We are in San Juan, Puerto Rico for the American Bar Association’s Workplace Occupational Safety and Health committee’s midwinter meeting. Today’s sessions featured panels of employer and defense attorneys, representatives from various non-profit organizations dedicated to workers safety, and state regulatory agencies discussing the impact of recent deregulation, discrepancy in inspections and enforcement, and the evolution of state plans.

Less Enforcement in 2025/Deregulation

The day’s first panel discussed deregulation and enforcement trends by federal OSHA across the country, with some (disputed) data showing a drop in enforcement. The panel first focused on deregulation by the federal government. The panel highlighted the current administration’s well-publicized 10-to-1 deregulation approach. For those unfamiliar, the President signed an executive order that requires an agency to identify at least 10 existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed each time it promulgates a single new rule, regulation or guidance. The panel stated that the methodology in deciding what is actually repealed is unknown, but suspect that deregulation may be a contributor to less enforcement from federal OSHA.

The panel also discussed the government shutdown in 2025 and the slowdown it created on federal OSHA. The panel noted that even in the present, many federal OSHA staff have not been able to catch up from the backlog they face from the shutdown. Some members of the panel noted that companies have not expressed or observed a slowdown. This is a trend that should be closely monitored in 2026.

There are proposals to deregulate some long-standing OSHA regulations and initiatives. For example, there is a proposal to no longer have the General Duty Clause apply in certain sectors, such as sports, entertainment, and hazard-based journalism. The panel believes this proposal is intended to clarify when the General Duty Clause applies but does not remove an employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace. Rather, it seeks to stop OSHA from citing hazards that cannot be eliminated without destroying the activity’s purpose.

Inconsistencies in Inspection Documentation and Witness Testimony

The panel highlighted a key issue that has persisted in many OSHA inspections and hearings: inconsistency in the CHSO’s notes from the inspection contradicting what a witness testifies at a hearing. The panel highlighted how in one recent case, the CSHO’s notes were not reflective of the witness’s testimony. The Administrative Law Judge ended up giving more weight to the witness’s testimony than the CSHO’s notes because the training records supported what the witness was saying. This is a good reminder for employers to identify whether what the CSHO summarizes in their notes accurately reflets employee interviews.

State Plans

State plans are moving to mirror federal OSHA’s position on important issues. Federal OSHA renewed its National Emphasis Program on heat injury and illness prevention in the Spring of 2025. Maryland is now the first state on the East Coast with a heat standard, enacted in 2024. California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington have heat-related provisions on the West Coast. Virginia introduced legislation to have a heat standard by 2027. Regarding workplace violence, Maryland now requires public sector employers to have workplace violence policies by 2026.

Operationally, the panel noted there are challenges for state plan states related to investigations and enforcement. A major issue, which has been an issue for some time now, is staffing. In California, a consequence of the shortage issue is that Cal OSHA has not met their citation benchmark per federal OSHA’s audit of the state plan. The audit also found that Cal OSHA has poor documentation of hazard abatement. Something big to expect in the future for California is their version of the Worker Walkaround Rule. California’s goal is to mirror federal OSHA, but their current proposal to allow third parties in the inspection so long as they are deemed “reasonably necessary.” “Reasonably necessary” is based on relevant knowledge, skills, or experience with hazards or conditions in the workplace or similar workplaces, or language or communication skills, and exceeds the equivalent federal provision.

We will continue to provide updates throughout the week.