A new administration usually means changes for OSHA, and this year is no different. There are several points the electrical construction industry should be aware of in 2026.

Budgetary considerations

The Trump administration and the U.S. House of Representative’s fiscal year (FY) 2026 budget request proposes lowering OSHA’s overall budget to roughly $582.4 million from $632.3 million. This would be an 8% decrease from FY 2025. 

Key reductions targeted in the proposal include reducing staff and full-time employees and eliminating longstanding programs such as the Susan Harwood Training Grants. More specifically, the proposal reduces staff by 223 workers, cuts inspection numbers and emphasizes deregulation. 

However, the Senate’s proposed budget aims to maintain FY 2025 funding levels, placing more focus on enforcement and training. Although these differences will need to be worked out between the House and Senate, the most likely scenario will be the passage of a continuing resolution that will keep funding at FY 2025 levels. One thing is for certain, though. There won’t be any increase to OSHA’s budget or efforts to rehire enforcement staff or other workers that leave or have left the agency. 

OSHA had the lowest number of compliance officers in its history under the first Trump presidency. OSHA, this past year, has already put out fewer news and press releases. Some insiders speculate they could be eliminated altogether. 

These are all challenges facing the new Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, David Keeling, who was confirmed by the Senate in October. Most recently, Keeling served as director of global transportation safety at Amazon. There he put innovative road safety processes in place for the company. Keeling has also served as vice president of global health and safety at UPS and was credited with successfully implementing and leading broad health, safety and compliance initiatives. 

Upon Keeling’s confirmation, OSHA acknowledged, “He is a longtime leader in workplace safety with more than 30 years of driving positive results and leading transformative change. A long-­standing member of the National Safety Council and American Society of Safety Professionals, he is deeply committed to injury and accident prevention so that every worker can go home safe.”

Heat Injury and Illness Prevention

Heat stress continues to be a significant cause of weather-related fatalities in the United States and a sticking point for OSHA. Prolonged exposure to excessive heat in the workplace can result in several adverse health conditions, such as heat stroke and even death. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 479 workers in the United States died from exposure to environmental heat from 2011–2022, with an average of 40 deaths per year in that time. There were also nearly 34,000 work-related heat injuries and illnesses resulting in days missed from work from 2011–2020, with an average of 3,389 per year in that period.

“These statistics for occupational heat-related illnesses, injuries, and fatalities are likely vast underestimates. Workers in outdoor and indoor work settings without adequate climate controls are at risk of hazardous heat exposure. Certain heat-generating processes, machinery, and equipment (e.g., hot tar ovens, furnaces, etc.) can also cause hazardous heat when cooling measures are not in place,” according to OSHA.

While some states have been reluctant to adopt regulations to curb heat-related injuries and illnesses, several others already have rules in place or are working toward them, including California, Colorado, Maryland, Oregon and Washington. Additionally, states such as Colorado that operate under federal plans are adopting regulations not addressed by OSHA. Colorado is also addressing occupational hazards including heat, ergonomics and workplace violence, but enforcement is going to be a complex issue.

Currently, OSHA is in the process of reviewing industry comments on its proposed “Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings” rule. Among the comments that need to be clarified are length and frequency of break times and the variation in acclimatization between workers. The agency had a hearing in June on the regulation and received additional feedback that will likely need to be addressed as well. Although there has been no date or timeline set for the release of a final rule, it looks like it is coming and has the support of the labor unions, minus some of the contention points. When it is implemented, it will likely be a scaled-back version that is more employer-­friendly.­­­

Emergency Response Standard

Strides toward finalizing OSHA’s proposed “Emergency Response Standard” remain up in the air. It appears as if the rulemaking has been deprioritized for now. Additionally, numerous industry and stakeholder points need clarity. Much of the proposal is vague and open to a variety of interpretations. If or when the regulation does move forward, it would include physical fitness and mental health requirements for some workers. Union groups oppose the physical fitness elements, as it is believed many workers wouldn’t meet the minimum standards.

Respiratory Protection Standard

OSHA is proposing major changes to its “Respiratory Protection Standard” for certain types of respirators—specifically, the proposal targets filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) or loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs). It would eliminate some medical evaluation requirements when using those devices. 

According to the global law firm Reed Smith, “This change would not affect the medical evaluation requirements for other types of respirators (e.g., tight-fitting air-­purifying or supplied-air respirators). OSHA’s current standard requires employers to provide a medical evaluation to determine an employee’s ability to use a respirator before fit testing or use in the workplace. This requirement was based on the potential for adverse health effects from respirator use, even for healthy employees, and was considered the best practice at the time the standard was developed. OSHA now finds that the evidence supporting the need for medical evaluations for FFRs and loose-fitting PAPRs is lacking, citing lack of epidemiological evidence that medical evaluations prevent adverse health outcomes for users of FFRs and PAPRs. All other provisions of the 'Respiratory Protection Standard,' including hazard assessment, respirator selection, fit testing, training, and maintenance, would remain in effect.”

Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) Standard

OSHA is also working to revamp its “Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) Standard.” The changes are aimed at bringing the regulation in line with technological advancements—more specifically, to address remote switches, control-circuit-type devices and robotics used for LOTO and controlling energy. OSHA does not currently permit push buttons, selector switches and other types of control-circuit-type devices as energy isolating devices. This is because there are concerns that the safety functions of these devices might fail due to component failure, program errors, magnetic field interference, electrical surges or improper use or maintenance.

It should be a very interesting year for OSHA and the country with the midterm elections coming in the fall. We’ll have to wait and see what comes next. 

stock.adobe.com / Daco