This summer, OSHA proposed revising or removing existing safety standards that have a direct impact on transportation construction contractors.
Three such rules affecting road and bridge construction are among several the agency is presenting in efforts to either revise obsolete measures or scale back or withdraw certain long-standing obligations for businesses.
Offered the opportunity the construction industry responded with a resounding "don't fix it."
In fact, on July 1, OSHA published 25 proposed rules in the Federal Register, reported the Institute of WorkComp Professionals (IWCP).
Adobe Stock photo
A general duty clause, construction illumination standard and rules dictating medical evaluations for certain respirators would affect the construction industry.
Industry stakeholders, associations and employers had until Sept. 2, 2025, to submit feedback to OSHA. ARTBA believes that while safety is a top priority, "clear and practical rules are essential for effective compliance and consistent enforcement."
"ARTBA and the AGC [on] Oct. 31 expressed overall support while recommending refinement to ensure clarity," said the road builders association.
Citations at Heart of General Duties Clause
The General Duties clause cites employers where no current standard exists, said Kevin Ring, IWCP lead workers' compensation analyst.
The clause is "often used for heat-related, ergonomic and workplace violence citations," said Ring, who termed it one of the most notable proposals.
"This change would limit OSHA's ability to cite employers … for known hazards ‘inherent and inseparable from the core nature of a profession activity or performance.'"
ARTBA maintains this policy allows OSHA to cite employers for unsafe conditions even when no specific safety standard applies.
"The industry urges OSHA to extend proposed limits on this clause to roadway construction sites where workers can be exposed to hazards," said ARTBA.
Adobe Stock photo
The association gave as an example situations where reckless drivers are outside an employer's control. AGC's stand echoed ARTBA's.
"When there are no specific requirements at play, OSHA regulates clear and obvious hazards under the general duty clause," said AGC.
The association said the proposal seeks "to exclude known hazards that are inherent to the core nature of a profession under the general duty clause."
The proposal came out of a 2014 D.C. Circuit Court decision where OSHA relied on the clause to regulate SeaWorld practices. SeaWorld was exposing its trainers to the recognized hazard of close contact with orca whales.
It was argued that the clause does not authorize OSHA to regulate hazards from normal activities intrinsic to professional, athletic or entertainment occupations.
"There are many situations, highway work chief among them, in which construction employers are unable to eliminate all known hazards," said the AGC. "Our comment asked OSHA to include highway, bridge and street construction as an industry that would be impacted by the proposed rule."
Keep Job Sites Bright All Night
OSHA proposes rescinding the Construction Illumination Standards that require minimum lighting levels in construction areas. Those areas include corridors, ramps, shops and tunnels. AGC and the industry recommends keeping the standard as is.
Maintaining the rule's wording would ensure adequate visibility and safety during nighttime operations, said the association.
These requirements set the base level of light required for different areas around job sites, said AGC.
"OSHA reasoned that because citations for improper illumination were rare, they should be able to rescind this regulation without any impact to the industry."
In response, AGC partnered with ARTBA, asphalt paving and roofing associations 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," said AGC. "A rescission would create uncertainty that could make job sites less safe, an unacceptable result."
Easing Employers' Obligations On Respirators
The third proposal that would hit the transportation construction industry directly concerns medical evaluations for certain respirators.
To industry's concern, OSHA proposes eliminating medical evaluation requirements for workers using filtering facepieces or loose-fitting respirators.
"The industry supports greater flexibility but urges OSHA to retain the guidance as a non-mandatory best practice," said ARTBA.
AGC said currently respirator-wearing employees would need to complete a follow-up 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," said the association.
Adobe Stock photo
Going further for the cause, AGC said it assembled a small coalition of trade associations to comment. While the groups agree with the removal of medical evaluations in certain circumstances, they also believe that such an evaluation remains 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."
Addressing David Keeling, OSHA assistant secretary of labor, the coalition wrote a letter asking that the respirator requirements be amended.
"The AGC, ARTBA, MCAA, NAPA and NRCA welcome the opportunity to submit comments in response to the OSHA notice of proposed rulemaking."
The coalition wrote "in measured support" of the proposal, saying while safety is a top priority, not every best practice needs to be required by regulation. While they do consider questionnaires and evaluations a best practice, based on member feedback, they maintain the best practice can be included in the appendix.
"This strategy would provide our members with guidance on whether a medical evaluation might be beneficial," said the groups.
At the same time, they added, it would provide flexibility in situations where the process may be unnecessary.
"In some instances, the use of respiratory protection may cause a physiological burden on the employee," they said.
The questionnaire and evaluation are best practices to identify underlying medical conditions that could result in adverse effects while wearing certain types of respiratory protection. They said this may include filtering facepiece respirators (FFR) and loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR).
The coalition suggested OSHA create and adopt a nonmandatory appendix, a guidance on OSHA medical evaluation for FF and PAP respirators.
In their response to OSHA, they also offered their suggested wording for the appendix.
"Respirator medical evaluations are designed to ensure employees required to wear respirators to protect against airborne contaminants are able to do so safely. The results of the respirator medical evaluation also help employers make informed decisions about which employees can use respirators under specific environmental conditions and physical demands.
"Some medical conditions may make it difficult for an employee to wear a
respirator at work. A respirator medical evaluation can help detect if wearing a respirator will aggravate or exacerbate any of these conditions. Employers who choose to administer respirator medical evaluations and facilitate consultation with a healthcare professional, may continue to follow the Appendix C to § 1910.134: OSHA Respirator Medical Evaluation Questionnaire (Mandatory)."
In closing its letter, the coalition said each association takes the safety of its members very seriously.
"As such, we evaluate any deregulatory proposal from OSHA with caution," it said. "In this instance, we support the proposed rule as it gives employers flexibility in cases where a medical evaluation is clearly not necessary."
However, the coalition said, it asks that OSHA designate evaluations as a best practice both in the preamble of the Final Rule, and in the appendix.
King of IWCP said that the rule exempts employers who are required to have workers use either FFRs or PAPRs from medical evaluation requirements. These proposals, King said, address duplicative regulations or aim to better align with the general respiratory protection standard.
"Generally, they remove prescriptive requirements, offer employers more flexibility, [and] permit the use of different respirator types," he said.
These proposals "remove or limit specific training obligations but increase the responsibility to ensure that appropriate respiratory protection is utilized."
The specific hazards addressed include 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1,3-butadiene, carcinogens (4-nitrobiphenyl, etc.), acrylonitrile, asbestos and benzene.
Cadmium, coke oven emissions, cotton dust, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, inorganic arsenic, lead, methylene chloride, methylenedianiline and vinyl chloride also are included.
OSHA Eyes Other Deregulatory Initiatives
OSHA is proposing other initiatives that address recording musculoskeletal disorders and occupational exposure to COVID in healthcare settings.
Adobe Stock photo
King said the musculoskeletal disorder recording proposal withdrew a previous proposal to add a column to the OSHA 300 log for recording disorders.
"However, withdrawal does not change any aspect of an employer's reporting obligations," he said. "The obligations to complete, retain or use the same criteria and definitions for occupational injury and illness records remains."
The COVID exposure proposal would remove the COVID emergency temporary standard and its associated recordkeeping and reporting provisions.
OSHA proposed a rule to remove its Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards standards.
"These codes have historically helped ensure consistent visual warnings across industrial settings," said King. "But OSHA notes the hazards are addressed in the Specifications for Accident Prevention Signs and Tags standard."
OSHA published a final rule removing the requirement for its administrator to consult with the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health. This rule no longer requires the consultation before OSHA issues or modifies construction standards.
"If finalized, the rules could alter the compliance landscape and trigger more regulations in states with robust occupational safety enforcement," said King. CEG
