Back to Basics is a weekly feature that highlights important but possibly overlooked information that any EHS professional should know. This week, we look at the evolution of safety regulation.
Efforts to limit federal safety and health resources began this spring and are accelerating through the summer. The Department of Labor (DOL) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) took their first steps on July 1 toward workplace safety and health deregulation, publishing a final rule and several proposals.
OSHA proposed removing its COVID-19 emergency temporary standard (ETS) for healthcare and the emergency rule’s recordkeeping and reporting requirements (90 Fed. Reg. 28336). The proposal is part of the agency’s agenda to comply with President Donald Trump’s “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” Executive Order (E.O. 14192).
Under the E.O., all federal agencies must now identify 10 existing regulations or guidance documents to be repealed for each new rule, regulation, or guidance issued. Agencies also must submit a semiannual regulatory agenda to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that identifies the aggregate incremental cost increases of new regulations and approximates the total costs or savings associated with each new or repealed regulation.
The total incremental cost of all new regulations for fiscal year (FY) 2025, including repealed regulations, must be significantly less than zero. FY 2025 ends September 30.
A DOL final rule, another E.O. 14192 effort, revokes 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1911.10, the requirement that the assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health consult with the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) in the creation of rulemakings to promulgate, modify, or revoke construction industry standards (90 Fed. Reg. 27996). The rule also revokes §1912.3, the OSHA general regulations governing the advisory committee, which would have reduced the committee’s membership from 15 members to the nine mandated by statute.
The DOL described the requirements as “more burdensome than those mandated by statute.” According to the DOL, the requirement to consult the advisory committee would needlessly delay the secretary of labor’s plans to implement Trump’s E.O. 14192. The revocation is effective immediately.
The DOL also proposed removing regulations on procedures for coordinating enforcement activities by OSHA, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), and the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) related to migrant farmworkers (90 Fed. Reg. 28247). Removing the regulations, issued in 1980, would enable DOL agencies to coordinate migrant farm labor law enforcement in more efficient and effective ways, according to the proposal’s preamble.
OSHA proposed clarifying its interpretation of the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. §654(a)(1)) and proposed excluding known hazards that are inherent in and inseparable from the nature of a professional activity or performance from General Duty Clause enforcement (90 Fed. Reg. 28370).
The proposed rule cited the case of SeaWorld of Florida, LLC v. Perez, in which OSHA cited SeaWorld under the General Duty Clause following a trainer’s death during an Orca whale performance. The D.C. Circuit upheld OSHA’s citation, but in a dissenting opinion, then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh argued that the General Duty Clause doesn’t authorize OSHA to “regulate hazards arising from normal activities that are intrinsic to professional, athletic, or entertainment occupations.”
Professions that would be excluded from General Duty Clause enforcement under the narrowed interpretation include:
- Animal handling and performance;
- Hazard-based media and journalism activities;
- Live entertainment and performing arts;
- Motorsports and high-risk recreation;
- Professional and extreme sports; and
- Tactical, defense, and combat simulation training.
An OSHA proposal would withdraw a proposed rule that would have added a column to the OSHA 300 Log where employers would record work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The proposal would terminate the rulemaking (90 Fed. Reg. 28257). The withdrawal of the proposal is effective immediately.
OSHA also proposed changes to its respiratory protection requirements, including the respiratory protection standard and several standards for toxic and hazardous substances.
OSHA proposed removing medical evaluation requirements in the respiratory protection standard for filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) (90 Fed. Reg. 28463). Before an employer can allow an employee to use a respirator, the worker must see a physician or another licensed healthcare professional who determines whether the worker can tolerate the physiological burden of using a respirator.
OSHA has concluded that different types of respirators have differing levels of physiological burdens. It contends that many workers already use FFRs and loose-fitting PAPRs without medical evaluations. It also noted a surge in respirator use during the COVID-19 pandemic, often without medical evaluation. No evidence emerged of impairment that a medical evaluation could have avoided.
The agency proposed revisions to the respirator requirements of the following toxic and hazardous substances standards:
- 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (90 Fed. Reg. 28316)
- 1,3-Butadiene (90 Fed. Reg. 28302)
- 13 carcinogens (90 Fed. Reg. 28312)
- Acrylonitrile (90 Fed. Reg. 28291)
- Asbestos (90 Fed. Reg. 28295)
- Benzene (90 Fed. Reg. 28321)
- Cadmium (90 Fed. Reg. 28330)
- Coke oven emissions (90 Fed. Reg. 28354)
- Cotton dust (90 Fed. Reg. 28349)
- Ethylene oxide (90 Fed. Reg. 28307)
- Formaldehyde (90 Fed. Reg. 28286)
- Inorganic arsenic (90 Fed. Reg. 28267)
- Lead (90 Fed. Reg. 28277)
- Methylene chloride (90 Fed. Reg. 28272)
- Methylenedianiline (90 Fed. Reg. 28325)
- Vinyl chloride (90 Fed. Reg. 28263)
According to the agency, some language in the toxic and hazardous substances standards is redundant. Removing it would make the agency’s respiratory protection program requirements more comprehensible. The proposed revisions would simplify employers’ compliance by preventing the possibility for employers to duplicate their efforts to comply with the requirements of the respiratory protection standard and specific toxic and hazardous substances standards. The agency asserted that its proposed actions would reduce the burden of reviewing unnecessarily duplicative provisions in the standards.
We don’t yet know what action the agency will take on its proposed standard for heat injury and illness prevention in outdoor and indoor work settings. The previous administration issued a proposed rule on August 30, 2024. A federal standard would include requirements for water, shade, and paid rest breaks, as well as acclimatization schedules, emergency procedures, and monitoring employees for signs and symptoms of heat stress. OSHA held an informal public hearing from June 16 to July 2 on the agency’s proposal.
Budget cuts to safety
Cuts to federal safety and health resources began this spring with reorganization at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The HHS announced on March 27 that it would create an Administration for a Healthy America (AHA), combining the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). NIOSH has been part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
NIOSH was created, along with OSHA, by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. While OSHA sets and enforces standards and provides employers with compliance assistance, NIOSH researches workplace safety and health issues and has published recommendations (Criteria Documents) for OSHA standards.
NIOSH teams have performed health hazard evaluations (HHEs) to help employers address clusters of worker illnesses. The institute also administers the Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program (FFFIPP) and the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program, which monitors health conditions among 9/11 responders and survivors.
OSHA’s FY 2026 budget request includes a $49,928,000 reduction from the $632,309,000 appropriated in FY 2025 to $582,381,000. It also requests funds for 1,587 full-time employees—down from 1,810. The agency’s budget request includes plans to eliminate the Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, calling the grants “wasteful and unnecessary.”
According to the budget request, the agency also would “engage in deregulatory activities to modernize standards and reduce the regulatory burden on employers.”
Reductions to specific programs would include the following:
- A decrease of $5,000,000 and 23 employees for setting safety and health standards;
- A decrease of $23,657,000 and 168 employees for federal enforcement;
- A decrease of $1,000,000 for whistleblower enforcement, but employee levels would remain at 114;
- A decrease of $1,473,000 for state programs;
- A decrease of $2,500,000 and 16 employees for technical assistance;
- A decrease of $1,711,000 for employer compliance assistance, but employee levels would remain at 183;
- A decrease of $800,000 for state compliance assistance; and
- A decrease of $1,000,000 and 16 employees for safety and health statistics.
The 2026 federal budget would also eliminate funding for the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). The president’s 2026 budget proposes eliminating funding for several independent agencies, including the CSB, to “move the Nation towards fiscal responsibility and to redefine the proper role of the Federal Government.”
A CSB budget request clarified that with the president’s proposed $0 for the CSB’s FY 2026 budget, the expectation is that the CSB will begin closing down during FY 2025. The board’s emergency fund of $844,145 will be used to cover costs associated with closing down the agency.
According to the CSB budget request, the board substantially duplicates efforts at OSHA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to investigate chemical-related mishaps. However, the CSB isn’t an enforcement agency and issues no citations or penalties. It investigates chemical incidents to determine their cause or probable cause and issues recommendations for companies, industry groups, standards-setting organizations, and federal agencies, including the EPA and OSHA.
The CSB currently has 12 open recommendations for OSHA. The board uploaded the video “Safety Pays Off: The Value of Vigilance” to its YouTube channel on June 23, highlighting incidents investigated by the CSB.
Accidents at chemical facilities and refineries highlighted in the video include the following:
- A January 24, 2020, explosion at the Watson Grinding facility in Houston, Texas, resulted in fatal injuries to 3 people and approximately $90 million in settlements and judgment amounts.
- November 27, 2019, explosions and fires at the TPC Group chemical plant in Port Neches, Texas, injured 3 people and caused $450 million in on-site property damage and $153 million in damage to nearby homes and businesses.
- An April 26, 2018, explosion and fires at the Husky Refinery in Superior, Wisconsin, injured 36 people and caused more than $550 million in property damage to the facility.
- A June 21, 2019, fire and explosions at the Philadelphia Energy Solutions refinery in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, caused $750 million in property damage and ultimately led to the refinery’s closure and the loss of more than 1,000 jobs.
More deregulatory action may be on the way, as the new administration hasn’t yet released a regulatory agenda for spring 2025. A new regulatory agenda should provide a clearer picture of the government’s plans.