Proposed Rule2025-11630
TITLE: 1,3-Butadiene
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 1,3-Butadiene 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 28302-28307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11630]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1926
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0020]
RIN 1218-AD55
TITLE: 1,3-Butadiene
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 1,3-Butadiene 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-2025-0020, 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-2025-0020). 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-2025-0020)
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#a3cec6cacfcacdc4c6d18dc5d1c2cdc0cad091e3c7cccf8dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5f323a36333631383a2d71392d3e313c362c6d1f3b303371383029">[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#aac5d9c2cb84ced9cdeacec5c684cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="345b475c551a50475374505b581a535b42">[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. 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 1,3-Butadiene standard (29 CFR 1910.1051). 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 1,3-Butadiene 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,
[[Page 28303]]
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 1971
when it published the 1,3-Butadiene standard (see 61 FR 56746). 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 adopted a consensus standard to regulate 1-3-Butadiene in
1971 and later revised it because the agency determined that at the
permissible exposure limit set in 1971 there was still significant risk
to employees (61 FR 56746). 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 1,3-Butadiene
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. 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 its first 1,3-Butadiene standard in 1971 (see 61 FR
56746). 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 1,3-Butadiene 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 1,3-Butadiene standard is to conform them, to the
extent possible, with other substance-specific standards and to the
[[Page 28304]]
revised 29 CFR 1910.134 in general. The proposed updates will improve
the 1,3-Butadiene 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.
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 paragraph (h) of its general industry
1,3-Butadiene standard (29 CFR 1910.1051) 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 simplify compliance for employers by
removing requirements in 1910.1051 that are duplicative with the
requirements in 1910.134. The proposed revisions would also provide
more compliance options by removing unnecessary restrictions on
respirator selection where another equally protective option exists.
Finally, these revisions would also conform this standard, to the
extent possible, to other substance-specific standards and to 29 CFR
1910.134, which would simplify review of these regulations. The Agency
preliminarily concludes, therefore, that updating these rules is
consistent with the goal of facilitating the use of new technology and
reducing undue burden.
OSHA has preliminarily determined that paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through
(iv) of the 1,3-Butadiene standard unnecessarily duplicate the general
provisions covered by 1910.134(a). The agency is therefore proposing to
remove those paragraphs and add a cross reference to 1910.134(a)(2) in
paragraph (h)(1). Employers in compliance with the current version of
1910.1051(h)(1) would not have to change any of their practices to
remain in compliance with the changes OSHA is proposing.
OSHA is also proposing to remove many of the respiratory selection
criteria from 1910.1051(h)(3)(i) and Table 1. Specifically, OSHA is
proposing to remove the phrase ``appropriate respirators from Table 1
of this section'' from paragraph (h)(3)(i) and instead include ``and
provide to employees, the appropriate respirators specified in
paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) of 29 CFR 1910.134'' because the requirements of
Table 1 duplicate the APF factors in 1910.134(d)(3)(i)(A) and would not
allow for the use of new types of respirators with equivalent APFs.
Additionally, in Table 1, OSHA is proposing to remove the specific
types of respirators from each row, while leaving in the type of
cartridge and canister with which the respirator must be equipped,
along with the change schedules for the cartridge or canister where
that is specified. Paragraphs (h)(2)(ii) and (h)(2)(iii) of the 1,3-
Butadiene standard include language that makes selection of replacement
schedules dependent on the ``class of respirators listed in Table 1''
so in the portions of the table where cartridge or canister changeout
schedules are maintained, OSHA is also keeping an APF requirement so
that there is a ``class of respirator'' listed in Table 1. For rows
where there is no cartridge or canister changeout schedule, OSHA is
proposing to delete those rows in their entirety. For the proposed
version of Table 1, see Section VIII.
OSHA has preliminarily determined that these requirements
unnecessarily duplicate the requirements in the Respiratory Protection
standard, at 1910.134(d)(1)(i) and (ii) and 1910.134(d)(3)(i)(A), which
employers are already required to follow. OSHA believes that these
changes will improve consistency with other substance specific
standards and allow employers to select from a wider range of equally
protective respirators based on the APF of the respirator. OSHA does
not intend for these changes to add to or change the regulatory burden
on employers; actions that were in compliance with the requirements in
1910.1051(h)(3)(i) and Table 1 of the 1,3-Butadiene standard would also
be in compliance with the standard as revised. However, this change
does expand the options available for compliant respiratory protection
based on exposure levels and APFs.
Additionally, OSHA is proposing to remove the sentence contained in
the notes to Table 1 of the 1,3-Butadiene standard that requires the
use of full facepiece respiratory protection when eye irritation is
anticipated. OSHA has preliminarily determined that paragraph (i) of
the standard contains requirements for the use of personal protective
equipment to prevent eye contact and limit dermal exposure to 1,3-
butadiene that are equally as protective as the provision in the notes
to Table 1. This would provide greater compliance flexibility to
employers who would be able to provide half mask respirators along with
appropriate eye and face protection when employees are experiencing eye
irritation.
OSHA is also considering (but not proposing) removing the
requirements for specific schedule changes for filter cartridges and
canisters that are in Table 1 of the 1,3-Butadiene standard and, in
paragraph (h)(2)(i), removing the exception for paragraphs
(d)(3)(iii)(B)(1) and (2) of the 1910.134 standard, resulting in
employers needing to comply with the generic cartridge and canister
change schedules in the Respiratory Protection standard. That provision
in the Respiratory Protection standard requires that an air-purifying
respirator be equipped with an end-of-service-life indicator (ESLI)
certified by NIOSH for the contaminant or, if there is no ESLI
appropriate for the working conditions, the employer must implement a
change schedule for canisters and cartridges based on objective
information or data that would ensure canisters and cartridges would be
changed before the end of their service life. The employer would also
need to include the basis for their determination in their respirator
program. Essentially, if OSHA made this change it would result in a
performance-based approach to cartridge and canister changes, rather
than a prescriptive approach. This would also result in Table 1 being
deleted entirely if OSHA removed both the respirator specifications as
proposed and the changeout schedules that it is currently proposing to
leave in.
OSHA notes that employers are currently permitted to establish
alternative schedules for filter replacement based on 90% of the
service life (paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of the 1,3-Butadiene standard), and
that the default replacement schedule outlined in Table 1 of the 1,3-
Butadiene standard is based on worse-case scenario exposure conditions
found in the workplace, since this provides the greatest margin for
safety in using air purifying respirators with 1,3-Butadiene. OSHA
questions whether the removal of Table 1 and requiring employers to
rely on the procedures in 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(B)(1) and (2),
specifically its end of service life indicators (ESLI) or performance-
based criteria, would be equally as protective while providing
employers with increased options for compliance.
[[Page 28305]]
OSHA recognizes that adopting these revisions will also result in
the revision of the respiratory protection requirements in OSHA's
shipyard employment, marine terminals, longshoring, and construction
industry standards for 1,3-butadiene (see 29 CFR 1915.1000 (Table Z),
29 CFR 1926.55 (Table 1), 29 CFR 1917.1, and 29 CFR 1918.1, which apply
the requirements in 29 CFR 1910.1051 to construction, longshoring,
marine terminals, and shipyard work). OSHA requests comment regarding
whether there are any considerations that are unique to the use of
respirators for protection against 1,3-butadiene 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 issues:
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?
3. Are there any aspects of the proposed cross references to
1910.134 that will insufficiently capture the existing provisions OSHA
is proposing to remove in the 1,3-Butadiene standard?
3. Should OSHA remove the filter cartridges and canisters change
schedule requirements under Table 1? Would following the performance-
based approach in 1910.134 sufficiently protect workers and would it
provide significant cost savings or other benefits?
V. Economic Analysis
This proposed rule would remove redundant requirements and expand
compliance options for employers in the 1,3-Butadiene standard, 29 CFR
1910.1051, and therefore OSHA has preliminarily concluded that there
would be no additional costs imposed by the proposed revisions. OSHA
also anticipates that there may be some cost savings associated with
this rule, including a reduction of the burden associated with
complying with and reviewing unnecessarily duplicative regulations.
Because this rule would impose no new costs, OSHA has made a
preliminary determination that the rule would be economically feasible.
Based on the Supporting Statement for the Information Collection
Request for the 1,3-Butadiene standard, OSHA estimates that there are
53 employees using respirators for monitoring and emergency response
activities involving exposure to 1,3-butadiene. Assuming 25 percent of
those employees will switch from a full facepiece respirator to a
hooded continuous flow respirator, which will eliminate fit testing
costs for those employees,\1\ OSHA estimates that this could result in
about $1,100 in savings annually (or about $8,000 over 10 years at a 3
present discount rate).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Docket ID OSHA-2012-0027-0014 for additional detail.
\2\ See Docket ID OSHA-2012-0027-0014 for information on
employee and wage rate estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA is seeking comments and data on this preliminary analysis,
including on 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. Would the savings to employers outside of general industry be
similar to what OSHA has estimated for general industry employers?
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, State-administered
occupational safety and health programs as ``State Plans.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28306]]
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 1,3-
Butadiene standard (OMB Control Number 1218-0170), OMB has waived the
requirements of 5 CFR part 1320 and approved the modified Information
Collection Request (ICR) under existing OMB Control Number 1218-0170
(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. 1910.1051 is revised as follows:
0
a. Revise and republish paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(3)(i) and Table 1
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(h) * * *
(1) General. For employees who use respirators required 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 it is
necessary to protect the health of an employee as required under 29 CFR
1910.134(a)(2).
(3) * * *
(i) The employer must select and provide to employees the
appropriate
[[Page 28307]]
respirators specified in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) of 29 CFR 1910.134.
Table 1--Minimum Requirements for Respiratory Protection for Airborne BD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration of airborne BD (ppm)
or condition of use Minimum required respirator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than or equal to 5 ppm (5 (a) A respirator with a minimum
times PEL). assigned protection factor (APF) of
10, equipped with approved BD or
organic vapor cartridges or
canisters. Cartridges or canisters
shall be replaced every 4 hours.
Less than or equal to 10 ppm (10 (a) A respirator with a minimum APF
times PEL). of 10, equipped with approved BD or
organic vapor cartridges or
canisters. Cartridges or canisters
shall be replaced every 3 hours.
Less than or equal to 25 ppm (25 (a) A respirator with a minimum APF
times PEL). of 25, equipped with approved BD or
organic vapor cartridges or
canisters. Cartridges or canisters
shall be replaced every 2 hours.
Less than or equal to 50 ppm (50 (a) A respirator with a minimum APF
times PEL). of 50, equipped with approved BD or
organic vapor cartridges or
canisters. Cartridges or canisters
shall be replaced every (1) hour.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Respirators approved for use in higher concentrations are permitted to
be used in lower concentrations.
[FR Doc. 2025-11630 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.