The American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the Associated General Contractors of America, and the National Asphalt Pavement Association, for example, issued a joint statement to the agency arguing that workers exposed to moving traffic during highway construction should not be protected under the General Duty Clause… Some groups argued that the new interpretation still doesn’t relax the standards enough. The Steel Manufacturers Association made a comment urging the agency to “more comprehensively prevent the misuse and misapplication of the General Duty Clause that we observed under previous administrations… “Although the preamble to [the proposal] suggests that the sports and entertainment industries are the intended targets of this rulemaking effort, the text of the proposed rule sets forth a non-exhaustive list of industries that may be subject to the proposed carveout,” noted a comment from North America’s Building Trades Union, a labor organization representing construction workers. And at the same time the agency seeks to limit the scope of the General Duty Clause, it’s using the clause as a justification for weakening other workplace safety laws. That includes its efforts to roll back construction illumination requirements, arguing that the General Duty Clause renders the rule unnecessary. “A specific standard for illumination is not necessary because a lack of illumination is a prototypical “recognized hazard . . . likely to cause serious death or serious physical injury” under the General Duty Clause,” the agency argued.