Proposed Rule2025-11644
Vinyl 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 removes language in OSHA's Vinyl Chloride standard that is duplicative 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 28263-28267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11644]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0015]
RIN 1218-AD69
Vinyl Chloride
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule removes language in OSHA's Vinyl Chloride
standard that is duplicative 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
[[Page 28264]]
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-2025-0015, 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-2025-0015). 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-2025-0015)
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#0f626a66636661686a7d21697d6e616c667c3d4f6b606321686079"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="19747c707570777e7c6b377f6b78777a706a2b597d7675377e766f">[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#3758445f56195344507753585b19505841"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="78170b1019561c0b1f381c1714561f170e">[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 at <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 remove language in the Vinyl
Chloride standard, 29 CFR 1910.1017, which is redundant with language
in the Respiratory Protection standard. This would result in improved
comprehensibility of the standard and avoid employer confusion and
redundant efforts to comply with both standards. This proposal is also
consistent with OSHA's intent, when it published the revised
Respiratory Protection standard, to use it as a foundation for
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 1974
when it published the Vinyl Chloride standard (39 FR 35890). 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 published this standard as an emergency temporary standard
(ETS) and found that vinyl chloride posed a grave danger, which is a
higher threshold than significant risk (39 FR 12342). 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
[[Page 28265]]
made a preliminary determination that the proposed changes are
reasonably related to the purpose of the Vinyl 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 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 Vinyl Chloride standard in 1974 (39 FR 35890). 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 Vinyl 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 has identified a training provision in the
Vinyl Chloride standard which can be eliminated in order to reduce
redundancy with 29 CFR 1910.134 without compromising employee safety.
The purpose of deleting this provision is to avoid an unintended result
of employers duplicating their efforts to comply with the training
provisions of both the Vinyl Chloride standard and the Respiratory
Protection standard, as well as to reduce the burden associated with
reviewing unnecessary provisions in standards.
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 (j) of its general industry
Vinyl Chloride standard (29 CFR 1910.1017) to remove redundant language
and improve the comprehensibility of the requirements for respiratory
protection programs. This revision would simplify compliance for
employers by removing language in 1910.1017 that is duplicative with
the requirements in 1910.134. This change would avoid the possibility
of employers duplicating their efforts to comply with the training
provisions of both the Vinyl Chloride standard and the Respiratory
Protection standard, as well as reduce the burden associated with
reviewing unnecessary provisions in standards. The Agency preliminarily
concludes, therefore, that updating this rule is consistent with the
goal of reducing undue burden.
OSHA has preliminarily determined that paragraph (j)(1)(iii) of the
Vinyl Chloride standard, which requires training on ``The purpose for,
proper use, and limitations of respiratory protection devices,''
unnecessarily duplicates the general provisions covered by the
Respiratory Protection standard, at 1910.134(k), and is proposing to
remove and reserve that paragraph.
OSHA recognizes that adopting this revision will also result in the
revision of the respiratory protection requirements in OSHA's shipyard
employment, marine terminals, longshoring, and construction industry
standards for vinyl chloride (see 29 CFR 1926.1117, 29 CFR 1917.1, 29
CFR 1918.1, and 29 CFR 1915.1017, which apply the requirements in 29
CFR 1910.1017 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 vinyl chloride 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:
[[Page 28266]]
1. Are there any concerns that making the change described in this
proposal will decrease worker safety?
2. Is there an alternative approach OSHA should consider?
V. Economic Analysis
This proposed rule would remove redundant training requirements in
the Vinyl Chloride standard, 29 CFR 1910.1017, 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
cost savings associated with this rule, including a reduction of the
burden associated with complying with and 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 changes to the requirements for vinyl chloride may reduce the
time necessary for employee training on respirators. OSHA estimates
that 4,407 employees work at establishments affected by the vinyl
chloride rule. Assuming a hiring rate of 30.6 percent annually,\1\ a
loaded wage of $54.26 an hour, and that the changes to the standard may
result in a decrease of 15 minutes per employee, this proposal could
result in cost savings of $18,292 (or $136,117 over 10 years at a 3
percent discount rate).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on BLS JOLTs data.
\2\ See Document ID OSHA-2011-0196-0015 for details on
employment 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 and were providing duplicative training?How many
employees were being provided duplicative training?
2. Are there any other savings for employers that would result from
the proposed change?
2. Are there any benefits for worker protection that can be
anticipated from this proposed change?
3. Are there any costs for employers that would result from this
change that OSHA has not considered?
A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a
final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law
must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that
the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule would eliminate burdensome
regulations. Therefore, OSHA initially concludes that the impacts of
the revisions would not have a ``significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,'' and that the preparation of an
IRFA is not warranted. OSHA will transmit this certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
B. Review Under Executive Order 12866
E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735 (Oct.
4, 1993)), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1)
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that
its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices
can be made by the public.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. OIRA has determined that this
proposed rule would not constitute a ``significant regulatory action''
under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this proposal was not
submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
VI. Additional Requirements
A. Requirements for States With OSHA-Approved State Plans
Under section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress
expressly provides that States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan
for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health
standards that are ``at least as effective'' as the Federal standards
in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment (29
U.S.C. 667). OSHA refers to these OSHA-approved, State-administered
occupational safety and health programs as ``State Plans.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Of the 29 States and U.S. territories with OSHA-approved
State Plans, 22 cover public and private-sector employees: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon,
Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, and Wyoming. The remaining six States and one U.S.
territory cover only State and local government employees:
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
and the Virgin Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, State Plans must either amend their
standards to be identical to, or ``at least as effective as,'' the new
Federal standard or amendment, or show that an existing State Plan
standard covering this issue is ``at least as effective'' as the new
Federal standard or amendment (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). However, when OSHA
promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional
or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, State Plans
do not have to amend their standards, although they may opt to do so.
OSHA has preliminarily determined this proposed rule does not impose
additional or more stringent requirements than the existing standard,
and therefore State Plans are not required to amend their standards.
OSHA seeks comment on this assessment of its proposal.
B. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) defines ``collection of
information'' to mean ``the obtaining, causing to be obtained,
soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public,
of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or
format'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). Under the PRA, a Federal agency cannot
conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by
OMB under the PRA and the agency displays a currently valid OMB control
number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also, notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information if the collection of information does not
display a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3512(a)(1)).
The process for OMB approval is found in 5 CFR part 1320.
[[Page 28267]]
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 Vinyl
Chloride standards (OMB Control Number 1218-0010), OMB has waived the
requirements of 5 CFR part 1320 and approved the modified Information
Collection Request (ICR) under existing OMB Control Number 1218-0010
(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 duplicative 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 citation for subpart Z of part 1910 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.
Sec. 1910.1017(j)(1)(iii) [Reserved]
0
2. Remove and reserve Sec. 1910.1017(j)(1)(iii).
[FR Doc. 2025-11644 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.