| The Home page of ILPI's Safety Data Sheet (SDS) Resource, the leader in SDS information since 1995! | |
| The history and philosophy behind this resource. | |
| A curated collection of books and reference materials concerning Safety Data Sheets and closely related topics. | |
| Paste your plain text SDS into the SDS-Demystifier, and it will be converted into a hypertext-enriched document with links to detailed explanations of each key term. | |
| An extensive list of frequently asked questions about Safety Data Sheets including regulations, content, compliance, and more. | |
| A humorous take on Safety Data Sheet jargon. Fill in the blanks on our entry form to generate a personalized Unsafety Data Sheet to share with your coworkers. | |
| Since 1995, we've maintained this massive curated list of the best places to find Safety Data Sheets on the Internet. | |
| Way more than a glossary, this hypertext-enhanced resource covers hundreds of SDS-related terms and expert knowledge. Each entry includes both the SDS relevance and links to additional authoritative resources. | |
| Archived results of Safety Data Sheet related polls taken by some of our millions of site visitors | |
| You are here! The OSHA regulations behind SDS regulations, including the inspection guidelines and over 400 official interpretations letters under the Hazard Communication Standard | |
| Commercial suppliers of SDS authoring and management software as well as cloud compliance services. | |
| Commercial companies that will create SDS's for your specific needs as well as SDS translation companies. |
Safety signs, banners, and scoreboards? Get yours at Safety Emporium!
OSHA Hazard Communication Letters of Interpretation
Application of the Hazard Communication standard to a nuisance particulate.
- Issued
- Record type
- Interpretation
- Historical standard
- 1910.1200, original 1983 rule (PDF)
- Current standard
- HCS 2024, as amended
ILPI assessment: Historical dust policy superseded; evaluate all hazards
This letter addresses the original 1983 Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), which is now obsolete. The need to evaluate every relevant hazard remains sound, but the historical de minimis enforcement discussion should not be treated as a current blanket allowance to omit labels or SDSs. Under the current HCS, the nuisance-particulate exemption requires the manufacturer or importer to establish that the particulate poses no physical or health hazard covered by the standard.
Calling a material “nuisance dust” does not exempt combustible dust. Evaluate fire/explosion and health hazards under paragraph (d); see also the HyperGlossary discussion of dust. The incoming letter's claim that sugar needs no MSDS is not OSHA's final conclusion in the response above it.
The FDA-related labeling exemption is conditional and does not itself remove SDS or training duties. The current scope is not limited to manufacturing purchasers. Current enforcement counterpart: HCS inspection procedures.
Last reviewed: .
About this ILPI assessment
This comparison with current requirements is not a finding that OSHA has formally withdrawn this letter. This assessment reflects editorial judgment informed by human review and AI assistance. It is an opinion, may contain errors or omissions, and is not an official OSHA determination. For guidance on how OSHA requirements apply to your circumstances, contact your local OSHA office.
OSHA's notice about interpretation letters
The following notice is published on OSHA's interpretation pages; it is general guidance, not a letter-specific withdrawal notice.
OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.
Source: OSHA's original letter page.
January 16, 1986
The Honorable Mack Mattingly
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Mattingly:
This is in response to your letter of November 21, 1985, concerning application of the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200) to nuisance particulate. Please accept my apology for the delay in response.
As a matter of interpretation, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has determined that if a substance is a nuisance particulate, and has no other discernible health or physical hazards, failure to comply with the information transmittal requirements of the HCS would result in a violation that would be characterized as de minimis. No penalties are assessed for de minimis violations, and no abatement of the condition is required. De minimis violations are issued when there is no direct or immediate relationship to safety and health.
[ILPI note: This is historical enforcement guidance. Apply the current nuisance-particulate exemption; a nuisance-dust description does not excuse combustible-dust or other hazards.]
It should be noted, however, that manufacturers of nuisance particulate are still required to perform a hazard evaluation and determine whether or not their products present any of the specific hazards covered by the HCS. OSHA has reason to believe that a number of these particulate do present physical hazards, such as the potential for fire and explosion, and others may have some health effect, such as irritation. For example, according to a Bureau of mines report entitled, The Explosibility of Agricultural Dust, corn starch and powdered sugar are considered to be "strong" explosion hazards. This information is published in the scientific literature, and would have to be taken into account when performing hazard evaluations.
In some cases a manufacturer may believe that a product is non-hazardous because of their understanding of the product's use. Paragraph (b)(2) of the standard speaks to this situation and reads as follows: "This section applies to any chemical which is known to be present in the workplace in such a manner that employees may be exposed under normal conditions of use or in a foreseeable emergency.
"
[ILPI note: Current counterpart: paragraph (b)(2). Classification must also address hazards of known or reasonably anticipated uses.]
Accordingly, a product containing hazardous chemicals as defined in the standard may not require notification. The manufacturer must evaluate whether use of their product will result in exposure under normal conditions or in a foreseeable emergency. In other words, there must be some potential for exposure for a hazardous chemical to be covered by the HCS.
If the hazardous chemical in question is a food of food additive, it would be subject to the labeling requirements of the Food and Drug Administration. The OSHA requirements in terms of downstream transmittal of information would thus be limited to material safety data sheets being provided to manufacturing purchasers. These purchasers are required to have such sheets when the hazardous chemicals are present and pose a hazard to employees under normal conditions of use or in foreseeable emergencies. A copy of the material safety data sheet would have to be provided at the time of the initial shipment of the product, and whenever the information on the sheet is updated.
[ILPI note: Current counterparts: conditional FDA labeling exemption and SDS distribution. Current coverage is not restricted to manufacturing purchasers.]
We regret any misunderstandings which may have resulted from our earlier communications. As you are aware, we met with your staff and representatives of Savannah Foods and Industries, Inc., on November 20, 1985 concerning these issues. After that meeting we notified you and Savannah Food Industries, Inc., of our preliminary opinion regarding this issue. Since that discussion we have completed a comprehensive review of the issues involved and found a need to realign our previous opinion. Again, we regret any inconvenience caused by the change in this interpretation.
We hope this information is helpful to you. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Patrick R. Tyson
Acting Assistant Secretary
The Honorable David Smith
Director
Office of Health Compliance Assistance
Department of Labor
Room N 3101
200 Constitution Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20210
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for meeting with my constituents, Joel Williams and Mike Kelly of Savannah Foods & Industries, yesterday afternoon concerning the Hazard Communication Standards (HCS) and the consequences of its implementation on the sugar industry.
One of the issues discussed in yesterday's meeting involved the recent OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.38 of August 25, 1985 which included sucrose in the category of "nuisance dust", and thereby a hazardous material. It is my understanding that you, along with Mr. Anderson and Ms. Morris of your staff, stated that an interpretation and clarification of the HCS will be provided to my office before the close of business on Friday, November 22, 1985. This was based on the fact the ACGIH has stated it has no documentation showing that some of the examples of possible nuisance dusts, including sucrose, are hazardous chemicals.
[ILPI note: Current counterpart: HCS inspection procedures.]
I would also like to confirm the clarification that was given regarding the possible "explosivity" of sugar or other dusts and whether notifications must be sent by the sugar industry under the HCS. Savannah Foods contends, and it is my understanding you agree, that sugar does not come within the definitions of explosivity and would be properly regulated under the General Industry Standards of OSHA. Therefore, it is also my understanding your interpretation is that no MSDS communications are required by the sugar industry and instead, sugar manufacturers and their customers must comply with these standards.
[ILPI note: This is the incoming correspondent's understanding. OSHA's reply above explains its revised position and the need to assess fire/explosion and other hazards.]
I appreciate your cooperation in this matter, and look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Mack Mattingly
United States Senate
Committee on Appropriations
Washington, DC 20510
The original official public domain version of this document is available from OSHA at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1986-01-16.