Proposed Rule2025-11627
Open Fires in Marine Terminals
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 1, 2025
Issuing agencies
Labor DepartmentOccupational Safety and Health Administration
Abstract
This proposed rule removes OSHA's Open Fires in Marine Terminals Standard from the Code of Federal Regulations.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28362-28366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11627]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1917
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0007]
RIN 1218-AD51
Open Fires in Marine Terminals
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule removes OSHA's Open Fires in Marine
Terminals Standard from the Code of Federal Regulations.
DATES: Comments and other information, including requests for a
hearing, must be received on or before September 2, 2025.
Informal public hearing: OSHA will schedule an informal public
hearing on the rule if requested during the comment period. If a
hearing is requested, the location and date of the hearing, procedures
for interested parties to notify the agency of their intention to
participate, and procedures for participants to submit their testimony
and documentary evidence will be announced in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments: You may submit comments and attachments,
identified by Docket No. OSHA-2025-0007, electronically at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow
the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name and
the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2025-0007). When
uploading multiple attachments to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, please
number all of your attachments because <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> will
not automatically number the attachments. This will be very useful in
identifying all attachments. For example, Attachment 1--title of your
document, Attachment 2--title of your document,
[[Page 28363]]
Attachment 3--title of your document. For assistance with commenting
and uploading documents, please see the Frequently Asked Questions on
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
All comments, including any personal information you provide, are
placed in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Therefore, OSHA cautions
commenters about submitting information they do not want made available
to the public or submitting materials that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others), such as Social Security Numbers
and birthdates.
Docket: The docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2025-0007)
is available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Most exhibits are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>;
some exhibits (e.g., copyrighted material) are not available to
download from that web page. However, all materials in the dockets are
available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For press inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, Occupational Safety and Health Administration;
telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#701d15191c191e1715025e1602111e1319034230141f1c5e171f06"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="79141c101510171e1c0b571f0b18171a100a4b391d1615571e160f">[email protected]</span></a>.
General information and technical inquiries: Contact Andrew
Levinson, Director, OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration; telephone: (202) 693-
1950; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#214e5249400f45524661454e4d0f464e57"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="036c706b622d67706443676c6f2d646c75">[email protected]</span></a>.
Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies are
available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. This Federal Register notice,
as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are
available at OSHA's web page at <a href="https://www.osha.gov">https://www.osha.gov</a>. A ``100-word
summary'' is also available on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Legal Authority and Preliminary Findings
III. Background
IV. Explanation of the Proposed Removal of the Open Fires in Marine
Terminals Standard From the Code of Federal Regulations
V. Preliminary Economic Analysis
VI. Additional Requirements
VII. Authority and Signature
VIII. Regulatory Text
I. Executive Summary
The intent of this proposed rule is to remove the Open Fires in
Marine Terminals Standard, 29 CFR 1917.21 (``Open Fires Standard''),
from the Code of Federal Regulations because that standard is no longer
necessary to protect employees working in marine terminals from
occupational safety and health hazards. This is a deregulatory action
per Executive Order 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation'' (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025).
II. Legal Authority and Preliminary Findings
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C.
651 et seq.) (``the Act'' or ``the OSH Act'') is ``to assure so far as
possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful
working conditions and to preserve our human resources'' (29 U.S.C.
651(b)). To achieve this goal Congress authorized the Secretary of
Labor (``the Secretary'') to promulgate standards to protect workers,
including the authority ``to set mandatory occupational safety and
health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate
commerce'' (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(3); see also 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(2) requiring
employers to comply with OSHA standards), 29 U.S.C. 655(a) (authorizing
summary adoption of existing consensus and established federal
standards within two years of the Act's enactment), and 29 U.S.C.
655(b) (authorizing promulgation, modification or revocation of
standards pursuant to notice and comment)). An occupational safety and
health standard is ``. . . a standard which requires conditions, or the
adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations,
or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or
healthful employment and places of employment'' (29 U.S.C. 652(8)).
Before OSHA may promulgate a health or safety standard, it must
find that a standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the
meaning of section 652(8) of the OSH Act. As required by the OSH Act,
OSHA originally determined that the Standards for Marine Terminals
would substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm when
promulgating those standards (see 48 FR 30886, 30887 (July 5, 1983)).
Once OSHA makes a general significant risk finding in support of a
standard, the next question is whether a particular requirement is
reasonably related to the purpose of the standard as a whole. See
Asbestos Info. Ass'n/N. Am. v. Reich, 117 F.3d 891, 894 (5th Cir.
1997); Forging Indus. Ass'n v. Sec'y of Labor, 773 F.2d 1436, 1447 (4th
Cir. 1985); United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Marshall, 647
F.2d 1189, 1237-38 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (``Lead I'').
A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures
it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available
technology, or can be created with technology that is reasonably
expected to be developed (see Am. Iron and Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 939
F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). Courts have also interpreted
technological feasibility to mean that a typical firm in each affected
industry or application group will reasonably be able to implement the
requirements of the standard in most operations most of the time (see,
e.g., Public Citizen v. OSHA, 557 F.3d 165, 170-71 (3d Cir. 2009)
(citing Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1272)).
Because this proposed rule would remove an existing OSHA
requirement from the CFR, OSHA anticipates employers would have no
technological issues complying with the rule. Accordingly, the agency
preliminarily finds that the proposed rule is technologically feasible
for affected employers.
In determining economic feasibility, OSHA must consider the cost of
compliance in an industry rather than on individual employers. In its
economic analyses, OSHA ``must construct a reasonable estimate of
compliance costs and demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that these
costs will not threaten the existence or competitive structure of an
industry, even if it does portend disaster for some marginal firms''
(Am. Iron and Steel Inst., 939 F.2d at 980, quoting Lead I, 647 F.2d at
1272). OSHA has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule is
economically feasible because this action is deregulatory and imposes
no additional costs. OSHA's economic analysis of the cost savings are
presented in Section V.
The Administrative Procedures Act directs agencies to include in
each rule adopted ``a concise general statement of [the rule's] basis
and purpose'' (5 U.S.C. 553(c)); cf. 29 U.S.C. 655(e) (requiring the
Secretary to publish a ``statement of reasons'' for any standard
promulgated)). This notice satisfies this concise statement
requirement.
III. Background
OSHA first adopted the Open Fires Standard in 1983, as part of its
Marine Terminals rulemaking, to address serious occupational safety and
health hazards in the marine terminals industry (see 48 FR 30886 (July
5, 1983)). The Open Fires Standard prohibits open fires and fires in
drums and similar containers (29 CFR 1917.21). The standard is one of
several
[[Page 28364]]
that protects employees working in marine terminals from the
occupational safety and health hazards to which they are exposed (see
29 CFR pt. 1917). For example, in addition to containing the Open Fires
Standard, the Marine Terminals Standards contain standards protecting
employees from slippery conditions (29 CFR 1917.12) and hazardous cargo
(29 CFR 1917.22). The Marine Terminals Standards apply to work such as
loading, unloading, movement or other handling of cargo in marine
terminals (29 CFR 1917.1). Marine terminals are wharves, bulkheads,
quays, piers, docks and other berthing locations and adjacent storage
or adjacent areas and structures associated with the primary movement
of cargo or materials from vessel to shore or shore to vessel including
structures which are devoted to receiving, handling, holding,
consolidating and loading or delivery of waterborne shipments or
passengers, including areas devoted to the maintenance of the terminal
or equipment.
IV. Explanation of the Proposed Removal of the Open Fires in Marine
Terminals Standard From the Code of Federal Regulations
OSHA is proposing to remove the Open Fires Standard from the CFR
because that standard is no longer necessary to protect employees
working in marine terminals from occupational safety and health
hazards. When OSHA first promulgated the Marine Terminals Standards in
1983, affected employees made open fires in drums or similar containers
to stay warm when they were exposed to the elements. It is OSHA's
understanding that this is no longer a typical practice. Because of
containerization and technology improvements in the marine terminals
industry, employees today are not exposed to the elements as they once
were. Moreover, to the extent employees are still exposed to the
elements, they can wear heated jackets, which were not available when
the Open Fires Standard was issued. Moreover, OSHA has not issued a
citation for a violation of this standard since 2012 or earlier.
Therefore, consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14219, ``Ensuring
Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of
Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative,'' E.O. 14192,
``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,'' and the goal of
significantly reducing the private expenditures required to comply with
Federal regulations to secure America's economic prosperity and
national security and the highest possible quality of life for each
citizen, OSHA preliminarily concludes that removing the Open Fires
Standard from the CFR will reduce the compliance burden on the
regulated community, without compromising worker safety.
Questions
1. Is the Open Fires Standard still necessary to protect employees
working in marine terminals from occupational safety and health
hazards? Will removal of the Open Fires Standard from the CFR
compromise worker safety? Please explain.
2. Is OSHA's understanding correct that employees are no longer
exposed to the elements as they once were in the marine terminals
industry because of containerization and technology improvements?
Please explain.
3. Is OSHA's understanding correct that, to the extent employees
are exposed to the elements, they now can wear heated jackets, which
were not available when the Open Fires Standard was issued? Please
explain.
4. Even if OSHA's understanding regarding questions 2 and 3 is
correct, is there some other reason why employees in the marine
terminals industry would want to make open fires and fires in drums or
similar containers? Please explain.
V. Preliminary Economic Analysis
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C.
1532(a)) require that OSHA estimate the benefits, costs, and net
benefits of regulations, and analyze the impacts of certain rules that
OSHA promulgates. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules,
and promoting flexibility.
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or UMRA, or a ``major rule'' under the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). Neither the benefits
nor the costs of this proposed rule would exceed $100 million in any
given year. This proposal would, however, result in a net cost savings
for employers in marine terminal and longshoring operations, which are
the only industries throughout OSHA's jurisdiction affected by the
rescission of 29 CFR 1917.21.
Furthermore, as discussed below in Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, because the proposed rule would not impose any costs,
OSHA certifies that it would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
OSHA estimates that there are currently 2,617 establishments in
maritime affected by OSHA standards addressing open fires (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2024). These establishments are found in the following
industries: Port and Harbor Operations (NAICS 488310), Marine Cargo
Handling (NAICS 488320), Navigational Services to Shipping (NAICS
488330), Other Support Activities for Water Transportation (NAICS
488390). The proposed rescission of the standards addressing open fires
will, among other things, eliminate the time necessary for new
establishments and newly hired occupational health and safety
specialists at existing establishments to familiarize themselves with
the requirements found in 29 CFR 1917.21. Based on an average annual
establishment entry rate of 10 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2025), an
average hire rate of 43.9 percent (BLS, 2025), and 10 minutes less time
spent on regulatory familiarization at a loaded hourly wage rate for an
occupational health and safety specialist of $65.41, OSHA estimates
that this deregulatory action would mean $15,377 in cost savings
annually.
OSHA also estimated the impacts under an alternative scenario where
only new entrants into the industry would be affected by the rescission
of 29 CFR 1917.21. This scenario assumes that for non-entrant (i.e.,
existing) establishments within an industry, the familiarization time
saved for newly hired occupational health and safety specialists is
negligible due to knowledge of the requirements in section 1917.21
retained institutionally within the business entity by team leaders and
other senior production staff. For this scenario, costs savings that
result from rescinding section 1917.21 would be $2,853 annually.
A third impacts scenario, one that is likely closer to the real-
world environment for the retention and communication of safety and
health information in most workplaces, would be the midpoint of the two
extreme cases described above. Under this mid-range scenario,
approximately half of affected establishments would retain staff whose
complete knowledge of the rescinded standards would substitute for the
familiarization time needed by the newly hired health and safety
specialists. Viewed alternatively, under this mid-range scenario, all
affected establishments retain veteran staff who can briefly inform the
new safety and health specialist of the status of standards such as
section 1917.21 in less time (roughly five minutes) than would be
necessary in the absence of
[[Page 28365]]
institutional knowledge (ten minutes). OSHA estimates that this would
result in cost savings of $9,115 annually.
OSHA's estimate of cost savings may underestimate total cost
savings if the elimination of the labor burden for regulatory
familiarization extends to the avoidance of unnecessary safety training
of employees.
OSHA requests public comment on this analysis of the cost savings
for marine terminal and longshoring operations from the rescission of
the standards addressing open fires in 29 CFR 1917.21. Specifically,
OSHA seeks comments and data on the following questions:
1. How much do employers expect to save as a consequence of the
rescission of requirements in the current standard?
2. How much familiarization time would employers who are new
entrants to the market expect to save based on the revisions?
3. Are there any benefits for worker protection that can be
anticipated from this proposed change?
4. Are there any costs for employers that would result from this
change that OSHA has not considered?
Sources
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2025). Occupational Employment
and Wage Statistics--May 2024 (Released April 2, 2025). Available at
<a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm</a> (Accessed April 11, 2025)
U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). County Business Patterns 2022 (Released
June 27, 2024). Available at <a href="https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html">https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html</a> (Accessed July 17, 2024)
U.S. Census Bureau. (2025). Business Dynamics Statistics. Available
at <a href="https://bds.explorer.ces.census.gov/?xaxis-id=year&xaxis-selected=2018,2019,2020,2021,2022&group-id=none&measure-id=estabs_entry_rate&chart-type=bar">https://bds.explorer.ces.census.gov/?xaxis-id=year&xaxis-selected=2018,2019,2020,2021,2022&group-id=none&measure-id=estabs_entry_rate&chart-type=bar</a> (Accessed June 6, 2025)
Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a
final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law
must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that
the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
OSHA reviewed this proposed rescission under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule eliminates a burdensome
regulation. Therefore, OSHA preliminarily concludes that the rescission
would not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities,'' and that the preparation of an IRFA is not
warranted. OSHA will transmit this certification and supporting
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
VI. Additional Requirements
A. Requirements for States With OSHA-Approved State Plans
Under section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress
expressly provides that States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan
for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health
standards that are ``at least as effective'' as the Federal standards
in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment (29
U.S.C. 667). OSHA refers to these OSHA-approved, State-administered
occupational safety and health programs as ``State Plans.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Of the 29 States and U.S. territories with OSHA-approved
State Plans, 22 cover public and private-sector employees: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon,
Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, and Wyoming. The remaining six States and one U.S.
territory cover only State and local government employees:
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
and the Virgin Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, State Plans must either amend their
standards to be identical to, or ``at least as effective as,'' the new
Federal standard or amendment, or show that an existing State Plan
standard covering this issue is ``at least as effective'' as the new
Federal standard or amendment (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). However, when OSHA
promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional
or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, State Plans
do not have to amend their standards, although they may opt to do so.
OSHA has preliminarily determined this proposed rule does not impose
additional or more stringent requirements than the existing standard,
and therefore State Plans are not required to amend their standards.
OSHA seeks comment on this assessment of its proposal.
B. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
defines ``collection of information'' to mean ``the obtaining, causing
to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third
parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency,
regardless of form or format'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). Under the PRA, a
Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information
unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and the agency displays a
currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also,
notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject
to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if
the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB
control number (44 U.S.C. 3512(a)(1)). The process for OMB approval is
found in 5 CFR part 1320. This proposed rule would impose no new
information collection requirements and does not affect the currently
approved information collections in Marine Terminals (29 CFR pt. 1917)
and Longshoring (29 CFR pt. 1918) (OMB Control Number 1218-0196).
Accordingly, OMB approval is not required for this proposed rule.
C. Review Under Executive Order 12866
E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct.
4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1)
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that
its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices
can be made by the public.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. OIRA has determined that this
proposed rule would not constitute a ``significant regulatory action''
under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this proposed rule was
not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
[[Page 28366]]
D. Environmental Impacts/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
OSHA has reviewed this proposed rule according to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as
amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-5, 321,
137 Stat. 10), and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR
part 11). OSHA has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule
will have no impact on the quality of the human environment.
E. Other Statutory and Executive Order Considerations
OSHA has considered its obligations under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and the Executive Orders on
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O.
13175, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000)), Federalism (E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43255
(Aug. 10, 1999)), and Protection of Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (E.O. 13045, 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997)). Given
that this is a proposed deregulatory action that involves the removal
of requirements, that OSHA does not foresee economic impacts of $100
million or more, and that the action does not constitute a policy that
has federalism or tribal implications, OSHA has determined that no
further agency action or analysis is required to comply with these
statutes and executive orders. Furthermore, OSHA has determined that
this proposed rule is consistent with the policies and directives
outlined in E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation''
and is an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1917
Health, Longshore and harbor workers, Occupational safety and
health.
VII. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of Amanda Laihow,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
It is issued under the authority of sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and
657); section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act
(33 U.S.C. 941); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58383);
and 29 CFR part 1911.
Dated: June 20, 2025.
Amanda Laihow,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
VIII. Regulatory Text
Proposed Amendments
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHA is amending 29 CFR
part 1917 as follows:
PART 1917--MARINE TERMINALS
0
1. The authority for part 1917 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 941; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR
50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR
55355), 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), or 8-2020 (85 FR 58393), as applicable;
and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1917.28 and 1917.31 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
Section 1917.29 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5
U.S.C. 553.
Subpart B--Marine Terminal Operations
Sec. 1917.21 [Reserved]
0
2. Remove and reserve Sec. 1917.21.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-11627 Filed 6-30-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 1, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.