HazCom / GHS across the state plans

“In addition to the requirements set out in 29 C.F.R 1910.1200, as amended, an employer shall have a physical agent data sheet for each physical agent present in the employer's workplace.”

Alaska requires a document federal law has no equivalent of: a physical agent data sheet for every physical agent in the workplace (noise, vibration, heat, cold, radiation) written in English and carrying ten prescribed items, including the health hazards and signs of exposure, the permissible exposure limit or the ACGIH threshold limit value, whether the agent is a carcinogen, control measures, first aid, the date of preparation and the name, address and telephone number of whoever prepared it. Hazard communication itself is adopted by reference "as amended", so Alaska tracks the current federal text rather than a dated edition. A chemical-only program satisfies the federal standard here and still misses the state one.

“Each employer shall comply with the standards in Subparts B through Z inclusive of the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Standards for General Industry, as published in 29 CFR 1910, with amendments as of July 14, 2020 … This incorporation by reference does not include amendments or editions to 29 CFR 1910 published after July 14, 2020.”

Hazard communication reaches Arizona through the general industry rule, which takes Subparts B through Z as they stood on July 14, 2020 and expressly excludes anything published later. HCS 2024 was published May 20, 2024, so it is outside what R20-5-602 itself picks up. That is a finding about this section, not about the whole chapter: Arizona adds later federal rules as separate sections, R20-5-602.01 for Subpart T and R20-5-602.02 for the June 2021 COVID-19 healthcare rule, so a separate section may since have taken up HCS 2024. Subpart A is not adopted. The rule also carves the boundary between the two adoptions explicitly: R20-5-602 does not apply to conditions and practices that are the subject of R20-5-601, so construction work stays under the 1926 rule and its own February 24, 2021 cut-off.

“Before exposing any employee to any hazardous substance that otherwise falls within the scope of this section and which requires a warning under this Act … any employer subject to the Act shall comply with the requirements set forth in subsections (d) through (k). Such compliance shall be deemed compliance with the Act.”

California is the only state whose hazard communication standard has a chemical right-to-know statute built into it. Section 5194(f)(6) folds Proposition 65 in: for a workplace exposure that falls inside HazCom and also requires a Prop 65 warning, doing HazCom properly is deemed compliance with the Act. The reverse case is the one that catches employers out: §5194(f)(6)(C) covers chemicals that require a Prop 65 warning but fall outside HazCom's scope, and there the employer must either give a Title 22 warning or comply with subsections (d) through (k) anyway. The trigger list is the 22 CCR §12000 list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, not the HazCom classification criteria.

“Title 29, Part 1910 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 2017 Edition published as of July 1, 2017 … is made a part of this chapter except as provided in subsections (b) through (d).”

Hawaii incorporates a printed edition of the CFR (Part 1910 as published July 1, 2017) rather than the current text, so the edition named in the rule is what governs on its face. It then replaces the exposure limits outright: §12-60-50(d)(3) amends 1910.1000(b) to run on Hawaii's own tables, Exhibit A "Limits for Air Contaminants" and Exhibit B "More Limits for Air Contaminants", both dated July 1, 2017 and printed at the end of the chapter. So the number a Hawaii chemical inventory is measured against comes from a state exhibit, not from federal Table Z, and the ceiling values are read the same way.

“Only mandatory provisions (i.e., provisions containing the word "shall" or other mandatory language) of standards incorporated by reference are adopted under the Act.”

Iowa adopts 29 CFR Part 1910 from 1910.20 onward through a list of named Federal Register notices: 277 of them, the most recent dated October 9, 2024, which is the hazard communication correction that followed the 2024 GHS rule. Two Iowa-specific provisions shape how that adoption reads. Rule 481—210.2(88) limits incorporation to the mandatory provisions of a referenced standard, so advisory language inside an incorporated consensus standard is not itself enforceable here. And Iowa's own Hazardous Chemical Risks Right to Know chapter, 875—Chapter 110, was rescinded effective May 11, 2022. The state right-to-know layer some Iowa employers built programs around is gone, leaving the adopted federal standard.

“"Occupational Safety and Health Administration", "the Agency", or "OSHA" shall refer to the Indiana occupational safety and health division of the department, also known as IOSHA.”

Indiana rewrites the vocabulary of every federal provision it takes up. In the incorporation rule, the OSH Act means the Indiana Act, OSHA means IOSHA, the area office means the division's office, the Assistant Secretary and Area Director mean the commissioner or a designee, the U.S. Department of Labor means the Indiana department, and the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission means the board of safety review created by the Indiana Act. Even federal holidays are redefined as the legal holidays observed by state offices under IC 1-1-9. A hazard communication program written to federal wording works here, but every place it names a federal body, the Indiana reading is different.

“Lettering on signs and instructions required by paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be a minimum letter height of two (2) inches.”

Kentucky adopts Subpart Z, hazard communication included, except as modified by its own Sections 1 through 5, and one of those is a substance standard federal OSHA does not have. Section 2 regulates 4,4'-methylene bis (2-chloroaniline), CAS 101-14-4, with regulated areas, prescribed sign wording, a two-inch minimum letter height, and container labeling tied back to 1910.1200. So a Kentucky chemical inventory can carry a labeling duty that no federal HazCom checklist would surface, and the state regulation is where you find it.

“All amendments and revisions to 29 CFR §§1910 and 1926, including Appendices A–F, and excluding Part 1915 and 29 CFR §1910.1200(b)(6)(iv) that appear in the Federal Register on March 26, 2012 … are adopted by reference, as amended.”

Maryland adopted the 2012 GHS rule effective September 2, 2013 with one paragraph carved out, and the carve-out matters on a jobsite. Federal 1910.1200(b)(6)(iv) exempts wood and wood products, including lumber that will not be processed, where the only hazard is flammability or combustibility. Maryland did not take that exemption, so the federal reasoning for leaving lumber off a hazard communication program does not transfer here. Maryland's adoptions are recorded notice by notice in COMAR 09.12.31.01, each with its own Maryland effective date; item GG is the hazard communication entry and the March 26, 2012 rule is the most recent revision it lists.

“sections 14b to 14l of the Michigan occupational safety and health act, 1974 PA 154, MCL 408.1014b to 408.1014l, set forth additional requirements for employers in this state.”

Michigan has adopted the 2024 Hazard Communication text: R 325.77002 names 29 CFR 1910.1200 as of July 19, 2024, alongside the 2013 version, with the amendment effective August 12, 2025. Note what that pin means for the calendar: the version Michigan named carries paragraph (j) as it read in 2024, before OSHA's January 15, 2026 rule pushed every compliance date back four months. On the face of Part 430 the substances date for employers is the original one, not the federal November 20, 2026. What makes Michigan different underneath is that its right-to-know duties are statutory as well as regulatory: section 14a(1) of the MIOSH Act adopted the original federal standard, sections 14b to 14l add requirements on Michigan employers, and R 325.77001(4) states that where the adopted regulation and section 14a(1) are inconsistent, the statute controls. A Michigan hazard communication program is measured against an act of the legislature, not only against a rule.

“The requirements in items A to J apply to training programs provided to employees concerning hazardous substances, harmful physical agents, and infectious agents.”

Minnesota adopted the 2024 Hazard Communication rule: the citation list at Minn. R. 5205.0010 names 89 FR 44144 of May 20, 2024 and the October 9, 2024 correction, but hazard communication is only part of the duty here. Chapter 5206 requires a separate written Employee Right-to-Know program covering three categories, not one: hazardous substances, harmful physical agents and infectious agents. And it requires training records the federal standard does not: dates, the trainer's name, title and qualifications, the names and job titles of everyone trained, and an outline of what was covered, kept three years. A contractor who has a compliant HazCom binder in Minnesota still has a gap if that binder stops at chemicals.

“Where employees must travel between work places during a workshift, i.e., their work is carried out at more than one geographical location, the material safety data sheets may be kept at a central location at the primary workplace facility … This information shall be readily accessible by telephone, two-way communication, computer or actual copies of the material safety data sheets.”

New Mexico is one of the few states that amended the hazard communication text itself, and it did so in the paragraph that governs mobile crews. Federal 1910.1200(g)(9) allows safety data sheets to be kept at the primary workplace facility; New Mexico allows a central location at that facility and then names what counts as immediate access in an emergency: telephone, two-way communication, computer, or actual copies. It also rewrote the training paragraph: a new employee is deemed trained where the employer can demonstrate they received training on the same hazards within the past twelve months. Both amendments are made twice, once for general industry and once for construction, so they apply whichever part you are working under.

“The written safety program and all training programs required pursuant to this section must be conducted and made available in a language and format that is understandable to each employee.”

Nevada puts a written safety program on nearly every employer by statute (established, then carried out within 90 days) and the training program inside it must cover the areas where injuries have recurred. Two details go beyond the federal hazard communication duty. The program and its training must be delivered in a language and format each employee understands, which is a statutory test rather than a guidance note. And an employer with more than 25 employees, or any employer manufacturing explosives, must run a safety committee with employee representatives chosen by the employees, paid at their usual rate for committee work. Employers with ten or fewer employees are exempt unless explosives are involved. Alongside it, NAC 618.090 adopts ANSI Z358.1-2014 for emergency eyewash and shower equipment, so the fixture a corrosive chemical requires has a named specification here.

“in lieu of adopting the January 15, 2026, Federal Register notice … Oregon OSHA did not adopt 29 CFR 1910.1200(j), Effective Dates”

Oregon adopts the HCS 2024 text but not its calendar. It declined paragraph (j), the one carrying the federal compliance dates, and wrote its own in OAR 437-002-0376: (j)(1) July 1, 2026; (j)(2)(i) January 1, 2027; (j)(2)(ii) June 1, 2027; (j)(3)(i) January 1, 2028; (j)(3)(ii) June 1, 2028. The employer deadline for substances is therefore June 1, 2027 in Oregon, not the federal November 20, 2026. The classification, labeling and SDS duties are the federal ones; only the clock differs.

“Spraying area. Any area in which dangerous quantities of flammable or combustible vapors, mists, residues, dusts or deposits are present due to the operation of spray processes. A spray area shall include: (i) The interior of spray booths and rooms … (iii) Any area in the direct path of spraying operations.”

Hazard communication is not among South Carolina's listed modifications, so 1910.1200 applies as federal text. Where the state did rewrite the chemical rules is around spray finishing: modification C broadens the spraying area to include any area in the direct path of spraying operations, and modification D sets the electrical classification distances around it: twenty feet horizontally and ten feet vertically for equipment outside a spraying area, five or ten feet from an open-face booth depending on whether the ventilation is interlocked with the spraying equipment. Modification E does the same for dip tank vapor areas. For a painting contractor those distances, not the SDS binder, are where South Carolina departs from federal practice.

“contractors and subcontractors who introduce hazardous chemicals into the workplace shall provide all other parties to the contract an MSDS for each such chemical five (5) working days prior to its introduction.”

Tennessee runs a hazard communication regime that federal law does not have, and its sharpest edge points at construction. A contractor bringing a hazardous chemical onto a site must give every other party to the contract the safety data sheet five working days before the chemical arrives, not on request, and not when work starts. Beyond that, every employer compiles a Workplace Chemical List with the chemical, its CAS number, the work area and the employer's SIC code and FEIN, filed with the Commissioner within ninety-six hours of a request; a contractor may keep one master list covering all its sites provided each workplace location appears on it. The chapter also gives fire departments a contact list, placarding and pre-planning access, and gives the public the list on request. Training responsibility stays with each employer for its own employees.

“29 CFR 1910.6 and 1910.21 through the end of part 1910, of the July 1, 2018, edition are incorporated by reference.”

Utah incorporates a named edition of the Code of Federal Regulations rather than the current text, and the edition it names is July 1, 2018. The rule's last substantive amendment was December 23, 2019, so that is what the state's own code says today. Check it before assuming the 2024 hazard communication amendments have arrived here. Utah also states a training duty the federal standard leaves implicit: R614-1-5.C.5 requires each employer to instruct employees "in a language and vocabulary that the employees can understand", and to assign employees only to duties or locations where they have the skills and comprehension to work safely.

Two things are worth knowing about hazard communication in Vermont. First, where the rule lives: VOSHA publishes each adopted standard as an annotated and a clean-text document on the Department of Labor's own site rather than in a state administrative code chapter, so the clean text is the operative wording to work from. Second, what it says about timing: the adopted hazard communication clean text is the GHS Revision 7 version, and its paragraph (j) carries the original compliance dates (January 19, 2026 for manufacturers evaluating substances and July 20, 2026 for employers, July 19, 2027 and January 19, 2028 for mixtures) not the four-month extension OSHA made in January 2026.

“Employers, chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors evaluating substances must be in compliance with all provisions of this section no later than July 20, 2026.”

Washington adopted the 2024 Hazard Communication amendments on December 30, 2025, effective February 1, 2026, but it adopted the calendar as it stood before OSHA pushed the federal dates back four months. So the deadlines run earlier here than in a federal-jurisdiction state: substances July 20, 2026 against the federal November 20, 2026; mixtures July 19, 2027 for manufacturers and January 19, 2028 for employers, against November 19, 2027 and May 19, 2028. A Washington employer working from the federal calendar is not early. It is past due on substances. The classification, labeling, SDS and training duties themselves are the federal ones, restated in Washington's own numbering, and construction is squarely inside it: WAC 296-155-180 sends contractors to 296-901-14010 for the written program.

“29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.1000 - 1910.1450 (2024) as it was in effect on September 12, 2025.”

Subpart Z is one of the two chapters Wyoming has kept current: hazard communication comes in at the 2024 edition as it stood on September 12, 2025, so the 2024 GHS amendments are inside the incorporation. That date also sits before the January 15, 2026 federal rule that pushed the compliance deadlines back four months, and the chapter states that later amendments are not included, so the calendar Wyoming incorporated is the original one, not the extended one. It is the same position Washington and Michigan reached by different routes.