October 2025 NASF POLICY UPDATE

This month’s update takes a closer look at new OSHA leadership and the agency’s effort to sort through some very thorny issues on how to address heat illness and injuries in both indoor and outdoor workplaces.

_____________

New OSHA Chief Confirmed: Top Priorities and a Major New Heat Rule Pending: In early October 2025, President Trump’s nominee David Keeling was confirmed by the U.S. Senate by a party-line vote of 51-47 to serve as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, taking the helm at OSHA. He will oversee a major workplace heat stress rulemaking decision for industry in 2026.

Outlook: OSHA’s Heat Illness and Injury Rule is Still Under Consideration: OSHA’s proposed regulatory package could be one of the more expansive standards developed by the agency based on its current scope and cost impact. First issued in the Biden administration in August 2024, it has been the topic of major concern for manufacturers and the employer community.

This Week: Small Business Administration Says OSHA Heat Rule Must Reflect the Needs of Small Operations: The Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy submitted a critique of OSHA’s heat rule on October 30, highlighting the concerns of small business and offering a list of recommendations to minimize burdens on operations nationwide if OSHA moves forward with a final rule or proposed a new standard.

NASF Position on PFAS from the Washington Forum is Available: During last month’s Washington Forum, members received the latest NASF PFAS Brief, which highlights the finishing industry’s long record of action on PFAS and its recommendation to Congress and EPA for a technically sound, economically feasible and small manufacturing-friendly outcome on the metal finishing PFAS regulatory proposal scheduled for next year.

The Deregulatory Agenda: A Look at the Latest Developments This Month: In a new effort to speed up deregulatory actions, The White House issued a late October memo that offers guidance to federal agencies to repeal what is highlighted as “facially unlawful” regulations without the typically required notice and comment rulemaking procedures.

For more details on these topics, see more below:

_______________________

New OSHA Chief Confirmed: Top Priorities and a Major New Heat Rule Pending

In early October 2025, President Trump’s nominee David Keeling was confirmed by the U.S. Senate by a party-line vote of 51-47 to serve as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, and now takes the helm at OSHA.

Top Priorities for a New OSHA

In his earlier nomination hearing Keeling, a former safety executive at UPS and Amazon who began his career as a Teamster, had signaled his top priorities would include:

• modernizing rulemaking and regulatory oversight, including the use of new technology and predictive analytics;
• expanding collaboration and cooperation among employers, unions and professional organizations as well as OSHA; and
• transforming enforcement and safety culture, moving away from reactive enforcement and emphasizing proactive prevention.

He did not lay out specific priorities for rulemakings.

Other areas he emphasized that have been welcomed by industry include aligning future standards more closely with recognized consensus standards and industry best practices. Overall, the employer community viewed his remarks and pointing to more predictable enforcement and pragmatic workplace safety.

Some High-Consequence Decisions Ahead

Keeling inherits a slate of leftover items on the regulatory agenda, with OSHA managing more than a dozen active rulemakings. Among the most consequential is the long-anticipated Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings proposal, which would establish the first federal standard addressing heat exposure across industries, including indoor manufacturing operations. For an update on its status and outlook, see below.

Outlook: OSHA’s Heat Illness and Injury Rule is Still Under Consideration

OSHA is currently considering a proposed regulatory package that could be one of the more expansive standards developed by the agency based on its current scope and cost impact. First issued in the Biden administration in August 2024, it has been the topic of major concern for manufacturers and the employer community. OSHA held a weeks-long series of public hearings on the proposal this summer and the post-hearing comment period has closed as of the end of October. A final rule could emerge in 2026.

Quick Summary: Major Provisions in the Heat Rule Impact Manufacturing

Under the current proposal, employers would be required to implement site-specific Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (HIIPPs) when indoor or outdoor temperatures reach an initial trigger of 80 °F and expand controls at a high-heat threshold of 90 °F.

The draft includes provisions that both outdoor and indoor operations would incorporate into their plans, including:

• access to cool drinking water,
• shaded or cooled rest areas,
• paid rest breaks at high heat (15 minutes every two hours),
• acclimatization for new and returning workers,
• periodic monitoring of conditions, and
• a designated heat-safety coordinator, record keeping, and annual training.

Implications for the Surface Finishing Industry

For metal-finishing and plating operations, the implications are potentially significant. Many facilities operate in high-humidity or elevated-temperature environments due to ovens, dryers, and heated plating baths. Even though primarily “indoor,” many industrial operations could be subject to the standard once finalized. NASF Washington Forum attendees received a full briefing on the proposed heat rule and other pending issues from Marc Freedman, US Chamber Vice President of Employment Policy, and the association is monitoring developments closely to keep members updated on how possible requirements impacting ventilation, temperature-monitoring, rest-break policies and other areas will affect finishing operations.

Close Attention Will Be Necessary in 2026

As we continue to speak with OSHA officials on the emerging rulemaking agenda, we expect that the scope, key provisions and implementation timelines currently associated with the proposed heat rule to be modified, and the details will emerge in the coming months. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com.

This Week: Small Business Administration Says OSHA Heat Rule Must Reflect the Needs of Small Operations

The Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy submitted a critique of OSHA’s heat rule on October 30, highlighting the concerns of small business and offering a list of recommendations to minimize burdens on operations nationwide if OSHA moves forward with a final rule or proposed a new standard. The paper addresses several questions it asked witnesses during OSHA’s July public hearing on the proposed rule and responds to OSHA’s inquiry about how it might structure and enforce a more flexible, performance-oriented approach.

Recommended Changes to the OSHA’s Proposal

The SBA’s advocacy team has been actively involved in this OSHA rulemaking process for several years and has held multiple small business roundtables with trade associations, including NASF. Their latest comments urge several changes:

• OSHA should avoid a one-size-fits-all rule and consider a more flexible, performance- oriented approach. Several possible alternatives include Nevada’s new state heat illness prevention regulation or an approach borrowed from other OSHA performance-oriented approaches, or issuing separate standards for different sectors such as general industry, construction, and agriculture.
• OSHA should consider and provide for work environments and situations that are not currently addressed in the proposed rule, including hybrid or mixed outdoor/indoor work environments, situations where compliance would be impracticable, infeasible, or would create a greater hazard, and provide for employee vulnerabilities, susceptibilities or confounding factors.
• OSHA should revisit its definition of “economic feasibility,” and, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent Loper Bright decision, adopt a more appropriate definition, such as an appropriate cost-benefit analysis from existing federal regulatory guidance.

If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com.

NASF Position on PFAS from the Washington Forum is Available

Among the most prominent annual milestones for the industry was last month’s NASF Washington Forum. The event featured wide coverage of priorities for the industry on the economy, tariffs, critical minerals, the defense base and workforce issues.

Messaging For NASF Members

We also provided industry leaders in attendance a new NASF PFAS Brief, which highlights the finishing industry’s long record of action on PFAS and its recommendation to Congress and EPA for a technically sound, economically feasible and small manufacturing-friendly outcome on the regulatory proposal scheduled for 2026.

New Federal End-of-Pipe PFAS Standards is Unnecessary

The brief highlights what NASF has continued to advocate – that a new nationwide end-of-pipe standard is unnecessary given the industry’s successful elimination of legacy PFOS use, its transition to safer and ultimately PFAS-free alternatives, and ongoing collaboration with the automotive supply chain to phase out remaining uses.

Household PFAS, other Sectors Far Exceed Finishing’s Negligible Contribution to Nation’s POTWs

It also drives home an important takeaway from the POTW community and EPA studies, which show that metal finishing operations account for less than one percent of total PFAS loading nationwide, underscoring the negligible contribution from finishing relative to other industrial and consumer sources.

This point was echoed by Dr. Cynthia Finley, head of regulatory affairs for the POTWs trade association in Washington, the National Association for Clean Water Agencies (NACWA). In addition to thanking the finishing industry for working together with the local municipal treatment community, she noted that PFAS for wastewater utilities continues to be a top focus, and that a practical, phased approach is needed for POTWs rather than immediate rigid mandates from EPA.

NASF continues to work with EPA, the POTW community and other allies on the issue in the meantime. If you would like a copy of the brief, have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com.

The Deregulatory Agenda: A Look at the Latest Developments This Month

In a new effort to speed up deregulatory actions, The White House issued a late October memo that offers guidance to federal agencies to repeal what is highlighted as “facially unlawful” regulations without the typically required notice and comment rulemaking procedures.

Agencies Can Streamline Repealing Current Rules

The memorandum cites the “good cause’ exemption of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as legal authority for certain deregulatory actions. The law’s “good cause’ exemption allows agencies to bypass traditional notice and comment rulemaking when an agency for any good cause finds that notice and comment rulemaking would be “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The White House memorandum suggests that the “good cause” exemption would apply to most deregulatory actions.

White House Shortening Its Own Review

In addition, to help streamline the deregulatory process the White House recommends shortening its traditional 90-day review process for major regulations to 28 days for deregulatory actions that are executed with good factual records and to 14 days for “facially unlawful” rules.

Environmental Advocacy Group Opposition, Litigation

The stated justification for the streamlined review process is that the more extensive regulatory review process is needed before new regulatory burdens are imposed, but the same process would not apply to deregulatory actions. The guidance in the memorandum is designed to help accelerate deregulatory actions currently underway.

Environmental advocacy groups have expressed strong opposition to the memorandum, claiming that it based on a flawed interpretation of the APA. They have promised to challenge this novel in court at the first opportunity.

We will continue to monitor the efforts to streamline the deregulatory process and provide updates to NASF members. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com.

NASF 1000

The NASF 1000 program was established to ensure that the surface finishing industry would ‎have resources to effectively address regulatory, legislative and legal actions impacting the ‎industry, NASF members and their workplaces. All funds from the NASF 1000 program are used ‎exclusively to support specific projects and initiatives that fall outside the association’s day-to-‎day public policy activities. The commitment to this program is one of the most vital ‎contributions made in support of surface finishing and directly shapes the future of the ‎industry. ‎

The sustained commitment from industry leaders has helped the NASF remain strong and ‎credible in informing regulatory decisions across the nation. Specific projects funded through ‎the NASF 1000 make a measurable difference in how the industry navigates emerging ‎challenges, communicates credibly with policy makers, and advocates for a strong science base ‎for rules or standards that affect surface finishing. ‎

Please consider supporting the NASF 1000 program. For more information, contact: Christian Richter (202-257-‎‎0250) or Jeff Hannapel (202 257-3756) with NASF.‎