What OSHA’s 7 Letters of Interpretation Say About the Future of Enforcement

A forklift tips over in a warehouse. The operator is pinned. Within hours, the investigation begins, and someone on the safety team asks the question: Could the evaluation have been done remotely? A camera feed, a qualified evaluator watching from another state, real-time coaching through a headset.

Technically feasible. Legally, though? The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) answer came in April 2025, and there's no ambiguity. "Direct supervision" means the evaluator is physically located where the practical evaluation occurs.

67 workers died in 2023 in incidents involving forklifts, order pickers, or platform trucks, according to NSC. That number clarifies OSHA's posture. Remote supervision sounds efficient until someone dies and the question becomes: who was actually there to intervene?

I've spent time reviewing OSHA's December 2025 spotlight on seven Letters of Interpretation (LOI) issued throughout the year. On the surface, they look like modernization: software-generated injury logs, updated valve technology, and performance-based confined space decisions. But the pattern underneath is harder-edged. OSHA tolerates digital tools, but it slams the door on anything that dilutes human oversight, measurement validity, or hazard-by-hazard judgment.

For safety pros, employers, or anyone building defensible programs, this batch of LOIs offers clear signals: where flexibility lives, where lines remain, and how to integrate 2025 tech without inviting citations.

Key Takeaways

• OSHA permits modernization when it’s administrative (records/forms) or performance-based engineering (controls that reduce exposure), but it blocks modernization that removes on-site intervention or undermines measurement validity (forklift practical evals, CI audiograms).
• The letters function as practical enforcement guidance for 2026: not new standards, but a clear preview of how OSHA will judge edge-case practices.
• The “flexibility” OSHA gives (confined space hazard evaluation, engineering-control combinations, digital equivalency) shifts responsibility to employers to prove their decisions.
• The safest posture is defensible modernization: documentation, equivalency checks, and site-specific rationale that can survive an inspection or citation defense.

What Does OSHA's 7 Letters of Interpretation Clarify?

A Letter of Interpretation is not a new standard. It’s OSHA explaining how it reads an existing requirement when someone asks, “Does this setup count?” or “Can we do it this other way?” That’s why these letters matter. They usually land right on the gray areas where a policy can look fine in a binder, but fall apart when you try to run it across real crews, real shifts, and real constraints.

This batch is a good example. The seven letters issues in 2025 settle exactly those debates for today's workplaces and showing where existing rules still hold firm and where there's room for practical adaptation.

1. Livestreamed Forklift Practical Evaluations

The question was straightforward: Can a qualified evaluator supervise a powered industrial truck practical evaluation via livestream or remote video?

OSHA's April 2025 interpretation said no. The evaluator must be physically present at the location where the practical training and evaluation occur. Online courses can cover classroom theory, but the hands-on component requires someone on-site who can stop the machine, correct errors, and intervene in real time.

I find this position defensible, even if it frustrates employers with distributed operations. Video latency, camera angles, and the inability to physically stop a 10,000-pound machine in motion all argue for presence. The Conger Industries compliance guidance makes the same point: remote instruction has limits.

2. Software-Generated OSHA Injury/Illness Forms

I’m sympathetic to the “Can our system just generate the OSHA forms?” question. Most companies are not trying to hide injuries when they ask it. They’re trying to get out of spreadsheet purgatory and stop retyping the same details three different ways.

OSHA's April 29, 2025 letter said yes, with conditions. The software output must qualify as an "equivalent form" under 29 CFR 1904.29(b)(4): same information, equally readable, completed using the same instructions as the OSHA original. Employers must also maintain Form 301 (or equivalent) and produce records on demand.

This is a green light for digital recordkeeping, but read the fine print. "Equivalent" is a compliance standard, not a convenience label. If your software truncates fields, reorders columns, or buries information behind menu clicks, you don't have an equivalent form.

A quick way I’d sanity-check a software-generated OSHA 300/300A

If I were reviewing a system rollout, I’d ask these questions before I let anyone say “we’re compliant” out loud:

• Does the generated form capture every field OSHA expects on Form 300 and Form 300A, in a readable format?
• Does the system also generate (or store) Form 301 or an equivalent incident report for each recordable case?
• Can we produce paper copies quickly for an employee request or an inspection?
• Can we certify and post the annual summary from Feb 1 to Apr 30, including the required statements?
•  If we’re a covered establishment, do we have a separate, owned process for submitting through OSHA’s ITA?

If your answer is yes to every question, your system likely meets OSHA’s equivalency threshold and your risk is administrative. If the answer is no to any one of them, the software is not an “equivalent form” under OSHA’s definition and will likely be a compliance gap that will surface the moment records are requested or inspected.

3. Cochlear Implants and Audiometric Testing

Here's a technology gap OSHA had to address explicitly. Cochlear implants (CI) weren't FDA-approved in the U.S. until 1994, years after the noise standard's audiometric testing framework was established. The June 2025 letter clarifies the protocol: the implant may remain on during test instructions, but must be turned off before the audiometric test begins. OSHA would not consider an audiogram valid if the cochlear implant is on during measurement.

The reasoning is physiological. Audiometric testing measures natural hearing thresholds. A cochlear implant bypasses parts of that system. Testing with the device active produces data that doesn't reflect baseline hearing function.

I've talked with occupational health professionals who find this requirement burdensome for employees who rely on their implants to communicate. The counterargument is that the test's validity depends on measuring what the standard intends to measure. OSHA chose accuracy over accommodation. That's a judgment call I think most occupational audiologists would support, though I understand why it frustrates workers who feel singled out.

OSHA also explicitly says the standard allows referral to a physician or audiological clinic when more sophisticated testing is needed, which is especially relevant for employees using a CI. So the practical implication is not just “turn it off.” It’s that your hearing conservation program needs a path for CI cases that does not rely on the usual plug-and-play workflow.

4. Permit-Required Confined Spaces (Pipe Draining/Isolation)

The January 2025 letter on confined spaces addresses pipe isolation in utility vaults and similar permit-required spaces. The short answer: it depends.

The PRCS standard at 1910.146 is performance-oriented. Employers must evaluate hazards under 1910.146(c)(1) and isolate the permit space prior to entry under 1910.146(d)(3)(iii) if the evaluation identifies potential for rupture, leak, or release that could cause engulfment, burns, or other serious harm.

OSHA's letter also lists the following evaluation factors:

If the evaluation finds no potential for rupture or leak into the space, and piping doesn't terminate in the space, isolation isn't required.

This is OSHA at its most flexible. But flexibility shifts burden to employers. A defensible hazard evaluation isn't a checkbox. It's documentation that survives scrutiny. A NIOSH alert notes that more than 60% of confined space fatalities occur among would-be rescuers. This evaluation isn't academic.

5. COVID-19 Healthcare Log/Reporting Enforcement Stay

The February 2025 enforcement memorandum states that OSHA will not enforce the COVID-19 log and reporting requirements under 29 CFR 1910.502(q) and (r) "effective immediately and until further notice." That covers the healthcare-specific COVID log and the fatality/hospitalization reporting provisions.

But. The memo also states that OSHA "will continue to enforce applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements under 29 CFR Part 1904." That's general injury and illness recordkeeping. If a COVID case meets Part 1904 criteria, it still gets logged.

The nuance matters. "Non-enforcement" of specific 1910.502 provisions is not a blanket exemption from COVID-related recordkeeping. I've seen cases where employers misread similar memos and get surprised by citations later.

6. Valves as Engineering Controls (Benzene & Butadiene)

The May 2025 letter confirms that bellow valves, leak-proof valves, and double-seal valves qualify as engineering controls under the benzene and butadiene standards. This matters because the hierarchy of controls prioritizes engineering solutions over administrative controls or PPE. Modern valve technology didn't exist when these standards were written, but OSHA's performance-oriented language allows employers to adopt equipment upgrades without waiting for regulatory amendments.

The letter cites the benzene preamble's examples of exposure-reduction methods, including "double mechanical seals," "exhaust ventilation," and "leak detection and repair." It also references the butadiene standard's compliance plan requirements under 1910.1051(f)(2)(ii), which emphasize leak detection surveys. Employers can combine controls if one alone doesn't achieve the PEL.

I find this letter encouraging. It shows OSHA can recognize equipment evolution without formal rulemaking. The practical effect is that facilities can invest in modern valves and count them toward compliance, which should accelerate adoption.

Quick summary of valve types and status:

• Bellow valves, leak-proof valves, double-seal valves → Yes, engineering controls (explicit examples in preambles)
• Conventional (standard) valves → Yes, if they help maintain exposures ≤ PELs (performance-based, site-specific)
• All must be part of a combo approach when needed (e.g., add ventilation, monitoring, LDAR if leaks persist)

7. Stair Angle and Tread Depth Measurement

An employer asked whether a specific stair configuration met 1910.25 requirements for walking-working surfaces. OSHA's June 2025 answer was no.

The standard requires stairs installed at angles between 30 and 50 degrees, maximum riser height of 9.5 inches, and minimum tread depth of 9.5 inches. At steep angles near 49 to 50 degrees with a 9.5-inch rise, the run dimension would be approximately 8 inches, which falls short.

OSHA clarified that tread depth must be measured horizontally between vertical planes of the foremost projection of adjacent treads, excluding beveled or rounded nosing surfaces. The letter ties intent to national consensus standards (ANSI A1264.1 and NFPA 101), which establish adequate stepping space to prevent falls.

“But Table D-1 shows 8 inches”

OSHA also references a point that confuses people: the exception in 1910.25(c)(5) for standard stairs installed prior to January 17, 2017. That exception lets older stairs be treated as compliant if they meet the older dimension combinations listed in Table D-1. That exception does not apply to stairs built after that date. OSHA says “no” to the post-2017 configuration in the letter for that reason, even though the older table includes combinations that look similar on first glance.

This is generally a precision issue. Facility designers and architects sometimes optimize for space, pushing angles and dimensions to regulatory limits. OSHA's letter says the math has to work. If your geometry doesn't produce compliant tread depth, the design fails, even if individual measurements look close. Falls from stairs remain a significant source of workplace injuries, with 109 fatalities in construction alone.

Why Is OSHA Using Interpretation Letters to Keep up with Modern Work?

OSHA and the Department of Labor frame these seven letters as compliance assistance. Deputy Secretary Keith Sonderling described the effort as:

"Providing decisive guidance after gathering feedback from employers, demonstrating our opinion letter program has already been effective." The DOL also added that "these letters provide clear explanations that support compliance and training requirements."

That's the official posture: education, consistency, transparency. And it's partly true. Interpretation letters do help employers understand how OSHA reads ambiguous regulatory text. But there's another function.

Letters also signal enforcement priorities. As Ogletree Deakins’ article noted, "while interpretation letters do not create new obligations, they illuminate how OSHA reads and enforces existing standards in real-world scenarios." That's a polite way of saying: this is how the agency will see you.

What Changed in Workplaces Faster than the Rules Changed?

Remote workflows, software-first compliance, post-standard medical devices, and upgraded engineering controls aren't "future issues" anymore. They're the conditions OSHA is now forced to interpret against regulatory text written decades ago. 

The noise standard predates cochlear implants. The benzene standard predates modern leak-proof valves. The forklift standard predates MQTT-enabled remote operation (yes, researchers have demonstrated remote forklift control using lightweight IoT protocols).

OSHA can't rewrite standards fast enough to keep up. Rulemaking takes years. Interpretation letters take months. The gap creates a de facto regulatory mechanism: when the written rule doesn't address the new technology, the letter becomes the bridge. AIHA's coverage notes that these letters are part of an "opinion letter program" launched in June by the Department of Labor, explicitly designed to handle this kind of backlog.

The safety community's reaction is realistic. ASSP observed that "staying ahead of regulatory changes and interpretations is a constant challenge for safety professionals." That's not a complaint but an acknowledgment that the ground keeps shifting.

What’s the Most Surprising Pattern Across All Seven Letters?

If I had to summarize the pattern in one sentence: OSHA tolerates modern tools but reasserts human-centered safeguards at the failure points. That's the finding that emerged when I read these letters together rather than individually.

OSHA's Modernization Boundaries

The divide isn't arbitrary. Look at where OSHA draws the line: moments where human judgment, physical presence, or measurement validity directly affects whether someone gets hurt. Digital logs don't prevent injuries. Neither do valves in isolation. But an evaluator who can't reach the forklift's kill switch? That's a failure point.

Why Does OSHA Ban Livestreamed Forklift Evaluations Even as Tech Gets More Capable?

We have drones, remote surgery, and autonomous vehicles. Why can't a qualified evaluator watch a forklift operator through a 4K camera feed and make a competence determination?

OSHA's answer is implicit in the language: "direct supervision" isn't observation alone. It's physical presence at the moment the operator demonstrates skill. The evaluator needs to see depth, hear the machine, feel the floor vibration, and be positioned to intervene if something goes wrong. A camera feed doesn't give you intervention capability. It only gives you a recording of the moment before the accident.

The Human Cost Is Not Hypothetical

I mentioned the number earlier, but it bears repeating here because this is what I want you to remember: 67 workers died in 2023 in incidents involving powered industrial trucks. The NSC data also notes a BLS classification change starting in 2023, so direct year-over-year comparisons require caution. But the magnitude is clear.

I've talked with safety managers who argue for remote evaluation in low-risk settings. They're not wrong that context matters. But OSHA's job is to set a minimum standard that applies across warehouses, construction sites, and manufacturing floors. The agency chose a floor that requires presence. I think that's defensible, even if it's inconvenient.

How Far Can Employers Digitize Compliance Before OSHA Treats It as a Shortcut?

This is the question I hear most often from EHS software vendors, compliance officers, and operations managers trying to modernize legacy systems. The answer requires thinking about what digitization actually replaces in a compliance workflow, and whether that replacement weakens or preserves the regulatory intent.

The seven LOIs suggest a framework. OSHA consistently approves digitization when it affects administrative processes (how you record, store, and report information) but rejects it when it affects judgment and intervention points (who decides, who observes, who can act). That distinction explains every "yes" and "no" in the December 2025 letters.

Where Digitization Works

Software-generated OSHA logs fit the "yes" category because the underlying task is administrative. You're capturing data, formatting it, and storing it for retrieval. The regulatory purpose (accurate injury records accessible to workers and inspectors) survives the transition from paper to database. The risk profile doesn't change. Nobody gets hurt because your 300A form lives in a cloud server instead of a filing cabinet.

Similarly, modern valve technology fits the "yes" category because engineering controls are evaluated by performance, not pedigree. If a bellow valve reduces benzene exposure below the PEL, OSHA doesn't care that the valve didn't exist when the standard was written. The regulatory purpose (worker protection from carcinogen exposure) is preserved. Actually, it's improved. That's the point of performance-oriented standards.

Where Digitization Fails

The forklift evaluation letter draws the opposite conclusion because the task being digitized isn't administrative. It's evaluative. The qualified evaluator isn't filling out a form. They're making a judgment call about operator competence in real-time, with the ability to intervene if something goes wrong. Livestreaming removes the intervention capability. It converts the evaluator from a participant to a spectator.

The audiometric testing letter follows the same logic. Cochlear implants don't change the administrative process of conducting a hearing test. They change the physiological validity of the measurement itself. OSHA's concern is not the paperwork but whether the data means what it's supposed to mean. If the implant is on during testing, you're measuring the implant's function, not the worker's baseline hearing. That's a judgment-point failure.

A Practical Framework for Evaluating Digital Tools

1. What human task does this replace? If it's data entry, storage, or reporting, you're in safe territory. If it's observation, evaluation, or intervention, proceed carefully.
2. Does the regulatory standard reference a specific method or a performance outcome? Performance-oriented standards (like the chemical exposure limits) give more flexibility. Method-specific standards (like "direct supervision") give less.
3. If something goes wrong, can the digital system intervene? A camera can observe. It can't stop a forklift. A software alert can notify. It can't pull a worker out of a confined space. Systems that can only observe will face scrutiny when OSHA expects intervention capability.
4. Does the output have the same regulatory meaning as the manual process? A software-generated 300A form that meets equivalency requirements has the same regulatory meaning as a paper form. An audiogram taken with a cochlear implant active does not have the same regulatory meaning as one taken with the implant off. The data looks similar. The validity is different.

What Do These Letters Signal About Enforcement in 2026?

There's a tension between what OSHA says and what the safety community hears.

The December 10, 2025 announcement frames the letters as decisive guidance and public education. OSHA wants consistency. It wants employers to use the interpretation letter pipeline to request clarifications. Deputy Secretary Sonderling called it "an important tool to provide clear, practical guidance."

OH&S coverage stated that "OSHA's guidance is intended to promote consistent enforcement and provide employers with clearer directions on how to fulfill their obligations under the law." That's a neutral framing, but the subtext is: the agency is telling you how it will rule.

How the Safety Community Hears It

Practitioners don't romanticize interpretation letters. They read them as compliance targets. The AGC's summary noted that some letters "offer clarification on compliance questions that construction contractors may also have." That's contractor-speak for: we need to know what we're being measured against.

The National Safety Council's testimony to Congress emphasized that OSHA should prioritize "technology, training, and substantive public policy." That's a signal that the industry wants interpretation letters to function as practical guidance, not as gotcha enforcement. Whether OSHA delivers on that expectation is a different question.

What Should Safety Leaders Do Now with These Seven LOIs?

1. Build "Defensible Modernization"

Treat interpretation letters as design constraints for technology adoption. Digital tools are fine. Substitution for oversight or measurement validity is not. When you adopt new equipment or software, ask: does this replace a safeguard OSHA considers non-negotiable?

Document your equivalency analysis for recordkeeping software. Document your hazard evaluation for confined space decisions. Document your control logic for engineering controls under chemical standards. The documentation isn't bureaucracy but your defense file.

2. LOI-Based Action Items by Topic

3. Use the Same Channel OSHA Is Signaling

OSHA and DOL explicitly invite the public to review interpretation letters and submit requests. That's an implied admission that standards won't keep pace fast enough without interpretation. If you have a compliance question that isn't addressed by existing letters, consider submitting it. The worst outcome is no response. The best outcome is binding guidance you can cite.

I've seen employers sit on ambiguous compliance questions for years, hoping they won't get cited. That's a gamble. The interpretation letter program is a way to get an answer before an inspector asks the question.

Where the Flexibility Ends and the Work Begins

What shows up across all seven letters is a pattern of where the agency plants its feet.

Software can generate your injury logs. Modern valves count toward your exposure controls. Confined space decisions can flex based on your evaluation. Stair geometry has to hit exact numbers or it fails. Cochlear implants come off during the test because the data has to mean something. COVID non-enforcement doesn't mean what employers want it to mean. And nobody watches a forklift practical through a screen.

The thread running through all of it: OSHA accepts that workplaces run on tools and systems that didn't exist when these standards were written. What it doesn’t accept are shortcuts that hollow out the thing the rule was trying to protect in the first place.

That puts the weight squarely on you. Performance-based standards sound like flexibility until you're the one defending your hazard evaluation, your equivalency determination, your reasoning for why the pipe didn't need isolation. The letters hand you discretion and accountability in equal measure.

These seven letters are a window into how OSHA reads ambiguity and an invitation to get ahead of it. The interpretation letter program exists precisely because the agency knows the questions will keep coming. Better to ask now than explain later.

FAQs

How do I submit an interpretation letter request to OSHA?

You can submit a request through OSHA's e-correspondence form. Describe the specific workplace situation and the standard you need clarified. Response times vary widely. Some letters have taken several months to over a year depending on complexity and agency workload. If you're concerned about drawing attention to your facility, you can work through legal counsel to submit anonymously.

Can I cite an interpretation letter as part of my defense if I receive a citation?

Yes. If OSHA issues a citation for an approach that aligns with guidance in a published interpretation letter, that letter may provide grounds to have the citation vacated or reduced. Courts may also consider whether OSHA's enforcement is consistent with its own published interpretations. That said, interpretation letters don't carry the same legal weight as formal regulations.

Do these interpretation letters apply in state-plan states, or only in federal OSHA jurisdictions?

Federal OSHA interpretation letters apply directly in states under federal jurisdiction. In the 22 states and territories with OSHA-approved state plans, these letters may not apply directly because state plans can have different or more stringent requirements. However, federal interpretations often influence how state programs read similar standards. If you operate in a state-plan state, check whether your state agency has issued its own guidance and treat the federal letter as a baseline.

What happens if my current program contradicts a newly issued interpretation letter?

Interpretation letters don't create new obligations or set compliance deadlines. They explain how OSHA has always read the underlying standard. But once a letter is published, it signals how OSHA will evaluate similar situations during inspections. If your program conflicts with a new interpretation, review the gap, assess the risk, and document your rationale if you believe your approach still meets the standard's intent.

Where can I monitor new interpretation letters as OSHA releases them throughout the year?

OSHA publishes all interpretation letters here, where you can search by date, standard number, or keyword. The site offers an RSS feed for automatic updates. For industry-specific letters, OSHA maintains dedicated pages for construction, recordkeeping, and other categories. Following Department of Labor news releases can also alert you when new batches are highlighted.

TRADESAFE provides premium industrial safety equipment, such as Lockout Tagout Devices, Eyewash Stations, Absorbents, and more; precision-engineered and trusted by professionals to offer unmatched performance in ensuring workplace safety.