Benzene

Dear Mr. Levinson: The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the American Petroleum Institute (API) Benzene Consortia, collectively the "Workgroup (WG)," appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's proposed revisions to the Benzene Standard, 29 Administration 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1028 [Docket No. OSHA–2025–0023] RIN 1218–AD59. The WG broadly supports OSHA's proposal to modernize respirator-related provisions of the Benzene Standard by removing duplicative requirements, recognizing advances in respiratory protection technology, and improving alignment with OSHA's Respiratory Protection Standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.134. The proposed revisions can improve regulatory clarity and provide employers additional compliance flexibility while maintaining worker protection. The Benzene Standard applies across industrial settings with differing operations and exposure scenarios. These may include chemical manufacturing, petrochemical production, refining, transportation, storage, loading and unloading, maintenance, construction, shipyard employment, marine terminals, and longshoring. The WG supports a common regulatory framework across affected sectors where equivalent protection can be achieved through § 1910.134 and the remaining provisions of the Benzene Standard. OSHA should avoid adding sector-specific requirements unless the rulemaking record identifies a distinct condition that is not adequately addressed by the general respiratory protection framework. At the same time, the final preamble should recognize that implementation details may differ by operation. Employers should retain the flexibility to account for site-specific exposure conditions, work tasks, equipment, emergency scenarios, and established industrial hygiene programs while meeting the same protective requirements. The WG recognizes that benzene may be addressed under other federal and state regulatory programs. For example, under the US EPA Benzene is on the current list of the chemicals undergoing the process for prioritization, as well as proposed and final designation status for risk evaluation. This OSHA rulemaking, however, is appropriately focused on modernization of workplace respiratory protection requirements. The final rule should remain within that scope and should avoid creating duplicative requirements that do not provide an additional occupational safety or health benefit. OSHA must coordinate with other agencies when making changes to standards that are specifically referenced by those agencies to prevent unnecessary confusion. We recognize that OSHA and EPA have established a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to facilitate coordination on matters arising from EPA's implementation of TSCA Section 6. The MOU reflects the agencies' commitment to ongoing communication and information sharing, including a provision that OSHA's designated point of contact provides updates on OSHA activities related to chemicals undergoing TSCA prioritization, risk evaluation, or risk management. The WG respectfully requests that OSHA affirm the importance of EPA-OSHA coordination for managing occupational chemical risks in the preamble to the final rule, explaining that the final Benzene standard is intended to provide a clear OSHA framework for the covered workplace respiratory protection issues. OSHA should further state that any future federal action affecting occupational exposure to Benzene should be coordinated with OSHA and EPA under TSCA Section 9 to avoid duplicative or conflicting requirements. Regulatory consistency is particularly important for companies operating across multiple facilities and industry segments. A clear, performance-based OSHA framework can support effective worker protection while reducing unnecessary complexity across occupational health programs. The WG appreciates the opportunity to comment on OSHA's proposed revisions to the Benzene Standard. Should you ha…

Filed on regulations.gov — full text not in the inline record.