← American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
OSHARulemakingOSHA-2025-0041

General Duty Clause to Inherently Risky Professional Activities

RIN
—
Last modified
Oct 27, 2025
Comment window
closed 269d ago
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) filings
1

Activity

American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) filed 1 comment on this docket between Oct 31, 2025 and Oct 31, 2025. 40 other organizations filed here. The comment window closed 269d ago.

What American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) filed (1)

Oct 31, 2025· Comment from Sloan, Lawrence; American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)· OSHA-2025-0041-0801

The term "inherent and inseparable" is overly broad and may unintentionally extend beyond its intended scope - such as theatrical or entertainment contexts - to include common industrial hazards (e.g., working at heights, welding, or operating powered equipment). This ambiguity could create confusion about employer responsibilities and lead to enforcement gaps. To address these concerns, AIHA recommends that OSHA: Limit the use of "inherent and inseparable" strictly to non-repeatable artistic or athletic performances where implementing feasible controls would fundamentally alter the nature of the performance. Additionally, OSHA should explicitly exclude conventional industrial hazards with known and feasible controls (e.g., fall protection, welding fume controls, lockout/tagout, respiratory protection). Include a savings clause to clarify that this interpretation does not change existing obligations under current OSHA standards or diminish OSHA's authority to address recognized hazards through standards or the General Duty Clause (GDC) when feasible controls are available; e.g., that nothing in this interpretation alters employers' obligations under existing specific standards (machine guarding under §1910.212; fall protection under 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M), nor does it constrain OSHA's authority to cite recognized hazards where feasible controls exist; State Plans should be required to maintain at least equivalent authority. Provide clear examples of scenarios where the interpretation does and does not apply, and affirm that State Plans must maintain at least equivalent enforcement authority. Please see additional comments in attached file.

View on regulations.gov →

Abstract

OSHA is proposing to interpret 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1), known as the General Duty Clause

View on regulations.gov →

Co-filers (40)

See everyone who commented →