In July 2025 OSHA proposed narrowing its interpretation of the General Duty Clause (29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1)) so that the agency would not cite employers for hazards that are “inherent and inseparable” from certain professional, athletic, or entertainment activities, a move that would limit OSHA’s ability to apply the clause where no specific standard exists; This is what the OSHA General Duty Clause Change implied.
The General Duty Clause has long been OSHA’s backstop: When there is no specific OSHA standard covering a hazard, Section 5(a)(1) lets OSHA require employers to provide workplaces “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.” Narrowing that backstop would change enforcement dynamics across industries where risk is part of the job (e.g., stunt work, animal training, professional sports, some media/journalism activities). The change could make it harder for OSHA to impose requirements or cite employers for known hazards if those hazards are judged “inherent” to a profession.
What exactly did OSHA propose for the OSHA General Duty Clause Change?
-
Publication and framing: OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Interpretation of the General Duty Clause: Limitation for Inherently Risky Professional Activities” (Federal Register entry associated with 90 FR 28370). The NPRM was issued in mid-2025 (the entry and related documentation are dated July–August 2025). Federal Register
-
Core idea: The proposal would clarify that the General Duty Clause does not apply to hazards that are known, inherent, and inseparable from the core nature of certain professional activities (examples discussed in the proposal include stunt performers, certain animal handling, and similar professions where risk is intrinsic). OSHA
-
Legal theory influence: The rule draws on a judicial line of thought (often called the “Kavanaugh doctrine” after an influential opinion) that questioned applying Section 5(a)(1) to inherently risky professional activities. OSHA’s proposal would essentially codify that narrower view into agency interpretation and enforcement guidance.
-
Scope and process: The NPRM invited public comment and led to hearings and an extended comment period through fall 2025; multiple stakeholders, including states and unions, submitted objections. OSHA placed the proposal in a larger deregulatory package announced in 2025.
General Duty Clause – History
The General Duty Clause (Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act) has been used for decades when no specific OSHA standard exists for a hazard. Landmark cases (for example, OSHA’s SeaWorld citation after a trainer’s death) tested the clause’s reach; courts sometimes sustained OSHA citations and at other times limited them. The 2025 NPRM is OSHA’s attempt to adopt a narrower administrative interpretation, effectively carving out certain activities from the clause’s reach. That administrative move follows a broader Department of Labor agenda in 2025 to reconsider or rescind several workplace rules.
Who supports and who opposes the change?
-
Supporters / likely beneficiaries
-
Industry groups representing entertainment, sports, certain professional services, and employers argue that some risks are integral to the job and cannot be eliminated without fundamentally changing the activity. These groups frame the change as restoring common-sense limits to agency power and avoiding overreach. Several law firms and trade analysts explained how the proposal could reduce enforcement uncertainty for employers.
-
-
Opponents
-
Labor unions, worker safety advocates, many state labor agencies, and a number of governors’ offices argued the change would strip critical protections from workers and undermine OSHA’s ability to act where standards lag behind new hazards. Multiple state plans and unions filed formal objections during the comment period. News outlets and safety advocates raised alarms that the change could remove remedies for serious hazards where regulation or safe practices are needed.
-
Read Also: What Is Duty Of Care In The Workplace
Practical implications for employers
-
Do not assume protection disappears overnight. A proposal is not final law until OSHA issues a final rule; it remains a proposal subject to litigation, political change, and judicial review. But employers should plan for change scenarios.
-
Document hazard analyses and controls. Even if the General Duty Clause is narrowed, OSHA and plaintiffs may rely on other standards (specific OSHA rules, state laws, workers’ comp, or tort law). Maintain written hazard assessments, job hazard analyses (JHAs), and records showing you evaluated alternatives.
-
Strengthen industry-specific standards where feasible. Where the GDC currently fills regulatory gaps, industry associations and employers should consider developing consensus standards, guidance, or engineering controls that could survive scrutiny even if the GDC’s reach is limited.
-
Train and consult legal counsel for high-risk tasks. If you operate in stunt work, animal handling, professional sports, or other high-risk professions, work with safety and legal teams to document risk-mitigation strategies and to prepare for potential enforcement changes.
Practical implications for workers and unions
-
Watch rulemaking and state actions. States with their own OSHA-approved plans can adopt stronger protections even if federal OSHA narrows the General Duty Clause. Worker representatives should push for state or local safeguards, collective bargaining provisions, and industry codes of practice.
-
Emphasize proactive safety programs. Bargaining for written safety programs, independent safety audits, and whistleblower protections will remain essential even if federal enforcement options change.
Legal and policy questions raised
-
How to define “inherent” and “inseparable”? The proposal hinges on a fact-intensive test: what counts as an inherent risk? That ambiguity will likely fuel litigation and inconsistent outcomes across regions.
-
Interaction with specific standards and state laws: Narrowing GDC enforcement will not change existing OSHA standards; it could, however, shift the enforcement burden back to Congress (to pass standards) or state agencies. Several states and legal commentators warned of regulatory gaps if the GDC is limited.
Timeline and current status
-
July 1, 2025: OSHA published an NPRM proposing the limitation on the General Duty Clause.
-
Summer–Fall 2025: OSHA held hearings and accepted public comments; the comment period was extended through late October/early November 2025 in many filings. Multiple stakeholders — states, unions, industry groups — submitted extensive comments.
-
Next steps to watch: OSHA may issue a final rule, modify the proposal, or withdraw it; any final rule could be subject to court challenges and stay requests. Meanwhile, Congress, state plans, states, and courts could shape the ultimate impact.
Suggested employer checklist
-
Update job hazard analyses (JHAs) and retain documentation.
-
Run a gap analysis: where does your operation now rely on the GDC? Could a new standard or guidance fill that gap?
-
Engage with industry associations to draft consensus best practices where federal protection may be uncertain.
-
Continue training, PPE provision, and engineering controls — these are durable defences regardless of regulatory reinterpretation.
Read Also: What does the OSHA General Duty Clause Require Employers to do?
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Is the General Duty Clause being repealed?
No. OSHA’s 2025 action is a proposed reinterpretation/limitation of how the agency applies Section 5(a)(1), not a repeal of the statute. A final rule would be needed to change the enforcement policy, and that rule could be litigated.
Which workers would be affected first?
The proposal specifically targets professions where risk is an intrinsic part of the job — examples discussed include certain entertainment and athletic roles, animal handlers, and related activities — but the exact categories would be defined through rule language, enforcement memos, and litigation.
Can state OSHA plans override this federal change?
States plan, and state enforce their own occupational safety laws and can provide greater protections than federal OSHA. A federal narrowing could prompt state responses to maintain protections locally.
How likely is the change to survive a legal challenge?
Predicting litigation outcomes is difficult. A final rule that appears to conflict with the statutory text or congressional intent could face strong court scrutiny. Given the legal debates already cited in comments and analyses, litigation is likely if OSHA finalizes a substantive limitation.
Conclusion
The 2025 OSHA proposal to limit the General Duty Clause represents a potentially significant shift in how gaps in workplace protection are addressed. Employers should be prudent: document risk assessments and controls, prepare contingencies, and follow state developments. Workers and advocates should monitor state actions and press for concrete protections where the GDC has been the only effective enforcement tool. Regardless of the political or legal outcome, proactive safety management and documented hazard controls remain the most reliable protection for both workers and employers.