Under the previous version of 29 CFR 1910.1200, the Hazard Communication Standard, one was only required to list the components meeting OSHA's definition of hazardous if present in concentrations greater than 1% (or carcinogens greater than 0.1%) The current version (HCS 2012) has a much more rigorous (some might call it Byzantine) classification process for mixtures which is defined in Appendix A: http://www.ilpi.com/msds/osha/1910_1200_APP_A.html
but the general idea is still the same.
Regardless, Appendix D which defines the content of SDS's for mixtures in section 3 states that one only needs to list the name and concentration of the all ingredients which are classified as health hazards in that analysis. If the remainder of the material is not considered hazardous by OSHA's definition of the term, then those do not need to be listed: http://www.ilpi.com/msds/osha/1910_1200_APP_D.html#3
Most likely, the balance of the material is water = the 98% inert ingredients on your label.
The tech support statement about EPA is nonsense with respect to SDS's. It's true for labels, but NOT for SDS's. See www.ilpi.com/msds/osha/1910_1200.html#1910.1200
(b)(5). As you can see, and as Neal mentioned, FIRFA, The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, has priority over pesticide labels
, but not over SDS's. I am not sure what the precise current status is as the EPA web site has been torn asunder under the new administration and finding things is very difficult for some reason [resist urge to get on soapbox-]. But here is a read on the label/SDS connection with respect to GHS under FIRFA: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-04/documents/pr2012-1.pdf
The trade secret provisions of the standard are clear: http://www.ilpi.com/msds/osha/1910_1200.html#1910.1200(i)
and are likely abused by some manufacturers. I have a general discussion of these here: http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/tradesecret.html
and that highlights the statement, "Matters of public knowledge or of general knowledge in an industry cannot be appropriated by one as his secret. Matters which are completely disclosed by the goods which one markets cannot be his secret." is still valid. The claim of a trade secret for a cleaner of any sort, especially one that appears to have the same basic makeup as Fantastik=E2=84=A2 along with some propellants would seem very difficult to support as all of these components are well known in the trade. But unless you were involved in a civil suit or had another axe to grind, I doubt it would be worth anyone's bother to try challenging that in this case.
Other responses mentioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission which has no jurisdiction over SDS content. That statement is correct, because SDS's apply only to occupational situations. However, when a consumer product is used in the workplace in a manner that exceeds a typical consumer use, an SDS is required. See http://www.ilpi.com/msds/faq/partb.html#consumer
But that purview is under OSHA at that point.
SDS's have their shortcomings, yes. The fox is in charge of the henhouse with respect to their authorship, and many have errors, omissions, shortcomings, and litigation-inspired unnecessary boilerplate. But they do contain important information that is vital to worker protection. So you are right to be circumspect, and, as with any source of data in this day and age, one should carefully assess the content and its provenance.
Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand names
Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas While investigating an incident at my site recently, I came across an interesting issue. Interested in your thoughts. The material involved is a commercially available spray disinfecting cleaner. The container label listed these ingredients: N-alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, 0.1% N-alkyl dimethyl ethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, 0.1% I pulled the SDS to look for more exposure information. The SDS (updated June 2017) did not list those active ingredients but did list the propellants used and EDTA. This is what the SDS says: Chemical Name CAS number % Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether 112-34-5 1-5 Composition comments US GHS: The exact percentage (concentration) of composition has been withheld as a trade secret in accordance with paragraph (i) of 1910.1200. I took that statement to mean the exact percentage of the ingredients listed were withheld, not that there were other ingredients not listed. It says percentage, not components. Though if you do the math, clearly something is missing from this list. I thought that rather odd so I called tech support of the manufacturer. At first, they were confused as well, then told me that because the active ingredients were EPA registered materials, they did not have to be listed on the SDS. My reaction: Say what??? I have seen SDS that said proprietary mixture but still gave you a clue. But I had no idea an SDS could give no indication that there were other ingredients. No one I have asked at my organization has ever heard of this. No longer trusting SDS (which I suppose I should know better than to anyway).