OSHA’s Seven Letters of Interpretation in December 2025: Coal or Candy for Employers?

Quick Hits

• Consistency and transparency in enforcement are central themes in a batch of seven interpretation letters recently issued by OSHA.
• The letters collectively address recurring questions in construction, general industry, and recordkeeping.
• The letters reflect OSHA’s current enforcement posture: clearer guidance, and insistence on fundamental obligations.

Why These Letters Matter

Interpretation letters are OSHA’s authoritative explanations of how specific standards apply to particular conditions. They are especially critical in gray areas where text, preambles, and historical guidance leave room for debate, or where technology and work practices have outpaced older regulatory language. This is particularly important in the wake of the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and other Supreme Court of the United States decisions that undermined Chevron deference. Consistency and transparency in enforcement are central themes of the new letters, which collectively address recurring questions in construction, general industry, and recordkeeping. Employers operating in OSHA State Plan jurisdictions are reminded that state standards must be at least as effective as federal OSHA and may differ; nonetheless, federal interpretations often influence state-level enforcement and are a valuable guidepost.

1. Permit-Required Confined Spaces: Draining Water-Filled Pipes Before Entry

One letter addresses whether the permit-required confined spaces (PRCS) standard requires employers to drain water from pipes before entry for repairs when a hazard assessment shows no risk of rupture or leaks. OSHA’s interpretation underscores two central principles: first, the primacy of a systematic hazard evaluation that considers the potential for hazardous atmospheres, engulfment, or rapid flooding; and second, the obligation to eliminate or control hazards before entry using the hierarchy of controls. Where a credible hazard of rupture or sudden inflow exists, isolation and energy control steps—such as line breaking, blanking and blinding, or double block and bleed—remain the benchmark. Where the employer’s documented assessment demonstrates no such hazard and adequate isolation is achieved, entry without draining may be consistent with the standard. Practically, this elevates the importance of defensible pre-entry hazard analyses, engineering isolation verification, and robust permit documentation.

• COVID-19 Recordkeeping and Reporting Status Under 29 C.F.R. 1910.502

Another letter clarifies the enforcement status of COVID-19 recordkeeping and reporting obligations. The agency signals continuity with its longstanding position that recordability hinges on work-relatedness, a diagnosis meeting recording criteria, and the general Part 1904 framework. At the same time, OSHA’s interpretation aligns enforcement with current public health conditions and applicable standards. The practical message is that the work-relatedness analysis expectations are unchanged as are those related to serious event reporting where criteria are met. Employers are encouraged to ensure consistency between respiratory protection, exposure control measures, and any site-specific health protocols that may trigger recordability or reporting duties.

• Powered Industrial Truck (PIT) Training: Live-Streamed Proficiency

OSHA addressed whether operators may demonstrate competence via live-streamed or remote training. The letter reaffirms the core of the PIT standard: training must be both knowledge- and performance-based, tailored to the specific truck and workplace conditions, and include practical evaluation by a qualified person. Remote or live-streamed classroom components can satisfy the knowledge element, but they do not obviate the requirement for hands-on evaluation in the actual or substantially similar environment. Employers can blend virtual theory with on-site practicals, provided the evaluator verifies safe operation, site-specific hazards, and the operator’s ability to perform assigned tasks.

• Recordkeeping Software: Using Company-Generated Equivalents to Forms 300 and 300A

A frequent pain point is whether employers may maintain injury and illness logs using proprietary or third-party software that generates documents equivalent to OSHA Form 300 and the annual summary, Form 300A. OSHA’s interpretation confirms that employers may use software-generated equivalents so long as the records capture all required fields, are easily reviewable, and the 300A annual summary is properly certified by a company executive and posted in the workplace during the prescribed period. Employers must also be able to provide records to OSHA and employees in the required time and format upon request. For establishments subject to electronic submission, the software should support accurate, timely e-reporting.

• Engineering Controls Under the Benzene and 1,3‑Butadiene standards: Valving and Leak-Tightness

In response to whether bellows valves, leak-proof valves, or double-seal valves qualify as “engineering controls” for purposes of the Benzene and 1,3‑Butadiene standards, OSHA emphasizes function over form. Engineering controls are measures that physically remove or isolate the hazard to reduce exposures to or below permissible limits, before reliance on respiratory protection. Properly specified and maintained low-emission valves may constitute engineering controls where they demonstrably reduce fugitive emissions and exposures. However, the sufficiency of any given configuration depends on exposure data, process conditions, maintenance integrity, and the overall control strategy, including enclosure, local exhaust ventilation, and leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs.

• Audiometric Testing for Workers With Cochlear Implants

OSHA clarifies how hearing conservation program requirements apply to employees with cochlear implants. The letter indicates that while standard audiometric testing protocols may be unsuitable or invalid for some implanted workers, the employer’s obligation to prevent noise-induced hearing loss remains. OSHA recommends employers consult with qualified audiologists to determine feasible and valid evaluation methods, document medical opinions on testing limitations, and continue to implement noise control measures, hearing protection fit and attenuation strategies, and training. The focus shifts from conventional audiogram trend analysis to prevention and individualized assessment.

• Stair Angle and Tread Depth: Dimensional Compliance

The stairways interpretation tackles whether certain stair angles and tread dimensions comply with OSHA requirements. The letter reiterates that compliance is not merely a function of an angle range, but a matrix of riser height, tread depth, stair angle, and uniformity, plus slip resistance and landing design. Minor departures in one dimension cannot be “cured” by overcompensating in another if the result degrades safety or violates explicit tolerances. For construction and general industry alike, the emphasis is on meeting stated dimensional ranges and ensuring uniformity to prevent trips and missteps—two of the most common sources of fall injuries.

Cross-Cutting Themes and Strategic Implications

Three themes run through these letters. First, OSHA continues to prioritize the hierarchy of controls and site-specific verification. Whether in confined spaces or under carcinogen standards, the agency expects employers to demonstrate hazard identification and control effectiveness with data, not assumptions. Second, technology is welcome but bounded by performance requirements. Remote learning platforms and recordkeeping software are acceptable if they deliver all substance the standards require—hands-on proficiency, complete data capture, executive certification, and timely access. Third, ergonomic and human-factors considerations remain central to fall prevention. Stair geometry, surface conditions, and dimensional uniformity are not design niceties; they are primary defenses against high-frequency injuries.

For safety leaders, the letters also reflect OSHA’s current enforcement posture: clearer guidance, but no retreat from fundamental obligations. Even as the agency emphasizes consistency and transparency, employers should expect inspectors to test the quality of hazard assessments, training evaluations, exposure monitoring, and documentation.

Looking Ahead

The renewed opinion letter program suggests more interpretive guidance to come, which can aid planning and reduce uncertainty. Employers may want to monitor future letters, align internal policies and training, and maintain a documentation mindset that anticipates enforcement scrutiny. While interpretation letters are not new rules, they are roadmaps to how OSHA will apply existing ones. When incorporated into compliance systems, they can materially reduce risk, improve worker protection, and strengthen the defensibility of employer decisions.

Ogletree Deakins’ Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and provide updates on the Construction, COVID-19/Coronavirus, and Workplace Safety and Health blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts