[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28277-28282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11641]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1926
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0022]
RIN 1218-AD66
Lead
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 Lead standards and better aligns the standards with OSHA's
Respiratory Protection standard.
DATES: Comments and other information, including requests for a
hearing, must be received on or before September 2, 2025.
Informal public hearing: OSHA will schedule an informal public
hearing on the rule if requested during the comment period. If a
hearing is requested, the location and date of the hearing, procedures
for interested parties to notify the agency of their intention to
participate, and procedures for participants to submit their testimony
and documentary evidence will be announced in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments: You may submit comments and attachments,
identified by Docket No. OSHA-2025-0022, electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, 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-2025-0022). When
uploading multiple attachments to regulations.gov, please number all of
your attachments because https://www.regulations.gov 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 https://www.regulations.gov.
All comments, including any personal information you provide, are
placed in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov. 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-2025-0022)
is available at https://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Most exhibits are available at https://www.regulations.gov;
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: [email protected].
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: [email protected].
Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies are
available at https://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice,
as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are
available at OSHA's web page at https://www.osha.gov. A ``100-word
summary'' is also available on https://www.regulations.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Legal Authority and Preliminary Findings
III. Events Leading to the Proposed Rule
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Requirements
V. Economic Analysis
VI. Additional Requirements
VII. Authority and Signature
VIII. Regulatory Text
I. Executive Summary
This proposed rule is intended to provide greater compliance
flexibility and clarify the policies and procedures employers must
follow when implementing a respiratory protection program in
conjunction with OSHA's Lead standards (29 CFR 1910.1025 and 29 CFR
1926.62). OSHA is proposing to revise some respirator-related
[[Page 28278]]
provisions where they are unnecessarily prescriptive, which would
result in employers having greater flexibility in the respirators they
select for exposed workers, while providing equivalent worker
protection. This proposal is also consistent with OSHA's intent, when
it published the revised Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR
1910.134), to use it as a foundation for respirator selection in
substance-specific standards.
Additionally, OSHA believes that this proposed rule appropriately
incorporates advances in technology, which have made some provisions of
the Lead standard outdated, and would allow employers to take advantage
of future technological advances. This proposed standard is intended to
account for modern knowledge and technology and to streamline the
selection of respirators.
II. Legal Authority and Preliminary Findings
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C.
651 et seq.) (``the Act'' or ``the OSH Act'') is ``to assure so far as
possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful
working conditions and to preserve our human resources'' (29 U.S.C.
651(b)). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of
Labor (``the Secretary'') to promulgate standards to protect workers,
including the authority ``to set mandatory occupational safety and
health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate
commerce'' (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(3); see also 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(2)
(requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards), 29 U.S.C. 655(a)
(authorizing summary adoption of existing consensus and established
federal standards within two years of the Act's enactment), 29 U.S.C.
655(b) (authorizing promulgation, modification or revocation of
standards pursuant to notice and comment), and 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)
(authorizing OSHA to include among a standard's requirements labeling,
monitoring, medical testing, and other information-transmittal
provisions)). An occupational safety and health standard is ``. . . a
standard which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or
more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably
necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and
places of employment'' (29 U.S.C. 652(8)). The Secretary may also issue
regulations requiring employers to keep records regarding their
activities relating to the Act, as well as records of work-related
deaths, injuries, and illnesses (29 U.S.C. 657(c)(1)-(2)).
Before OSHA may promulgate a health or safety standard, it must
find that a standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the
meaning of section 652(8) of the OSH Act, which OSHA did here in 1978
when it published the Lead standard (43 FR 52952). 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)). In its final
rule, OSHA found that occupational exposure to lead posed a significant
risk of harm to workers (43 FR 52952) (see also United Steelworkers of
Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1250 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
(``Lead I'') (concluding OSHA ``carried its burden under Section
3(8)''). 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); Lead I at 1237-
38). 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 Lead standards 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 Lead standard in 1978 (43 FR 52952). 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).
[[Page 28279]]
Several OSHA standards regulating exposure to toxic substances and
harmful physical agents, including the Lead standards, 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 Lead standards 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 Lead
standards, because they would allow employers to select from a wider
range of equally protective respirators. OSHA also believes that
advances in technology have made the substance-specific standards
outdated in some areas. This revised standard is intended to take
account of new knowledge and technology.
OSHA expects that the rule would ultimately reduce the compliance
burden on the regulated community, without compromising worker safety.
Therefore, OSHA believes this proposed rule is consistent with
Executive Order (E.O.) 14219, ``Ensuring Lawful Governance and
Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency'
Deregulatory Initiative,'' E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation,'' and the goal of removing regulations that harm the
national interest by impeding technological innovation or private
enterprise and entrepreneurship.
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Requirements
OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (f) and (l) of its general
industry Lead standard (29 CFR 1910.1025) and its construction industry
Lead standard (29 CFR 1926.62) to reduce compliance burdens, allow for
the use of more up-to-date technology, and improve the
comprehensibility of the requirements for respiratory protection
programs. These revisions would simplify compliance for employers by
removing requirements in 1910.1025 and 1926.62 that are duplicative
with the requirements in 1910.134 and updating respirator requirements
to align with the revised NIOSH certification criteria in 42 CFR part
84. The proposed revisions also would remove unnecessary restrictions
on respirator selection where another equally protective option exists.
Finally, these revisions would conform these standards, to the extent
possible, to other substance-specific standards and to 29 CFR 1910.134,
which would simplify review of these regulations. The Agency
preliminarily concludes, therefore, that updating these rules is
consistent with the goals of facilitating technological innovation and
reducing undue burden.
OSHA preliminarily determined that paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of
both the general industry standard and the construction standard for
lead unnecessarily duplicate the general provisions covered by
1910.134(a). The agency is therefore proposing to remove those
paragraphs and add a cross reference to 1910.134(a)(2) in paragraphs
1910.1925(f)(1) and 1926.62(f)(1). Employers in compliance with the
current version of 1910.1025(f)(1) and 1926.62(f)(1) would not have to
change any of their practices to remain in compliance with the changes
OSHA is proposing.
OSHA is also proposing to remove the requirement in paragraph
(f)(3)(i)(B) of the general industry and construction standards that
limits employers to the use of full-facepiece respiratory protection
where lead aerosols may cause eye or skin irritation at the use
concentrations. Paragraph (g)(1) in both Lead standards contains
requirements for the use of personal protective equipment where skin or
eye irritation from lead may occur that OSHA has preliminarily
determined are equally as protective as the requirement under paragraph
(f)(3)(i)(B) in both standards. Removing the limitation to full
facepiece respirators in paragraph (f)(3)(i)(B) of both Lead standards
would provide greater compliance flexibility to employers, who would be
able to provide half mask respirators and appropriate eye and face
protection where the possibility of skin or eye irritation exists.
Additionally, OSHA is proposing to remove paragraph (f)(3)(i)(C) of
both Lead standards, which requires HEPA filters for powered and non-
powered air-purifying respirators. That requirement was included when
the Lead standards were promulgated because it was originally part of
NIOSH's certification standards for respirators under 30 CFR part 11.
However, NIOSH published revised requirements for testing and
certification procedures and recodified the previous certification
standards for other respirator classes as 42 CFR part 84 on June 8,
1995 (60 FR 30336). The HEPA filter requirement is not part of the
revised 42 CFR part 84 because additional types of filters have been
certified for protection from particulates and can be used with powered
and non-powered air-purifying respirators. OSHA believes that these
testing and certification requirements ensure that all particulate
filters certified under 42 CFR part 84, including HEPA filters, are
efficient in preventing the penetration of submicron-sized particles;
OSHA recognized this when the Agency's revised Respiratory Protection
standard was issued on January 8, 1998 (63 FR 1152). In fact, OSHA has
issued other substance-specific regulations since the revised
Respiratory Protection standard and NIOSH's revised certification
requirements were issued and has not incorporated a requirement for
HEPA filters in similar respirator provisions in those rules.
Additionally, OSHA has preliminarily determined that paragraphs
1910.1025(l)(1)(v)(C) and 1926.62(l)(2)(iii), which require that
employees must trained on the purpose, proper selection, fitting, use,
and limitations of respirators, unnecessarily duplicate the general
provisions covered by 1910.134(k) in the Respiratory Protection
standard. OSHA therefore is proposing to remove and reserve those
paragraphs.
OSHA is also considering (but not proposing) removing the
requirements in paragraphs 1910.1025(f)(1)(iii) and 1926.62(f)(1)(iii)
to provide an employee with a respirator during periods when the
employee requests it. Similarly, OSHA is considering removing (but not
proposing to remove) the requirements under paragraphs
1910.1025(f)(3)(ii) and 1926.62(f)(3)(ii) to provide an employee with a
powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) instead of a non-powered air-
purifying respirator when the employee chooses to use a PAPR and the
PAPR provides adequate protection. OSHA believes that the removal of
these provisions would not compromise worker safety and health--both
provisions are about employee requests and, without them, workers would
still be provided adequate protection. When OSHA updated the
Respiratory
[[Page 28280]]
Protection standard, it determined that it was appropriate to allow an
employer to provide more protective respirators when requested by an
employee, rather than mandate it (29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)). Removing
these requirements in the general industry standard and construction
standard for lead would still allow for voluntary respirator use under
some circumstances (i.e., where the employer agrees to provide the
equipment) and would better align with the general Respiratory
Protection standard. However, the Agency acknowledges that user comfort
affects workers' compliance with requirements to wear respiratory
protection and questions whether the existing requirements under the
Respiratory Protection standard, 1910.134(c)(2) and Table 1, offer
equivalent access to alternative styles of respiratory protection. OSHA
also understands that some employees may have come to rely on
respiratory protection from lead at work, even when the standard does
not require it. OSHA therefore seeks comment on the merits of removing
these provisions.
OSHA recognizes that adopting these revisions will also result in
the revision of the respiratory protection requirements in OSHA's
shipyard employment, marine terminals, and longshoring standards for
lead (see 29 CFR 1915.1025, 29 CFR 1917.1, and 29 CFR 1918.1, which
apply the requirements in 1910.1025 to shipyards, marine terminals, and
longshoring). OSHA requests comment regarding whether there are any
considerations that are unique to the use of respirators for protection
against lead hazards in shipyards, marine terminals, or longshoring
that OSHA should consider when finalizing this proposal. OSHA is in the
process of appointing members to the Advisory Committee on Construction
Safety and Health (ACCSH). The agency intends to present this proposed
rule to ACCSH once that process is complete. The agency will put the
Committee's recommendations on the OSHA website and in the docket for
this proposed rule prior to the close of the comment period to allow
the public to provide comments on those recommendations.
OSHA requests comments on this proposal, including responses
regarding the following issues:
1. Are there any concerns that making the changes described in this
proposal will decrease worker safety? If so, which changes do you think
would decrease worker safety and why?
2. Are there alternative approaches OSHA should consider to any of
the proposed revisions?
3. Should OSHA remove the requirements for employers to provide
PAPRs when they are requested by employees? In your experience, how
often do employees request PAPRs when the Lead standards do not require
them?
4. Should OSHA remove the requirement for employers to provide
respirators when requested by an employee? In your experience, how
often do employees request to use respirators when the Lead standards
do not require them?
V. Economic Analysis
This proposed rule would expand compliance options for employers
under the Lead standards, 29 CFR 1910.1025 and 29 CFR 1926.62, by
allowing employers to provide half mask respirators rather than
mandating full facepiece respirators. Therefore, OSHA has preliminarily
concluded that there would be no additional costs imposed by this
proposed revision. OSHA also anticipates that there would be some cost
savings associated with this rule, including savings based on employers
being able to choose more cost-effective respirators and a reduction of
the burdens associated with reviewing unnecessarily duplicative
regulations.
The Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Request for
the general industry Lead standard estimates that there are 814,044
employees exposed to lead, with 346,894 of those exposed to levels
above the action level (AL) but below the permissible exposure limit
(PEL). OSHA assumes that 50 percent of those outside that group are
exposed above the PEL (with the remaining 50 percent exposed below the
AL).\1\ The Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Request
for the lead in construction standard does not give equivalent data,
but does estimate that 158,422 employees are exposed above the AL.
Assuming the ratio of workers exposed above the AL to those exposed
above the PEL is the same in construction as in general industry, OSHA
estimates that 52,807 employees in construction are exposed above the
PEL.\2\ OSHA estimates that there are 226,254 employees, between
construction and general industry, exposed above the PEL and wearing
respirators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Document ID OSHA-2012-0013-0015.
\2\ See Document ID OSHA-2012-0014-0013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost of a full facepiece respirator is $255 \3\ and the cost of
a half mask respirator is $40.\4\ Employees using a half mask
respirator would also need safety goggles. OSHA determined that safety
goggles cost $2.25 \5\ and need to be replaced 5 times a year (based on
OSHA's 2007 PPE Payment FEA (72 FR 64342)), for an annual cost of
$11.25. Assuming that both types of respirators are replaced annually,
that there is no difference in the price of canisters/cartridges, and
that cleaning wipes would be used in equal amounts for either
respirator, this results in a difference of $203.75 per employee
annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.uline.com/BL_992/3M-Full-Face-Respirators.
Accessed June 5, 2025.
\4\ https://www.uline.com/BL_1092/3M-Half-Face-Respirators.
Accessed June 5, 2025.
\5\ https://www.uline.com/BL_8952/Uline-Economy-Safety-Goggles.
Accessed June 5, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA does not currently have sufficient information to quantify how
many of the exposed employees would use a half mask respirator instead
of a full facepiece respirator. However, if 50 percent of the exposed
employees were to use half mask respirators instead of full facepiece
respirators, that could result in savings, based on equipment alone, of
approximately $23 million annually (or about $171.5 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. How many employees would employers expect to use half mask
respirators instead of a full facepiece under the proposed revisions?
3. Are there cost savings associated with no longer being
restricted to HEPA filters for powered and non-powered air-purifying
respirators?
4. How much familiarization time would employers who are new
entrants to the market expect to save based on the revisions?
5. Are there additional categories of cost savings that OSHA has
not identified?
6. Are there any benefits for worker protection that can be
anticipated from this proposed change?
7. Would the savings to employers outside of general industry and
construction be similar to what OSHA has estimated for those 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.
[[Page 28281]]
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.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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 Lead
standards (OMB Control Numbers 1218-0189 and 1218-0092), OMB has waived
the requirements of 5 CFR part 1320 and approved the modified
Information Collection Request (ICR) under existing OMB Control Numbers
1218-0189 and 1218-0092 (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 and 29 CFR Part 1926
Assigned protection factors, Airborne contaminants, Health,
Occupational safety and health, Respirators, Respirator selection.
VII. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of Amanda Laihow,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
It is issued under the authority of sections 4,
[[Page 28282]]
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 and part 1926 as follows:
PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
0
1. The authority for 29 CFR 1910 subpart Z is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 941; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR
50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008); 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR
55355), 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), or 8-2020 (85 FR 58393); 29 CFR part
1911; and 5 U.S.C. 553, as applicable.
All of subpart Z issued under 29 U.S.C. 655(b), except those
substances that have exposure limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and
Z-3 of Sec. 1910.1000. The latter were issued under 29 U.S.C.
655(a).
Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 CFR part 1911 except for the arsenic
(organic compounds), benzene, cotton dust, and chromium (VI)
listings.
Section 1910.1001 also issued under 40 U.S.C. 3704 and 5 U.S.C.
553.
Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under
29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, and 1910.1200 also issued under
29 U.S.C. 653.
Section 1910.1030 also issued under Public Law 106-430, 114
Stat. 1901.
Section 1910.1201 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5
U.S.C. 553.
0
2. Sec. 1910.1025 is revised as follows:
0
1. Revise and republish paragraph (f)(1) and (f)(3)(i).
0
2. Remove paragraphs (f)(1)(i)-(iii) and (f)(3)(i)(A)-(C).
0
3. Remove and reserve paragraph (l)(1)(v)(C).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(f) * * *
(1) General. For employees who use respirators required by this
section, the employer must provide each employee an appropriate
respirator that complies with the requirements of this paragraph.
Respirators must be used when the employer determines that they are
necessary to protect the health of an employee as required under 29 CFR
1910.134(a)(2) and during periods when an employee requests a
respirator.
(2) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Employers must select, and provide to employees, the
appropriate respirators specified in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) of 29 CFR
1910.134.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(iii) * * *
(iv) * * *
(v) * * *
(A) * * *
(B) * * *
(C) [Reserved]
* * * * *
PART 1926--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
Subpart D--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls
0
1. The authority for 29 CFR 1926 subpart D continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3704; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; and
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 31159), 4-
2010 (75 FR 55355), 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), or 8-2020 (85 FR 58393), as
applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1926.59, 1926.60, and 1926.65 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 553 and 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1926.61 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5
U.S.C. 553.
Section 1926.62 also issued under sec. 1031, Public Law 102-550,
106 Stat. 3672 (42 U.S.C. 4853).
Section 1926.65 also issued under sec. 126, Public Law 99-499,
100 Stat. 1614 (reprinted at 29 U.S.C.A. 655 Note) and 5 U.S.C. 553.
0
2. Sec. 1926.62 is revised as follows:
0
a. Revise and republish paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(3)(i).
0
b. Remove paragraphs (f)(1)(i)-(iv) and (f)(3)(i)(A)-(C).
0
c. Remove and reserve paragraph (l)(2)(iii).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(f) * * *
(1) General. For employees who use respirators required by this
section, the employer must provide each employee an appropriate
respirator that complies with the requirements of this paragraph.
Respirators must be used when the employer determines that they are
necessary to protect the health of an employee as required under 29 CFR
1910.134(a)(2) and during periods when an employee requests a
respirator.
(2) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Employers must select, and provide to employees, the
appropriate respirators specified in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) of 29 CFR
1910.134.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(iii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-11641 Filed 6-30-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P