Proposed Rule2025-11642
Methylene Chloride
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 Methylene Chloride standard and better aligns this standard with OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard. It also includes two technical corrections.
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 28272-28277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11642]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1926
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0012]
RIN 1218-AD67
Methylene Chloride
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 Methylene Chloride standard and better aligns this standard with
OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard. It also includes two technical
corrections.
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-2025-0012, 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-2025-0012). When
uploading multiple attachments to <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-2025-0012)
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#107d75797c797e7775623e7662717e7379632250747f7c3e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9af7fff3f6f3f4fdffe8b4fce8fbf4f9f3e9a8dafef5f6b4fdf5ec">[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#58372b3039763c2b3f183c3734763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e011d060f400a1d092e0a010240090118">[email protected]</span></a>.
Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies are
available at
[[Page 28273]]
<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 Methylene
Chloride standard (29 CFR 1910.1052). It also includes two technical
corrections. OSHA is proposing to revise a respirator-related provision
which is unnecessarily prescriptive. OSHA anticipates this change 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.
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 when it
promulgated the Methylene Chloride standard in 1997 (62 FR 1494). 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 methylene chloride presented a significant risk to
employees when it promulgated the Methylene Chloride standard in 1997
(62 FR 1494). 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 Methylene Chloride
standard as a whole.
A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures
it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available
technology, or can be created with technology that is reasonably
expected to be developed (see Am. Iron and Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 939
F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). Courts have also interpreted
technological feasibility to mean that a typical firm in each affected
industry or application group will reasonably be able to implement the
requirements of the standard in most operations most of the time (see,
e.g., Public Citizen v. OSHA, 557 F.3d 165, 170-71 (3d Cir. 2009)
(citing Lead I at 1272)).
This proposed rule would not substantially modify existing
requirements for respiratory protection in workplaces; nor would it
create new requirements. All employers in compliance with the existing
standard would also be in compliance with the revised standard.
Therefore, OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the proposed
rule would be technologically feasible.
In evaluating economic feasibility, OSHA must consider the average
cost of compliance in an industry rather than costs for individual
employers. In its economic analyses, OSHA ``must construct a reasonable
estimate of compliance costs and demonstrate a reasonable likelihood
that these costs will not threaten the existence or competitive
structure of an industry, even if it does portend disaster for some
marginal firms'' (Am. Iron and Steel Inst., 939 F.2d at 980, quoting
Lead I at 1272). OSHA has made a preliminary finding that this proposal
is economically feasible because it is deregulatory and is expected to
reduce costs for employers. OSHA's economic analysis is presented in
Section V.
The Administrative Procedures Act directs agencies to include in
each rule adopted ``a concise general statement of [the rule's] basis
and purpose'' (5 U.S.C. 553(c)); cf. 29 U.S.C. 655(e) (requiring the
Secretary to publish a ``statement of reasons'' for any standard
promulgated)). This notice satisfies this concise statement
requirement.
III. Events Leading to the Proposed Rule
OSHA adopted a Methylene Chloride standard in 1997 (62 FR 1494).
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
[[Page 28274]]
(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 Methylene Chloride 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 Methylene Chloride 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 Methylene Chloride standard because it would remove unnecessarily
specific respirator requirements and remove language that is
duplicative with the requirements of the Respiratory Protection
standard. Additionally, OSHA is proposing to make two technical
corrections.
OSHA expects that the rule would ultimately reduce the compliance
burden on the regulated community, without compromising worker safety.
Therefore, OSHA believes this proposed rule is consistent with
Executive Order (E.O.) 14219, ``Ensuring Lawful Governance and
Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency'
Deregulatory Initiative,'' E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation,'' and the goal of removing regulations that harm the
national interest by impeding technological innovation or private
enterprise and entrepreneurship.
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Requirements
OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (g) of its general industry
Methylene Chloride standard (29 CFR 1910.1052) to reduce compliance
burdens, allow for the use of additional types of respirators, 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
1910.1052 that are duplicative with the requirements in 1910.134. The
proposed revisions would also remove 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. The Agency preliminarily concludes, therefore, that updating
these rules is consistent with the goal of reducing undue burden and
improving compliance with OSHA's respiratory protection requirements.
OSHA has preliminarily determined that paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through
(v) unnecessarily duplicate the general provisions covered by
1910.134(a) and is proposing to remove those paragraphs and add a cross
reference to 1910.134(a) in paragraph (g)(1). OSHA does not intend for
these changes to add to or change the regulatory burden on employers;
actions that were in compliance with the requirements in 1910.1052(g)
would also be in compliance with proposed paragraph (g).
Furthermore, OSHA is proposing to remove the requirement under
paragraph (g)(3)(i) for employers to provide employees with full-face
respiratory protection because methylene chloride may cause eye
irritation or damage. Paragraph (h)(1) of the Methylene Chloride
standard contains requirements for the use of personal protective
equipment where skin or eye irritation from methylene chloride may
occur and OSHA has preliminarily determined that those requirements are
equally as protective against eye irritation or damage as the
requirement for a full-face respirator in paragraph (g)(3)(i).
Therefore, under the proposed revision, employers would be able to
provide half mask respirators if they also provide adequate eye
protection to prevent eye irritation for employees. OSHA preliminarily
concludes that this proposed change would increase compliance options
without reducing worker protections.
OSHA is also considering (but not proposing) removing the
requirement under paragraph (g)(3)(i) limiting employers to the use of
atmosphere supplying respirators. OSHA recognizes that, at this time,
there are no other available options for protection from methylene
chloride. However, respirator technology is constantly evolving, and
alternative respirators with equivalent protections may be available
for use in the future. OSHA is interested in comments regarding how the
agency could word this provision to allow for greater flexibility as
technology changes.
OSHA has also preliminarily determined that paragraph (g)(4) on
medical evaluations unnecessarily duplicates the general provisions
covered by 1910.134(e) and is proposing to remove those paragraphs in
their entirety. Since, under paragraph (g)(2)(i) of the Methylene
Chloride standard, employers already have to comply with paragraph (e)
in 1910.134, which is more comprehensive regarding medical evaluations,
removing this language only reduces redundancy and does not remove any
protections from employees.
OSHA is also proposing to make two technical corrections. Paragraph
(e)(3) of the Methylene Chloride standard requires the employer to
supply a respirator, selected in accordance with paragraph (h)(3) of
that standard. However, the respirator selection criteria are contained
in (g)(3) of the Methylene Chloride standard, and OSHA is proposing to
amend paragraph (e)(3) to reflect that. In addition, paragraph
(g)(2)(i) requires employers to implement a respiratory protection
program in accordance with Sec. 1910.13(b), which is an error. OSHA is
proposing to amend paragraph (g)(2)(i) to refer to 1910.134(b) through
(m) (except (d)(1)(iii)) instead.
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 methylene chloride (see 29 CFR 1926.1152, 29 CFR
1915.1052, 29 CFR 1917.1, and 29 CFR 1918.1, which apply the
requirements in 29 CFR 1910.1052 to shipyards, marine terminals,
longshoring, and construction). OSHA requests comment regarding whether
there are any considerations that are unique to the use
[[Page 28275]]
of respirators for protection against methylene chloride 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 the following questions:
1. Are there any concerns that making the changes described in this
proposal will decrease worker safety? In particular, are there any
concerns that providing a half mask with eye protection will not ensure
equal protection for workers as providing a full facepiece respirator
for eye hazards associated with methylene chloride?
2. Are there alternative approaches OSHA should consider?
3. Should OSHA remove the language limiting employers to the use of
atmosphere-supplying respirators from 1910.1052(g)(3)(i)? Why?
V. Economic Analysis
This proposed rule would expand compliance options for employers
under the Methylene Chloride standard, 29 CFR 1910.1052, and therefore
OSHA has preliminarily concluded that there would be no additional
costs imposed by these proposed revisions. OSHA also anticipates that
there would be some cost savings associated with this rule, including
savings based on employers being able to choose more cost-effective
respirators and a reduction of the burdens associated with reviewing
unnecessarily duplicative regulations. Because this rule would impose
no new costs, OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the rule
would be economically feasible.
OSHA's economic analysis for the Methylene Chloride standard relied
on extensive surveying activities by contractors. The agency is unable
to recreate the profile with updated figures at this time. Instead, the
agency estimated the number of exposed employees based on the number
estimated in the Final Economic Analysis (237,509) \1\ for the
Methylene Chloride standard and the change in manufacturing employment
between 1994 and 2018 (decline of 24.3%).\2\ Based on these figures,
OSHA estimates that, currently, 179,763 employees may be exposed to
methylene chloride.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Docket ID OSHA-H071B-2006-0839-0121.
\2\ Katelynn Harris, ``Forty years of falling manufacturing
employment,'' Beyond the Numbers: Employment & Unemployment, vol. 9,
no. 16 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2020), https://
<a href="https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-9/forty-years-of-falling-manufacturing-employment.htm">https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-9/forty-years-of-falling-manufacturing-employment.htm</a>. Accessed May 29, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1994 analysis, OSHA estimated that the cost of supplying
pressure-demand full facepiece respirators (including capital,
operating and maintenance, and increased air demand) was $197.60 in
1994 dollars. Inflating that cost to 2024 dollars gives an annual cost
per employee of $377.42 per year (or $1.51 per shift assuming an
employee works 50 weeks and 5 shifts per week). OSHA estimates the cost
of a half mask atmosphere-supplying respirator and eye protection is
$179 + $10 = $189 (or $0.76 per shift assuming 50 weeks and 5 shifts
per week).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Based on prices listed on <a href="https://industrialsafety.com/allegro-9920-half-mask-constant-flow-supplied-air-respirator-allegro-9920.html?msclkid=b2e8fd8014f715c302d695c1a50b4a5e&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Shopping%20Ads%20-%20Allegro&utm_term=4584619899315214&utm_content=Ad%20Group%20%231">https://industrialsafety.com/allegro-9920-half-mask-constant-flow-supplied-air-respirator-allegro-9920.html?msclkid=b2e8fd8014f715c302d695c1a50b4a5e&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Shopping%20Ads%20-%20Allegro&utm_term=4584619899315214&utm_content=Ad%20Group%20%231</a>,
June 5, 2025; https://<a href="https://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-22179/Safety-Glasses/Uline-Cruze-Safety-Goggles">https://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-22179/Safety-Glasses/Uline-Cruze-Safety-Goggles</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA does not currently have sufficient information to quantify how
many of the exposed employees would use a half mask atmosphere-
supplying respirator. However, if 50 percent of the exposed employees
were to use half mask atmosphere-supplying respirators instead of full
facepiece atmosphere-supplying respirators, that could result in
savings of approximately $17 million annually (or $127 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?
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. How many employees would employers expect to use half mask
atmosphere-supplying respirators instead of a full facepiece under the
proposed revisions?
6. How much familiarization time would employers who are new
entrants to the market expect to save based on the revisions?
7. Are there additional categories of cost savings that OSHA has
not identified?
8. Would the savings to employers outside of general industry 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
[[Page 28276]]
regulatory actions'' to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) for review. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule
would not constitute a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this proposal was not submitted to
OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
VI. Additional Requirements
A. Requirements for States With OSHA-Approved State Plans
Under section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress
expressly provides that States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan
for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health
standards that are ``at least as effective'' as the Federal standards
in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment (29
U.S.C. 667). OSHA refers to these OSHA-approved, State-administered
occupational safety and health programs as ``State Plans.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Of the 29 States and U.S. territories with OSHA-approved
State Plans, 22 cover public and private-sector employees: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon,
Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, and Wyoming. The remaining six States and one U.S.
territory cover only State and local government employees:
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
and the Virgin Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, State Plans must either amend their
standards to be identical to, or ``at least as effective as,'' the new
Federal standard or amendment, or show that an existing State Plan
standard covering this issue is ``at least as effective'' as the new
Federal standard or amendment (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). However, when OSHA
promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional
or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, State Plans
do not have to amend their standards, although they may opt to do so.
OSHA has preliminarily determined this proposed rule does not impose
additional or more stringent requirements than the existing standard,
and therefore State Plans are not required to amend their standards.
OSHA seeks comment on this assessment of its proposal.
B. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) defines ``collection of
information'' to mean ``the obtaining, causing to be obtained,
soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public,
of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or
format'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). Under the PRA, a Federal agency cannot
conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by
OMB under the PRA and the agency displays a currently valid OMB control
number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also, notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information if the collection of information does not
display a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3512(a)(1)).
The process for OMB approval is found in 5 CFR part 1320.
This proposed rule would impose no new information collection
requirements. Because the revisions are deregulatory and affect only
minor changes to the existing information collections in the Methylene
Chloride standard (OMB Control Number 1218-0179), OMB has waived the
requirements of 5 CFR part 1320 and approved the modified Information
Collection Request (ICR) under existing OMB Control Number 1218-0179
(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
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 proposing to
amend 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.
[[Page 28277]]
Section 1910.1201 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5
U.S.C. 553.
0
2. Sec. 1910.1052 is revised as follows:
0
a. Revise and republish paragraph (e)(3)
0
b. Revise and republish paragraph (g)(1)
0
c. Revise and republish paragraph (g)(2)(i)
0
d. Revise and republish paragraph (g)(3)(i)
0
e. Remove and reserve paragraph (g)(4)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(3) The employer shall supply a respirator, selected in accordance
with paragraph (g)(3) of this section, to each person who enters a
regulated area and shall require each affected employee to use that
respirator whenever MC exposures are likely to exceed the 8-hour TWA
PEL or STEL.
Note to paragraph (e)(3): An employer who has implemented all
feasible engineering, work practice and administrative controls (as
required in paragraph (f) of this section), and who has established
a regulated area (as required by paragraph (e)(1) of this section)
where MC exposure can be reliably predicted to exceed the 8-hour TWA
PEL or the STEL only on certain days (for example, because of work
or process schedule) would need to have affected employees use
respirators in that regulated area only on those days.
(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 it is
necessary to protect the health of an employee as required under 29 CFR
1910.134(a)(2).
(2) * * *
(i) The employer must implement a respiratory protection program in
accordance with Sec. 1910.134(b) through (m) (except (d)(1)(iii)),
which covers each employee required by this section to use a
respirator.
(ii) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Select, and provide to employees, the appropriate atmosphere-
supplying respirator specified in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) of 29 CFR
1910.134.
[FR Doc. 2025-11642 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.