| 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
Hazard Communication Standard inspections
- Issued
- Record type
- Interpretation
- Historical standard
- 1910.1200, original 1983 rule (PDF)
- Current standard
- HCS 2024, as amended
ILPI assessment: Disclosure duties retained; classification and dust guidance changed
This letter addresses the original 1983 Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), which is now obsolete. The need to disclose relevant symptoms and health effects remains consistent with current SDS Section 11. The older instruction to report any single positive carcinogenicity study is not a substitute for current classification: apply the Appendix A.6 weight-of-evidence criteria and all relevant available evidence.
Current Section 11 addresses carcinogen listings and symptoms. Paragraph (g)(3) requires the preparer to indicate when no applicable information was found for a required subheading. Read these current duties together instead of relying on the historical discussion of negative notations.
The appended 1985 memorandum withdrew nuisance-dust wording from the then-current inspection instruction. Its de minimis discussion is historical; apply today's nuisance-particulate exemption and evaluate every other hazard, including combustible dust. The old instruction was not the 1998 revision formerly linked here. Current counterpart: HCS inspection procedures; related historical explanation: January 16, 1986 letter.
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 31, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR: GILBERT SAULTER, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: JOHN B. MILES JR., DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF FIELD OPERATIONS
SUBJECT: HAZARD COMMUNICATION INSPECTIONS
This is in response to your letter of December 30, 1985 presenting your position on several issues that have come forward in your early inspections.
This poster from Safety Emporium contains NFPA numeric ratings for hundreds of common chemicals.
Three problems are related in your letter. The first concerns whether information on the signs of exposure data must be included on MSDS's when available. You indicate that some companies are only noting signs of overexposure. Your interpretation is correct, both must appear on the form where available.
[ILPI note: Current counterpart: SDS Section 11, including symptoms related to the physical, chemical, and toxicological characteristics and delayed/immediate/chronic effects.]
Your second concern relates to 1910.1200 (g)(2)(vii), which requires a notation on the MDA when a chemical is listed in IARC, NTP or as an OSHA carcinogen. As you point out the standard does not require a notation unless a chemical is present on one of the referenced lists. Clearly it would simplify your compliance reviews if a notation of negative determination could be mandated, however the standard is final and clear on this point.
[ILPI note: Current counterparts: Section 11 carcinogen-list information and required-subheading no-information statements.]
In the third issue you indicate that one positive study indicating that a chemical is carcinogenic requires a notation on the MSDS. This is correct. Under the Hazard Communication Standard, evidence of carcinogenicity is not limited to whether OSHA regulates the chemical as a carcinogen or whether IARC or NTP lists the chemical as a carcinogen or potential carcinogen. If one positive study indicates that a chemical is potentially carcinogenic a MSDS must state that fact. As with other health hazards, the manufacturer or importer need not state the positive finding as a conclusion they agree with, but they must report it nevertheless. Of course, data that indicates the chemical is not carcinogenic can also be included on the MSDS.
[ILPI note: Apply current Appendix A.6, including weight of evidence. This historical single-positive-study reporting rule is not the current classification test.]
This position is consistent with statements made by the Agency in the Fed. Red. 51852, 61854 (Dec.20, 1985).
Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention.
Nov 22, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR: REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS
FROM: JOHN B. MILES, JR., DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF FIELD OPERATIONS
SUBJECT: Revision of Instruction CPL 2-2.38 on Hazard Communication
This memorandum is to advise you that paragraph (d)(3) on page A-5 of OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.38 is revised. The heading listed as "Nuisance dust" will be deleted from the instruction and the guidance listed under that specific heading should be disregarded.
[ILPI note: This concerns the 1985 instruction, not the 1998 CPL 2-2.38D formerly linked here. Current counterpart: HCS inspection procedures.]
We have recently been informed that the substances contained in the ACGIH-TLV list at Appendix D are presented only as examples of what could be sources of nuisance dust and that there is no documentation of record at the ACGIH that would define any of the substances listed in Appendix D as nuisance dusts.
Accordingly, where the substances listed in Appendix D of the ACGIH list present no hazard other that that of a simple nuisance dust, OSHA will consider the lack of labels and MSDS sheets to have no direct or immediate relationship to safety and health and characterize such violations as de minimis.
[ILPI note: The current nuisance-particulate exemption requires establishing the absence of covered physical/health hazards; this historical enforcement discussion is not a blanket current waiver.]
The original official public domain version of this document is available from OSHA at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1986-01-31.