[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28366-28370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11645]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1926
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0040]
RIN 1218-AD70
Construction Illumination
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
proposing to rescind the construction illumination requirements,
codified in 29 CFR 1926.26 and 1926.56.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2025.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments: You may submit comments and attachments,
identified by Docket No. OSHA-2025-0040, 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-2025-0040). When
uploading multiple attachments to regulations.gov, please number all of
your attachments because 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-2025-0040)
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: 29 CFR 1926.26 requires construction areas,
[[Page 28367]]
aisles, stairs, ramps, runways, corridors, offices, shops, and storage
areas where work is in progress to be lighted with either natural or
artificial illumination. 29 CFR 1926.56 states that construction areas,
ramps, runways, corridors, offices, shops, and storage areas must ``be
lighted to not less than the minimum illumination intensities listed''
in a table. The table sets out minimum illumination intensities in foot
candles for various areas of operation. 29 CFR 1926.56(a). For areas
not covered by the table, the regulation directs employers to use the
``American National Standard A11.1-1965, R1970, Practice for Industrial
Lighting. 29 CFR 1926.56(b). The requirements of 29 CFR 1926.56 are
incorporated by reference in 29 CFR 1926.800, Underground Construction,
and 29 CFR 1926.1204, Permit-required confined space program. The
incorporation by reference is noted in 29 CFR 1926.6(e)(4),
Incorporation by Reference.
OSHA proposes rescinding sections 1926.26 and 1926.56 in their
entirety and removing all cross-references to those section. OSHA seeks
all comment on that proposal. OSHA's statutory authority for the
proposed rescissions can be found in 40 U.S.C. 3704 and 29 U.S.C. 655
and 657.
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.
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Pertinent Legal Authority
III. Explanation of the Proposed Rescission
IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis
V. Additional Requirements
VI. Authority and Signature
VII. Regulatory Text
I. Executive Summary
The intent of this proposed rule is to remove from the Code of
Federal Regulations OSHA's Construction Illumination Standard, 29 CFR
1926.26 and 1926.56. OSHA's Illumination Standard, 29 CFR 1926.26,
requires that construction areas, aisles, stairs, ramps, runways,
corridors, offices, shops, and storage areas where work is in progress
are lighted with either natural or artificial illumination. The minimum
illumination requirements for work areas are contained in Subpart D, 29
CFR 1926.56.\1\ OSHA proposes to remove the Construction Illumination
Standard because it has determined that the standard is not reasonably
necessary or appropriate under section 3(8) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C.
652, because it does not reduce a significant risk to workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These requirements are incorporated by reference in 29 CFR
1926.800, Underground Construction, and 29 CFR 1926.1204, Permit-
required confined space program. They are also cross-referenced in
an explanatory note to section 1926.967 of the Electric Power
Transmission and Distribution Standard (see 29 CFR 1926.967(d)
Note).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Pertinent 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), 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 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)
(emphasis added)).
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. To impose a safety or health
standard ``the Secretary is required to make a threshold finding that a
place of employment is unsafe--in the sense that 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) (``Benzene''). OSHA exercises significant discretion in carrying
out its responsibilities under the Act. Indeed, ``[a] number of terms
of the statute give OSHA almost unlimited discretion to devise means to
achieve the congressionally mandated goal'' of ensuring worker safety
and health. See Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1230 (citation omitted). Thus,
where OSHA has chosen some measures to address a significant risk over
other measures, parties challenging the OSHA standard must ``identify
evidence that their [alternative] proposals would be feasible and
generate more than a de minimis benefit to worker health.'' N. Am.'s
Bldg. Trades Unions v. OSHA, 878 F.3d 271, 282 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
OSHA standards must be both technologically and economically
feasible. 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., Pub. Citizen v. OSHA, 557 F.3d 165, 170-71 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing
United Steelworkers of Am., 647 F.2d 1189, 1272). Because this proposed
rule would remove existing OSHA requirements from the CFR, OSHA
anticipates employers would have no technological issues complying with
the rule. Accordingly, the agency finds that the proposed rule is
technologically feasible for affected employers.
In determining economic feasibility, OSHA must consider the cost of
compliance in an industry rather than on 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 United Steelworkers
of Am., 647 F.2d at 1272). OSHA has determined that this proposed rule
is economically feasible because this action is deregulatory and
imposes no additional costs.
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.
[[Page 28368]]
III. Explanation of the Proposed Rescission
In OSHA's judgment, the Construction Illumination Standard is not
reasonably necessary or appropriate under section 3(8) of the OSH Act
because it does not substantially reduce a significant risk to workers.
The OSHA standard does not provide significant protection beyond what
would exist without the standard because the hazard--lack of
illumination--is obvious to employers and employees, as is the means to
address it.
Because adequate illumination is important to performing work well,
OSHA expects that employers would identify and correct working
conditions where inadequate illumination exists, eliminating any
potential risk. However, if employers do not identify and correct the
working conditions on their own, OSHA may still issue citations for
this hazard under the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C.
654(a)(1) (employers ``shall furnish to each of his employees
employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized
hazards which are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical
harm''). A specific standard for illumination is not necessary because
a lack of illumination is a prototypical ``recognized hazard . . .
likely to cause serious death or serious physical injury'' under the
General Duty Clause. Moreover, OSHA has cited the illumination standard
only 79 times since October 1, 2012 (for comparison, OSHA issues
approximately 7,000 citations a year for fall protection violations).
For these reasons, OSHA finds that the standard is neither
necessary nor appropriate under section 3(8) of the OSH Act.
IV. Preliminary 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would exceed $100 million in any
given year. Furthermore, as discussed below in Review Under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, because the proposed rule would not impose
any costs, OSHA certifies that it would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For this analysis, OSHA considered the cost savings associated with
no longer having to review these standards post-rescission. To estimate
this annual cost savings, OSHA first estimated the number of
establishments affected by these standards. The construction
illumination standards impact all construction entities in the U.S.
OSHA used 2022 County Business Patterns data (U.S. Census Bureau,
2024a) to represent the total number of establishments in the
Construction sector. In total, there are 800,651 construction
establishments as of 2022 (See OSHA, 2025, for a list of affected
industries).
The proposed rescission of the standards addressing illumination
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 of OSHA's Construction Illumination Standard, 29 CFR
1926.26 and 1926.56. Based on an average annual establishment entry
rate of 10 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024b), an average hire rate of
43.9 percent (BLS, 2025a) and 20 minutes less time spent on regulatory
familiarization at a loaded hourly wage rate for a construction manager
of $81.49, OSHA estimates that this deregulatory action would mean
about $11.7 million 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 rescission
of the illumination standards in construction. This scenario assumes
that for non-entrant (i.e., existing) establishments within an
industry, the familiarization time saved for newly hired construction
managers is negligible due to knowledge of the requirements in the
illumination standards retained institutionally within the business
entity by team leaders and other senior production staff. For this
scenario, cost savings that result from rescinding the standards in
construction addressing illumination would be $2.2 million.
A third impacts scenario, one that is likely closer to the real-
world environment for 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 affected establishments would retain staff whose
complete knowledge of the rescinded standards would substitute for the
familiarization time needed by the newly hired construction managers.
Viewed alternatively, under this mid-range scenario, all affected
establishments retain veteran staff who can briefly inform the new
construction manager of the status of standards such as the
illumination standards in less time (roughly ten minutes) than would be
necessary in the absence of institutional knowledge (twenty minutes).
OSHA estimates that this would result in cost savings of $6.9 million
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 requests public comment on this preliminary analysis of the
cost savings for employers affected by the rescission of the standards
addressing illumination. Specifically, OSHA seeks comments and data on
the following questions:
1. How much do employers expect to save as a consequence of the
rescission of requirements in the current standard?
2. How much familiarization time would employers who are new
entrants to the market be expected to save based on the revisions?
3. Are there any benefits for worker protection that can be
anticipated from this proposed change?
4. Are there any costs for employers that would result from this
change that OSHA has not considered?
Sources
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2025b). Occupational Employment
and Wage Statistics--May 2024 (Released April 2, 2025). Available at
https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm (Accessed April 11, 2025)
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2025c). Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation--December 2024 (Released March 14, 2025).
Available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03142025.htm (Accessed April 18, 2025)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2002). Revised Economic
Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final report.
August, 2002. Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0054-0260. Available at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0054-
0260 (Accessed January 28, 2015)
Rice, C. (2002). Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics
Release Inventory Program. June 10, 2002
U.S. Census Bureau. (2024a). County Business Patterns 2022 (Released
June
[[Page 28369]]
27, 2024). Available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html (Accessed July 17, 2024)
U.S. Census Bureau. (2024b). Business Dynamics Statistics. Available
at 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 (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 proposed rescission under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule eliminates a burdensome
regulation. Therefore, OSHA preliminarily concludes that the rescission
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). OSHA
requests comment on this regulatory flexibility certification.
V. Additional Requirements
i. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``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 it
is a deregulatory action. Accordingly, OMB review under the PRA is not
required.
ii. 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.'' \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.
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.
iii. Environmental Impacts/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
OSHA has reviewed the 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). Under the Department's NEPA regulations, the
``[p]romulgation, modification or revocation of any [OSHA] safety
standard'' is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an
environmental assessment absent extraordinary circumstances indicating
the potential for significant environmental effects (29 CFR
11.10(a)(1)). OSHA has preliminarily determined that no such
extraordinary circumstances exist, and that this proposal would have no
impact on the quality of the human environment.
iv. Other Statutory and Executive Order Considerations
OSHA has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it is
consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14192,
``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.'' This proposed rule is
expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
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 rescission 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).
Executive Order (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
[[Page 28370]]
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 OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this proposed
rule does not constitute a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this proposed rule was not
submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
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 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.
VI. 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
58383); and 29 CFR part 1911.
Dated: June 20, 2025.
Amanda Laihow,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926
Construction industry, Occupational Safety and Health, Lighting.
VII. Proposed Regulatory Text
Amendments
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHA is proposing to
amend 29 CFR part 1926 as follows:
PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
0
1. The authority citation for part 1926 continues to read in part 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, unless otherwise noted
Subpart A--General
0
2. In Sec. 1926.6, reserve paragraph (e)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.6 Incorporation by reference.
(e) * * *
(4) [Reserved]
* * * * *
Subpart C--General Safety and Health Provisions
0
3. Section 1926.26 is removed and reserved to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.26 [Reserved]
* * * * *
Subpart D--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls
0
4. Section 1926.56 is removed and reserved to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.56 [Reserved]
* * * * *
Subpart S--Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams and
Compressed Air
0
5. Section 1926.800 is amended by revising paragraph (l) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1926.800 Underground construction.
* * * * *
(l) Illumination. Only acceptable portable lighting equipment shall
be used within 50 feet (15.24 m) of any underground heading during
explosives handling.
* * * * *
Subpart V--Electric Power Transmission and Distribution
0
6. Section 1926.967 is amended by removing the note to paragraph (d).
Subpart AA--Confined Spaces in Construction
0
7. Section 1926.1204 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1926.1204 Permit-required confined space program.
(d) * * *
(5) Lighting equipment that is approved for the ignitable or
combustible properties of the specific gas, vapor, dust, or fiber that
will be present, and that is sufficient to enable employees to see well
enough to work safely and to exit the space quickly in an emergency;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-11645 Filed 6-30-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P