Rule2026-08260
Open Fires in Marine Terminals
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
April 28, 2026
Effective
April 28, 2026
Issuing agencies
Labor DepartmentOccupational Safety and Health Administration
Abstract
OSHA is finalizing the revocation of the agency's Open Fires in Marine Terminals Standard.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22723-22727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08260]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1917
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0007]
RIN 1218-AD51
Open Fires in Marine Terminals
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA is finalizing the revocation of the agency's Open Fires
in Marine Terminals Standard.
DATES: The final rule is effective April 28, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Docket: The docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-
2025-0007) 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. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2500 (TDY number 877-889-5627) for
assistance in locating docket submissions.
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#573a323e3b3e393032257931253639343e24651733383b79303821"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="82efe7ebeeebece5e7f0ace4f0e3ece1ebf1b0c2e6edeeace5edf4">[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#5b3428333a753f283c1b3f3437753c342d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="39564a5158175d4a5e795d5655175e564f">[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>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Legal Authority
III. Background
IV. Explanation of the Revocation of the Open Fires in Marine
Terminals Standard
V. Final Economic Analysis
VI. Additional Requirements
VII. Authority and Signature
I. Executive Summary
This final rule revokes the Open Fires in Marine Terminals
Standard, 29 CFR 1917.21 (``Open Fires Standard''). OSHA has determined
that this standard is no longer necessary to protect employees working
in marine terminals from occupational safety and health hazards. This
is a deregulatory action per Executive Order 14192, ``Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation'' (90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025)).
II. Legal Authority
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), and 29
U.S.C. 655(b) (authorizing promulgation, modification or revocation of
standards pursuant to notice and comment)). An occupational safety and
health standard is ``. . . a standard which requires conditions, or
[[Page 22724]]
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)).
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. As required by the OSH Act,
OSHA originally determined that the Standards for Marine Terminals
would substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm when
promulgating those standards (see 48 FR 30886, 30887 (July 5, 1983)).
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'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OSHA standards must also be both technologically and
economically feasible. Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Because this final rule eliminates an existing standard, OSHA finds
that it raises no feasibility concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 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.
The effective date of this final rule is its date of publication.
It is exempt from the APA's requirement for delay in effective date
because the rule relieves a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).
III. Background
OSHA first adopted the Open Fires Standard in 1983, as part of its
Marine Terminals rulemaking, to address serious occupational safety and
health hazards in the marine terminals industry (see 48 FR 30886 (July
5, 1983)). The Open Fires Standard prohibits open fires and fires in
drums and similar containers (29 CFR 1917.21). The standard is one of
several intended to protect employees working in marine terminals from
the occupational safety and health hazards to which they are exposed
(see 29 CFR Pt. 1917). For example, in addition to containing the Open
Fires Standard, the Marine Terminals Standards contain standards
protecting employees from slippery conditions (29 CFR 1917.12) and
hazardous cargo (29 CFR 1917.22). The Marine Terminals Standards apply
to work such as loading, unloading, movement or other handling of cargo
in marine terminals (29 CFR 1917.1). Marine terminals are wharves,
bulkheads, quays, piers, docks and other berthing locations and
adjacent storage or adjacent areas and structures associated with the
primary movement of cargo or materials from vessel to shore or shore to
vessel including structures which are devoted to receiving, handling,
holding, consolidating and loading or delivery of waterborne shipments
or passengers, including areas dedicated to the maintenance of the
terminal or equipment.
IV. Explanation of the Revocation of the Open Fires in Marine Terminals
Standard
OSHA proposed removing the Open Fires Standard from the CFR because
that standard is no longer necessary to protect employees working in
marine terminals from occupational safety and health hazards. When OSHA
first promulgated the Marine Terminals Standards in 1983, affected
employees made open fires in drums or similar containers to stay warm
when they were exposed to the elements. In the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for this rule, OSHA stated the agency's understanding that
this is no longer a typical practice and the agency belief that the
practice is not likely to become prevalent again in the absence of
OSHA's prohibition. As OSHA stated, because of containerization and
technology improvements in the marine terminals industry, employees
today are not exposed to the elements as they once were, and to the
extent employees are still exposed to the elements, they can wear
heated jackets, which were not available when the Open Fires Standard
was issued. OSHA also has no records of any citations for a violation
of this standard (OSHA's accessible records extend back to 2012, and
OSHA did not receive any public comment or evidence suggesting earlier
citations). Therefore, 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
significantly reducing the private expenditures required to comply with
Federal regulations to secure America's economic prosperity and
national security and the highest possible quality of life for each
citizen, OSHA preliminarily found that removing the Open Fires Standard
from the CFR would reduce the compliance burden on the regulated
community without compromising worker safety.
OSHA received two comments in response to the proposal. Both
opposed the revocation of the standard on the grounds that open fires
could remain a hazard if employees are exposed, but neither provided
evidence to suggest that these fires still occur (other than via
vandalism) or that employees would be exposed to any such fires. The
Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association (``OSHSPA'')
(OSHA-2025-0007-0004) stated that while open fires ``may not be typical
practice, they are still in use,'' but did not provide any other
explanation. A different commenter (OSHA-2025-0007-0003) agreed with
OSHA that employees today are not exposed to the elements as they once
were because of containerization and technology improvements. The
commenter also agreed that, to the extent employees are still exposed
to the elements, they can wear heated jackets, which are now ``widely
available and affordable'' and ``provide a safer and more effective way
to manage cold stress for workers with outdoor exposure, eliminating
the hazards of open flames.'' In response to a question posed by OSHA
in the NPRM, the commenter posited, without providing any supporting
evidence, that employees might still want to make open fires for other
reasons, including improper waste disposal, vandalism, cooking food,
and if heated jackets malfunction. The commenter also emphasized the
risks associated with open fires, including the risk of uncontrolled
flames in areas potentially containing flammable materials, smoke
inhalation, and toxic fumes. On the other hand, the commenter also
acknowledged that ``general fire prevention rules'' would address fire
hazards.
OSHA concludes that there is no persuasive evidence in the record
that these fires still occur. If open fires were occurring, they would
be in violation of the existing standard. Yet while work in marine
terminals has continued for over four decades under this standard, OSHA
has no record of any citation for violation of the Open Fires Standard
(OSHA's accessible records extend back to 2012, and OSHA did not
receive any public comment or evidence suggesting earlier citations).
The record lacks any evidence that, for example, employees at modern
marine terminals are likely to resort to open flames to cook food or to
dispose of trash. Moreover, the
[[Page 22725]]
commenter corroborates OSHA's conclusion that employees are now far
less likely to utilize fires for warmth, the primary concern that
prompted OSHA to issue the standard. Finally, OSHA believes that open
fires resulting from vandalism, if they were to occur, would occur with
or without an applicable OSHA standard.
For these reasons, OSHA finds that the Open Fires Standard, 29 CFR
1917.21, is no longer necessary to protect employees in marine
terminals and is finalizing the revocation of the standard.
V. Final Economic Analysis
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C.
1532(a)) require that OSHA estimate the benefits, costs, and net
benefits of regulations, and analyze the impacts of certain rules that
OSHA promulgates. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules,
and promoting flexibility.
This final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or UMRA, or a ``major rule'' under the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). Neither the benefits
nor the costs of this final rule will exceed $100 million in any given
year. This final rule will, however, result in a net cost savings for
employers in marine terminal and longshoring operations, which are the
only industries throughout OSHA's jurisdiction affected by the
rescission of 29 CFR 1917.21.
Furthermore, as discussed below in Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, because the final rule will not impose any costs, OSHA
certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
OSHA estimates that there are currently 2,617 establishments in the
maritime industry affected by OSHA standards addressing open fires
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). These establishments are found in the
following industries: Port and Harbor Operations (NAICS 488310), Marine
Cargo Handling (NAICS 488320), Navigational Services to Shipping (NAICS
488330), and Other Support Activities for Water Transportation (NAICS
488390). The revocation of the Open Fires Standard will, among other
things, eliminate the time necessary for new establishments and newly
hired occupational health and safety specialists at existing
establishments to familiarize themselves with the requirements found in
29 CFR 1917.21. Based on an average annual establishment entry rate of
10 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2025), an average hire rate of 43.9
percent (BLS, 2025), and 10 minutes less time spent on regulatory
familiarization at a loaded hourly wage rate for an occupational health
and safety specialist of $65.41, OSHA estimates that this deregulatory
action will mean $15,377 in cost savings annually.
OSHA also estimated the impacts under an alternative scenario where
only new entrants into the industry would be affected by the revocation
of 29 CFR 1917.21. This scenario assumes that for non-entrant (i.e.,
existing) establishments within an industry, the familiarization time
saved for newly hired occupational health and safety specialists is
negligible due to knowledge of the requirements in section 1917.21
retained institutionally within the business entity by team leaders and
other senior production staff. For this scenario, cost savings that
result from rescinding section 1917.21 would be $2,853 annually.
A third impact scenario, one that is likely closer to the real-
world environment for the retention and communication of safety and
health information in most workplaces, would be the midpoint of the two
extreme cases described above. Under this mid-range scenario,
approximately half of the affected establishments would retain staff
whose complete knowledge of the rescinded standards would substitute
for the familiarization time needed by the newly hired health and
safety specialists. Viewed alternatively, under this mid-range
scenario, all affected establishments retain veteran staff who can
briefly inform the new safety and health specialist of the status of
standards such as section 1917.21 in less time (roughly five minutes)
than would be necessary in the absence of institutional knowledge (ten
minutes). OSHA estimates that this would result in cost savings of
$9,115 annually.
OSHA's estimate of cost savings may underestimate total cost
savings if the elimination of the labor burden for regulatory
familiarization extends to the avoidance of unnecessary safety training
of employees.
OSHA presented this analysis in its proposed rule and requested
public comment on its analysis of the cost savings for marine terminal
and longshoring operations from the revocation of the Open Fires
Standard, 29 CFR 1917.21. No comments addressing the analysis were
received. Therefore, OSHA's estimates of the costs and benefits of this
final rule remain unchanged from the proposal.
Sources
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2025). Occupational Employment and
Wage Statistics--May 2024 (Released April 2, 2025). Available at
<a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm</a> (Accessed April 11, 2025)
U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). County Business Patterns 2022 (Released
June 27, 2024). Available at <a href="https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html">https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html</a> (Accessed July 17, 2024)
U.S. Census Bureau. (2025). Business Dynamics Statistics. Available at
<a href="https://bds.explorer.ces.census.gov/?xaxis-id=year&xaxis-selected=2018,2019,2020,2021,2022&group-id=none&measure-id=estabs_entry_rate&chart-type=bar">https://bds.explorer.ces.census.gov/?xaxis-id=year&xaxis-selected=2018,2019,2020,2021,2022&group-id=none&measure-id=estabs_entry_rate&chart-type=bar</a> (Accessed June 6, 2025)
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 rescission under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule eliminates a burdensome
regulation. Therefore, OSHA certifies that the rescission will not have
a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities,'' and that the preparation of a FRFA 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).
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,
[[Page 22726]]
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.
In the proposed rule, OSHA preliminarily determined this rule would
not impose additional or more stringent requirements than the existing
standard, and therefore State Plans would not be required to amend
their standards in response. OSHA received one comment related to this
determination. The comment was from the OSHSPA, which agreed with
OSHA's determination that State Plans should not be required to amend
their standards to adopt this rule. OSHA received no other comments
disputing OSHA's preliminary conclusion that this proposed rule does
not impose additional or more stringent requirements than the existing
standard. Therefore, OSHA is finalizing its determination that State
Plans are not required to amend their standards. OSHA agrees with
OSHSPA that the OSH Act requires State Plans to have standards that are
``at least as effective'' as OSHA's but allows State Plans to be more
stringent than OSHA in protecting the safety and health of workers in
their respective jurisdictions. This rulemaking does not change that
authority. Consequently, State Plans are not obligated to make any
changes to their existing standards in response to this final rule.
B. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
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 final rule imposes no new information
collection requirements and does not affect the currently approved
information collections in Marine Terminals (29 CFR Pt. 1917) and
Longshoring (29 CFR Pt. 1918) (OMB Control Number 1218-0196).
Accordingly, OMB approval of information collections is not required
for this final rule.
C. 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
final rule does not constitute a ``significant regulatory action''
under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this final rule was not
submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
D. Environmental Impacts/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
OSHA has reviewed this final 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).
Pursuant to 29 CFR 11.10, the promulgation, modification, or
revocation of any OSHA safety standard is categorically excluded from
the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment under NEPA
absent extraordinary circumstances indicating the need for such an
assessment. OSHA finds that this final rule presents no such
extraordinary circumstances.
E. 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 final 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 final rule 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 1917
Health, Longshore and Harbor workers, Occupational safety and
health.
VII. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of David Keeling,
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);
[[Page 22727]]
section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (33
U.S.C. 941); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 7-2025 (90 FR 27878, June
30, 2025); and 29 CFR part 1911.
Dated: April 23, 2026.
David Keeling,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
Final Regulatory Text
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHA amends 29 CFR part
1917 as follows:
PART 1917--MARINE TERMINALS
0
1. The authority for part 1917 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), 8-2020 (85 FR 58393), or 7-2025 (90 FR
27878), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1917.28 and 1917.31 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
Section 1917.29 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 U.S.C.
553.
Subpart B--Marine Terminal Operations
Sec. 1917.21 [Reserved]
0
2. Remove and reserve Sec. 1917.21.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-08260 Filed 4-27-26; 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 April 28, 2026.
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.