On July 1, 2025, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a batch of proposed rules intended to put the President’s deregulatory agenda into effect. AGC worked with the American Road and Transportation Builder’s Association (ARTBA) to identify and respond to the proposals that would have a material impact on construction. Our responses are summarized below.
Construction Illumination
OSHA is proposing to rescind the construction illumination requirements codified in 29 CFR 1926.26 and .56. These requirements set the base level of light required for different areas around job sites. OSHA reasoned that because citations for improper illumination were rare, they should be able to rescind this regulation without any impact to the industry. Remember, agencies are being asked to rescind regulations wherever possible under President Trump’s 10 for 1 executive order.
AGC partnered with ARTBA, the National Asphalt and Paving Association (NAPA), and the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) to submit a comment in opposition to the proposed rescission. The key argument made on behalf of the industry is that proper lighting is foundational to safety and the prevention of slips, trips, and falls, among other hazards. A rescission would create uncertainty that could make job sites less safe, an unacceptable result.
Medical Evaluation for Respirator Use
Looking to put another deregulatory point on the board, OSHA is proposing to rescind the medical evaluation requirement for filtering facepiece respirators (FFR) or loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR). Under the status quo, employees who would be required to wear a respirator would need to complete a questionnaire and possibly a follow-up medical evaluation to determine whether the respirator could be worn safely.
The proposed rule identifies two specific kinds of respirators for which such precautions may not be necessary.
AGC assembled a small coalition of trade associations to comment that, while we are okay with the removal of medical evaluations as a regulatory requirement in certain circumstances, we also believe that such an evaluation remains a best practice. We appreciate that OSHA and the administration at large are looking to provide flexibility in compliance, but we stand by these precautions as a best practice.
We ultimately recommend that such practices be noted deliberately in both the preamble of the final rule and in a new non-mandatory Appendix E § 1910.134. AGC partnered with ARTBA, NAPA, NRCA, and the Mason Contractors Association of America (MCAA) on this comment.
Use of the General Duty Clause
When there are no specific requirements at play, OSHA regulates clear and obvious hazards under the general duty clause. Among the July 1 proposals was a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) seeking to exclude known hazards that are inherent to the core nature of a profession under the general duty clause.
The proposal was downstream of a 2014 D.C. Circuit Court decision made by then-Judge Kavanaugh in a case called SeaWorld of Florida, LLC v. Perez, 748 F.3d 1202 (D.C. Cir. 2014). In that case, OSHA was relying on the general duty clause to regulate SeaWorld’s practice of exposing its trainers to the recognized hazard of close contact with orca whales. Then-Judge Kavanaugh argued that “the General Duty Clause does not authorize OSHA to regulate hazards arising from normal activities that are intrinsic to professional, athletic, or entertainment occupations.”
This might not seem relevant to construction, but there are many situations, highway work chief among them, in which construction employers are unable to eliminate all known hazards. Our comment asked OSHA to include Highway, Bridge, and Street Construction as an industry that would be impacted by the proposed rule.
AGC partnered with ARTBA and NAPA on this comment.
For more information on OSHA’s recent proposals or the AGC/industry response, contact Kevin Cannon.