Proposed Rule2025-11637
Cotton Dust
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 Cotton Dust 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 28349-28354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11637]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1917, and 1918
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0011]
RIN 1218-AD62
Cotton Dust
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 Cotton Dust 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-2025-0011, 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-2025-0011). When
uploading multiple attachments to
[[Page 28350]]
<a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>, please number all of your attachments because
<a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a> will not automatically number the attachments. This
will be very useful in identifying all attachments. For example,
Attachment 1--title of your document, Attachment 2--title of your
document, Attachment 3--title of your document. For assistance with
commenting and uploading documents, please see the Frequently Asked
Questions on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
All comments, including any personal information you provide, are
placed in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Therefore, OSHA cautions
commenters about submitting information they do not want made available
to the public, or submitting materials that contain personal
information (either about themselves or others), such as Social
Security Numbers and birthdates.
Docket: The docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2025-0011)
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#2e434b47424740494b5c00485c4f404d475d1c6e4a414200494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c2afa7abaeabaca5a7b0eca4b0a3aca1abb1f082a6adaeeca5adb4">[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#89e6fae1e8a7edfaeec9ede6e5a7eee6ff"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f607c676e216b7c684f6b606321686079">[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 remove duplicative language in OSHA's Cotton Dust
standard (29 CFR 1910.1043). 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 Cotton Dust standard outdated. This proposed standard is intended
to account for modern knowledge and technology and to streamline the
selection of respirators.
II. Legal Authority and Preliminary Findings
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C.
651 et seq.) (``the Act'' or ``the OSH Act'') is ``to assure so far as
possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful
working conditions and to preserve our human resources'' (29 U.S.C.
651(b)). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of
Labor (``the Secretary'') to promulgate standards to protect workers,
including the authority ``to set mandatory occupational safety and
health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate
commerce'' (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(3); see also 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(2)
(requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards), 29 U.S.C. 655(a)
(authorizing summary adoption of existing consensus and established
federal standards within two years of the Act's enactment), 29 U.S.C.
655(b) (authorizing promulgation, modification or revocation of
standards pursuant to notice and comment), and 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)
(authorizing OSHA to include among a standard's requirements labeling,
monitoring, medical testing, and other information-transmittal
provisions)). An occupational safety and health standard is ``. . . a
standard which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or
more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably
necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and
places of employment'' (29 U.S.C. 652(8)). The Secretary may also issue
regulations requiring employers to keep records regarding their
activities relating to the Act, as well as records of work-related
deaths, injuries, and illnesses (29 U.S.C. 657(c)(1)-(2)).
Before OSHA may promulgate a health or safety standard, it must
find that a standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the
meaning of section 652(8) of the OSH Act, which OSHA did here in 1978
when it published the first Cotton Dust standard (43 FR 27394). 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
determined that cotton dust presented a significant risk to employees
when it first promulgated the standard (43 FR 27350). 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 Cotton
Dust 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
[[Page 28351]]
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 Cotton Dust standard in 1978 (43 FR 27394). 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 Cotton Dust 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 Cotton Dust 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 Cotton Dust standard by removing unnecessarily specific respirator
requirements that have, since OSHA last updated the standard, become
outdated based on current technology, NIOSH certification requirements,
and knowledge about respirator technology. 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 (f) of its general industry
Cotton Dust standard (29 CFR 1910.1043) 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 1910.1043 that are duplicative with the
requirements in 1910.134 and updating respirator requirements to align
with the revised NIOSH certification criteria in 42 CFR part 84. The
proposed revisions would also provide more compliance options by
removing unnecessary restrictions on respirator selection where another
equally protective option exists. Finally, these revisions would also
conform this standard, to the extent possible, to other substance-
specific standards and to 29 CFR 1910.134, which would simplify review
of these regulations and improve comprehensibility. The Agency
preliminarily concludes, therefore, that updating these rules is
consistent with the goal of facilitating technological innovation and
reducing undue burden.
OSHA has preliminarily determined that paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through
(iii) unnecessarily duplicate the general provisions covered by
1910.134(a) and is proposing to remove and reserve those paragraphs and
add a cross reference to 1910.134(a) in paragraph (f)(1). Employers in
compliance with the current version of 1910.1043(f)(1) would not have
to change any of their practices to remain in compliance with the
changes OSHA is proposing.
Additionally, OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (f)(3)(i)(A) to
remove the prohibition on using filtering facepieces at cotton dust
concentrations more than five times the PEL and to allow employees to
use any respirator selected in accordance with paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A)
of 29 CFR 1910.134. OSHA has preliminarily determined that the
prohibition on filtering facepieces was based on outdated technology
and certification data and the use of filtering facepieces will not
reduce worker safety and health. OSHA is also proposing to remove
paragraph (f)(3)(i)(B), which requires HEPA filters for powered and
non-powered air-purifying respirators used at cotton dust
concentrations greater than ten times the PEL. That requirement was
included because HEPA filters were originally part of NIOSH's
certification standards for respirators under 30 CFR part 11. However,
NIOSH published revised
[[Page 28352]]
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 anymore because additional
types of filters have been certified for protection from particulates.
OSHA believes that these testing and certification requirements ensure
that all particulate filters certified under 42 CFR part 84 are
efficient in preventing the penetration of submicron-sized particles
and 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 is also considering removing the requirement under paragraph
(f)(1)(v) to provide a respirator when an employee requests it.
Similarly, OSHA is considering removing the requirement in paragraph
(f)(3)(ii) for employers to provide an employee with a powered air-
purifying respirator (PAPR) instead of a non-powered air-purifying
respirator when the employee chooses to use a PAPR. OSHA believes that
the removal of these provisions would not compromise worker safety and
health--both provisions are about employee requests and without them
workers would still be provided adequate protection. When OSHA updated
the Respiratory Protection standard, it 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 Cotton Dust
standard 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 under
1910.134(c)(2) and Table 1 offer equivalent access to alternative
styles of respiratory protection. OSHA also understands that some
employees may have come to rely on respiratory protection from cotton
dust at work, even when the standard does not require it. 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
marine terminals and longshoring standards for cotton dust (see 29 CFR
1917.1 and 29 CFR 1918.1, which apply the requirements in 1910.1043 to
longshoring and marine terminals). OSHA requests comment regarding
whether there are any considerations that are unique to the use of
respirators for protection against cotton dust hazards in marine
terminals or longshoring, that OSHA should consider when finalizing
this proposal.
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 changes do you think
would decrease worker safety and why?
2. Is there an alternative approach OSHA should consider?
3. Should OSHA remove the requirements for employers to provide
PAPRs when they are requested by employees? In your experience, how
often do employees request PAPRs when the Cotton Dust standard does not
require them?
4. Should OSHA remove the requirement for employers to provide
respirators when requested by an employee? In your experience, how
often do employees request to use respirators when the Cotton Dust
standard does not require them?
5. Should OSHA maintain the prohibition on using filtering
facepiece respirators at cotton dust concentrations more than five
times the PEL?
6. Does cross-referencing 29 CFR 1910.134(a) in 1910.1043(f)(1)
correctly capture all of the material that was previously specified in
paragraphs (f)(1)(i)-(iii) of 1910.1043?
V. Economic Analysis
This proposed rule would expand compliance options for employers
under the Cotton Dust standard, 29 CFR 1910.1043, and therefore OSHA
has preliminarily concluded that there would 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 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 Cotton Dust standard, OSHA estimates that there are
3,810 employees exposed to cotton dust in the U.S.\1\ This proposed
rule would, among other things, allow employers to provide filtering
facepiece respirators for exposures up to 10 times the permissible
exposure limit (PEL), which would result in employers being able to
select a more cost-effective respirator in some cases. For instance,
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), and one cleaning wipe per shift results in an
estimated per-use cost of $1.72. A 3M industrial N95 filtering
facepiece respirator costs $1.15 and is assumed to be used for one
shift.\2\ Switching to the N95 filtering facepiece respirator would
result in a difference of about $0.57 per use or $142 per employee per
year (assuming an employee works 5 shifts per week, 50 weeks per year)
($429.50 versus $287.50 per employee per year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Document ID OSHA-2011-0194-0014 for additional detail.
\2\ All prices based on those listed on <a href="http://uline.com">uline.com</a>, May 30, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA does not currently have sufficient information to quantify how
many of the exposed employees would use an N95 filtering facepiece
respirator under the changes proposed in this rule. However, if 50
percent of the exposed employees were to use the N95 filtering
facepiece respirators instead of the 3M 5000 Series half mask
respirators, that could result in a savings, based on equipment alone,
of approximately $270,510 annually (or about $2 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?
a. How many employees would employers expect to use filtering
facepiece respirators instead of a different respirator under the
proposed revisions?
b. Are there cost savings associated with no longer being
restricted to HEPA filters for powered and non-powered air-purifying
respirators?
2. Are there any other savings for employers that would result from
the proposed change?
[[Page 28353]]
3. Are there any benefits for worker protection that can be
anticipated from this proposed change?
4. How much familiarization time would employers who are new
entrants to the market expect to save based on the revisions?
5. Are there any costs for employers that would result from this
change that OSHA has not considered?
6. Would the savings to employers outside of general industry be
similar to what OSHA has estimated for general industry employers?
A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a
final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law
must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that
the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule would eliminate burdensome
regulations. Therefore, OSHA initially concludes that the impacts of
the revisions would not have a ``significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,'' and that the preparation of an
IRFA is not warranted. OSHA will transmit this certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
B. Review Under Executive Order 12866
E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735 (Oct.
4, 1993)), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1)
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that
its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices
can be made by the public.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. OIRA has determined that this
proposed rule would not constitute a ``significant regulatory action''
under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this proposal was not
submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
VI. Additional Requirements
A. Requirements for States With OSHA-Approved State Plans
Under section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress
expressly provides that States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan
for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health
standards that are ``at least as effective'' as the Federal standards
in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment (29
U.S.C. 667). OSHA refers to these OSHA-approved, State-administered
occupational safety and health programs as ``State Plans.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Of the 29 States and U.S. territories with OSHA-approved
State Plans, 22 cover public and private-sector employees: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon,
Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, and Wyoming. The remaining six States and one U.S.
territory cover only State and local government employees:
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
and the Virgin Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Cotton
Dust standard (OMB Control Number 1218-0061), OMB has waived the
requirements of 5 CFR part 1320 and approved the modified Information
Collection Request (ICR) under existing OMB Control Number 1218-0061
(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
[[Page 28354]]
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
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. 1910.1043 is revised as follows:
0
a. Revise and republish paragraph (f)(1) and (f)(3).
0
b. Reserve paragraphs (f)(1)(i)-(iii).
0
c. Remove paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(A) and (B).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(f) * * *
(1) General. For employees who are required to use respirators by
this section, the employer must provide each employee an appropriate
respirator that complies with the requirements of this paragraph.
Respirators must be used when the employer determines that it is
necessary to protect the health of an employee as required under 29 CFR
1910.134(a) and during:
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) Work operations specified under paragraph (g)(1) of this
section.
(v) Periods for which an employee requests a respirator.
(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.
(ii) * * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-11637 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.