Six months into the new administration, and even without the completed confirmation of David Keeling as Assistant Secretary of Labor (though recently placed on the Senate Executive Calendar), the OSHA regulatory agenda is starting to take shape. On July 1, 2025, a series of twenty-five proposed rules and one final rule taking action were published in the Federal Register. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has also published eighteen proposed rules that will not be discussed in this article but can be found in the link to the Federal Register Above. This article will review the final rule before diving into the twenty-five proposed rules and giving insights into what the next steps are during the public comment period.

Final Rule: Revisions to the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health

The final rule issued was related to 29 CFR 1911.10 and 29 CFR 1912.3, concerning the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). It revokes the 29 CFR 1911.10 requirement that the Assistant Secretary for OSHA consult with ACCSH in formulating rules associated with construction. 29 CFR 1912.3 is related to the regulations that govern ACCSH, which have been removed in its entirety. Additional changes have been made to other sections of 29 CFR 1911 and 1912 to align with these larger changes. The rationale given is that these “regulations impose requirements on the assistant secretary that are more burdensome than those mandated by statute” and “would needlessly delay the Secretary of Labor’s … regulatory agenda.” The size of ACCSH has been effectively reduced from 15 members to 9 and allows for ACCSH to advise but without having any impedance on the regulatory agenda.  

Proposed Rules

The remaining 25 proposed rules are summarized below.  

Proposed General Duty Clause Changes

OSHA has proposed a rule that would restrict the ability of the Agency to cite inherently risky work that is central to entire sectors of the economy where employers have taken “reasonable measures” to address the hazards under the general duty clause. This rule would specifically affect industries like live entertainment; animal handling; professional and extreme sports; tactical, defense, and combat simulation training; and hazard-based media. It is proposed to align to a dissent written by Judge (now Supreme Court Justice) Brett Kavanaugh in 2014 when he was on the D.C. Circuit Court.

Proposed Respiratory Protection Changes

The Agency has proposed to amend medical evaluation requirements for Filtering Facepiece Respirators (FFRs) and Loose-fitting Powered Air-Purifying Respirators (PAPRs), contained within 1910.134(e). The proposed rule cites the widespread rise in respirator use during COVID without evidence of adverse physiological impact or triggering of underlying medical conditions. Studies have noted that 2% or fewer of workers assigned to receive a medical evaluation have been rejected from wearing a respirator. The proposed rule also notes that because FFRs and PAPRs are not worn in IDLH situations, recovering to a place of safety and removing the respirator quickly when symptoms arise should be practicable.  

Sixteen of the Proposed Rules relate to the removal of regulation-specific respiratory protection requirements and better alignment to the Respiratory Protection Standard 29 CFR 1910.134. The objective is to remove duplicative requirements from the specific standards and offer employers additional options by which to provide respiratory protection to their employees.

Proposed Construction Illumination Changes

OSHA has proposed that the minimum illumination requirements for construction sites be removed. The rationale for the removal is that it is not reasonably necessary and does not reduce a significant risk to workers. OSHA writes that the standard “does not provide significant protection beyond what would exist without the standards because the hazards — lack of illumination — is obvious to employers and employees, as is the means to address it.” Illumination is central to performing work well, so employers are operationally and quality-wise incentivized to address poor lighting, and OSHA would still be able to cite under the General Duty Clause where there is failure to abate a lighting hazard.  

Proposed Safety Color Code Changes

OSHA had proposed to remove standards related OSHA’s Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards Standard, 29 CFR 1910.144, including:  

• Paragraph (c)(8) of OSHA’s Textiles Standard, 29 CFR 1910.262
• Paragraph (c)(11) of OSHA’s Sawmills Standard, 29 CFR 1910.265
• OSHA’s Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards for Shipyard Employment Standard, 29 CFR 1915.90

OSHA believes that these standards are addressed through other state and local building and fire codes and are covered through 1910.145 Specifications for accident prevention signs and tags.

Proposed Ending of the COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard

OSHA has proposed ending the COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard and associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements for healthcare contained within 29 CFR 1910 Subpart U. OSHA is justifying the action by stating that the public health emergency has ended and the most serious of respiratory illness cases that result in hospitalization or death will still be reported through the 1904 recordkeeping requirements. In effect, this reduces the duplication of reporting requirements for work-related cases and treats COVID-19 like other respiratory illnesses that have similar symptoms and recordkeeping actions in practice.  

Withdrawal of MSD Disorder Recordkeeping Proposal

OSHA has withdrawn a proposal for adding a column to the OSHA 300 logs to identify and track work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). The rationale given is that there is no demonstration that adding the column would improve injury and illness statistics, nor would it assist in enforcement or outreach. Finally, there is no evidence that the column would provide useful information to employers or employees, largely because it represents a total number of cases, not the nature or origin of them, which is far more valuable insight. OSHA has concluded that Employers who want to conduct further analysis into MSD injuries already have the information at their disposal to do so.  

Proposed Changes in the Maritime Industry

OSHA has proposed that the prohibition on open fires in thick burn barrels (as a heat source) as established in 29 CFR 1917.21 be eliminated. OSHA cites that this is not a common practice in the shipbuilding and maritime industries given that work has been moved to more covered or indoor locations, with advances in technology, including heated jackets being readily available.  

OSHA has also proposed removing 29 CFR 1917.41 House Falls Standard. OSHA states in the proposed rule that the maritime industry does not currently employ house falls methods because most cargo has been containerized and is moved via crane. It discusses how citations have not been issued since before 2012 and the only real impact to this standard would be to newer safety and health professionals, given their lack of experience and knowledge of the methodology, which is overcome by the experience and knowledge in other functions of the business, should house falls be used.  

Proposed Rescission Coordinated Enforcement Regulations

OSHA is proposing to remove 1980s regulations that establish procedures that require coordination of enforcement activities with the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) and the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), both Department of Labor Agencies, relating to migrant farmworkers. OSHA is stating that the regulations remove OSHA’s discretion, impose duplicative procedures, and prevent agencies from coordinating in more efficient and effective ways. OSHA is claiming that these changes can streamline regulatory efforts supporting “effectiveness and efficiency” within the Department of Labor without negative impact to migrant farmworkers themselves.

Conclusion

It is important to remember that only one rule has been formally published and one proposed rule withdrawn, with the remaining in a proposed state. Employers should be aware that state safety and health plans may impose stricter requirements than OSHA, making it essential to evaluate regulations that apply in each local jurisdiction. It’s also good practice to consult consensus standards for guidance on how to best protect employees.

Stand out block: Avetta shares OSHA’s commitment to safe working conditions for all. For insights on how safety leaders can stay on course amid shifting policies, explore this blog: Leading Through Uncertainty  

Avetta is a SaaS software company providing supply chain risk management solutions. Avetta’s contractor management platform is trusted by over 120,000+ suppliers in over 120 countries. Visit Avetta.com to learn how our solutions help businesses reduce risk and operate with confidence.

‍