Proposed Rule2025-11634
Benzene
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 would revise some substance-specific respirator requirements to allow different types of respirators to be used under OSHA's Benzene standard and would better align 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 28321-28325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11634]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0023]
RIN 1218-AD59
Benzene
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would revise some substance-specific
respirator requirements to allow different types of respirators to be
used under OSHA's Benzene standard and would better align 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-2025-0023, 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-2025-0023). When
uploading multiple attachments to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, please
number all of your attachments because <a href="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-2025-0023)
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#f29f979b9e9b9c959780dc9480939c919b81c0b2969d9edc959d84"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f727a76737671787a6d31796d7e717c766c2d5f7b707331787069">[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#2e415d464f004a5d496e4a414200494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="513e2239307f35223611353e3d7f363e27">[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 Benzene standard (29 CFR 1910.1028). 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 Benzene 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,
[[Page 28322]]
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 1987
when it published a final rule updating the Benzene standard (52 FR
34460). The Supreme Court, in its decision on an earlier version (1978)
of 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)). In the 1987 final rule, OSHA concluded
workers were facing a significant risk of adverse health effects (52 FR
34460). 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 Benzene 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 the current Benzene standard in 1987 (52 FR 34460).
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 Benzene 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 Benzene 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 would improve the Benzene
standard because they facilitate the use of new technology and better
align with 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 Benzene standard 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.
[[Page 28323]]
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 (g) of its general industry
Benzene standard (29 CFR 1910.1028) 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 1910.1028 that are
duplicative of the requirements in 1910.134. The revisions would also
provide more compliance options by removing unnecessary restrictions on
respirator selection where another equally protective option
exists.Finally, these revisions conform these standards, to the extent
possible, to other substance-specific standards and to 29 CFR 1910.134.
The Agency preliminarily concludes, therefore, that updating these
rules is consistent with the goals of reducing undue burden and
facilitating the use of new technology.
OSHA preliminarily determined that paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through
(iv) of the Benzene standard, which specify when respirators must be
used, unnecessarily duplicate the general provisions covered by
1910.134(a). Therefore, the agency is proposing to remove those
paragraphs and add a cross reference to 1910.134(a)(2) in paragraph
(g)(1). OSHA does not intend for these changes to add to or change the
regulatory burden on employers; actions that comply with the
requirements in 1910.1028(g) would also be in compliance with proposed
paragraph (g).
Additionally, OSHA is proposing to remove paragraph (g)(3)(i)(C) of
the Benzene standard, which specifies what type of respirator cartridge
or canister must be used with particular types of respirators. OSHA
preliminarily determined that these respirator-selection provisions
duplicate the general provisions covered by 1910.134(d) of the
Respiratory Protection standard and are unnecessarily restrictive by
limiting employers who use full facepiece gas masks to chin-style
cannisters only. Removing these provisions would allow employers to
select from a wider range of respirators that provide equivalent worker
protection.
OSHA is also considering (but not proposing) removing the
requirements for replacement schedules of air-purifying elements in
air-purifying respirators in the Benzene standard. Paragraphs
(g)(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Benzene standard require the use of an end-
of-service-life indicator or replacement of the air-purifying element
at the expiration of its service life or at the beginning of each
shift, whichever comes first. These provisions are similar to
provisions contained in the Respiratory Protection standard at
1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(B), which 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 the
prescriptive approach currently contained in the Benzene standard. OSHA
believes that this change could improve consistency with other
substance-specific standards without reducing employee safety and
health, but is specifically requesting comment on this issue.
OSHA recognizes that adopting these revisions will also result in
the revision of the respiratory protection requirements in OSHA's
construction industry, shipyard employment industry, marine terminals,
and longshoring standards for benzene (see 29 CFR 1926.1128, 29 CFR
1917.1, 29 CFR 1918.1, and 29 CFR 1915.1028, which apply the
requirements in 1910.1028 to construction, marine terminals,
longshoring, and shipyards). OSHA requests comment regarding whether
there are any considerations that are unique to the use of respirators
for protection against benzene hazards in shipyards, marine terminals,
construction, or longshoring 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 the changes described in this
proposal will decrease worker safety?If so, which provisions and why?
2. What equally protective respirator options will be available to
employers based on the proposed revisions?
2. Are there alternative approaches OSHA should consider for any of
these revisions?
3. Are there any concerns that removing any of the substance-
specific provisions in the Benzene standard and relying on the generic
requirements of the Respiratory Protection standard will inadequately
capture the content and requirements of the current substance-specific
provisions?
4. Should OSHA remove the requirements contained in the Benzene
standard at (g)(2)(ii) and (g)(2)(iii) and require employers to instead
comply with 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(B)(1) and (2), specifically the
provisions for ESLIs or the performance-based criteria for cartridge
and canister changes? 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 eliminate redundant requirements for
employers under the Benzene standard, 29 CFR 1910.1028, and therefore
OSHA has preliminarily concluded that there will be no additional costs
imposed by this proposed revision. OSHA also anticipates that there
would be some cost savings associated with this rule, including savings
based on a reduction of the burdens associated with 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 Benzene standard, OSHA estimates that there are 12,270
establishments affected by this standard.\1\ This proposed rule would,
among other things, simplify the regulatory text and may reduce the
time
[[Page 28324]]
necessary for employers to become familiar with the requirements for
respirator use for employees exposed to benzene. Assuming a new entrant
rate of 10 percent annually and 10 minutes less time spent on
regulatory familiarization, at a loaded wage rate for a manager of
$48.98, this could mean about $10,000 in saving annually (or about
$74,000 over 10 years at a 3 percent discount rate). OSHA is seeking
comments and data on this preliminary analysis, including on the
following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Document ID OSHA-2012-0005-0014 for additional detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How many employers were likely to have been impacted by the
redundant provisions between the Respiratory Protection standard and
the Benzene standard?
2. Are there any other savings for employers that would result from
the proposed change?
3. Are there any benefits for worker protection that can be
anticipated from this proposed change?
4. Are there any costs for employers that would result from this
change that OSHA has not considered?
5. Would there be savings to employers outside of general industry
related to this proposal? If so, would they 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.'' \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 Benzene
standards (OMB Control Number 1218-0129), OMB has waived the
requirements of 5 CFR part 1320 and approved the modified Information
Collection Request (ICR) under existing OMB Control Number 1218-0129
(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.
[[Page 28325]]
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. 1910.1028 is revised as follows:
0
a. Revise and republish paragraph (g)(1);
0
b. Remove paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iv);
0
c. Remove and reserve paragraph (g)(3)(i)(C).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(g) * * *
(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 they are
necessary to protect the health of an employee as required under 29 CFR
1910.134(a)(2).
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(B) * * *
(C) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-11634 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.