Written HazCom Program for a Laboratory

A search for “written hazard communication program for a laboratory” usually starts from a false premise. Most laboratories covered by OSHA’s Laboratory Standard do not owe a written hazard communication program at all. What they owe is a Chemical Hygiene Plan.

That is not a technicality, and it is not a reason to stop reading. Nearly every research institution that operates laboratories also operates areas that are squarely under the full Hazard Communication Standard — stockrooms, receiving docks, machine shops, pilot-plant and process-development suites, greenhouses, facilities maintenance — and those areas do owe a written program under 29 CFR 1910.1200(e). The real question is never “do we need one?” in the abstract. It is which operations in this facility owe which document, and how do the two documents fit together without either duplicating or contradicting each other.

This page answers that. It sets out the scoping test, the full contents of a written HazCom program element by element from the regulation, the two provisions the Chemical Hygiene Plan does not contain and cannot substitute for, and a cross-walk showing where each obligation lives in a combined document set.

For the underlying question of how much of 1910.1200 reaches a laboratory bench at all, read CASRAI’s companion guide to the Hazard Communication Standard in the research laboratory first — it establishes the partial-applicability rule at 1910.1200(b)(3) that this page builds on.

Step one: which of your operations owe a written program

The exemption attaches to what the work is, not to what the room is called. Two provisions do the work.

1910.1200(b)(3) states that the Hazard Communication Standard “applies to laboratories only as follows,” and then lists exactly four duties: do not remove or deface labels on incoming containers; maintain the safety data sheets received with incoming shipments and keep them readily accessible to employees during each work shift in the work area; train employees under paragraph (h), except for (h)(2)(iii); and, where the laboratory ships hazardous chemicals, comply with the shipped-container labeling and SDS-provision duties as a manufacturer or distributor. The written program at (e) is not on that list. Neither is workplace labeling at (f)(6).

The excepted training item is the tell. 1910.1200(h)(2)(iii) is the duty to inform employees of “the location and availability of the written hazard communication program, including the required list(s) of hazardous chemicals, and safety data sheets required by this section.” OSHA carved that one item, and only that item, out of the laboratory training duty — which makes sense only if a covered laboratory has no written program and no required list to point employees at. The companion guide discusses a genuine textual wrinkle this leaves behind at (h)(3)(iv), which is not excepted.

1910.1450(a)(2) supplies the reciprocal mechanism: where the Laboratory Standard applies, “it shall supersede, for laboratories, the requirements of all other OSHA health standards in 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z,” subject to permissible exposure limits, eye- and skin-contact prohibitions, and the monitoring and medical-surveillance trigger at (a)(2)(iii). 1910.1200 is itself a Subpart Z standard. The two provisions meet in the middle: HazCom withdraws from the laboratory, and the Laboratory Standard displaces it.

The four-condition test that decides it

“Laboratory use of hazardous chemicals” is defined at 1910.1450(b), and all four conditions must be met at once:

Chemical manipulations are carried out on a laboratory scale — containers used for reactions, transfers and other handling are designed to be easily and safely manipulated by one person. The definition expressly excludes workplaces whose function is to produce commercial quantities of materials.
Multiple chemical procedures or chemicals are used.
The procedures involved are not part of a production process, nor in any way simulate a production process.
Protective laboratory practices and equipment are available and in common use to minimize the potential for employee exposure.

Fail any one of them and 1910.1450(a)(3)(i) applies: the Laboratory Standard “shall not apply to… uses of hazardous chemicals which do not meet the definition of laboratory use, and in such cases, the employer shall comply with the relevant standard in 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z, even if such use occurs in a laboratory.” Full 1910.1200 attaches to that operation — written program, hazardous-chemical list, workplace labeling and all.

Condition 3 is the one that decides most real cases. A process-development suite that deliberately reproduces production conditions, a scale-up or pilot-plant run, a repetitive single-assay bench whose function is to generate throughput rather than to run multiple procedures, or a facility making material for use elsewhere can each fail it — while sitting in a building signposted as a laboratory, staffed by scientists, under a Chemical Hygiene Plan.

A worked scoping example

The following is an illustrative composite, not a real institution. It is included to show how the test is applied, not to report anything that happened.

A university research building contains: (a) six synthetic-chemistry benches running varied small-scale reactions; (b) a central chemical stockroom that receives, repackages and issues solvents in 4 L and 20 L quantities; (c) a shared instrument core; (d) a process-development suite scaling a candidate compound from grams to kilograms to supply a collaborator; (e) a machine shop; and (f) a contract cleaning crew employed by a facilities-management company.

(a) and (c) are laboratory use. Chemical Hygiene Plan; no written HazCom program; the four (b)(3) duties apply.
(b) and (e) are not laboratory use — repackaging and machining are not multiple chemical procedures on a non-production basis. Full 1910.1200 applies, including the written program under (e), the hazardous-chemical list, and workplace container labeling under (f)(6). CASRAI’s guide to the chemistry stockroom covers that operation in detail.
(d) fails condition 1 and condition 3 and, because material is produced for a user outside the laboratory, separately triggers 1910.1450(h)(2)(iii) — full 1910.1200 labeling and SDS-preparation duties, on top of the written program.
(f) is the multi-employer trigger discussed below, and it reaches back into the parts of the building that are otherwise exempt.

One building, one employer, three different documentary regimes. That is the normal case, not the edge case.

What 1910.1200(e) actually requires, element by element

Where the written program is owed, (e)(1) requires employers to “develop, implement, and maintain at each workplace, a written hazard communication program which at least describes how the criteria specified in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section for labels and other forms of warning, safety data sheets, and employee information and training will be met.”

Read that carefully: the program is not a policy statement about chemical safety. It is a description of methods — how you meet three other paragraphs of the standard — plus two positive contents of its own. Six components in total.

1. How the labeling criteria in paragraph (f) are met

Describe the labeling system actually in use: what shipped containers arrive carrying, who checks them, and specifically what workplace containers carry under (f)(6). Paragraph (f)(6) allows either the full shipped-label information, or product identifier plus words, pictures, symbols or a combination that provides at least general information on the hazards, provided that in combination with other information available to employees it gives the specific hazard information. If the site uses an in-house system — a bar-coded inventory label, an NFPA 704 diamond, an HMIS-style panel — name it and explain how it is bridged to the GHS information employees receive. Do not describe a system you do not run; this section is the one an inspector compares directly against the containers on the shelf.

2. How the safety data sheet criteria in paragraph (g) are met

Describe how SDSs are obtained, maintained, updated and made accessible — the accessibility duty at (g)(8) is “readily accessible during each work shift to employees when they are in their work area(s).” If access is electronic, the program has to say what happens during a power or network failure, because (g)(8) does not tolerate a gap. Name the system, the responsible role, and the backup route. See OSHA SDS requirements and how to read a safety data sheet.

3. How the training criteria in paragraph (h) are met

Describe when training occurs — (h)(1) sets it at the time of initial assignment and whenever a new chemical hazard employees have not previously been trained about is introduced into their work area — along with what it covers, who delivers it and how it is recorded. Note the asymmetry with the laboratory side of the building: employees in covered areas get the whole of (h), including (h)(2)(iii)’s briefing on where the written program and the hazardous-chemical list live; laboratory employees get everything except that one item.

4. A list of the hazardous chemicals known to be present — (e)(1)(i)

The regulation is specific about form: the list uses “a product identifier that is referenced on the appropriate safety data sheet,” and “the list may be compiled for the workplace as a whole or for individual work areas.”

Two consequences that guidance routinely misses. First, the linking key is the product identifier as it appears on the SDS — not a common chemical name, not a CAS number alone, not a catalogue code. A list that says “acetone” against an SDS whose section 1 product identifier is a branded grade name has not met the paragraph as written. Second, the per-work-area option is a genuine drafting choice with consequences: a single facility-wide list is simpler to maintain but forces you to disclose the whole facility’s chemical holdings on any employee or representative request under (e)(4); per-area lists are more work but map cleanly onto per-area labeling and training.

This list is a compliance artefact, not a stock-control system, though the two are usually generated from the same source. CASRAI covers the operational side in lab chemical inventory management and choosing a chemical inventory management system.

5. Methods for non-routine tasks and unlabeled pipes — (e)(1)(ii)

(e)(1)(ii) requires “the methods the employer will use to inform employees of the hazards of non-routine tasks (for example, the cleaning of reactor vessels), and the hazards associated with chemicals contained in unlabeled pipes in their work areas.”

These are two distinct duties packaged in one sub-paragraph, and both are commonly written as a single empty sentence (“employees will be informed of non-routine hazards”). What the paragraph asks for is a method. In a research setting the non-routine tasks that actually qualify are recognisable: cleaning or entering a reactor, tank or large vessel; decontaminating a fume hood or duct before maintenance; a chemical relocation or laboratory decommissioning; recovering a spill outside normal handling; a one-off scale-up. The workable method is almost always a written permit or pre-task authorisation tied to a hazard analysis — see job hazard analysis for lab procedures and how to write a lab SOP. Naming that instrument in the program, and saying who issues it, satisfies the paragraph; a promise does not.

The unlabeled-pipe duty is the one research institutions forget entirely, and it is not hypothetical: house nitrogen, compressed air, vacuum, process chilled water, natural gas, house vacuum traps and central solvent or waste lines run through most research buildings. The program must say how employees learn what is in them — a colour-coding scheme, a marking standard, a schematic posted at the point of access, or a documented briefing.

6. Multi-employer workplace provisions — (e)(2)

Where an employer produces, uses or stores hazardous chemicals such that another employer’s employees may be exposed, (e)(2) requires the program to additionally include three specific methods:

(e)(2)(i) — the methods used to provide the other employer(s) on-site access to safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical their employees may be exposed to while working;
(e)(2)(ii) — the methods used to inform the other employer(s) of any precautionary measures needed to protect employees during normal operating conditions and in foreseeable emergencies;
(e)(2)(iii) — the methods used to inform the other employer(s) of the labeling system used in the workplace.

This is the provision with the widest reach into a research institution and the one most likely to be missing. The other employers are not hypothetical construction contractors: they are contract cleaning and custodial crews, instrument service engineers, HVAC and fume-hood balancing contractors, glass-wash and waste-collection vendors, security staff, building-management personnel, and in a shared or incubator facility, other tenants’ scientific staff. Every one of them may be exposed to chemicals your employees produce, use or store.

Note carefully what (e)(2)(iii) implies for a facility with exempt laboratories. It requires you to inform other employers of the labeling system used in the workplace. In a laboratory covered by 1910.1450, that system is whatever the Chemical Hygiene Plan and its SOPs establish — OSHA’s 10 November 2014 standard interpretation on secondary-container labeling in laboratories confirms that a covered laboratory is exempt from the HCS 2012 labeling requirements and that the Laboratory Standard sets no specific secondary-container labeling requirement, pointing instead to CHP flexibility, SOPs and training. So the honest content of (e)(2)(iii) for a research building is often: here is the site’s labeling convention, here is where it differs inside laboratory areas, and here is what a contractor should assume when it encounters a container that carries only a handwritten identifier. That paragraph is where the exemption stops being an internal matter and becomes something you owe an outside party in writing.

The three administrative paragraphs people skip

Paragraph	What it requires	Why it matters
1910.1200(e)(3)	“The employer may rely on an existing hazard communication program to comply with these requirements, provided that it meets the criteria established in this paragraph (e).”	This is the textual authority for a combined or incorporated document set — including a corporate or system-wide program adopted at a site. It is conditional: relying on an existing program only works if that program actually meets (e) for this workplace, including its chemical list and its labeling description.
1910.1200(e)(4)	The written program must be made available, on request, to employees, their designated representatives, the Assistant Secretary and the Director, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020(e).	1910.1020(e)(1)(i) sets the access mechanics: access in a reasonable time, place and manner, and where the employer cannot reasonably provide it within fifteen working days, it must within those fifteen days give the reason for the delay and the earliest date the record can be made available. “Available” means retrievable on request, not merely existing. A program on a departed EHS officer’s drive fails this.
1910.1200(e)(5)	Where employees travel between workplaces during a work shift, the written program may be kept at the primary workplace facility.	Directly relevant to field research, mobile sampling teams, multi-building core facilities and shared-instrument staff. It relieves you of keeping a copy at every location — it does not relieve you of (g)(8) SDS accessibility at the location where the work happens.

Why the Chemical Hygiene Plan is not a substitute — and vice versa

The Laboratory Standard requires a written Chemical Hygiene Plan at 1910.1450(e)(1) that is capable of protecting employees from the health hazards of the chemicals in that laboratory and of keeping exposures below the limits in paragraph (c). Under (e)(3) it must include eight elements: standard operating procedures; criteria for control measures including engineering controls, PPE and hygiene practices; a requirement that fume hoods and other protective equipment function properly, with specific measures to ensure adequate performance; provisions for information and training under (f); the circumstances requiring prior approval; provisions for medical consultation and examination under (g); designation of personnel responsible for implementation, including assignment of a Chemical Hygiene Officer and, if appropriate, a Chemical Hygiene Committee; and additional protections for particularly hazardous substances. Under (e)(4) the employer must review and evaluate its effectiveness at least annually and update it as necessary; under (e)(2) it must be readily available to employees, employee representatives and, on request, the Assistant Secretary.

Now compare the two lists. Two things required of a written HazCom program appear nowhere in the eight CHP elements:

A chemical list. The federal Laboratory Standard does not require a chemical inventory. Not at (e)(3), not anywhere in the section. Every laboratory keeps one, and other regimes may compel one — a state plan, a fire code hazardous-materials inventory statement, an EPCRA Tier II filing, or a grant or institutional policy — but if you are looking for the federal OSHA sentence that requires a laboratory chemical inventory, it does not exist. The sentence that does exist is 1910.1200(e)(1)(i), and it applies to the non-laboratory parts of your facility.
Multi-employer provisions. 1910.1450 contains no analogue to (e)(2). It is written entirely in terms of the employer’s own laboratory employees. Contractors, service engineers and other tenants working in or adjacent to laboratory areas are addressed by the HazCom program of whichever employer produces, uses or stores the chemicals — which is the point at which a facility that believed itself wholly exempt discovers it is not.

The reverse is equally true. Nothing in 1910.1200(e) requires SOPs, prior-approval thresholds, fume-hood performance assurance, medical consultation, a designated Chemical Hygiene Officer, or particularly-hazardous-substance provisions. A HazCom program cannot discharge a laboratory’s CHP duty and a CHP cannot discharge a stockroom’s HazCom duty. They are not alternatives at different strengths; they overlap on labels, SDSs and training and diverge everywhere else. CASRAI’s guide to writing and maintaining a Chemical Hygiene Plan covers the CHP side in full.

Cross-walk: where each obligation lives in a combined document set

Requirement	Laboratory areas (1910.1450 applies)	Non-laboratory areas (full 1910.1200)
Governing written document	Chemical Hygiene Plan, 1450(e)	Written hazard communication program, 1200(e)
Chemical list / inventory	Not required federally; usually kept anyway and referenced from the CHP	Required, 1200(e)(1)(i), by SDS product identifier; whole-workplace or per-area
Description of labeling system	Set by CHP and SOPs; no prescribed secondary-container rule	Required as a description of how (f) is met, including workplace labeling under (f)(6)
Incoming container labels	Must not be removed or defaced — 1200(b)(3)(i) and 1450(h)(1)	Must not be removed or defaced — 1200(f)(9)
SDS receipt and accessibility	Required — 1200(b)(3)(ii) and 1450(h)(1)	Required, and the program must describe how (g) is met
Training	1200(h) less (h)(2)(iii), plus the fuller 1450(f) training duty	Full 1200(h), including (h)(2)(iii) on the location and availability of the program and the chemical list
Non-routine tasks and unlabeled pipes	Handled through SOPs and prior approval under 1450(e)(3)(i) and (v)	Required as a described method, 1200(e)(1)(ii)
Multi-employer methods	No provision in 1450 — carried by the site HazCom program	Required, 1200(e)(2)(i)–(iii)
Shipping chemicals out	Full 1200 labeling and SDS preparation — 1200(b)(3)(iv), 1450(h)(2)(iii)	Full 1200 labeling and SDS preparation
Availability on request	Readily available to employees and reps; to the Assistant Secretary on request — 1450(e)(2)	Available on request per 1910.1020(e) — 1200(e)(4)
Mandatory periodic review	At least annually — 1450(e)(4)	No stated interval in (e); driven by change of chemicals, processes or areas

How to structure the documents

1910.1200(e)(3) permits reliance on an existing program, which leaves the architecture to you. Three arrangements work, and one does not.

Option A — a site HazCom program with a laboratory annex (recommended for most institutions)

One facility-wide written HazCom program covering every non-laboratory operation, containing all six components above. It carries an explicit scoping section that names the laboratory areas, states that 1910.1200(b)(3) and 1910.1450(a)(2) limit HazCom’s application there, and incorporates the Chemical Hygiene Plan by reference for those areas. The multi-employer section at (e)(2) covers the whole site, including the laboratory areas, because contractors work in them. The CHP remains a separate, complete document.

This arrangement makes the scoping decision visible and auditable, which matters: if you cannot show where the boundary was drawn, you cannot defend it.

Option B — a single integrated chemical safety manual

One document with clearly separated parts, satisfying (e) for the covered areas and (e)(3) for reliance purposes while satisfying 1450(e) for the laboratories. Workable, but only if every element retains a distinct home and the annual review duty under 1450(e)(4) is applied to the CHP part specifically. The failure mode is a merged document in which nobody can say which paragraph any given section is discharging.

Option C — a voluntary laboratory HazCom program

Some employers write a HazCom program covering laboratory areas anyway — because a corporate system-wide policy requires it, because a state plan does, because it simplifies contractor communication, or because a client or accreditation body asks for one. That is a legitimate choice. Be clear-eyed about what it does and does not mean: it does not create a federal (e) duty where 1200(b)(3) removed one, and it does not displace the CHP duty, which still stands in full. Where a voluntary program describes practices — a labeling convention, an SDS access route, a training cadence — those descriptions can still be measured against the duties that do apply to the laboratory, and against the CHP’s own terms. Write it to be accurate, or do not write it.

Also check your state plan directly rather than assuming the federal text is the whole answer. State plans must be at least as effective as the federal standard and are free to be more stringent; several operate their own chemical-safety and right-to-know requirements layered on top of 1910.1200 and 1910.1450, and this page does not attempt to summarise them.

What does not work

A written HazCom program that silently asserts coverage of “all areas including laboratories,” with no chemical list for the stockroom, no multi-employer section, and a labeling description that does not match the containers in either the laboratories or the covered areas. It claims a duty it does not owe, fails the duties it does, and hands an inspector a document that contradicts the workplace.

What a compliance officer actually asks for

In practice, a chemical-safety inspection at a research institution opens with document requests before it walks the floor. Expect:

The written hazard communication program — and, immediately, the question of which areas it covers. Have the scoping section ready.
The Chemical Hygiene Plan, its date of last annual review under 1450(e)(4), and the name and appointment of the Chemical Hygiene Officer under 1450(e)(3)(vii).
The hazardous-chemical list for the covered areas, checked by walking to a shelf and matching a container to a line on the list by product identifier.
An SDS retrieved on the spot for a chemical picked at random, timed against “readily accessible during each work shift.”
Training records, checked against the (h)(2)(iii) distinction: whether employees in covered areas were told where the written program and the hazardous-chemical list are, and whether they can explain the workplace labeling system under (h)(3)(iv).
The multi-employer arrangements — often via the contractor rather than via you. What the cleaning crew’s employer was told, and in what form.
Whether any laboratory ships chemicals out. This is the single most commonly missed duty in an academic setting: 1200(b)(3)(iv) and 1450(h)(2)(iii) make the laboratory a manufacturer or distributor for that shipment, with shipped-container labeling and SDS-authoring obligations attached. It is a separate matter from transport regulation — see hazmat shipping training and certification for lab staff.

Maintaining it

Paragraph (e) sets no review interval, which is why HazCom programs go stale in a way CHPs do not. The events that should trigger a revision are structural rather than calendar-driven: a new chemical class entering a covered area; a new work area or a change in what an existing area does; a change of SDS management system or inventory platform; a new contractor category on site; a change to the labeling convention; and any change in the scoping decision — a new pilot-plant operation, a core facility moving to production-style throughput, a laboratory beginning to supply material to outside users.

Tie the review to the CHP’s annual cycle even though (e) does not require it. One review, both documents, one scoping decision re-examined.

Frequently asked questions

Does a research laboratory need a written hazard communication program?

Generally no. 29 CFR 1910.1200(b)(3) applies HazCom to laboratories only in part, and the written program at (e) is not among the four duties listed. A laboratory engaged in the “laboratory use of hazardous chemicals” owes a written Chemical Hygiene Plan under 1910.1450(e) instead. The institution as a whole will usually still owe a written HazCom program for its non-laboratory operations.

What must a written hazard communication program contain?

Under 1910.1200(e)(1): a description of how the labeling criteria in (f), the safety data sheet criteria in (g) and the training criteria in (h) are met; a list of the hazardous chemicals known to be present, by the product identifier referenced on the SDS, compiled for the workplace as a whole or for individual work areas; and the methods used to inform employees of the hazards of non-routine tasks and of chemicals in unlabeled pipes. Where other employers’ employees may be exposed, (e)(2) adds three multi-employer methods.

Is a Chemical Hygiene Plan the same as a HazCom program?

No, and neither is a superset of the other. The CHP’s eight required elements at 1910.1450(e)(3) contain no chemical inventory and no multi-employer provisions, both of which 1910.1200(e) requires. The HazCom program requires no SOPs, prior-approval thresholds, fume-hood performance assurance, medical consultation or Chemical Hygiene Officer, all of which the CHP requires. For laboratory use, the CHP is the governing document; for non-laboratory use, the HazCom program is.

Does a written hazard communication program need a chemical inventory?

Yes — 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) requires a list of hazardous chemicals known to be present, using a product identifier referenced on the appropriate safety data sheet. The list may be compiled for the workplace as a whole or for individual work areas. The federal Laboratory Standard, by contrast, does not require a chemical inventory anywhere in 1910.1450.

What are the multi-employer requirements in a HazCom program?

1910.1200(e)(2) requires the program to describe the methods used to give other on-site employers access to safety data sheets for chemicals their employees may be exposed to; to inform them of precautionary measures needed under normal operating conditions and in foreseeable emergencies; and to inform them of the labeling system used in the workplace. In a research building this reaches cleaning crews, instrument service engineers, HVAC and fume-hood contractors, waste vendors and other tenants.

Can one document serve as both the CHP and the HazCom program?

Yes, if it genuinely contains both sets of elements and keeps them distinguishable. 1910.1200(e)(3) permits reliance on an existing hazard communication program provided it meets the criteria in paragraph (e), which is the textual basis for an integrated manual. The practical risk is a merged document in which no section can be mapped to the paragraph it discharges — and the annual review duty at 1450(e)(4) still attaches specifically to the CHP content.

Where must the written program be kept?

1910.1200(e)(1) requires it “at each workplace,” and (e)(4) requires it to be made available on request to employees, their designated representatives, the Assistant Secretary and the Director in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020(e). Under (e)(5), where employees travel between workplaces during a work shift, the program may be kept at the primary workplace facility — which does not relax the separate duty to keep safety data sheets readily accessible in the work area during each shift.

Do OSHA’s 2024 HazCom amendments change any of this?

The 2024 rulemaking aligned 1910.1200 primarily with GHS Revision 7 and did not alter the laboratory partial-applicability rule at (b)(3) or the structure of paragraph (e). It does affect what arrives on labels and safety data sheets during the phase-in, which is precisely what a written program’s paragraph (f) and (g) descriptions have to keep pace with. Compliance dates have been amended since the 2024 rule was published; read them from the current codified text at (j) rather than from 2024-vintage guidance.

Primary sources

29 CFR 1910.1200 — Hazard Communication, in particular (b)(3) scope for laboratories, (e) written hazard communication program, (f) labels, (g) safety data sheets and (h) information and training. eCFR
29 CFR 1910.1450 — Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories, in particular (a)(2) supersession, (a)(3)(i) non-laboratory use, (b) definitions, (e) Chemical Hygiene Plan and (h) hazard identification. eCFR
29 CFR 1910.1020(e) — access to employee exposure and medical records, the mechanism (e)(4) incorporates. eCFR
OSHA standard interpretation, 10 November 2014 — “Labeling of secondary containers in laboratories under the Hazard Communication standard.” osha.gov

The regulatory text on this page was read from the current codified version of 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z. Where an obligation depends on how your operations are classified — and most of the obligations here do — the classification is a factual question about your work, not a question this or any other page can answer for you. For the broader compliance context, see CASRAI’s laboratory compliance and quality hub.