Overview of OSHA’s Deregulatory Initiative

On July 1, 2025, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced a comprehensive deregulatory initiative, proposing to eliminate or revise numerous workplace safety and health regulations deemed outdated, duplicative, or unnecessarily inflexible. The proposals are likely in response to the April Request for Information soliciting ideas for deregulation issued by the Office of Management and Budget and reflect the Trump Administration’s ongoing focus on regulatory streamlining.

Key Proposals

Reinterpretation of the General Duty Clause

A central element of OSHA’s deregulatory package is a reinterpretation of Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, commonly known as the General Duty Clause. Historically, this provision has served as a catch-all enforcement tool for recognized workplace hazards not specifically addressed by OSHA standards. Under the new proposal, OSHA seeks to codify a narrower interpretation of the clause, excluding from enforcement those hazards that are inherent and inseparable from the core nature of a professional activity or performance. OSHA notes that this shift aligns with the dissenting opinion of then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh in the 2014 SeaWorld of Florida, LLC v. Perez decision, and reflects OSHA’s reassessment of its authority in light of recent administrative and constitutional developments.

Revisions to Respiratory Protection Standards

OSHA is also seeking to revise its Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134). The primary focus of this proposal is to remove the requirement for medical evaluations for employees who are required to use either filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) or loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs). This change would not affect the medical evaluation requirements for other types of respirators (e.g., tight-fitting air-purifying or supplied-air respirators).

OSHA’s current standard requires employers to provide a medical evaluation to determine an employee’s ability to use a respirator before fit testing or use in the workplace. This requirement was based on the potential for adverse health effects from respirator use, even for healthy employees, and was considered the best practice at the time the standard was developed. OSHA now finds that the evidence supporting the need for medical evaluations for FFRs and loose-fitting PAPRs is lacking, citing lack of epidemiological evidence that medical evaluations prevent adverse health outcomes for users of FFRs and PAPRs. All other provisions of the Respiratory Protection Standard, including hazard assessment, respirator selection, fit testing, training, and maintenance, would remain in effect. Additional changes to respirator requirements are also proposed within multiple substance-specific standards including lead, asbestos, benzene, formaldehyde, and others.

Revisions to Ethylene Oxide Standard

Proposed revisions to OSHA’s Ethylene Oxide (EtO) Standard (29 CFR 1910.1047) are intended to modernize and streamline respirator requirements. The primary goals are to enhance flexibility in respirator selection, reduce unnecessary prescriptive requirements, and to align the EtO Standard more closely with OSHA’s general Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134) discussed above.

The EtO Standard contains specific requirements for respirator use that are interpreted to have become outdated or duplicative due to advances in technology and the evolution of OSHA’s general respiratory protection requirements. Proposed changes will remove duplicative and prescriptive provisions that specify when respirators may be used; remove prohibitions on certain respirators to broaden employers’ choice in respirator selection; and defer to the general Respiratory Protection Standard for most programmatic requirements, including selection, fit testing, training, and medical evaluation.

Summary of Other Significant Proposals

The deregulatory effort extends to several other OSHA standards, including:

• Construction Illumination: Proposal to remove minimum illumination requirements for construction sites, finding that the standard does not significantly reduce worker risk.
• Safety Color Code: Proposal to eliminate certain safety color code requirements, asserting that relevant hazards are adequately addressed by other federal, state, and local regulations.
• COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS): Proposal to formally remove the ETS and associated recordkeeping provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations. OSHA ceased enforcement of the ETS at the end of 2021, and the Biden Administration subsequently abandoned plans for a permanent COVID-19 rule.
• Withdrawal of Musculoskeletal Disorder Recordkeeping: Withdrawal of a longstanding proposal to amend the OSHA 300 Log to include a column for work-related musculoskeletal disorders, citing resource constraints and competing regulatory priorities, despite recommendations from the Government Accountability Office to improve injury data collection.

Outlook

OSHA’s proposed deregulatory actions represent a significant shift in federal workplace safety policy, with implications for employers across a range of industries. While the agency asserts that these changes will streamline compliance and better reflect current technology and practices, companies should closely monitor OSHA’s ongoing rulemaking process and be prepared to adapt their workplace safety programs accordingly.