Proposed Rule2025-11635
Cadmium
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 Cadmium standards and better aligns these standards 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 28330-28335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11635]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926, and 1928
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0021]
RIN 1218-AD60
Cadmium
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 Cadmium standards and better aligns these standards 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-2025-0021, 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-2025-0021). When
uploading multiple attachments to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, please
number all of your attachments because <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> will
not automatically number the attachments. This will be very useful in
identifying all attachments. For example, Attachment 1--title of your
document, Attachment 2--title of your document, 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-2025-0021)
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#2c4149454045424b495e024a5e4d424f455f1e6c484340024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="026f676b6e6b6c6567702c6470636c616b713042666d6e2c656d74">[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#f39c809b92dd978094b3979c9fdd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="610e1209004f05120621050e0d4f060e17">[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
[[Page 28331]]
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 Cadmium standards (29 CFR 1910.1027 and
1926.1127). 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 Cadmium standards outdated, and would allow employers to take
advantage of future technological advances. This proposed standard is
intended to account for modern knowledge and technology and to
streamline the selection of respirators.
II. Legal Authority and Preliminary Findings
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C.
651 et seq.) (``the Act'' or ``the OSH Act'') is ``to assure so far as
possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful
working conditions and to preserve our human resources'' (29 U.S.C.
651(b)). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of
Labor (``the Secretary'') to promulgate standards to protect workers,
including the authority ``to set mandatory occupational safety and
health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate
commerce'' (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(3); see also 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(2)
(requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards), 29 U.S.C. 655(a)
(authorizing summary adoption of existing consensus and established
federal standards within two years of the Act's enactment), 29 U.S.C.
655(b) (authorizing promulgation, modification or revocation of
standards pursuant to notice and comment), and 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)
(authorizing OSHA to include among a standard's requirements labeling,
monitoring, medical testing, and other information-transmittal
provisions)). An occupational safety and health standard is ``. . . a
standard which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or
more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably
necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and
places of employment'' (29 U.S.C. 652(8)). The Secretary may also issue
regulations requiring employers to keep records regarding their
activities relating to the Act, as well as records of work-related
deaths, injuries, and illnesses (29 U.S.C. 657(c)(1)-(2)).
Before OSHA may promulgate a health or safety standard, it must
find that a standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the
meaning of section 652(8) of the OSH Act, which OSHA did here in 1992
when it issued the Cadmium standard (57 FR 42102). 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 cadmium in 1971 and later
revised the standard because, even at the permissible exposure limit
set in 1971, there was significant risk to employees (57 FR 42102).
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 Cadmium 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.
[[Page 28332]]
III. Events Leading to the Proposed Rule
OSHA adopted its Cadmium standards in 1992 (57 FR 42102). 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 Cadmium standards, 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 Cadmium standards 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 Cadmium standards, because they would allow employers to select
from a wider range of equally protective respirators and would
incorporate additional references to 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 Cadmium 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 (g) of its general industry
Cadmium standard (29 CFR 1910.1027) and paragraph (g) of its
Construction Industry standard (29 CFR 1926.1127) 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 1910.1027 and 1926.1127 that are duplicative
with the requirements in 1910.134, and update respirator requirements
to align with the revised National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) certification criteria in 42 CFR part 84. The
revisions also would remove unnecessary restrictions on respirator
selection where another equally protective option exists. Finally,
these revisions would 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 facilitating technological innovation and
reducing undue burden.
OSHA has preliminarily determined that paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through
(vii) of both the general industry and construction Cadmium standards,
which describe when respiratory protection must be used, unnecessarily
duplicate the general provisions covered by 1910.134(a). OSHA is
therefore proposing to remove those paragraphs and add a cross
reference to 1910.134(a)(2) in paragraph (g)(1) of both the general
industry and construction standards. OSHA does not intend for these
changes to add to or change the regulatory burden on employers; actions
that comply with the requirements in 1910.1027(g) would also be in
compliance with proposed paragraph (g)
Additionally, OSHA is proposing to remove the requirements, in
paragraph (g)(3)(i)(B) of both the general industry and construction
standards, limiting employers to the use of full facepiece respirators
when employees are experiencing eye irritation. OSHA has preliminarily
determined that the requirement in paragraph (i)(1) in both standards
for the use of personal protective equipment where skin or eye
irritation from cadmium may occur is equally as protective as the
requirement under paragraph (g)(3)(i)(B). As such, OSHA is proposing to
remove paragraph (g)(3)(i)(B). This would provide greater compliance
flexibility to employers, who could provide half mask respirators and
appropriate eye protection where employees are experiencing eye
irritation, which would be equally protective for workers.
OSHA is also proposing to remove paragraph (g)(3)(i)(C) of both the
general industry and construction industry Cadmium standards, which
require HEPA filters for powered and non-powered air-purifying
respirators. That requirement was included when the Cadmium standards
were promulgated because it was originally part of NIOSH's
certification standards for respirators. However, NIOSH published
revised requirements for testing and certification procedures and
recodified the previous certification standards for other respirator
classes as 42 CFR part 84 on June 8, 1995 (60 FR 30336). The HEPA
filter requirement is not part of the revised 42 CFR part 84 because
additional types of filters have been certified for protection from
particulates and can be used with powered and non-powered air-purifying
respirators. OSHA believes that these testing and certification
requirements ensure that all particulate filters certified under 42 CFR
part 84, including HEPA filters, are efficient in preventing the
penetration of submicron-sized particles; OSHA recognized this when the
Agency's revised Respiratory Protection standard was issued on January
8, 1998 (63 FR 1152). In fact, OSHA has issued other substance-specific
regulations since the revised Respiratory Protection standard and
NIOSH's revised certification requirements were issued and has not
incorporated a requirement for HEPA filters in similar respirator
provisions in those rules.
OSHA has also preliminarily determined that paragraph
(m)(4)(iii)(E)
[[Page 28333]]
in both the general industry and construction industry Cadmium
standards, which require training regarding the purpose, proper
selection, fitting, proper use, and limitations of respirators and
protective clothing, unnecessarily duplicate the provisions for
training on respirators covered by 1910.134(k) in the Respiratory
Protection standard. OSHA therefore is proposing to remove the
respirator language from those paragraphs while retaining the training
requirements on protective clothing.
OSHA is also considering (but not proposing) removing the
requirement under paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of both the general industry and
construction Cadmium standards to provide an employee with a powered
air-purifying respirator (PAPR) instead of a negative-pressure
respirator when the employee chooses to use a PAPR and it provides
adequate protection. OSHA believes that the removal of this provision
would not compromise worker safety and health--the provision is about
employee requests and, without it, workers would still be provided
adequate protection. When OSHA updated the Respiratory Protection
standard, the agency determined that it was appropriate to allow an
employer to provide additional respiratory protection when requested,
rather than mandate it (29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)). Removing these
requirements in the Cadmium standards would still allow for voluntary
respirator use under some circumstances (i.e., where the employer
agrees to provide the equipment) and would better align with the
general Respiratory Protection standard. However, the Agency
acknowledges that user comfort affects workers' compliance with
requirements to wear respiratory protection and questions whether the
existing requirements in the Respiratory Protection standard,
1910.134(c)(2) and Table 1, offer equivalent access to alternative
styles of respiratory protection. OSHA therefore seeks comment on the
merits of removing these provisions.
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 agriculture
standards for cadmium (see 29 CFR 1915.1027, 29 CFR 1917.1, 29 CFR
1918.1, and 29 CFR 1928.1027, which apply the requirements in 1910.1027
to shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring, and agriculture). OSHA
requests comment regarding whether there are any considerations that
are unique to the use of respirators for protection against cadmium
hazards in shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring, or agriculture
that OSHA should consider when finalizing this proposal.
OSHA notes that, per current and longstanding Appropriations Act
limitations, OSHA's existing agricultural standard for cadmium does not
cover ``any person who is engaged in a farming operation which does not
maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 or fewer employees''
(see Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Pub. L. 118-47,
Div. D, Title I (2024)).'' In accordance with these limitations, OSHA's
proposed revisions would also not cover any such persons. 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 to any of
the proposed revisions?
3. Are there any concerns that removing any of the substance-
specific provisions in the Cadmium standards 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 requirement for employers to provide
PAPRs when they are requested by employees?
V. Economic Analysis
This proposed rule would expand compliance options for employers
under the Cadmium standards, 29 CFR 1910.1027 and 29 CFR 1926.1127, and
therefore OSHA has preliminarily concluded that there will be no
additional costs imposed by the proposed revisions. OSHA also
anticipates that there would be some cost savings associated with this
rule, including savings based on employers being able to choose more
cost-effective respirators and 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 Cadmium standard, OSHA estimates that there are 39,153
employees exposed to cadmium above the PEL in the U.S. in general
industry and another 5,090 in construction.\1\ This proposed rule
would, among other things, allow employers to provide filtering
facepiece respirators plus eye protection or half mask respirators plus
eye protection rather than requiring full facepiece respirators. OSHA
estimates that a 3M 6000 series respirator replaced annually, a 3M P100
particulate filter replaced every 40 hours of use (assumed to be
weekly), and one cleaning wipe per shift results in an estimated per-
use cost of $2.61 for a full facepiece respirator. OSHA estimates that
a 3M 5000 series half mask respirator replaced annually, a 3M P100
particulate filter replaced every 40 hours of use (assumed to be
weekly), one pair of Uline safety goggles replaced every two months,
and one cleaning wipe per shift results in an estimated per-use cost of
$1.96.\2\ A 3M disposable N100 filtering facepiece mask replaced every
5 shifts and one pair of Uline safety goggles replaced every two months
results in an estimated per-use cost of $1.94.\3\ These mean a
difference of $0.65 and $0.67 per use, respectively. Over the course of
a year (assuming an employee works 5 shifts per week and 50 weeks per
year) this means a difference in per-employee costs of $167.50 and
$163, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Document ID OSHA-2012-0005-0014, OSHA-2012-0004-0017 for
additional detail.
\2\ See Document ID OSHA-2012-0005-0014, OSHA-2012-0004-0017 for
additional detail.
\3\ Based on price of $170 for a case of 20 found at <a href="https://safetyservicesinc.com/3M-particulate-respirator-8233-n100-20-ea-case/">https://safetyservicesinc.com/3M-particulate-respirator-8233-n100-20-ea-case/</a>. Accessed June 3, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA does not currently have sufficient information to quantify how
many of the exposed employees would use a half mask respirator.
However, if 50 percent of the exposed employees were to use the N100
filtering facepiece respirators instead of the 3M 6000 Series full
facepiece respirators, that could result in a savings, based on
equipment alone, of approximately $3.7 million annually (or $27.6
million 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. How much do employers expect to save based on the increased
flexibility in respirator selection?
[[Page 28334]]
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. Are there cost savings associated with no longer being
restricted to HEPA filters for powered and non-powered air-purifying
respirators?
6. How much familiarization time would employers who are new
entrants to the market expect to save based on the revisions?
7. Are there additional categories of cost savings that OSHA has
not identified?
8. Would the savings to employers outside of general industry and
construction be similar to what OSHA has estimated for general industry
and construction 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 Cadmium
standards (OMB Control Numbers 1218-0185 and 1218-0186), OMB has waived
the requirements of 5 CFR part 1320 and approved the modified
Information Collection Request (ICR) under existing OMB Control Numbers
1218-0185 and 1218-0186 (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
[[Page 28335]]
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 and 29 CFR Part 1926
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
parts 1910 and 1926 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. 1910.1027 is revised as follows:
0
a. Revise and republish paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(3)(i), and
(m)(4)(iii)(E)
0
b. Remove paragraphs (g)(1)(i)-(vii) and (g)(3)(i)(A)-(C).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1027 Cadmium.
(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).
(2) * * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Employers must select, and provide to employees, the
appropriate respirators specified in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) of 29 CFR
1910.134.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(1) * * * * *
(2) * * * * *
(3) * * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * * * *
(ii) * * * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) * * * * *
(B) * * * * *
(C) * * * * *
(D) * * * * *
(E) The purpose, proper selection, fitting, proper use, and
limitations of protective clothing;
* * * * *
PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
0
1. The authority for 29 CFR 1926 subpart Z continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3704; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-
2010 (75 FR 55355), 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), or 8-2020 (85 FR 58393), as
applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1926.1102 not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part
1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
0
2. Sec. 1926.1127 is revised as follows:
0
a. Revise and republish paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(3)(i), and
(m)(4)(iii)(E).
0
b. Remove paragraphs (g)(1)(i)-(vii) and (g)(3)(i)(A)-(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).
(2) * * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Employers must select, and provide to employees, the
appropriate respirators specified in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) of 29 CFR
1910.134.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(1) * * * * *
(2) * * * * *
(3) * * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * * * *
(ii) * * * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) * * * * *
(B) * * * * *
(C) * * * * *
(D) * * * * *
(E) The purpose, proper selection, fitting, proper use, and
limitations of protective clothing;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-11635 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.