Jim Frederick, Principal at NEXUS HSE, LLC, and former OSHA deputy and acting OSHA chief in the Biden administration offers an insider’s explanation of 25 OSHA proposals recently published in the Federal Register.

FINAL RULE:

1218-AD72 Construction Standards - Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health

OSHA has removed the requirement to consult the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) before creating, modifying, or revoking construction safety standards. This change eliminates 29 CFR 1911.10, which originated from the older Construction Safety Act.

This reduces the longstanding role of key stakeholders representing the construction sector to provide guidance to OSHA during the rulemaking process.

PROPOSALS:

1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane

OSHA’s proposed rule for 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) updates respirator requirements to align with the general Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134), offering employers added flexibility in respirator selection. The rule removes original (now dated) provisions and allows for future adaptability. Key changes include revising when respirators must be used—based on employer determination—and updating equipment specifications to require respirators with a minimum Assigned Protection Factor (APF) of 1,000. Several specific requirements related to engineering controls, emergencies, and training content are removed.

1,3-Butadiene

OSHA’s proposed rule for 1,3-Butadiene updates respirator requirements under standard 29 CFR 1910.1051 to align with the general Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). The revisions aim to provide employers with greater flexibility in selecting respirators, replacing prescriptive provisions included in the original standard. Key changes include updating when respirators must be used—based on employer determination—and revising selection criteria to reference OSHA’s broader respiratory protection guidelines, along with updates to Table 1 on minimum protection requirements for 1,3-butadiene exposure situations.

13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.)

OSHA’s proposed rule for the 13 Carcinogens standard (29 CFR 1910.1003) updates respirator requirements to align with the general Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134) to increase employer flexibility with the updated rule. The proposed rule replaces original rule, specific respirator requirements with performance-based criteria, allowing employers to choose respirators with appropriate Assigned Protection Factors (APFs). Specifically, it requires a minimum APF of 10 for certain carcinogens (e.g. particulates) and an APF of 10,000 for others, while still permitting higher-protection alternatives.

Acrylonitrile

OSHA’s proposed rule for the Acrylonitrile standard (29 CFR 1910.1045) aims to streamline and update respirator requirements by aligning them with the general Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). The update removes duplicative text from the specific standard, clarifies employer responsibilities, and changes the implementation of respiratory protection programs. This change reflects OSHA’s current broader effort to ensure consistency across substance-specific standards.

Key revisions include allowing employers to determine when respirators are necessary based on the general respiratory protection criteria, rather than prescribing specific scenarios in the acrylonitrile standard. The rule also eliminates several detailed requirements for respirator use during certain operations and emergencies and removes references to respirator training from the standard.

Amending the Medical Evaluation Requirements in the Respiratory Protection Standard for Certain Types of Respirators

OSHA is proposing to amend the medical evaluation requirements in its Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134) for certain respirator types. Specifically, the proposed rule would exempt employees who are required to have workers use either filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) or loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) from the standard’s medical evaluation requirements. This change reflects OSHA’s preliminary determination that the physiological burden of using these types of respirators is significantly lower compared to other respirators.

Under the proposed revision, employers would no longer need to provide medical evaluations for workers using FFRs or loose-fitting PAPRs, unless otherwise required. OSHA is seeking public comment on all aspects of this proposal to ensure it appropriately balances safety and flexibility.

Asbestos

OSHA’s proposed revisions to the Asbestos standards (29 CFR 1910.1001, 1915.1001, and 1926.1101) aim to update respirator requirements and align them with the general Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). The changes are designed to provide employers with greater flexibility in selecting appropriate respirators while maintaining equivalent levels of worker protection.

Key updates include allowing employers to determine when respirators are necessary based on general respiratory protection criteria, rather than specific scenarios. Additionally, several provisions related to specific work conditions and training content are proposed to be removed (e.g. a specific reference that requires the use of a HEPA filter in respiratory protection).

Benzene

OSHA’s proposed revisions to the Benzene standard (29 CFR 1910.1028) aim to update respirator requirements from the original rule text and align them with the broader Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). The changes are intended to provide employers with greater flexibility in selecting respirators for workers exposed to benzene.

Key updates include allowing employers to determine when respirators are necessary based on general respiratory protection criteria, rather than mandating specific scenarios such as emergencies or maintenance operations. The rule also removes detailed requirements for specific respirator components, such as organic vapor cartridges and chin-style canisters, in favor of performance-based standards.

Cadmium

OSHA’s proposed revisions to the Cadmium standards (29 CFR 1910.1027 and 1926.1127) aim to update respirator requirements by aligning them with the general Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). While the stated goal is to provide employers with more flexibility and reduce regulatory complexity, the proposal raises some concerns. By removing specific scenarios that previously mandated respirator use—such as during maintenance, emergencies, or when engineering controls are insufficient—the rule shifts more discretion to employers. This could potentially weaken protections for workers exposed to cadmium, a known toxic metal with serious health risks.

The proposal also eliminates detailed requirements for respirator selection and filter types, such as the use of HEPA filters and full facepiece respirators for eye irritation. Instead, it defers to broader, less prescriptive language in the general respiratory standard. While OSHA argues that this change reflects technological advances and streamlines compliance, critics may worry that it reduces clarity and enforceability.

Coke Oven Emissions

OSHA’s proposed revisions to the Coke Oven Emissions standard (29 CFR 1910.1029) aim to update respirator requirements by aligning them with the general Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). While the agency frames these changes to increase compliance flexibility and reflect technological advancements, the proposal raises concerns about the potential weakening of long-standing worker protections of hazardous materials from Coke Oven operations. By removing specific scenarios that previously mandated respirator use—such as during emergencies, maintenance, or when engineering controls are insufficient—OSHA is shifting more discretion to employers, which could lead to inconsistent application of safety measures in high-risk environments.

Additionally, the proposal eliminates detailed requirements for respirator selection and training, including regular, periodic instruction on the use and limitations of respiratory protective devices. While OSHA argues that these changes streamline the standard and reflect current knowledge, critics may view the removal of these safeguards as increasing risk for worker illness, especially given the serious health hazards associated with coke oven emissions.

Construction Illumination

OSHA is proposing to rescind its Construction Illumination Standards—29 CFR 1926.26 and 1926.56—which currently require minimum lighting levels in construction areas such as corridors, ramps, shops, and tunnels. These standards specify illumination intensities in foot-candles for various work environments, including 5 foot-candles for general construction areas and up to 30 foot-candles for first aid stations and offices. OSHA suggests that these requirements are no longer “reasonably necessary or appropriate” under the OSH Act because they do not significantly reduce worker risk.

Lighting is a fundamental component of workplace safety, especially in dynamic and hazardous construction environments where visibility directly affects injury risk. Removing clear, enforceable lighting standards could lead to inconsistent practices across job sites, potentially compromising worker safety. The absence of specific federal requirements could reduce accountability and clarity for employers.

Cotton Dust

OSHA’s proposed revisions to the Cotton Dust standard (29 CFR 1910.1043) aim to modernize respirator requirements by aligning them with the general Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). By removing specific, scenario-based requirements—such as respirator use during maintenance or when engineering controls are insufficient—OSHA is shifting more responsibility to employers to determine when protection is necessary. This could lead to inconsistent application of safety measures, especially in environments where cotton dust exposure is variable and poses risk to workers.

The proposal also eliminates detailed guidance on respirator selection, including restrictions on filtering facepieces and the requirement for HEPA filters in high-exposure settings. Given the well-documented respiratory risks associated with cotton dust, including byssinosis, any reduction in regulatory specificity should be approached with caution to ensure that worker health remains fully protected.

Ethylene Oxide

OSHA has proposed revisions to its Ethylene Oxide standard (29 CFR 1910.1047) aimed at updating respirator requirements to align with the broader Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). The proposed rule seeks to provide employers with greater flexibility in selecting appropriate respirators for workers exposed to ethylene oxide. By removing prescriptive language and referencing the more current Respiratory Protection standard, OSHA intends to clarify employer responsibilities. However, these changes shift more discretion to employers, which raises concerns about consistent application and enforcement.

The rule would eliminate specific scenarios mandating respirator use—such as during emergencies or when engineering controls are insufficient—and instead defer to the employer’s judgment under the general respiratory protection framework. This shift could allow for more adaptive responses to workplace conditions, but it also underscores the importance of vigilant oversight to ensure that worker safety is not compromised.

Formaldehyde

OSHA has proposed revisions to its Formaldehyde standard (29 CFR 1910.1048) that would eliminate certain respiratory protection provisions deemed duplicative of the broader Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). While the intent is to streamline compliance and clarify employer responsibilities, the proposed changes would remove specific, scenario-based requirements for respirator use—such as during emergencies or when engineering controls are not yet effective. Instead, the revised language would defer to the employer’s determination of when respirators are necessary, based on the general respiratory protection framework.

This proposed rule introduces a level of discretion that could lead to variability in how protections are applied. The proposed rule warrants scrutiny to ensure that the health of workers exposed to formaldehyde remains adequately safeguarded.

House Falls in Marine Terminals

OSHA has proposed eliminating the House Falls standard (29 CFR 1917.41) from the Marine Terminals regulations, citing that it is no longer necessary to protect workers from occupational hazards in these environments. While the agency asserts that the standard has become outdated, this proposed removal raises important concerns. The House Falls provisions currently require safeguards such as secure span beams, safe access for workers, and daily inspections of lifting gear—measures that directly address fall and equipment-related risks in cargo handling operations.

Removing these explicit requirements could create ambiguity about control measures and safety practices may become inconsistent.

Inorganic Arsenic

OSHA has proposed updates to its Inorganic Arsenic standard (29 CFR 1910.1018) that would revise respirator-related provisions to align more closely with the general Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). These changes may offer employers flexibility, but they also remove specific, scenario-based mandates—such as the use of HEPA filters and detailed respirator configurations for varying exposure levels.

This shift toward a more generalized framework places increased responsibility to ensure that appropriate respiratory protection is utilized to control worker exposure. These changes must be carefully considered to ensure they do not weaken protections for workers exposed to a highly toxic substance like inorganic arsenic.

Lead

OSHA is proposing updates to its Lead standard (29 CFR 1910.1025) that would revise respirator requirements to align more closely with the general Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). These changes are characterized to simplify compliance and provide employers with more flexibility in selecting respirators. However, the proposal also removes specific requirements—such as the mandatory provision of HEPA filters and full facepiece respirators in certain exposure scenarios—and eliminates training content related to respirator use. While modernization and consistency are important goals, these changes could reduce clarity and weaken protections for workers exposed to lead, a well-documented neurotoxin.

Methylene Chloride

OSHA is proposing updates to its Methylene Chloride standard (29 CFR 1910.1052) to align respirator requirements more closely with the general Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). The revisions aim to update the standard, reduce redundancy, and provide employers with greater flexibility in selecting respirators. However, several changes raise concerns about the potential weakening of worker protections.

While the intent is to streamline compliance requirements, these changes could lead to inconsistent safety practices that may increase risk of worker exposure. Given the serious health risks associated with methylene chloride exposure these revisions should carefully considered.

Methylenedianiline

OSHA is proposing changes to its Methylenedianiline (MDA) standard (29 CFR 1910.1050) to align respirator requirements with the general Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). The revisions aim to streamline compliance requirements in selecting respirators.

While the intent is to streamline and modernize the standard, these changes could reduce clarity and consistency in how respiratory protection is applied in workplaces handling MDA, a known carcinogen. This could result in increased risk of worker exposure to MDA.

Occupational Exposure to COVID–19 in Healthcare Settings

OSHA is proposing to remove OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard and its associated recordkeeping and reporting provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations.

Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements; Withdrawal

OSHA has withdrawn its proposal to amend the OSHA 300 Log by adding a dedicated column for recording work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). While the agency emphasizes that this withdrawal does not alter existing employer obligations to document and retain injury and illness records, the decision marks the rescission of a long-standing item on OSHA’s regulatory agenda. The proposed column was intended to improve the visibility and tracking of MSDs—one of the most common and costly categories of workplace injuries.

Occupational Safety and Health Standards; Interpretation of the General Duty Clause: Limitation for Inherently Risky Professional Activities

OSHA has proposed a significant reinterpretation of the General Duty Clause (29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1)) that would limit its applicability in inherently risky professional activities. Under the proposed rule, employers would not be cited for hazards that are inseparable from the core nature of certain high-risk occupations—such as (but not limited to) live entertainment, motorsports, extreme sports, and tactical training—so long as they have made reasonable efforts to control those hazards without fundamentally altering the activity.

While this clarification aims to acknowledge the unique risks in performance-based and high-risk professions, it raises concerns about the potential erosion of baseline safety expectations. By narrowing the scope of enforceable hazards, the proposal could reduce OSHA’s ability to hold employers accountable in some sectors

Open Fires in Marine Terminals

OSHA has proposed removing the existing regulation at 29 CFR 1917.21, which currently prohibits open fires and fires in drums or similar containers in marine terminals. The agency is seeking input from employers on whether rescinding this rule would result in cost savings and whether allowing open fires could introduce new safety hazards.

While the proposal may be intended to reduce regulatory burden, it raises serious concerns about the potential reintroduction of fire risks in high-hazard environments. Marine terminals often involve flammable materials, heavy equipment, and confined spaces—conditions where open flames could significantly increase the likelihood of catastrophic incidents. Eliminating this clear prohibition could create ambiguity around fire safety expectations increase the risk of worker injury.

Rescission of Coordinated Enforcement Regulations

The Department of Labor has proposed rescinding longstanding regulations that govern coordinated enforcement efforts among OSHA, the Wage and Hour Division (WHD), and the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) concerning migrant farmworkers. These regulations were originally designed to ensure consistent oversight and reduce duplication in enforcing safety, wage, and housing protections for this vulnerable workforce. The Department argues that the current framework imposes unnecessary internal procedures and limits agency flexibility.

However, this proposed rescission raises concerns about the potential weakening of interagency collaboration. Without formal coordination mechanisms, there is a risk that enforcement gaps could emerge, reducing the effectiveness of protections for an at-risk population of workers.

Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards; Textiles; Sawmills; Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards for Shipyard Employment

OSHA has proposed removing several long-standing standards related to the Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards, including 29 CFR 1910.144. These rules designate red for danger and yellow for caution—guidelines that have historically helped ensure consistent visual warnings across industrial settings from workplace to workplace. While OSHA notes that these provisions have been infrequently cited in recent years, their removal raises concerns about the potential erosion of clear, standardized safety communication. The low numbers of citations demonstrates that the rules are effective. In environments where quick visual recognition of hazards can prevent serious injuries, eliminating these codified color codes could lead to inconsistent practices and increased risk of injury to workers.

Vinyl Chloride

OSHA has proposed revising its Vinyl Chloride standard (29 CFR 1910.1017) to remove certain respiratory protection language that is now considered redundant with the more comprehensive Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). The agency also proposes to eliminate a training provision that requires instruction on the purpose, proper use, and limitations of respiratory protective devices. This proposal raises concerns about the potential erosion of substance-specific safeguards that were originally designed to address the unique hazards of vinyl chloride exposure.