Tomorrow (July 1, 2025), OSHA and MSHA will publish over 30 proposed rules, many of which request public comment, in the Federal Register. Included in OSHA’s slate of proposed rules is a Rescission of Coordinated Enforcement Regulations, and a proposed clarification of its Interpretation of the General Duty Clause. 

Jackson Lewis is monitoring these developments and will follow up with more details as soon as possible. In the meantime, please contact your Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions or if you would like to discuss these proposed rules.

Monday, June 16, 2025, marked the first day of informal public hearings on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) proposed rule aimed at preventing heat-related injuries and illnesses in both outdoor and indoor work environments. With rising temperatures posing increased risks to worker health and safety, this rule would establish the first national standard specifically for heat hazard protection.

With an initial heat trigger at 80 degrees and additional control measures at 90 degrees, OSHA’s proposed regulations would significantly increase employer compliance obligations, requiring businesses to develop comprehensive plans to evaluate and manage heat risks. This includes identifying hazards, implementing engineering and administrative controls, and providing employee training. Preventative measures, for example, would require employers to create acclimatization procedures and provide water, rest breaks, cooling areas, and shade. Failure to comply could lead to citations and enforcement actions. While there is currently no federal standard addressing heat, many state plan states already have their own specific regulations targeting heat. A patchwork system of regulations and enforcement can make it difficult for large employers to operate across jurisdictions.

The public hearings have so far featured public testimony from employee advocates, industry safety experts, and business interest groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Worker advocacy groups generally supported the proposed standards, calling them “critically overdue,” but they also expressed a need for stronger measures in areas like recordkeeping and anti-retaliation protections. On the other hand, business representatives argued for a more flexible, performance-oriented approach, rather than a strict checklist. Voicing concerns about the proposed rule, business proponents argued that the rule does not account for factors like geographic location and employers’ unique operational needs.

The future of OSHA’s proposed heat safety standard is uncertain. As OSHA initiated the formal rulemaking process during the Biden administration, at least one business representative expressed surprise that these proceedings remained on the docket, given the current administration’s focus on deregulation.

OSHA’s hearings on this topic are currently scheduled through July 2, 2025. Attorneys at Jackson Lewis are monitoring the process for important updates. If you have questions about the proposed rule and its potential impact on your organization, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney for guidance.

California legislators have introduced a new bill aimed at regulating the expanding role of artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace. While the proposed law is designed to safeguard employees, it has sparked concern about the potential effects on operational efficiency and innovation, including workplace safety. Read what this may mean for California employers.

On May 5, 2025, the California Department of Industrial Relations made an important announcement that affects employers in the construction industry. Cal/OSHA has clarified lead exposure prevention guidance specific to protecting workers conducting dry abrasive blasting while performing construction work.

California’s recently amended lead standards for the construction industry went into effect on January 1, 2025 (California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 1532.1) as part of a broader effort to provide greater protection for workers from the health effects tied to lead exposure. These requirements, which are generally more protective than existing federal regulations, emphasize an increase in the use of protective measures, including substitution, engineering controls, and administrative controls.

According to Cal/OSHA’s guidance, employers must assess their workers’ exposure to lead when conducting abrasive blasting. Until the employer completes the assessment, dry abrasive blasting is currently limited to five hours a day, dropping to two hours per day in 2030. After completing the assessment, there is no time limit, but exposure must stay below the permissible regulatory limit of 25 micrograms per cubic meter of air. Beginning January 1, 2030, this limit drops to 10 micrograms.

Cal/OSHA directs employers to Table 1 of section 5144 to determine respirator protection factors. Using respirators can help manage lead exposure, but they must be used correctly to be effective. If you have questions about Cal/OSHA’s guidance and how it could affect your organization, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Starting July 1, 2025, healthcare employers in Virginia will need to implement comprehensive workplace violence prevention plans or reporting systems. This new mandate requires employers to document, track, and analyze incidents of workplace violence, maintaining records for at least two years.

On March 24, 2025, Governor Glenn Youngkin signed into law House Bill 2269 and Senate Bill 162, which introduce these new reporting requirements. The legislation aims to enhance the safety of healthcare workers through measures such as continuing education, de-escalation training, risk identification, and violence prevention planning. These bills amend Section 31.1-127 of the Code of Virginia. Read more.

The California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHSB) is considering the formation of a subcommittee to tackle challenges arising from the dismantling of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

During the OSHSB meeting on April 17, 2025, board members discussed reports of significant layoffs within NIOSH due to federal government budget cuts. These cuts would “eliminate 92% of the NIOSH’s workforce,” effectively leading to a shutdown of the agency. Earlier this month, NIOSH was hit with even more layoffs.

NIOSH conducts occupational safety and health research, recommends safety standards, and provides training and educational resources. The near elimination of NIOSH is expected to disrupt these essential services and create a gap, particularly affecting the certification of personal protective equipment (PPE). Federal regulations require the use of NIOSH-approved respirators and mandate certain comprehensive respiratory protection programs.

Without NIOSH certification, California faces challenges in protecting workers, especially in high-risk industries such as fire protection, healthcare, and mining. The absence of a certifying body could impede the development and sale of new respiratory protection technologies, which the OSHSB is concerned would pose significant risks to worker safety. The board expressed urgency regarding potential risks to firefighters’ health and safety, given recent wildfire and urban interface fires within the state.

The proposed subcommittee would explore NIOSH’s overall functions and consider alternatives, including potential legislation, partnerships with other states, and leveraging existing expertise in the field. The subcommittee would also investigate the current situation in Washington D.C., assess the impact on California workers, and evaluate actions the state or OSHSB can take to mitigate these issues. The OSHSB plans to continue these discussions with Cal/OSHA during its upcoming meeting in Redding.

If you have questions about the proposed subcommittee or the potential implications of these developments, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

For businesses operating across multiple states, the complexities of workplace safety compliance can be daunting, particularly when laws and standards may vary by location. This issue is especially impactful in the dynamic entertainment sector, where adherence to continuously changing safety regulations is essential. The responsibility becomes even more significant when the industry is in the metaphorical – and sometimes literal – spotlight. High-profile and industry-specific incidents, such as stunts or set-building gone awry, can not only lead to civil, criminal, and regulatory enforcement actions, but also a level of public attention not often seen in other sectors.

Federal regulations play a critical role, with agencies like OSHA creating the baseline foundation for safety and health standards. Under the OSH Act, all employers have an obligation to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm, in addition to following specific standards. Many states, such as California, have adopted their own safety and health standards which match or exceed the federal requirements. Compliance pressures from state laws, such as those regulating heat illness prevention and wildfire smoke exposure, have become more prevalent and can significantly affect regions where cast and crew members work outdoors. Collective bargaining agreements with entertainment trade unions may further adjust the bar for employers.

In addition to navigating the patchwork of federal, state, and local regulations governing workplace safety and health, entertainment industry employers must also face the court of public opinion. Safety incidents not only have a negative effect on impacted employees, but also make headlines, potentially jeopardizing or even halting production. Given these pressures, selecting the right partner for workplace safety is as important as ever.

For these reasons, employers in the entertainment industry should evaluate their safety programs routinely and proactively address potential hazards. If you have questions about workplace safety and health requirements and how they might affect your organization, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

California employers must comply with the annual requirements of the workplace violence prevention law, SB 553, including reviewing their plans and providing effective training. The annual deadline for reviewing the plan and retraining employees is approaching, as the law went into effect on July 1, 2024. Employers can read more about the requirements in Jackson Lewis’ article.

Even as temperatures cool, Nevada’s Division of Industrial Relations (DIR) was working to adopt a heat illness regulation. On November 15, 2024, the State of Nevada adopted new regulations meant to protect employees from heat-related illness by placing new requirements on employers.

The new regulation, which took effect immediately upon approval, requires businesses with more than 10 employees to implement certain protective measures for indoor and outdoor heat. The regulation does not apply to employees working in climate-controlled environments. However, if the climate control system fails the employer, shall make a good faith effort to reestablish an effective climate control system as soon as practicable and must implement measures to address the potential hazards that could cause heat illness.

Here are the basics of what employers need to know now.

Job Hazard Analysis

Covered businesses are required to conduct a job hazard analysis for job classifications where the majority of employees have exposure to heat illness for more than 30 minutes of any 60 minutes, not including breaks.

Written Safety Program

For jobs where heat illness conditions exist, employers must create a written plan that includes:

  • Provisions of potable water
  • Provisions for a rest break when an employee exhibits symptoms of heat illness
  • Provisions for employees to cool down
  • Monitoring by a designated person of working conditions that could create heat illness
  • Identification and mitigation of work processes that generate additional heat or humidity
  • Training of employees in safety protocols
  • Procedure for responding to an emergency

Training

Covered employers are required to provide training to employees identified in the job hazard analysis on how to recognize hazards of heat illness and procedures to be followed to minimize the hazards of heat illness.

Designation of an Employee for Emergency Response Purposes

If, based on the job hazard analysis, the employer determines an employee may be exposed to heat illness, the employer must designate an employee to contact emergency services in the event an employee is experiencing the signs of heat illness.

The DIR has indicated it will be posting additional guidance for employers on its website in the coming weeks. If you have questions about compliance with Nevada’s new regulations or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) released its long-anticipated silica rule on Tuesday, April 16, 2024.  (See the rule here) The rule is aimed at reducing miners’ exposure to respirable crystalline silica, otherwise known as silica or quartz dust. The final version of the rule is mostly consistent with the version MSHA proposed last year. It modifies the limits of exposure to crystalline silica and increases existing protections against other airborne particulates at mine sites. The rule will be published in the Federal Register on April 18, 2024, and will take effect in two months.

The rule requires both underground and surface mines to reduce the “permissible exposure limit” for breathable silica from 100 micrograms of silica per cubic meter of air (100 μg/m3) to 50 micrograms (50 μg/m3) during an 8-hour shift. Operators must also begin taking some protective measures where silica levels reach an “action level” of 25 micrograms (25 μg/m3). These changes make MSHA’s standard consistent with the standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) in 2016 for factories, oil drilling sites, and construction projects.

The rule also requires metal and non-metal mine operators to establish medical surveillance programs similar to those already required for coal miners under existing standards. These programs provide periodic health examinations at no cost to miners.

Coal mine operators will have one year after the regulation’s effective date to comply with the rule. Metal and non-metal mine operators will have two years following the rule’s effective date to comply with the new requirements.

In a press release announcing the rule, MSHA emphasized the hazard, noting the inhalation of respirable crystalline silica “can cause serious lung and other diseases, such as silicosis, lung cancer, progressive massive fibrosis, chronic bronchitis and kidney disease.” MSHA also explained that exposure to “mixed coal mine dust containing respirable crystalline silica can lead to the development of black lung disease and progressive massive fibrosis.” Based on the evaluation of these hazards and the new controls, MSHA believes that the rule change will result in over 1,000 avoided deaths and almost 4,000 avoided cases of silica-related illnesses.

If you have any questions about this new rule, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work or a member of the Workplace Safety and Health practice group.