” under 16C.F.R. ? 1500.42 (Ex. C-4; Tr. 140-143).\u00a0 See 16 C.F.R. ? 1500.42, test foreye irritants.\u00a0 She was of the opinion, therefore, that azelaic acid was not anirritant as defined under the Hazard Communication Standard (Tr. 144).\u00a0 TheSecretary’s compliance officer acknowledged that he had not read any of the underlyingstudies reported by Patty’s nor other scientific studies (Tr. 93-95).\u00a0 The record asa whole fails to establish that azelaic acid is a chemical hazard as defined in the HCS.Although Emerox 1110 contains 80 percent azelaic acid, the revised MSDS shows it alsocontains 1.1 percent to 1.3 percent adipic acid (1, 6– Hexanedioic acid) which is alsodesignated an \”irritant\” in Section II of that document (Ex. C-6).\u00a0 Patty’sreports that adipic acid \”produces severe eye irritation in rabbits\” and noevidence to the contrary was offered (Ex. C-5, p. 4945; Tr. 160).\u00a0 Dr. Vinegarconcedes that adipic acid by itself might cause problems with the eyes (Tr. 162).An examination of the evidence and the standardcompels the conclusion that Emerox 1110 as a whole is not a hazardous chemical within themeaning of the HCS.\u00a0 The section of the standard which requires a hazarddetermination, 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.1200(d), requires chemical manufacturers and importers toevaluate the chemicals manufactured or imported by them to determine if any of thechemicals are hazardous as defined by the HCS.\u00a0 Chemicals appearing on named listsare established as hazardous.\u00a0 Neither azelaic acid or other chemicals in Emerox 1110appear on the lists.\u00a0 If not on a list, a manufacturer may refer to reportedscientific studies or conduct such studies to determine whether a chemical is hazardous.Dr. Vinegar, respondent’s expert witness, testifiedthat a scientific study has been made of Emerox 1110 as a whole under conditionsequivalent to those described in the HCS (Tr. 141).\u00a0 The study was conducted inAugust 1964 by Hill Top Research Institute, Inc., Miamiville, Ohio (Ex. R-4).\u00a0 Dr.Vinegar described the results of the tests as follows (Tr. 142-143).In 16 CFR 1500.42, which used the same scoring methodas this test did, in order for a material to be considered to have a positive reaction inthe rabbit’s eye, they must score at least a one for a cornea effect, corneal capacity, orit must score at least a one for iritis, which is irritation to the iris, or it must scoreat least a two for conjunctival redness or at least a two in conjunctival swelling. Theserabbits, at most, showed only a score of one for conjunctival redness or swelling.\u00a0So, it was considered they were not showing a positive reaction as defined under 16 CFR1500.42.Dr. Vinegar testified that the composition of Emerox1110 has not been changed since 1964 (Tr. 161).\u00a0 Therefore, the product, when testedas a whole, was shown not to be a hazardous chemical although it contains a smallpercentage of adipic acid.\u00a0 The evidence fails to establish that Emerox 1110 is ahazardous chemical within the meaning of the HCS.B. The Secretary contends that an \”appropriatehazard warning\” on labels required by 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.1200 must include the targetorgans for any hazardous chemical.\u00a0 His position is set forth in a compliancedirective designated as CPL2-2.38A (Ex. C-3, C-4; Tr. 26-30).As the five labels listed in item 1(a) do not statethe target organs, they were found inadequate (Tr. 43-44).\u00a0 Industrial HygienistSweeney explained the labeling deficiency as follows (Tr. 45-46):A.\u00a0 In OSHA’s definition of health hazard, whichappears in the Hazard Communication Standard, Standard, [sic] there are nine targetorgans that are listed, and there are six hazard properties that are listed. \u00a0 As aminimum, what OSHA is looking for on container labels is a linking of which hazard canoccur to which target organ.More specifically, Sweeney explained the allegeddefect in the labels as follows (Tr. 45):A.\u00a0 Yes, this label does indicate that thisproduct is capable of causing irritation, but it does not specify that the eyes, the skinand the mucous membrane or the respiratory tract are the target organs which can beaffected by this product.Four of the labels, Emery 658, Emersol 6357, Emery 1202 and Emery 878, contain similarwarnings[[8\/]] (Ex. C-1).Industrial Hygienist Sweeney acknowledged that, ifthe warning was appropriate for one label, it was appropriate for all four (Tr. 82-86).\u00a0 Emerox 1110 Azelaic Acid is found not be a hazardous chemical within the meaning ofthe HCS so the allegation that its label was inadequate is dismissed.In determining what is an appropriate warning, it isuseful to examine the purpose and scheme of the hazard communication standard. \u00a0 Itwas found that the full disclosure of information by manufacturers regarding the hazardousproperties of chemicals was essential to enable \”downstream\” employers todevelop effective training programs and provide employees with sufficient information toprotect their own health.\u00a0 That is based on the concept that informed and trainedemployers and employees will use the information to make intelligent decisions concerningthe use and handling of a product.The standard, therefore, requires that appropriatehazard warnings be stated on the labels of hazardous chemicals. \u00a0 Complainant hasfound that general warnings become meaningless and are ignored by employees (Tr.79).\u00a0 Therefore, warnings such as \”do not get in eyes\” and \”avoidbreathing vapor\” are not deemed appropriate (Tr. 45-47).\u00a0 The labels of theproducts listed in item 1(a)–(e) contain such general statements as \”causes severeburns, may be harmful if absorbed through the skin\” and \”do not get in eyes, onskin, or clothing.\”\u00a0 Mr. Sweeney testified that the labels of the four corrosiveproducts did not meet the requirements of the HCS, because they did not identify the eyesas a target organ and an irritant to the skin and respiratory tract (Tr. 44-45). \u00a0The Secretary points out that the valid scientific information is contained on the MSDS towarrant such warning on the labels.\u00a0 Respondent argues that, as the HCS is aperformance standard, considerable latitude is afforded the employer to determine whatwarning is \”appropriate\” (Tr. 70, 79).[[9\/]]\u00a0 Respondent notes that theMSDS contains the complete information regarding the product and that the label is notintended to convey all the data shown on the MSDS.\u00a0 That approach is approved in thepreamble to the HCS, so the issue in this case is whether the labels in question containthe acceptable minimum information not whether they show all the available information.\u00a0 Emery points to the definition of corrosives as \”a chemical that causesvisible destruction of, or irreversible alterations in, living tissue by chemical actionat the site of contact\” [Appendix A(2)] and argues that such destruction occurs atany point of contact and a general warning is justified.\u00a0 Conversely, the Secretarycontends that the identification of the target organs is an essential minimum requirementof an appropriate warning.\u00a0 In support of his position, the Secretary relies uponAppendices A and B to the standard and OSHA’s policy directive at CPL2-2.38 (Exs. C-3,C-4).\u00a0 An examination of the foregoing documents compel the conclusion that labelsare required to contain a statement identifying the target organs.Appendix A, which is a mandatory portion of the HCS,states as follows:Although safety hazards related the physicalcharacteristics of a chemical can be objectively defined in terms of testing requirements(e.g. flammability), health hazard definitions are less precise and more subjective.\u00a0 Health hazards may cause measurable changes in the body–such as decreasedpulmonary function.\u00a0 These changes are generally indicated by the occurrence of signsand symptoms in the exposed employees–such as shortness of breath, a non-measurable,subjective feeling.\u00a0 Employees exposed to such hazards must be apprised ofboth the change in body function and the signs and symptoms that may occur to signal thatchange.\u00a0 (Emphasis supplied.)Section 1910.1200, Appendix A, paragraph 7, contains a statement and accompanying chart[[10\/]] as follows:7.\u00a0 Target organ effects.\u00a0 Thefollowing is a target organ categorization of effects which may occur, including examplesof signs and symptoms and chemicals which have been found to cause such effects. \u00a0These examples are presented to illustrate the range and diversity of effects and hazardsfound in the workplace, and the broad scope employers must consider in this area, but arenot intended to be all-inclusive. [[10\/]] a. Hepatotoxins: ……………………………. Chemicals which produce liver damage. Signs and Symptoms: …………….. Jaundice; liver enlargement. Chemicals: ……………………………. Carbon tetrachloride; nitrosamines. b. Nephrotoxins: ……………………………. Chemicals which produce kidney damage. Signs and Symptoms: …………….. Edema; proteinuria. Chemicals: ……………………………. Halogenated hydrocarbons; uranium. c. Neurotoxins: ……………………………… Chemicals which produce their primary toxic effects on the nervous system. Signs and Symptoms: …………….. Narcosis; behavioral changes; decrease in motor functions. Chemicals: ……………………………. Mercury; carbon disulfide. d. Agents which act on the blood Decrease hemoglobin function; deprive or hemtopoietic system: the body tissues of oxygen. Signs and Symptoms: …………….. Cyanosis; loss of consciousness. Chemicals: ……………………………. Carbon monoxide; cyanides. e. Agents which damage the lung:……. Chemicals which irritate or damage the pulmonary tissue. Signs and Symptoms: …………….. Cough; tightness in chest; shortness of breath. Chemicals: ……………………………. Silica; asbestos. f. Reproductive toxins: …………………… Chemicals which affect the reproductive capabilities including chromsomal damage (mutations) and effects on fetuses (teratogenesis). Signs and Symptoms: …………….. Birth defects; sterility. Chemicals: ……………………………. Lead; DBCP. g. Cutaneous hazards: …………………… Chemicals which affect the dermal layer of the body. Signs and Symptoms: …………….. Defatting of the skin; rashes; irritation. Chemicals: ……………………………. Ketones, chlorinated compounds. h. Eye hazards: …………………………….. Chemicals which affect the eye or visual capacity. Signs and Symptoms: …………….. Conjunctivitis; corneal damage. Chemicals: ……………………………. Organic solvents; acids. The inclusion of such specialized and detailedinformation in the standard indicates the importance that the Secretary attached to theinformation and it strongly supports the Secretary’s position that it was informationrequired to be placed on the labels.\u00a0 It demonstrates that the Secretary believessuch information to be essential to meet the purposes and goals of the HCS.\u00a0 Theabsence of such data would deprive downstream employers and employees of importantinformation.\u00a0 This interpretation is clearly set forth in the Secretary’s policydirective, CPL2-2-38, which states as follows (Ex. C-3, pp. A6-7; also see exh. C-4, p.11):The \”hazard warning\” must convey the hazardof the chemical.\u00a0 This is intended to be specific information regarding thehazard–the specific hazards indicated in the standard’s definitions for\”physical\” and \”health\” hazards would be appropriate.\u00a0 Phrasessuch as \”caution\”, \”danger\”, or \”harmful if inhaled\”,generally do not meet the intent of the standard by themselves.\u00a0 The definition of\”hazard warning\” states that the warning must convey the hazard of the chemical.\u00a0 If, when inhaled, the chemical causes lung damage, then that is the appropriatewarning.\u00a0 Lung damage is the hazard, not inhalation.\u00a0 There are some situationswhere the specific target organ effect is not known.\u00a0 Where this is the case, themore general warning statement would be permitted. For example, of the only informationavailable is an LC50 test result, \”harmful if inhaled\” may be appropriate.As the injurious effects on specific organs areknown, the general warning would not be applicable in this case.\u00a0 Of course, thedirective is not a part of the standard; but it does show how the Secretary hasconsistently interpreted the HCS.In the instant case, an appropriate hazard warningwould include a statement such as suggested by Industrial Hygienist Sweeney that theproducts cause severe burns to the eyes (Tr. 78).\u00a0 The scientific studies justify thewarning proposed and the HCS requires it. As the labels of the four corrosive chemicals,Emery 658, Emersol 6357, Emery 1202 and Emery 878 did not provide the requiredinformation, a violation of 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.1200(f)(1)(ii) has been established asalleged in item one.C.Items two, three and four allege that the materialsafety data sheet for Emerox 1110 was deficient in that it failed to list ingredientsdetermined to be health hazards, failed to list some of the physical or chemicalcharacteristics and failed to provide complete first aid information.Having determined that the evidence failed toestablish that Emerox 1110 was a hazardous chemical, it follows that it did not violatethe standard as alleged in items two, three and four.FINDINGS OF FACT1.\u00a0 Respondent is an employer who produceschemical products for sale to manufacturers.2.\u00a0 Respondent has adopted a hazarddetermination review procedure for its chemical products.3.\u00a0 Respondent has adopted a MSDS preparationand review program for its chemical products.4.\u00a0 Respondent’s MSDS preparation and reviewprogram is independent of whether those products are \”hazardous chemicals\” underthe standard.5.\u00a0 Four corrosive products produced by respondent, Emery 658, Emery 878, Emersol6357, and Emery 1202, failed to list the target organs on labels.6.\u00a0 The four products listed in paragraph fiveabove are particularly harmful to the eyes and an appropriate hazard warning should havementioned that fact.7.\u00a0 Emerox 1110 Azelaic Acid was tested as awhole to determine whether it is corrosive or an irritant to humans.8.\u00a0 Emerox 1110 Azelaic Acid is not corrosive oran irritant to humans.9.\u00a0 Azelaic acid is the result of a chemicalreaction. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1.\u00a0 Respondent is an employer subject to thehazard communication standard.2.\u00a0 The HCS requires that the labels ofhazardous chemicals identify the target organs.3.\u00a0 Respondent violated 29 C.F.R. ?1910.1200(f)(1)(ii) by failing to list the target organs on the labels of Emery 658,Emersol 6357, Emery 1202 and Emery 878 as alleged in item one of the citation.4.\u00a0 Emerox 1110 Azelaic Acid is not a\”hazardous chemical\” within the meaning of the HCS.5.\u00a0 Respondent did not violate 29 C.F.R. ?1910.1200(g)(2)(ii), 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.1200(g)(2)(i)(C)(1) and 29 C.F.R. ?1910.1200(g)(2)(x) as alleged in items two, three and four of the citation.ORDERIt is ORDERED:1.\u00a0 Item one of the citation is affirmed as another than serious violation.2.\u00a0 Items two, three and four of the citationare vacated.\u00a0 Dated this 4th day of May, 1987.JOE D. SPARKSJudgeFOOTNOTES: [[1\/]] Complainant also amended item three of the citation to refer to Section VI ratherthan Section IV of the MSDS sheet (Tr. 6).[[2\/]] For a thorough discussion of the purpose,approach and organization of the Hazard Communication Standard, see Judge Burroughs’decision in Hilton-Davis Chemical Co., ___ OSAHRC ___ ___ BNA OSHC ___, ___ CCH OSHD ?___ (No. 86-494, January 30, 1987).[[[3\/]] The five products alleged to lack appropriatehazard warnings on the labels are Emery 658, Emery 878, Emersol 6357, Emery 1202, andEmerox 1110.[[4\/]] Section 1910.1200(f)(1) of 29 C.F.R. providesas follows:(1) The chemical manufacturer, importer ordistributor shall ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals leaving the workplaceis labeled, tagged or marked with the following information:(i) Identity of the hazardous chemical(s); (ii) Appropriate hazard warnings; and,(iii) Name and address of the chemical manufacturer, importer, or other responsible party.[[5\/]] A health hazard is defined in 29 C.F.R. ?1910.1200(c) as follows: \”Health hazard\” means a chemical for which there is statistically significantevidence based on at least one study conducted in accordance with established scientificprinciples that acute or chronic health effects may occur in exposed employees.\u00a0 Theterm \”health hazard\” includes chemicals which are carcinogens, toxic or highlytoxic agents, reproductive toxins, irritants, corrosives, sensitizers, hepatotoxins,nephrotoxins, neurotoxins, agents which act on the hematopoietic system, and agents whichdamage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes.\u00a0 Appendix A provides furtherdefinitions and explanations of the scope of health hazards covered by this section, andAppendix B describes the criteria to be used to determine whether or not a chemical is tobe considered hazardous for purposes of this standard.[[6\/]] Emery points out that the revised MSDS forEmerox 1110 was filed only after the compliance officer had contacted the company aboutthe ingredients contained in the product.\u00a0 It implies that designating azelaic andadipic acids as irritants was the suggestion of the compliance officer but does not denythat Emerox 1110 contains the ingredients in the amounts stated (Exs. C-2(e), C-6; Tr. 21,59-60).\u00a0 It is also noted that the original MSDS was prepared by a member of atechnical group, who was not a toxicologist and did not consult with Emery’s experttoxicologist (Tr. 134).\u00a0 The other four MSDS’s were prepared by Mr. Scholssman and noproblem as to them was raised by the Secretary (Tr. 50).\u00a0 Emery prepares an MSDS forits chemical products whether or not a product is a hazardous chemical.[[7\/]] Appendix A, Section 4, of the HCS states asfollows:4.\u00a0 Irritant:\u00a0 A chemical, which isnot corrosive, but which causes a reversible inflammatory effect on living tissue bychemical action at the site of contact.\u00a0 A chemical is a skin irritant if, whentested on the intact skin of albino rabbits by the methods of 16 CFR 1500.41 for fourhours exposure or by other appropriate techniques, it results in an empirical score offive or more.\u00a0 A chemical is an eye irritant if so determined under the procedurelisted in 16 CFR 1500.42 or other appropriate techniques.Section 1500.41 of 16 C.F.R. provides as follows:Method of testing primary irritant substances.\u00a0 Primary irritation to the skin is measured by a patch-test technique on the abradedand intact skin of the albino rabbit, clipped free of hair.\u00a0 A minimum of sixsubjects are used in abraded and intact skin tests. Introduce under a square patch, suchas surgical gauze measuring 1 inch by 1 inch and two single layers thick, 0.5 milliliter(in the case of liquids) or 0.5 gram (in the case of solids and semisolids) of the testsubstance.\u00a0 Dissolve solids in an appropriate solvent and apply the solution as forliquids.\u00a0 The animals are immobilized with patches secured in place by adhesive tape.\u00a0 The entire trunk of the animal is then wrapped with an impervious material, such asrubberized cloth; for the 24-hour period of exposure.\u00a0 This material aids inmaintaining the test patches in position and retards the evaporation of volatilesubstances.\u00a0 After 24 hours of exposure, the patches are removed and the resultingreactions are evaluated on the basis of the designated values in the following table:* * *Readings are again made at the end of a total of 72 hours (48 hours after the firstreading).\u00a0 An equal number of exposures are made on areas of skin that have beenpreviously abraded.\u00a0 The abrasions are minor incisions through the stratum corneum,but not sufficiently deep to disturb the derma or to produce bleeding.\u00a0 Evaluate thereactions of the abraded skin at 24 hours and 72 hours, as described in this paragraph.\u00a0 Add the values for erythema and eschar formation at 24 hours and at 72 hours forintact skin to the values on abraded skin at 24 hours and at 72 hours (four values).\u00a0 Similarly, add the values for edema formation at 24 hours and at 72 hours forintact and abraded skin (four values).\u00a0 The total of the eight values is divided byfour to give the primary irritation score.[[8\/]] The label for Emery 658 states as follows:EMERY 658 CAPRYLIC-CAPRIC ACIDDANGER! CAUSES SEVERE BURNS.\u00a0 MAY BE HARMFUL IF ABSORBED THROUGH THE SKIN.DO NOT GET IN EYES, ON SKIN, ON CLOTHING.AVOID BREATHING VAPOR.KEEP CONTAINER CLOSED. USE ADEQUATE VENTILATION.WASH THOROUGHLY AFTER HANDLING.IN CASE OF CONTACT WITH EMERY 658 RINSE AFFECTED AREAIMMEDIATELY WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF COOL WATER.IN CASE OF SWALLOWING DO NOT INDUCE VOMITING.GET IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR ANY CONTACT WITH EMERY 658. SEE MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.\u00a0 FOR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE,CALL CHEMTREC 800-424-9300.[[9\/]] OSHA’s compliance directive, CPL2-2.38paragraph .7C, which provides guidelines for its enforcement policy, states as follows:The standard allows considerable flexibility informat and content of labels, as long as the minimum information requirements are met.(Ex. C-4 p. 11).”