Proposed Rule2025-11639
Formaldehyde
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 OSHA's Formaldehyde standard to eliminate duplicative respiratory protection requirements and 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 28286-28291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11639]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1926
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0026]
RIN 1218-AD64
Formaldehyde
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28287]]
SUMMARY: This proposed rule revises OSHA's Formaldehyde standard to
eliminate duplicative respiratory protection requirements and 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-2025-0026, 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-2025-0026). 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="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-2025-0026)
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#1c7179757075727b796e327a6e7d727f756f2e5c787370327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7518101c191c1b1210075b1307141b161c064735111a195b121a03">[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#c0afb3a8a1eea4b3a780a4afaceea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9cf3eff4fdb2f8effbdcf8f3f0b2fbf3ea">[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 clarify the policies and
procedures employers must follow when implementing a respiratory
protection program in conjunction with OSHA's Formaldehyde standard (29
CFR 1910.1048). OSHA is proposing to remove provisions that are
duplicative with the requirements of the Respiratory Protection
standard, which is 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.
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 1987
when it published the Formaldehyde standard (52 FR 46168-01) and again
in 1992 when the Agency reconsidered the record on remand from the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals (57 FR 22290-01). 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 formaldehyde in 1971 and revised the
standard in 1987 because even at the initial permissible exposure limit
there was significant risk to employees (52 FR 46168-01). 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.
[[Page 28288]]
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 Formaldehyde
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 not expected
to increase 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 Formaldehyde standard in 1987 (52 FR 46168-01) and
revised the standard on remand from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
in 1992 (57 FR 22290-01). 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 Formaldehyde 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 Formaldehyde standard is to conform them, to the
extent possible, with other substance-specific standards and to the
revised 29 CFR 1910.134 in general. The proposed updates will improve
the Formaldehyde standard, because it would remove requirements that
are duplicative of the Respiratory Protection standard.
OSHA expects that the rule would ultimately reduce the compliance
burden on the regulated community. 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.''
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Requirements
OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (g) of its general industry
Formaldehyde standard (29 CFR 1910.1048) to reduce compliance burdens
and improve the comprehensibility of the requirements for respiratory
protection programs. These revisions would simplify compliance for
employers by removing requirements in 1910.1048 that are duplicative of
the requirements in 1910.134. Finally, these revisions would also
conform this standard, 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
goal of reducing undue burden.
OSHA has preliminarily determined that paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through
(iv) unnecessarily duplicate the general provisions in 1910.134(a) and
is proposing to remove those paragraphs and add a cross reference to
1910.134(a)(2) in paragraph (g)(1) instead. OSHA does not intend for
these changes to add to or change the regulatory burden on employers;
actions that comply with the requirements in 1910.1048(g) would also be
in compliance with proposed paragraph (g).
OSHA is also requesting comment on whether paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of
the Formaldehyde standard provides greater worker protection than
removing that provision and requiring employers to simply follow the
generic requirements of paragraphs (d)(3)(iii)(B)(1) and (2) of the
Respiratory Protection standard. The agency has received requests in
the past to remove (g)(2)(ii) of the Formaldehyde standard, which
requires employers
[[Page 28289]]
providing cartridges or canisters that do not have end-of-service-life
indicators (ESLIs) to replace those cartridges or canisters as
specified in paragraphs (d)(3)(iii)(B)(1) and (B)(2) of the Respiratory
Protection standard or at the end of the workshift, whichever condition
occurs first. While the agency currently believes that paragraph
(g)(2)(ii) of the Formaldehyde standard is more protective than
following the generic changeout provisions of 1910.134, and is not
proposing the change at this time, it is interested in any data or
information commenters can provide 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, marine terminals, longshoring, and shipyard
industry standards for formaldehyde (see 29 CFR 1926.1148, 29 CFR
1917.1, 29 CFR 1918.1 and 29 CFR 1915.1048, which apply the
requirements in 1910.1048 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 formaldehyde hazards in shipyards, marine
terminals, longshoring, or construction that OSHA should consider when
finalizing this proposal. OSHA is in the process of appointing members
to the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH).
The agency intends to present this proposed rule to ACCSH once that
process is complete. The agency will put the Committee's
recommendations on the OSHA website and in the docket for this proposed
rule prior to the close of the comment period to allow the public to
provide comments on those recommendations.
OSHA requests comments on 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, why?
2. Does cross-referencing 29 CFR 1910.134(a)(2) in 1910.1048(g)(1)
correctly capture all of the material that was previously specified in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i)-(iv) of 1910.1048?
3. Is there an alternative approach OSHA should consider for its
proposed revision?
4. Should OSHA remove the filter cartridge and canister change
schedule requirements under 1910.1048(g)(2)(ii)? Would following the
performance-based approach in 1910.134 sufficiently protect workers and
would it provide significant cost savings or other benefits?
V. Economic Analysis
This proposed rule would remove redundant requirements in the
Formaldehyde standard, 29 CFR 1910.1048, and therefore OSHA has
preliminarily concluded that there will be no additional costs imposed
by this proposed revision. OSHA also anticipates that there may be some
minor cost savings associated with this rule, including a reduction of
the burden 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.
The proposed changes to the requirements for formaldehyde might
reduce the time necessary for employers to familiarize themselves with
the requirements for respirator use for formaldehyde exposure. Based on
the Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Request for the
Formaldehyde standard, OSHA estimates there are 5,108 new
establishments annually.\1\ Assuming a manager will spend 10 minutes
less on rule familiarization due to the removal of duplicated
requirements, OSHA estimates that this proposal could reduce costs by
about $40,000 per year (or about $300,000 over 10 years at a 3 percent
discount rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Document ID OSHA-2009-0041-0014 for details on
establishments and wage estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA is seeking comments and data on this preliminary analysis,
including on the following questions:
1. How many employers were likely to have been impacted by the
redundant provisions between the Respiratory Protection standard and
the Formaldehyde 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
[[Page 28290]]
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 no
changes to the existing information collections in the Formaldehyde
standards (OMB Control Number 1218-0145), OMB has waived the
requirements of 5 CFR part 1320 and approved the modified Information
Collection Request (ICR) under existing OMB Control Number 1218-0145
(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 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. 1910.1048 is revised as follows:
0
a. Revise and republish paragraph (g)(1)
0
b. Remove paragraphs (g)(1)(i) throught (iv)
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
[[Page 28291]]
necessary to protect the health of an employee as required under 29 CFR
1910.134(a)(2).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-11639 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.