Proposed Rule2025-11629
1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane
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 revises some substance-specific respirator requirements to allow different types of respirators to be used under OSHA's 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane standard and better aligns this standard with OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard.
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 28316-28321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11629]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0019]
RIN 1218-AD54
1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule revises some substance-specific respirator
requirements to allow different types of respirators to be used under
OSHA's 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane standard and better aligns this
standard with OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard.
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-2025-0019, 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-2025-0019). When
uploading multiple attachments to <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>, please number all of
your attachments because <a href="http://regulations.gov">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, 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-2025-0019)
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#1c7179757075727b796e327a6e7d727f756f2e5c787370327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b060e020702050c0e19450d190a05080218592b0f0407450c041d">[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#442b372c256a20372304202b286a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aec1ddc6cf80caddc9eecac1c280c9c1d8">[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
[[Page 28317]]
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. Events Leading to the Proposed Rule
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Requirements
V. Economic Analysis
VI. Additional Requirements
VII. Authority and Signature
VIII. Regulatory Text
I. Executive Summary
This proposed rule is intended to provide greater compliance
flexibility and clarify the policies and procedures employers must
follow when implementing a respiratory protection program in
conjunction with OSHA's 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane standard (29 CFR
1910.1044). OSHA is proposing to revise some respirator-related
provisions where they are unnecessarily prescriptive, which would
result in employers having greater flexibility in the respirators they
select for exposed workers, while providing equivalent worker
protection. This proposal is also consistent with OSHA's intent, when
it published the revised Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR
1910.134), to use it as a foundation for respirator selection in
substance-specific standards.
Additionally, OSHA believes that this proposed rule appropriately
incorporates advances in technology, which have made some provisions of
the 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane standard outdated, and would allow
employers to take advantage of future technological advances. This
proposed standard is intended to account for modern knowledge and
technology and to streamline the selection of respirators.
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), 29 U.S.C.
655(b) (authorizing promulgation, modification or revocation of
standards pursuant to notice and comment), and 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)
(authorizing OSHA to include among a standard's requirements labeling,
monitoring, medical testing, and other information-transmittal
provisions)). 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)). The Secretary may also issue
regulations requiring employers to keep records regarding their
activities relating to the Act, as well as records of work-related
deaths, injuries, and illnesses (29 U.S.C. 657(c)(1)-(2)).
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, which OSHA did here in 1978
when it published the 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane standard (43 FR
11514). The Supreme Court, in its decision on OSHA's Benzene standard,
interpreted OSHA's obligation under section 652(8) as requiring it to
evaluate ``whether significant risks are present and can be eliminated
or lessened by a change in practices'' (Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v.
Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 642 (1980) (plurality opinion)).
OSHA originally published this standard as an emergency temporary
standard (ETS) and found that exposure to 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
posed a grave danger, which is a higher threshold than significant risk
(42 FR 45536). When, as here, OSHA has previously determined that its
standard substantially reduces a significant risk, it is unnecessary
for the agency to make additional findings on risk for every provision
of that standard (see, e.g., Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v.
Tyson, 796 F.2d 1479, 1502 n.16 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (rejecting the
argument that OSHA must ``find that each and every aspect of its
standard eliminates a significant risk'')). Rather, 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 '')). Therefore, while OSHA is not making a
preliminary finding of significant risk for this proposed rule, the
agency has made a preliminary determination that the proposed changes
are reasonably related to the purpose of the 1,2-Dibromo-3-
Chloropropane standard as a whole.
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 at 1272)).
This proposed rule would not substantially modify existing
requirements for respiratory protection in workplaces; nor would it
create new requirements. All employers in compliance with the existing
standard would also be in compliance with the revised standard.
Therefore, OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the proposed
rule would be technologically feasible.
In evaluating economic feasibility, OSHA must consider the average
cost of compliance in an industry rather than costs for 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 at 1272). OSHA has made a preliminary finding that this proposal
is economically feasible because it is deregulatory and is expected to
reduce costs for employers. OSHA's economic analysis is 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.
[[Page 28318]]
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. Events Leading to the Proposed Rule
OSHA adopted a 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane standard in 1978 (43 FR
11514). OSHA also has a general Respiratory Protection standard, 29 CFR
1910.134, which it first promulgated in 1971 (39 FR 9835). OSHA
published a revised Respiratory Protection standard on January 8, 1998
(63 FR 1152). The Respiratory Protection standard contains worksite-
specific requirements for program administration, as well as procedures
for respirator selection, employee training, fit testing, medical
evaluation, and respirator use, among other provisions. OSHA noted that
the revised standard was to ``serve as a `building block' standard with
respect to future standards that may contain respiratory protection
requirements'' (63 FR 1265). In 2006, OSHA revised the Respiratory
Protection standard again to incorporate assigned protection factors
(APFs) in the respirator selection process (71 FR 50122-01).
Several OSHA standards regulating exposure to toxic substances and
harmful physical agents, including the 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
standard, require compliance with many provisions of 29 CFR 1910.134.
However, when revising the respirator rule, the Agency decided to
retain several special respirator selection provisions in the existing
substance-specific standards. In this regard, OSHA noted that the
respirator selection requirements retained in the substance-specific
standards were developed in rulemakings to provide protection against a
hazardous characteristic or condition unique to the regulated
substance. Consequently, OSHA felt that preserving these provisions in
the individual substance-specific standards would maintain the level of
respiratory protection afforded to employees.
In this proposal, OSHA is revisiting some of those determinations;
the agency now believes that there are additional ways that substance-
specific standards can rely on 29 CFR 1910.134 without compromising
employee safety. The purpose of revising the respirator-related
provisions of OSHA's 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane standard is to conform
them, to the extent possible, with other substance-specific standards
and to the revised 29 CFR 1910.134 in general. The proposed updates
will improve the 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane standard because it will
now refer to the APFs in the Respiratory Protection standard, which is
based on current technology and practices for respirator use. This
revised standard is intended to take account of new knowledge and
technology.
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane is no longer commercially manufactured
in the United States and was not reported to be produced for sale by
any manufacturing plant worldwide in 2009. Nevertheless, 13 suppliers
were identified in the U.S. in 2009. Since 1985, after the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency suspended registrations for uses of
fumigant products containing the compound, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane
has been used in the United States only for research purposes and as an
intermediate in organic synthesis, such as in the synthesis of a fire
retardant called tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate. In 2009, no
commercial manufacturers of tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate were
identified, but it was available from six U.S. suppliers (see <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK590804/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK590804/</a> for more details). Based on these
facts, it is likely that usage of 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane in the
U.S. as well as the number of employees exposed to the chemical have
declined drastically since the promulgation of the 1,2-Dibromo-3-
chloropropane standard in 1978.
OSHA expects that the rule would ultimately reduce the compliance
burden on the regulated community, without compromising worker safety.
Therefore, OSHA believes this proposed rule is 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 removing regulations that harm the
national interest by impeding technological innovation or private
enterprise and entrepreneurship.
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Requirements
OSHA is proposing to revise paragraphs (h) and (n) of its general
industry 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane standard (29 CFR 1910.1044) to
reduce compliance burdens, allow for the use of more up-to-date
technology, and improve the comprehensibility of the requirements for
respiratory protection programs. These revisions would improve
comprehensibility and simplify compliance for employers by removing
requirements in 1910.1044 that are duplicative with the requirements in
1910.134. The revisions would also remove unnecessary restrictions on
respirator selection where another equally protective option exists.
Finally, these revisions would conform this standard, to the extent
possible, to other substance-specific standards and to 29 CFR 1910.134.
The Agency preliminarily concludes, therefore, that updating this rule
is consistent with the goals of reducing undue burden and facilitating
the use of new technologies.
OSHA has preliminarily determined that paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through
(iv) of the 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane standard unnecessarily
duplicate the general provisions covered by 1910.134(a) and is
proposing to remove those paragraphs and add a cross reference to
1910.134(a)(2) in paragraph (h)(1).
OSHA is also proposing changes to paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of the
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane standard. That paragraph currently requires
employers to provide a combination respirator that includes a supplied-
air respirator with a full facepiece operated in a pressure-demand or
other positive-pressure or continuous-flow mode as well as an auxiliary
self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) operated in a pressure-demand
or positive-pressure mode. OSHA is proposing to replace that with a
requirement to provide a combination respirator with a minimum APF of
1,000 that includes an auxiliary self-contained breathing apparatus
(SCBA) operated in a pressure-demand or positive-pressure mode. Making
this change would allow employers to choose respirators based on the
APF factors from 1910.134 and would provide employers with more
options.
Finally, OSHA has preliminarily determined that paragraph
(n)(1)(ii)(c), which requires training on ``The purpose, proper use,
and limitations of respirators,'' unnecessarily duplicates the general
training provisions covered by 1910.134(k). OSHA is therefore proposing
to remove and reserve this paragraph.
OSHA is also requesting comment on whether to remove 29 CFR
1910.1044 in its entirety. If OSHA did this, it would instead require
any employers with exposed employees to comply with the more general
standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, including 1910 Subpart I on
Personal Protective Equipment, which contains requirements for
respiratory protection, and Subpart Z on Toxic and Hazardous
Substances. As discussed previously, it is likely that only small
amounts of 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane are used in the U.S. and that
the number of exposed workers is small.
OSHA recognizes that adopting these revisions will also result in
the revision
[[Page 28319]]
of the respiratory protection requirements in OSHA's shipyard
employment, marine terminals, longshoring, and construction industry
standards for 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (see 29 CFR 1926.1144, 29 CFR
1917.1, 29 CFR 1918.1, and 29 CFR 1915.1044, which apply the
requirements in 1910.1044 to construction, longshoring, marine
terminals, and shipyards.). OSHA requests comment regarding whether
there are any considerations that are unique to the use of respirators
for protection against 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane hazards in
shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring, or construction that OSHA
should consider when finalizing this proposal. OSHA is in the process
of appointing members to the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety
and Health (ACCSH). The agency intends to present this proposed rule to
ACCSH once that process is complete. The agency will put the
Committee's recommendations on the OSHA website and in the docket for
this proposed rule prior to the close of the comment period to allow
the public to provide comments on those recommendations.
OSHA requests comments on the following questions:
1. Are there any concerns that making the changes described in this
proposal will decrease worker safety?
2. Are there alternative approaches OSHA should consider to the
proposed revisions?
3. Should OSHA remove the 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane standard?
Would following the standards under 29 CFR part 1910 (e.g., 29 CFR part
1910, subparts I and Z) sufficiently protect workers?
V. Economic Analysis
This proposed rule would remove redundant training requirements and
expand compliance options for employers under the 1,2-Dibromo-3-
Chloropropane standard, 29 CFR 1910.1044. The changes to the
requirements for 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane would expand compliance
options for employers by allowing them to provide respirators with a
helmet or hood rather than mandating full facepiece respirators.
Because the proposal would simply provide more options, OSHA has
preliminarily concluded that there would be no additional costs imposed
by the proposed revisions. Therefore, OSHA has made a preliminary
determination that the rule would be economically feasible.
As discussed in Section III. Events Leading to the Proposed Rule,
it is likely that only small amounts of 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane are
currently used for chemical synthesis and research purposes. 1,2-
Dibromo-3-chloropropane is no longer commercially produced in the U.S.,
according to the National Institutes of Health.\1\ Therefore, the
regulated community, and number of exposed workers, is likely small.
While this proposal would allow employees to switch from a full
facepiece respirator to a hooded continuous flow respirator, which
would eliminate the need for fit testing and reduce costs, OSHA
estimates no cost savings from this proposal due to a lack of
information on the extent to which employees are still exposed to 1,2-
Dibromo-3-chloropropane. OSHA welcomes data identifying any current
uses of 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane in this country as well as
information on the number of exposed employees and respirator usage for
exposed employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK590804/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK590804/</a> for
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane is used, OSHA seeks
comments and data in response to the following questions:
1. How much do employers expect to save based on the increased
flexibility in respirator selection?
2. How many employees would employers expect to use helmet or
hooded style respirators instead of a full facepiece under the proposed
revisions?
3. Are there any other savings for employers that would result from
the proposed change?
4. Are there any benefits for worker protection that can be
anticipated from this proposed change?
5. Are there any costs for employers that would result from this
change that OSHA has not considered?
6. Are there additional categories of cost savings that OSHA has
not identified?
7. Is 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane used outside of general industry?
If so, for what purpose?
A. 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 rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule would eliminate burdensome
regulations. Therefore, OSHA initially concludes that the impacts of
the revisions 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).
B. 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 proposal was not
submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
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,
[[Page 28320]]
State-administered occupational safety and health programs as ``State
Plans.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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 (PRA) 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. Because the revisions are deregulatory and affect only
minor changes to the existing information collections in the 1,2-
Dibromo-3-Chloropropane standard (OMB Control Number 1218-0101), OMB
has waived the requirements of 5 CFR part 1320 and approved the
modified Information Collection Request (ICR) under existing OMB
Control Number 1218-0101 (see 5 CFR 1320.18(d)).
C. 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 determined that this proposal would have no impact
on the quality of the human environment.
D. 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 proposal 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 1910
Assigned protection factors, Airborne contaminants, Health,
Occupational safety and health, Respirators, Respirator selection.
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), 5 U.S.C. 553, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR
58393), 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 1910 as follows:
PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
0
1. The authority for 29 CFR 1910 subpart Z is revised 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); 29 CFR part
1911; and 5 U.S.C. 553, as applicable.
All of subpart Z issued under 29 U.S.C. 655(b), except those
substances that have exposure limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and
Z-3 of Sec. 1910.1000. The latter were issued under 29 U.S.C.
655(a).
Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 CFR part 1911 except for the arsenic
(organic compounds), benzene, cotton dust, and chromium (VI)
listings.
Section 1910.1001 also issued under 40 U.S.C. 3704 and 5 U.S.C.
553.
Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under
29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, and 1910.1200 also issued under
29 U.S.C. 653.
Section 1910.1030 also issued under Public Law 106-430, 114
Stat. 1901.
Section 1910.1201 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5
U.S.C. 553.
0
2. Sec. 1910.1044 is revised as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (h)(1);
0
b. Remove paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv);
0
c. Revise paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A); and
0
d. Remove and reserve paragraph (n)(1)(ii)(c).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(h) * * *
(1) General. For employees who are required to use respirators by
this section, the employer must provide each employee an appropriate
respirator that complies with the requirements of this paragraph.
Respirators must be used when the employer determines that they are
necessary to protect the health of an employee as required under 29 CFR
1910.134(a)(2).
[[Page 28321]]
(2) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) A combination respirator that has a minimum APF of 1,000 that
includes an auxiliary self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)
operated in a pressure-demand or positive-pressure mode.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(c) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2025-11629 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.