Proposed Rule2025-11640
Inorganic Arsenic
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 Inorganic Arsenic 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 28267-28272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11640]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0016]
RIN 1218-AD65
Inorganic Arsenic
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 Inorganic Arsenic 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-2025-0016, 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-2025-0016. 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>.
[[Page 28268]]
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-2025-0016)
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#7f121a16131611181a0d51190d1e111c160c4d3f1b101351181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c5159555055525b594e125a4e5d525f554f0e7c585350125b534a">[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#a6c9d5cec788c2d5c1e6c2c9ca88c1c9d0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7d8c4dfd699d3c4d0f7d3d8db99d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>.
Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies are
available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. This Federal Register notice,
as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are
available at OSHA's web page at <a href="https://www.osha.gov">https://www.osha.gov</a>. A ``100-word
summary'' is also available on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Legal Authority and Preliminary Findings
III. Events Leading to the Proposed Rule
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Requirements
V. Economic Analysis
VI. Additional Requirements
VII. Authority and Signature
VIII. Regulatory Text
I. Executive Summary
This proposed rule is intended to provide greater compliance
flexibility and clarify the policies and procedures employers must
follow when implementing a respiratory protection program in
conjunction with OSHA's Inorganic Arsenic standard (29 CFR 1910.1018).
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 Inorganic Arsenic 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 1983
when it published a supplemental statement of reasons for the Inorganic
Arsenic standard (48 FR 1864) (OSHA issued a standard in 1978 lowering
the permissible exposure limit for inorganic arsenic (43 FR 19584), but
was ordered by a court to make additional findings, including a
significant risk determination, which it did in the supplemental
statement). 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)). 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 Inorganic Arsenic
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
[[Page 28269]]
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 an Inorganic Arsenic standard in 1978 (43 FR 19584).
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 Inorganic Arsenic 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 Inorganic Arsenic 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 also
improve the Inorganic Arsenic standard because advances in technology
have made that standard outdated in some areas. This revised Inorganic
Arsenic 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 paragraphs (h) and (o) of its general
industry Inorganic Arsenic standard (29 CFR 1910.1018) to reduce
compliance burdens, allow for the use of more up-to-date technology,
and improve the comprehensibility of the requirements for respiratory
protection programs. These revisions would improve comprehensibility
and simplify compliance for employers by removing requirements in
1910.1018 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 revisions would also
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 reducing undue burden and facilitating the use of new
technology.
OSHA preliminarily determined that paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through
(iv) of the Inorganic Arsenic standard, which specify when respirators
must be used, unnecessarily duplicate the general provisions covered by
1910.134(a). Therefore, the agency is proposing to remove those
paragraphs and add a cross reference to 1910.134(a)(2) in paragraph
(h)(1).
Additionally, OSHA is proposing to remove paragraph (h)(3)(i)(C) of
the Inorganic Arsenic standard, which requires HEPA filters for powered
and non-powered air-purifying respirators. That requirement was
included 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 anymore 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.
[[Page 28270]]
OSHA is also proposing to remove paragraph (h)(3)(i)(D), which
requires employers to provide respiratory protection based on employee
exposure levels for inorganic arsenic and other gases. OSHA
preliminarily determined that these respirator-selection provisions for
inorganic arsenic are covered by 1910.134(d) and the standard can be
streamlined by their removal. Similarly, OSHA is proposing to remove a
portion of paragraph (h)(3)(ii) which specifies that employers must
provide a combination dust and acid-gas respirator to employees who are
exposed to gases over the relevant exposure limits. The agency has also
preliminarily determined that this requirement is covered by
1910.134(d).
OSHA is also considering removing the other requirement in
paragraph (h)(3)(ii), which requires employers to provide an employee
with a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) when the employee
chooses it, if a PAPR will provide proper protection. OSHA believes the
removal of this provision would not compromise worker safety and
health--this 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 more protective respirators
when requested by an employee, rather than mandate it (29 CFR
1910.134(c)(2)). Removing these requirements would therefore better
align the Inorganic Arsenic standard with the general Respiratory
Protection standard. However, the Agency acknowledges that user comfort
affects employee compliance with requirements to wear respiratory
protection and questions whether the existing requirements under 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 this provision.
Finally, OSHA preliminarily determined that paragraph (o)(1)(ii)(C)
of the Inorganic Arsenic standard, which requires employers to provide
training on the purpose, proper use, and limitations of respirators,
unnecessarily duplicates the general provisions covered by the
Respiratory Protection standard, 1910.134(k). OSHA therefore is
proposing to remove and reserve that paragraph.
OSHA recognizes that adopting these revisions will also result in
the revision of the respiratory protection requirements in OSHA's
shipyard employment, marine terminals, longshoring, and construction
industry standards for inorganic arsenic (see 29 CFR 1926.1118, 29 CFR
1917.1, 29 CFR 1918.1, and 29 CFR 1915.1018, which apply the
requirements in 29 CFR 1910.1018 to construction, marine terminals,
longshoring, and shipyard work). OSHA requests comment regarding
whether there are any considerations that are unique to the use of
respirators for protection against inorganic arsenic 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, which provisions and why?
2. Are there alternative approaches OSHA should consider for any of
these revisions?
3. Should OSHA remove the requirement for employers to provide
PAPRs when they are requested by employees?
4. Are there any concerns that removing any of the substance-
specific provisions in the Inorganic Arsenic standard and relying on
the generic requirements of the Respiratory Protection standard will
inadequately capture the content and requirements of the current
substance-specific provisions?
V. Economic Analysis
This proposed rule would expand compliance options for employers
under the Inorganic Arsenic standard, 29 CFR 1910.1018, and therefore
OSHA has preliminarily concluded that there will be no additional costs
imposed by this proposed revision. OSHA also anticipates that there
would be some cost savings associated with this rule, including savings
based on 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 Inorganic Arsenic standard, OSHA estimates that there
are 407 employees exposed to inorganic arsenic in the U.S. above the
PEL.\1\ This proposed rule would, among other things, allow employers
to provide N95 particulate filters rather than limiting employers to
respirators equipped with HEPA filters. OSHA estimates that a 3M P100
particulate filter replaced every 40 hours of use (assumed to be
weekly) results in an estimated cost of $325 per employee per year
($6.50 for 50 weeks per year). A 3M N95 particulate filter replaced at
the same rate has an estimated cost of $225 per employee per year
($4.50 for 50 weeks). Switching to the N95 particulate filter would
result in a cost savings of about $100 per employee per year (assuming
an employee works 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Document ID OSHA-2011-0186-0013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA does not currently have sufficient information to quantify how
many of the exposed employees would use an N95 particulate filter under
the changes proposed in this rule. However, if 50 percent of the
exposed employees were to use the N95 particulate filter instead of the
P100 particulate filter, that could result in a savings, based on
equipment alone, of approximately $20,350 annually (or about $151,000
over 10 years at a 3 percent discount rate).
OSHA is seeking comments and data on this preliminary analysis,
including on the following questions:
1. How much do employers expect to save based on the increased
flexibility in respirator selection?
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 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
[[Page 28271]]
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule would eliminate burdensome
regulations. Therefore, OSHA initially concludes that the impacts of
the revisions would not have a ``significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,'' and that the preparation of an
IRFA is not warranted. OSHA will transmit this certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
B. Review Under Executive Order 12866
E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735 (Oct.
4, 1993)), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1)
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that
its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices
can be made by the public.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. OIRA has determined that this
proposed rule would not constitute a ``significant regulatory action''
under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this proposal was not
submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
VI. Additional Requirements
A. Requirements for States With OSHA-Approved State Plans
Under section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress
expressly provides that States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan
for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health
standards that are ``at least as effective'' as the Federal standards
in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment (29
U.S.C. 667). OSHA refers to these OSHA-approved, State-administered
occupational safety and health programs as ``State Plans.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Of the 29 States and U.S. territories with OSHA-approved
State Plans, 22 cover public and private-sector employees: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon,
Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, and Wyoming. The remaining six States and one U.S.
territory cover only State and local government employees:
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
and the Virgin Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, State Plans must either amend their
standards to be identical to, or ``at least as effective as,'' the new
Federal standard or amendment, or show that an existing State Plan
standard covering this issue is ``at least as effective'' as the new
Federal standard or amendment (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). However, when OSHA
promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional
or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, State Plans
do not have to amend their standards, although they may opt to do so.
OSHA has preliminarily determined this proposed rule does not impose
additional or more stringent requirements than the existing standard,
and therefore State Plans are not required to amend their standards.
OSHA seeks comment on this assessment of its proposal.
B. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) defines ``collection of
information'' to mean ``the obtaining, causing to be obtained,
soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public,
of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or
format'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). Under the PRA, a Federal agency cannot
conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by
OMB under the PRA and the agency displays a currently valid OMB control
number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also, notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information if the collection of information does not
display a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3512(a)(1)).
The process for OMB approval is found in 5 CFR part 1320.
This proposed rule would impose no new information collection
requirements. Because the revisions are deregulatory and affect only
minor changes to the existing information collections in the Inorganic
Arsenic standards (OMB Control Number 1218-0104), OMB has waived the
requirements of 5 CFR part 1320 and approved the modified Information
Collection Request (ICR) under existing OMB Control Number 1218-0104
(see 5 CFR 1320.18(d)).
C. Environmental Impacts/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
OSHA has reviewed this proposed rule according to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as
amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-5, 321,
137 Stat. 10), and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR
part 11). OSHA has determined that this proposal would have no impact
on the quality of the human environment.
D. Other Statutory and Executive Order Considerations
OSHA has considered its obligations under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and the Executive Orders on
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O.
13175, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000)), Federalism (E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43255
(Aug. 10, 1999)), and Protection of Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (E.O. 13045, 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997)). Given
that this is a proposed deregulatory action that involves the removal
of requirements, that OSHA does not foresee economic impacts of $100
million or more, and that the action does not constitute a policy that
has federalism or tribal implications, OSHA has determined that no
further agency action or analysis is required to comply with these
statutes and executive orders. Furthermore, OSHA has determined that
this proposal is consistent with the policies and directives outlined
in E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation'' and is an
Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910
Assigned protection factors, Airborne contaminants, Health,
Occupational safety and health, Respirators, Respirator selection
[[Page 28272]]
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. 1910.1018 is revised as follows:
0
a. Revise and republish paragraph (h)(1)
0
b. Remove paragraphs (h)(3)(i)(C) and (D)
0
c. Revise and republish paragraph (h)(3)(ii)
0
d. Remove and reserve paragraph (o)(1)(ii)(C)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(h) * * *
(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 it is
necessary to protect the health of an employee as required under 29 CFR
1910.134(a)(2)
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) Employees required to use respirators may choose, and the
employer must provide, a powered air-purifying respirator if it will
provide proper protection.
* * * * *
(o) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(B) * * *
(C) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2025-11640 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.