Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

OSHA Revises Exemption for “Retail Facilities” from Its Process Safety Management Standard

By Dan Wolff on July 30, 2015
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In a memo dated July 22, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced that it was revising its interpretation of the “retail facilities” exemption from its Process Safety Management (PSM) standard, as codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(a)(2)(1). The PSM standard requires employers to manage hazards associated with processes involving highly hazardous chemicals. The standard exempts retail facilities and for years OSHA interpreted that exemption to apply to employers who derived more than 50% of their income from sales of highly hazardous chemicals to end users. In its July 22 memo, OSHA rescinded that interpretation and will prospectively only exempt facilities that fall within the scope of the “retail trade” sectors as classified by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), as published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, namely sectors 44 and 45. According to the OSHA memo, the earlier so-called “50 percent test” exempted from PSM employers who, among others, sold or distributed large, bulk quantities of highly hazardous chemicals to other commercial entities even if those commercial entities, albeit “end users” of the highly hazardous chemicals, used those chemicals in additional processes for application or to make other products. OSHA now claims in its memo that exempting those sellers from the PSM standard was inconsistent with the original intent of the standard, reasoning that those sellers are engaged more in “wholesale” than “retail” sales. The agency estimates that its new interpretation will result in about 4800 employers no longer being eligible for the exemption. Sellers of bulk fertilizer (anhydrous ammonia) and liquid petroleum gas are identified as two common types of operations that will be affected. In related guidance here and here, OSHA states it will relax enforcement for six months to give affected employers time to come into compliance.

Sellers of highly hazardous chemicals that have previously taken advantage of the retail exemption but that do not fall within NAICS sectors 44 or 45 should consult with counsel about the implications of this revised interpretation.

Photo of Dan Wolff Dan Wolff

Dan Wolff represents clients facing enterprise-level risks arising out of government enforcement actions and complex commercial disputes. He is a problem solver who understands how to use litigation, whether as plaintiff or defendant, to achieve exceptional business solutions and outcomes. Dan leads the…

Dan Wolff represents clients facing enterprise-level risks arising out of government enforcement actions and complex commercial disputes. He is a problem solver who understands how to use litigation, whether as plaintiff or defendant, to achieve exceptional business solutions and outcomes. Dan leads the firm’s administrative law litigation practice, counseling clients and litigating on their behalf in federal and state courts around the country in matters arising under the Administrative Procedure Act, other federal statutes, and the U.S. Constitution. He also litigates commercial disputes and matters arising in tort. He has deep experience arguing dispositive motions and appeals, in addition to trying jury cases. Notably, The National Law Journal named Dan a Political Activism and First Amendment Rights Trailblazer.

Beyond the courtroom, clients also seek Danʼs counsel in government investigations of workplace accidents, fatalities, supervisor liability, and requests for company records.

Dan serves on the firm’s Public Service Committee and maintains an active pro bono practice. In recent years, he has focused on civil rights impact litigation, helping to secure victories or favorable settlements under the First Amendment, § 1983, and the Voting Rights Act.

Immediately following law school, Dan clerked for two years in the Southern District of Ohio for the Honorable Walter H. Rice. He is licensed to practice in the District of Columbia and Ohio and is also a member of the bars of multiple federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read more about Dan WolffEmailDan's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Administrative and Regulatory
  • Blog:
    Retail & Consumer Products Law Observer
  • Organization:
    Crowell & Moring LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo