Submitted via regulations.gov

Amanda Wood Laihow
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health
U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20210

Comments on RIN 1218-AD71: Interpretation of the General Duty Clause: Limitation for Inherently Risky Professional Activities

Dear Acting Assistant Secretary Laihow,

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) submits these comments to oppose the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking “Interpretation of the General Duty Clause: Limitation for Inherently Risky Professional Activities.” We strongly oppose limiting the scope of the general duty clause, which protects workers from known and preventable dangers where no other specific standard applies. We oppose the deregulation of this critical protection that holds an essential role in maintaining safe and healthy work environments and urge the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to withdraw this proposed rule.

The Economic Policy Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank created in 1986 to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers in economic policy discussions. EPI conducts research and analysis on the economic status of working America, proposes public policies that protect and improve the economic conditions of low- and middle-income workers, and assesses policies with respect to how well they further those goals. For years, EPI has conducted research on the importance of strong labor standards, including health and safety standards. 

The proposed rule would exclude certain occupations that are deemed “inherently risky professional activities” from the general duty clause. The general duty clause is an essential component to the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act by filling the gap for known and preventable dangers that do not have existing standards. The proposed carveout will result in a significant increase in preventable injuries among workers and a decrease in employer accountability. In OSHA’s own estimates, at least 115,000 workers from arts, entertainment and sports occupations would be affected by the proposed rule. However, the rule also solicits commenters to provide additional industries for exclusion, which may result in a rippling effect of excluding all industries with higher safety risks, where the OSH Act’s protections are most vital.1

Exclusion from the general duty clause means these workers would no longer be protected from known and preventable hazards that do not already have an existing standard. For example, while OSHA is undergoing a rulemaking on whether a federal heat standard should be established, there currently is no federal heat standard in place for workers. Therefore, the general duty clause is the only avenue for workers to be protected from extreme heat. There are a multitude of other health and safety risks that do not have OSHA standards, including protections against infectious diseases, ergonomic strains, and workplace violence.

Furthermore, at the time of this rulemaking, the Department of Labor has proposed amending or eliminating dozens of regulations that are designed to ensure workers have safe workplaces.2 This includes regulations that require employers to limit workers’ exposure to a variety of harmful substances (such as benzene, asbestos, lead, and cotton dust), regulations that require medical evaluations of respirators, and regulations that require color-coding to mark hazards.3 If the Department of Labor’s deregulatory agenda is finalized, workers will be less protected from known and preventable hazards.

The general duty clause is an essential component to the OSH Act that helps mitigate health and safety risks that we do not have existing standards for. Employers in higher-risk industries have already adjusted to providing these basic protections since the OSH Act was passed in 1970, and there is no indication that the general duty clause generates an unstainable burden on employers. For these reasons, EPI opposes the proposed rule and strongly urges OSHA to withdraw this rulemaking.

Sincerely,

Margaret Poydock
Senior Policy Analyst
Economic Policy Institute

Endnotes

1. 90 Fed. Reg. 28372.

2. U.S. Department of Labor, “Secretary Chavez-Deremer Unveils Aggressive Deregulatory Efforts in Push to Put the American Worker First” (press release), July 1, 2025.

3. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, “Deregulatory Rulemaking” (web page), accessed on October 30, 2025.