Decoding HazCom Through a Legal Lens: Why Deregulation Might Be Your Biggest Liability

In a recent episode of the Hack Your HazCom podcast, host Atanu Das sat down with Adele Abrams, a prominent attorney and safety professional at Littler Mendelson, to discuss why the future of OSHA and MSHA regulations is currently in a state of high-stakes legal limbo.

If you think a "lighter" regulatory touch from the government makes your job easier, you might want to think again. Here is why decoding HazCom through a legal lens is critical for your business today.

1. The "Nondelegation" Threat: Could the CFR Shrink?

The legal world is currently buzzing over the "Allstates Refractory" argument. Revived by Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, this nondelegation challenge questions whether Congress has the authority to hand over so much law-making power to agencies like OSHA.

A recent Fifth Circuit case could potentially invalidate many OSHA rules issued under general rulemaking authority. While the idea of a shrinking Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) might sound like a relief to some, it creates a massive vacuum of uncertainty. If federal standards disappear, what takes their place? Often, it’s a patchwork of state laws and—more dangerously—civil lawsuits.

2. The Tort Liability Trap

One of the most profound warnings Abrams shared is the "Tort Liability Floodgate."

Currently, employers and manufacturers often rely on the “sophisticated user” defense. This legal shield basically says: "We provided the Safety Data Sheet (SDS), we conducted the training, and the user was knowledgeable enough to understand the risks."

If federal HazCom standards are weakened or invalidated, that defense starts to crumble. Without a robust, standardized framework for communication and training, manufacturers and employers become far more vulnerable to personal injury and toxic tort claims. In short: Less regulation doesn't mean less responsibility; it just means you lose your roadmap for defending yourself in court.

3. The General Duty Clause: The "Catch-All" Enforcer

Even if specific standards are tied up in legal challenges, OSHA still has a powerful tool in its belt: the General Duty Clause.

Abrams pointed out that while Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for many chemicals are dangerously outdated, OSHA can still cite employers for exposures—such as in recent styrene cases—if they know a hazard exists and fail to protect workers. Relying solely on 1970s-era PELs is no longer a safe legal or safety strategy.

4. SDS Section 8: More Than a Suggestion

Are you actually reading Section 8 of your SDSs? Abrams emphasized that integrating SDS Section 8 into your PPE assessments is a legal necessity.

If an incident occurs and your PPE doesn't match the specific recommendations in the SDS, you are in a weak position. This is especially critical at remote sites where technology or access failures might prevent workers from reaching that vital information during an emergency.

5. The Long Game: SDS Retention

Hazcom isn't just about today's spill; it's about a claim 30 years from now. Long-latency illnesses (like those caused by silica or chemical sensitizers) require meticulous record-keeping. Retaining SDSs and training records is your only way to prove what a worker was—or wasn't—exposed to decades after the fact.

The Bottom Line

HazCom remains one of the most frequently cited OSHA standards for a reason: it is the foundation of workplace safety. But as Adele Abrams makes clear, it is also a vital legal document.

In an era of potential deregulation, your best defense isn't doing the bare minimum—it’s building a "human firewall" through robust training, meticulous SDS management, and a proactive legal strategy.