no exemptions for any “types” of chemicals. the power of fishing retro poster The exemptions which were in the original final rule were based upon comments submitted to the rulemaking record after that proposal.
the power of fishing retro poster
employers who use consumer products in the manner intended, and with the same frequency and duration of exposure as would be experienced as consumers. the power of fishing retro poster The State of Maryland has implemented a similar exemption in its right-to-know law since 1985 (Ex. 11-21). They commented that the coverage of consumer products in this manner is necessary for the proper protection of employees, and employers in Maryland have been able to comply with the provision. In the area of consumer products, the original final rule included an exemption for additional labels on such products when they are labeled in accordance with the requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Commission . CPSC’s requirements for labeling of hazardous substances are for the purpose of protecting consumers
when such products are used in the home, the school, and recreational facilities (15 U.S.C. 2052). The Federal Hazardous Substances Act, 15 U.S.C. 1261 et seq., and regulations issued under that Act by CPSC are not designed to protect workers. See American Petroleum Institute v. OSHA, 581 F.2d 493, 510 (5th Cir. 1978), aff’d on other grounds sub. nom. Industrial Union Dep’t. v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 . Consumer products. As described in the NPRM (53 FR ), one of the fundamental principles upon which the HCS is built is that employees are entitled to information regarding any chemical which is hazardous and to which they are potentially exposed. The type of use a hazardous chemical is intended for is irrelevant – the risk being addressed is exposure to a chemical without knowing what the hazards and appropriate protective measures are. That being the case, the 1982 NPRM contained