| 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
Responsibility of the employer and manufacturer to present consistent information between the labels and material safety data sheets.
- Issued
- Record type
- Interpretation
- Historical HazCom standard
- HCS 1994
- Current HazCom standard
- HCS 2024, as amended
ILPI assessment: Cross-reference principles retained; substitution requires accurate current information
Its central HazCom distinction remains useful: an employer's conditional use of a representative sheet is different from a manufacturer's duty to supply consistent product identification. A sheet for a vaguely similar chemical is not automatically an adequate substitute.
Under the current HCS, apply product identifier, shipped-label elements, and SDS Section 1. A representative SDS must accurately cover the actual product, hazards and responsible-party contacts; similar-mixture provisions have conditions. The quoted old (g)(2)(i)/(xii) numbering and optional MSDS layout are superseded by current structure and Appendix D.
OSHA reports that the 1995 Strong letter was archived and replaced by the 1994 Balsamo letter. This is a source-specific alert about that referenced letter, not a withdrawal notice for this 2004 response. Read the cited letters in their historical context and apply present content/identification requirements.
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.
September 8, 2004
Mr. Michael Beckel
Supervisor of Onsite Services
3E Company
1905 Aston Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Beckel:
Get your GHS-compliant labels and signs from Safety Emporium.
This is in response to your correspondence dated April 26, 2004 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) Directorate of Enforcement Programs. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may not be applicable to any questions not delineated within your original correspondence. In your letter you requested an interpretation regarding material safety data sheets (MSDSs) and labeling requirements under OSHA's Hazard Communication standard (HCS), 29 CFR 1910.1200 [ILPI: Original HCS 1994 context · Current HCS]. Specifically, you asked about the responsibilities of the product manufacturer and the downstream user (employer).
In your letter you referenced two interpretations written by OSHA. These two interpretations apparently conflict, however, they are related to separate issues covered by the HCS.
The first letter to Mr. Michael C. Strong, dated October 6, 1995, addresses questions regarding the responsibilities of the downstream employer with respect to the retention of multiple MSDSs from different manufacturers for the same chemical formulation. That letter has been archived and replaced by a letter written to Mr. James J. Balsamo, Jr. and dated February 1, 1994, which contains more complete information.
The second letter of interpretation you reference is a letter to Mr. Mike Lopez, dated July 15, 1996 that clarifies the chemical manufacturer's responsibilities associated with the presentation of consistent information between the labels and MSDSs. These interpretations will be addressed separately as they refer to the responsibility of two different parties (the employer and the manufacturer) under the HCS.
Regarding the employer's responsibility, the employer may rely on a single MSDS to convey the hazard information for chemical products of the same formulation supplied by different manufacturers. If the employer chooses to do this, they become responsible for ensuring that the conditions are met as described in the letter of interpretation to Mr. James J. Balsamo, Jr. The applicable portion of the letter states that, "First, [the employer] must ensure that the specific identity on the MSDS can be cross referenced to the corresponding label of the hazardous chemical containers. Second, the employer must ensure that employees are informed during the hazard communication training of this practice of using one MSDS as representative of all vendors, otherwise it could lead to confusion. Third, the MSDS [the employer] select[s] must have complete and accurate information as required by section (g)(3) [ILPI: Original HCS 1994 context · Current HCS; original (g)(3) concerns missing information; current accuracy duty is (g)(5)] of the HCS. And finally, the standard requires that the MSDS contain the name, address and telephone number of the party who prepares or distributes the MSDS. The party listed must be able to provide additional information on the hazardous chemicals or clarification of the information on the MSDS, as well as, additional emergency procedures, if necessary, in lieu of the actual manufacturer. A chemical manufacturer, importer or distributor may not wish to and is not required to act as the responsible party for a chemical that they did not produce." Basically, the standard allows substitution of one MSDS for others of similar formulations, but the employer then assumes an increased level of responsibility as discussed herein.
This poster from Safety Emporium contains NFPA numeric ratings for hundreds of common chemicals.
The second letter to which you refer (to Mr. Mike Lopez) answers questions related to the responsibilities of the manufacturer or distributor regarding the consistency of information between the MSDS and the container label. The HCS explicitly requires that the product name on the container label match the product name on the MSDS. The specific standard language follows: "each MSDS shall contain at least the following information: the identity used on the label" [reference 29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(2)(i) [ILPI: Original HCS 1994 context · Current HCS; content reorganized into SDS Section 1]], "and the name, address and telephone number of the chemical manufacturer, importer, employer or other responsible party preparing or distributing the material safety data sheet..." [reference 29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(2)(xii) [ILPI: Original HCS 1994 context · Current HCS; content reorganized into SDS Section 1]]. It is the chemical manufacturer's/distributor's responsibility to ensure that the MSDS information sent "downstream" to users matches that which is on the container label.
[ILPI note: Original HCS 1994 context · Current HCS. Current counterparts: product identifier, shipped labels, and SDS identification. The historical (g)(2)(i)/(xii) content numbering quoted below is not today's SDS section structure.]
In conclusion, the two letters of interpretation to which you referred are not in conflict, as they each address a different "responsible party" under the HCS, the first being the employer and the second being the manufacturer.
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. 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 http://www.osha.gov. The letters and standard references listed in this response can be located (in their entirety) on OSHA's website. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Office of Health Enforcement at (202) 693-2190.
Sincerely,
Richard E. Fairfax, Director
Directorate of Enforcement Programs
The original official public domain version of this document is available from OSHA at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-08-0.