[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28370-28375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12236]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1975
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0041]
RIN 1218-AD71
Occupational Safety and Health Standards; Interpretation of the
General Duty Clause: Limitation for Inherently Risky Professional
Activities
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA proposes to clarify its interpretation of the General
Duty Clause, 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1), to exclude from enforcement known
hazards that are inherent and inseparable from the core nature of a
professional activity or performance.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2025.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments: You may submit comments and attachments,
identified by Docket No. OSHA-2025-0041, electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow
the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name and
the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2025-0041). When
uploading multiple attachments to https://www.regulations.gov, please
number all of your attachments because https://www.regulations.gov will
not automatically number the attachments. This will be very useful in
identifying all attachments. For example, Attachment 1--title of your
document, Attachment 2--title of your document, Attachment 3--title of
your document. For assistance with commenting and uploading documents,
please see the Frequently Asked Questions on https://www.regulations.gov.
All comments, including any personal information you provide, are
placed in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA
[[Page 28371]]
cautions commenters about submitting information they do not want made
available to the public or submitting materials that contain personal
information (either about themselves or others), such as Social
Security Numbers and birthdates.
Docket: The docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2025-0041)
is available at https://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Most exhibits are available at https://www.regulations.gov;
some exhibits (e.g., copyrighted material) are not available to
download from that web page. However, all materials in the dockets are
available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For press inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, Occupational Safety and Health Administration;
telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: [email protected].
General information and technical inquiries: Contact Andrew
Levinson, Director, OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration; telephone: (202) 693-
1950; email: [email protected].
Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies are
available at https://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice,
as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are
available at OSHA's web page at https://www.osha.gov. A ``100-word
summary'' is also available on https://www.regulations.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Discussion
III. Economic Analysis
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E. Review Under Executive Order 12899
F. Review Under the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
G. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
H. Review Under Executive Order 12630
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
J. Requirements for States With OSHA-Approved State Plans
K. Environmental Impacts/National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
L. Review Under Additional Executive Orders and Presidential
Memoranda
V. Authority and Signature
VI. Regulatory Text
I. Background
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH
Act)--commonly referred to as the General Duty Clause--requires that
each employer furnish a workplace ``free from recognized hazards that
are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.'' 29
U.S.C. 654(a)(1). This provision has historically functioned as an
enforcement mechanism when no specific OSHA standard applies to a
particular hazard.
In SeaWorld of Florida, LLC v. Perez, 748 F.3d 1202 (D.C. Cir.
2014), OSHA relied on the General Duty Clause to prohibit SeaWorld from
exposing its trainers to the recognized hazard of close contact with
orca whales during live performances. The D.C. Circuit upheld the
citation, holding that Seaworld was required to abate the hazard by
requiring a barrier or minimum distance between trainers and orcas. Id.
at 1215. But then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh dissented, arguing 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. Id. at 1217 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).
In light of the issues raised in that dissent and subsequent
developments in administrative and constitutional law, OSHA has
reexamined its authority under Section 5(a)(1). The agency now
preliminarily concurs with the dissent's concerns. This Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) responds to those concerns and codifies the
principle that the General Duty Clause does not authorize OSHA to
prohibit, restrict, or penalize inherently risky activities that are
intrinsic to professional, athletic, or entertainment occupations.
II. Discussion
Then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh's SeaWorld dissent argued that OSHA's
attempt to regulate the inherent risks of SeaWorld's animal
performances raised serious questions about the scope of the agency's
delegated authority under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act.
He concluded:
The Congress that enacted the Act in 1970 was certainly aware of
the hazards in many popular sports such as football, baseball, ice
hockey, and boxing. It was also well aware of the hazards in
entertainment shows such as the circus. Yet . . . Congress did not
in any way indicate or even hint that the Clause's vague terms
encompassed an implicit grant of authority to the Department of
Labor to regulate and re-make some undefined swath of America's
sports and entertainment behemoth. In the real world, it is simply
not plausible to assert that Congress, when passing the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, silently intended to authorize the Department
of Labor to eliminate familiar sports and entertainment practices,
such as punt returns in the NFL, speeding in NASCAR, or the whale
show at SeaWorld. See FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529
U.S. 120, 160 (2000) (``[W]e are confident that Congress could not
have intended to delegate a decision of such economic and political
significance to an agency in so cryptic a fashion.'').
This reasoning presaged what has since become binding Supreme Court
doctrine. In National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA, 142
S. Ct. 661 (2022), the Supreme Court invalidated OSHA's vaccine-or-test
mandate, holding that the agency had exceeded its statutory authority
under the OSH Act. The Court emphasized that OSHA was asserting
regulatory power over a question of vast ``economic and political
significance'' without a clear congressional mandate.
This principle--now known as the major questions doctrine--requires
that Congress speak clearly when authorizing an agency to decide issues
of significant national consequence. The Court reaffirmed this doctrine
in West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022), striking down EPA's
Clean Power Plan, and Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477 (2023), striking
down the Department of Education's loan-forgiveness plan. As applied
here, OSHA's use of the General Duty Clause to regulate professional
activities that are inherently risky and central to entire sectors of
the economy (e.g., professional sports, marine shows, stunt
performance) and could implicate the major questions doctrine if that
authority were broadly exercised. These are not ordinary workplace
hazards, but policy-sensitive judgments with far-reaching consequences
for culture, commerce, and individual liberty.
The General Duty Clause, enacted in 1970, contains no specific
delegation or language suggesting that Congress intended OSHA to
prohibit the core design of performances or sports through a general
phrase like ``recognized hazards.'' OSHA acknowledges that regulating
such activities under Sec. 5(a)(1) could constitute an unlawful
extension of authority absent a clear congressional directive.
Accordingly, in light of the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence,
OSHA believes it must reassess and appropriately narrow its
interpretation of the General Duty Clause to remain within lawful
bounds. This NPRM is intended to codify that understanding.
Proposed Section 1975.7(a) states that the General Duty Clause does
not
[[Page 28372]]
authorize citations against employers for hazards arising from
inherently risky activities that are integral to the essential function
of a professional or performance-based occupation and the hazard cannot
be eliminated without fundamentally altering the activity. Proposed
Section 1975.7(b) contains a non-exhaustive list of sectors where this
limitation may apply. The agency seeks public comment on whether and
how the regulatory text could be revised to make it clearer or more
specific. The agency also seeks public comments on, and asks the
following questions in connection with, its proposed approach:
(1) What are examples of workplace conditions in the industry
sectors identified in Section 1975.7(b) that are inherently risky and
integral to the essential function of a professional or performance-
based occupation, where the hazard cannot be addressed without
fundamentally altering the activity? Please provide information and
data, including injury, illness, or fatality data, on why the hazard
cannot be addressed without fundamentally altering the activity, and
information and data on measures taken to protect employees from these
hazards.
(2) What are examples of workplace conditions in the industry
sectors identified in Section 1975.7(b) that are inherently risky but
either: (a) are not integral to the essential function of the
occupation; or (b) the hazard can be addressed without fundamentally
altering the activity? Please provide information and data, including
injury, illness, or fatality data and information and data on measures
taken to protect employees from these hazards.
(3) Which professional and performance-based occupations perform
inherently risky activities that are integral to the essential function
of the occupation? Please provide information and data to support your
response.
(4) In its economic analysis, below, OSHA identifies industry
sectors (identified by North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code) and occupations (identified by Standard Occupation
Classification (SOC) code) to which, it has preliminarily concluded,
proposed section 1975.7 would apply. Are there any other potential
industry sectors or occupations to which the proposed provision may
apply? Please identify those industry sectors and occupations by
description, as well as NAICS and SOC codes, as applicable, and include
information and data about the nature of the risks in those industry
sectors and occupations, how the hazards in those industry sectors and
occupations arise from inherently risky activities that are integral to
the essential function of a professional or performance-based
occupation, and how these hazards cannot be addressed without
fundamentally altering the activity.
(5) Should OSHA consider limiting the application of this proposed
rule to only those industries identified in the regulatory text? If so,
should the list of industries be expanded to reflect that it is
exclusive rather than illustrative.
(6) OSHA did not define key terms in the regulatory text and
welcomes comment on which terms could benefit from definition as well
as potential definitions for such terms.
III. Economic Analysis
This proposed rule would provide that the General Duty Clause does
not require employers to remove hazards arising from inherently risky
employment activities, where: the activity is integral to the essential
function of a professional or performance-based occupation; and the
hazard cannot be eliminated without fundamentally altering or
prohibiting the activity. This proposal would impose no new burden on
employers and therefore OSHA has preliminarily concluded that there
would be no additional costs imposed by the proposed rule. OSHA also
preliminarily concludes that there would be cost savings associated
with this proposed rule. Because this rule would impose no new costs,
OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the rule would be
economically feasible.
The agency preliminarily concludes that the following arts and
entertainment occupations would be affected by this proposed rule.
Entertainers and Performers, Sports and Related Workers
[SOC 27-2000]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code Title Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
27-2021........................ Athletes and Sports 14,370
Competitors.
27-2011........................ Actors................. 38,800
27-2031........................ Dancers................ 9,060
27-2042........................ Musicians and Singers.. 38,350
27-2099........................ Entertainers and 15,040
Performers, Sports and
Related Workers, All
Other.
----------------------------------------
115,620
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May
2024. Accessed June 17, 2025.
However, in OSHA's preliminary judgment, the vast majority of
employees in these occupations are not engaged in the inherently risky
employment activities that are within the scope of the proposed rule.
Moreover, many employees in these occupations are engaged in employment
activities that are covered by existing OSHA standards. Thus, OSHA
preliminarily estimates that this proposal would affect one percent of
employees in affected occupations, or about 1,100 employees who are
entertainers and performers, sports and related workers. This estimate
does not include individuals who are independent contractors who are
outside OSHA's jurisdiction, nor does it include sole proprietorships
with no employees.
OSHA also believes that this proposal would apply to employers in
NAICS 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, who employ SOC 39-2000
Animal Care and Service Workers of which there are 22,120, employers in
NAICS 71390 All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries who employ
SOC 39-9032 Recreation Workers of which there are 26,900, employers in
NAICS 611699 All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction who employ
SOC 25-3099 Teachers and Instructors, All Other of which there are
12,030, and employers in NAICS 51300 Publishing Industries who employ
27-3023 News Analysts, Reporters, and Journalists of which there are
15,880.\1\ As with entertainers and performers, sports and related
workers, employees engaged in the inherently risky employment
activities
[[Page 28373]]
that are within the scope of the proposed rule and whose activities are
not covered by existing OSHA standards are likely to be only a very
small minority of employees. For this group, OSHA estimates that 0.5
percent of employees, or 385 employees, in these occupations and NAICS
industries are engaged in such activities. As with entertainers and
performers, sports and related workers, this number does not include
independent contractors, nor does it include sole proprietorships with
no employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All employment figures from BLS OEWS, May 2024. Accessed
June 17, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA is unable to determine at this time precisely how many
employers this would represent and must thus estimate this number. OSHA
preliminarily concludes, based on agency judgment, that affected
employers employ multiple employees who would be engaged in the
inherently risky employment activities that are within the scope of the
proposed rule and whose activities are not covered by existing OSHA
standards. OSHA preliminarily estimates that each affected employer
would have, on average, three employees that meet this definition,
meaning that about 514 employers would be affected by this proposed
rule. The agency also examines the potential cost savings if employers
have one or ten employees affected by this proposal, below.
Given the inherent difficulty in determining the number of
employers affected by this proposed standard, OSHA is also unable to
precisely estimate the number of small employers who may be affected,
and therefore must estimate this number as well. The size standards set
by the Small Business Administration define small entities in NAICS 711
Performing Arts, Spectator Sports, and Related Industries at the six-
digit NAICS level and based on revenue. For these industries, small
entities are defined as those with revenues of less than between $9
million and $47 million, depending on the industry. Based on these
definitions, OSHA estimates that about 97 percent of entities in the
industries potentially affected by this proposal are small entities
based on SBA definitions. This means that about 499 small employers
might be affected by this proposed rule.
It is difficult to estimate the potential burden reduction from
this proposed rule. Many General Duty Clause citations to employers who
may employ employees in the previously mentioned occupations are for
violations that do not involve inherently risky employment activities
that are within the scope of the proposed rule (e.g., grounds
maintenance employees exposed to hazardous machinery, struck-by, or
other physical hazards; employees exposed to hazards related to
improper use of forklifts or employee transport vehicles like cargo
vans or golf carts). Therefore, OSHA preliminarily assumes that this
proposed rule might result in cost savings of $1,000 annually per
affected employer. Based on this estimate, the agency estimates this
rule might result in cost savings of about $514,000 annually, based on
the assumption that 514 employers would be affected by this proposed
rule (see above analysis).
The rule may also result in costs for rule familiarization. OSHA
estimates that it would take 15 minutes for a manager to review this
rule. This cost would only be incurred one time upon promulgation of
the rule. OSHA estimates that the fully loaded wage for a manager (SOC
code 11-0000) would be $112.49 an hour ($69.20 base wage \2\ plus
fringe benefits representing 31.3 percent of total compensation \3\
plus overhead representing 17 percent of base wages \4\). Based on
this, OSHA estimates that there may be one-time familiarization costs
of about $14,500 for all affected employers. Adding this to the
previously estimated cost savings yield potential total cost savings of
about $499,500 in the first year (or about $3.8 million over ten years
at a three percent discount rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Based on BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics,
Cross-industry, Private Ownership Only, SOC occupation--Management
Occupations (11-0000), available at https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/home.
Accessed June 25, 2025.
\3\ Based on BLS' Employer Costs for Employee Compensation data
for December 2024.
\4\ Based on EPA's Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended
Inventory Update Rule: Final report. August, 2002. Docket ID: EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2002-0054-0260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming only one employee who is engaged in the inherently risky
employment activities that are within the scope of the proposed rule
and whose activities are not covered by existing OSHA standards is
employed by each affected employer, about 1,541 employers would be
affected and cost savings would be about $1.46 million annually (or
about $11.1 million over ten years at a three percent discount rate).
Were employers to have, on average, ten employees who met this
definition, this rule would affect 154 employers and result in about
$150,000 in annual savings (or about $1.1 million over ten years at a
three percent discount rate).
OSHA is seeking comments and data on this preliminary analysis,
including on the following questions:
1. How many employees would this rule affect? In which industries
are those employees employed?
2. How many employers are affected by this rule? In which
industries are those employers?
3. How many affected employees are employed by each affected
employer?
4. Based on the language of the proposal, are there other
occupations and industries OSHA should include in this analysis?
5. OSHA welcomes information on data sources, trade associations
representing the employers in potentially affected industries, or
unions representing potentially affected employees who could offer OSHA
assistance in refining the estimates in this analysis.
6. How much do employers expect to save based on this proposed
rule?
7. Would this proposed rule impose any costs on employers that OSHA
has not considered?
8. OSHA did not attempt to estimate benefits for this proposed
rule. Are there any benefits that OSHA should attempt to quantify?
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,''
58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted
by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that
some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the criteria in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
this proposed rule was submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
[[Page 28374]]
OSHA has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it is
consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14192,
``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.''
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a
final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law
must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that
the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
DOL reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule proposes to eliminate burdensome
regulations. Therefore, DOL initially concludes that the impacts of the
rule would not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities,'' and that the preparation of an IRFA is not
warranted. DOL will transmit this certification and supporting
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule would impose no new information or record-
keeping requirements. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
D. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.
DOL has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it
would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
E. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.
Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review
regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and
section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to
meet one or more of them. DOL has completed the required review and
determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule
meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
F. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 2
U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them.
DOL examined this proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement
of policy and determined that the rule does not contain a Federal
intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures
of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result,
the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
G. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOL has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
H. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March
18, 1988), DOL has determined that this proposed rule would not result
in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to
review most disseminations of information to the public under
information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to
general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67
FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). DOL has reviewed this proposed rule under the
OMB guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
J. Requirements for States With OSHA-Approved State Plans
Under section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress
expressly provides that States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan
for the
[[Page 28375]]
development and enforcement of occupational safety and health standards
that are ``at least as effective'' as the Federal standards in
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment (29
U.S.C. 667). OSHA refers to these OSHA-approved, State-administered
occupational safety and health programs as ``State Plans.'' \5\ Once
approved, State Plans have an ongoing obligation to maintain an
occupational safety and health program that is at least as effective as
Federal OSHA's program (see 29 CFR 1953.1(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Of the 29 States and U.S. territories with OSHA-approved
State Plans, 22 cover public and private-sector employees: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon,
Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, and Wyoming. The remaining six States and one U.S.
territory cover only State and local government employees:
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
and the Virgin Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Federal OSHA makes a significant change to the Federal program
that would have an adverse impact on the ``at least as effective''
status of the State program if a parallel State program modification
were not made, State adoption of a change in response to the Federal
program change is required (29 CFR 1953.4(b)(1)). However, a change to
the Federal program that would not result in any diminution of the
effectiveness of a State Plan compared to Federal OSHA generally would
not require adoption by the State (29 CFR 1953.4(b)(1)). OSHA has
preliminarily determined this proposed rule would not result in any
diminution of the effectiveness of a State Plan compared to Federal
OSHA, and therefore State Plans are not required to amend their
program. OSHA seeks comment on this assessment of its proposal.
K. Environmental Impacts/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
OSHA has reviewed this proposed rule according to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as
amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-5, 321,
137 Stat. 10), and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR
part 11). OSHA has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule
will have no impact on the quality of the human environment.
L. Review Under Additional Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda
This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 14192
deregulatory action. It also implements Presidential Memorandum
Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations, dated April 9, 2025.
OSHA has considered its obligations under the Executive Orders on
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O.
13175, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000)), and Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (E.O. 13045, 62 FR 19885
(Apr. 23, 1997)). Given that this is a proposed deregulatory action,
that OSHA does not foresee economic impacts of $100 million or more,
and that the action does not constitute a policy that has federalism or
tribal implications, OSHA has determined that no further agency action
or analysis is required to comply with these executive orders.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR 1975
Occupational safety and health.
V. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of Amanda Laihow,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
It is issued under the authority of sections 2, 3, 4, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651, 652, 653,
and 657); 5 U.S.C. 552; and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85
FR 58383).
Signed at Washington, DC, on June 26, 2025.
Amanda Laihow,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
VI. Regulatory Text
Proposed Amendments
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHA proposes to amend
29 CFR part 1975 as follows:
PART 1975--COVERAGE OF EMPLOYERS UNDER THE WILLIAMS-STEIGER
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970
0
1. The authority citation for part 1975 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 2, 3, 4, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651, 652, 653, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754) or 8-2020 (85 FR 58383), as applicable.
Section 1975.7 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
0
2. Add Sec. 1975.7 to read as follows:
Sec. 1975.7 Application of the General Duty Clause to Inherently
Risky Professional Activities.
(a) The General Duty Clause does not require employers to remove
hazards arising from inherently risky employment activities, where:
(1) the activity is integral to the essential function of a
professional or performance-based occupation; and
(2) the hazard cannot be eliminated without fundamentally altering
or prohibiting the activity; and
(3) the employer has made reasonable efforts that do not alter the
nature of the activity to control the hazard (e.g., through engineering
controls, administrative controls, personal protective equipment).
(b) Such sectors may include, but are not limited to:
(1) Live entertainment and performing arts;
(2) Animal handling and performance;
(3) Professional and extreme sports;
(4) Motorsports and high-risk recreation;
(5) Tactical, defense, and combat simulation training; and
(6) Hazard-based media and journalism activities.
[FR Doc. 2025-12236 Filed 6-30-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P