Proposed Rule2025-11631
13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.)
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 13 Carcinogens 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 28312-28316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11631]
[[Page 28312]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0013]
RIN 1218-AD56
13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.)
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 13 Carcinogens 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-2025-0013, 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-2025-0013). 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="http://regulations.gov">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-2025-0013)
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#d5b8b0bcb9bcbbb2b0a7fbb3a7b4bbb6bca6e795b1bab9fbb2baa3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fe939b97929790999b8cd0988c9f909d978dccbe9a9192d0999188">[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#b7d8c4dfd699d3c4d0f7d3d8db99d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b6478636a256f786c4b6f6467256c647d">[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 promote more effective use of
respirators, provide greater compliance flexibility, and clarify the
policies and procedures employers must follow when implementing a
respiratory protection program in conjunction with OSHA's 13
Carcinogens standard (29 CFR 1910.1003). 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 13 Carcinogens 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
[[Page 28313]]
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 1974
when it published the first Carcinogens standard (39 FR 3756). 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 these carcinogens posed a grave danger, which is a
higher threshold than significant risk (38 FR 10929). 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 13
Carcinogens 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 a carcinogens standard in 1974 (39 FR 3756). 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 13 Carcinogens 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 13 Carcinogens 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
these substance-specific standards, including 13 Carcinogens, because
they will now refer to the APFs in the respiratory protection standard,
which is based on current technology and practices for respirator use.
OSHA also believes that advances in technology have made the substance-
specific standards outdated in some areas. 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 (c)(4)(iv) of its general
industry 13 Carcinogens standard (29 CFR 1910.1003) to reduce
compliance
[[Page 28314]]
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 provide more compliance options for
employers by replacing requirements for specific respirator types with
requirements for respirator selection based on APFs. The APFs in the
respiratory protection standard are based on current knowledge about
respirator use and updated technology. These revisions would also
conform the 13 Carcinogens standard, to the extent possible, to other
substance-specific standards and to 29 CFR 1910.134. The Agency has
made a preliminary determination, therefore, that updating the 13
Carcinogens standard is consistent with the goal of facilitating
technological innovation, reducing undue burden, and improving
compliance with OSHA's respiratory protection requirements.
The proposed changes to paragraph (c)(4)(iv) of the 13 Carcinogens
standard would replace two requirements for the use of respiratory
protection. The first change would remove the requirement for employers
to provide each employee engaged in handling operations involving the
carcinogens 4-Nitrobiphenyl, alpha-Naphthylamine, 3,3'-
Dichlorobenzidine (and its salts), beta-Naphthylamine, Benzidine, 4-
Aminodiphenyl, 2-Acetylaminofluorene, 4-Dimethylaminoazo-benzene, and
N-Nitrosodimethylamine with National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) certified air-purifying, half-mask respirators with
particulate filters. In place of the deleted requirement, this proposal
would add a requirement to provide and ensure the use of a NIOSH-
certified respirator for protection against particulates with an APF of
10 under those same working conditions. Second, the requirement for
employers to ensure that each employee engaged in handling operations
involving the carcinogens methyl chloromethyl ether, bis-Chloromethyl
ether, Ethyleneimine, and beta-Propiolactone wears and uses any self-
contained breathing apparatus that has a full facepiece would be
replaced with a requirement to provide and ensure the use of any
respirator with an APF of 10,000. The standard would continue to allow
employers to substitute a respirator affording employees higher levels
of protection than these respirators, but now would also allow them to
use additional types of respirators that provide equivalent levels of
protection (based on APFs in 29 CFR 1910.134) as the respirators
required under the existing 13 Carcinogens standard.
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 the 13 Carcinogens (see 29 CFR 1926.1103, 29 CFR
1915.1003, 29 CFR 1917.1, and 29 CFR 1918.1, which applies the
requirements in 29 CFR 1910.1003 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 hazards from the 13 carcinogens 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 this proposal, including responses
regarding the following issues:
1. Are there any concerns that making this change would decrease
worker safety?
2. In some other substance-specific standards OSHA currently limits
the use of filtering facepiece respirators (see, e.g., 29 CFR
1910.1001(g)(3)(i)). OSHA is interested in obtaining information from
commenters about whether there are reasons to limit the use of
filtering facepiece respirators in the 13 Carcinogens standard.
3. Is there an alternative approach OSHA should consider?
V. Economic Analysis
This proposed rule would expand compliance options for employers
under the 13 Carcinogens standard, 29 CFR 1910.1003, 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 fit testing for those employees able to
wear a loose fitting PAPR or similar. Because this rule would impose no
new costs, OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the rule
would be economically feasible.
The changes to the requirements for 13 carcinogens would expand
compliance options for employers by allowing them to provide any
respirator meeting the minimum assigned protection factor, including
respirators with a helmet or hood, rather than mandating half mask
respirators and full facepiece self-contained breathing apparatuses
(SCBA). OSHA anticipates that the expanded compliance options may lead
to some employers switching to types of respirators that do not require
fit testing, eliminating costs for that procedure.
Based on the Supporting Statement for the Information Collection
Request for the 13 Carcinogens standard,\1\ OSHA estimates that 770
employees are exposed to the chemicals covered by the standard. For the
sake of this analysis, OSHA assumes that all these employees will be
wearing respirators. Switching from a half mask or a full facepiece
SCBA to a hooded PAPR would eliminate fit testing costs for those
employees. OSHA estimates that 50 percent of employees wearing
respirators, or 385 employees, would use a different type of respirator
as a result of this proposal. Based on the Supporting Statement for the
Information Collection Request for the Asbestos in Shipyards
standard,\2\ fit testing is assumed to take 30 minutes of both the
employee's time and a supervisor's time and occur twice a year. This
means that this proposal could result in savings of about $31,500
annually (or about $234,000 over 10 years annualized at a 3 percent
discount rate).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Document ID OSHA-2011-0860-0013 for information about
estimates of employees.
\2\ See Document ID OSHA-2012-0009-0014.
\3\ See Document ID OSHA-2011-0860-0013 for information about
wage rates used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 half mask respirator or full
facepiece SCBA 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
[[Page 28315]]
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.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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 13
Carcinogens standard (OMB Control Number 1218-0085), OMB has waived the
requirements of 5 CFR part 1320 and approved the modified Information
Collection Request (ICR) under existing OMB Control Number 1218-0085
(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.
[[Page 28316]]
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. 1910.1003(c)(4)(iv) is revised and republished to read as follows:
Employers must provide each employee engaged in handling operations
involving the carcinogens 4-Nitrobiphenyl, alpha-Naphthylamine, 3,3'-
Dichlorobenzidine (and its salts), beta-Naphthylamine, Benzidine, 4-
Aminodiphenyl, 2-Acetylaminofluorene, 4-Dimethylaminoazo-benzene, and
N-Nitrosodimethylamine, addressed by this section, with, and ensure
that each of these employees wears and uses, a NIOSH-certified
respirator for particulates that has an assigned protection factor
(APF) of 10. Employers also must provide each employee engaged in
handling operations involving the carcinogens methyl chloromethyl
ether, bis-Chloromethyl ether, Ethyleneimine, and beta-Propiolactone,
addressed by this section, with, and ensure that each of these
employees wears and uses a respirator that has an APF of 10,000.
Employers may substitute a respirator affording employees higher levels
of protection than these respirators.
[FR Doc. 2025-11631 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.