Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 23783 

HSP is a statewide, coordinated 

behavioral safety plan that provides a 

comprehensive framework for reducing 

highway fatalities and serious injuries. 

The HSP identifies a State’s key 

behavioral safety needs and guides 

investment decisions towards strategies 

and countermeasures with the most 

potential to save lives and prevent 

injuries. As set out in the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law, the longer-term HSP 

should be designed to allow the States 

to better reflect on the countermeasures 

to be implemented and inform annual 

project selections to combat these 

increasing trends. 

6. How can the triennial cycle best assess 

longer-term behavior modification progress 

and connect year-to-year activities in a 

meaningful way? 

7. How can the triennial HSP account for 

strategies that are proportionate to the State’s 

highway safety challenges? 

8. What information is needed to ensure 

the HSP provides comprehensive, longerterm, and data-driven strategies to reduce 

roadway fatalities and serious injuries? 

Annual Grant Application 

To combat the increasing number of 

fatalities on America’s roadways, 

NHTSA’s stewardship role is to ensure 

that States leverage their funds most 

effectively to decrease the number of 

roadway fatalities. An essential aspect 

of this is ensuring transparency in the 

use of funds. NHTSA must ensure that 

Federal dollars are spent as effectively 

as possible and that sufficient details are 

provided so taxpayers know where 

funds are spent. 

Section 24102 of the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law requires States to 

submit an annual grant application that 

demonstrates alignment with the 

approved triennial HSP. The annual 

grant application requires, at a 

minimum, ‘‘updates, as necessary, to 

any analysis included in the triennial 

highway safety plan,’’ ‘‘an identification 

of each project and subrecipient to be 

funded by the State using the grants 

during the upcoming grant year, subject 

to the condition that the State shall 

separately submit, on a date other than 

the date of submission of the annual 

grant application, a description of any 

projects or subrecipients to be funded, 

as that information becomes available,’’ 

a description of the means by which the 

strategy of the State to use grant funds 

was adjusted and informed by the 

previous report’’ and ‘‘an application for 

any additional grants’’ under Section 

405 and 1906. 

9. What data elements should States 

submit to NHTSA in their annual grant 

application to allow for full transparency in 

the use of funds? 

10. What types of data can be included in 

the annual grant application to ensure that 

projects are being funded in areas that 

include those of most significant need? 

Performance Measures 

Performance management provides a 

framework to support improved 

investment decisions that guide States 

to focus on areas likely to have the most 

meaningful impacts on saving lives, 

preventing injuries, and reducing trafficrelated healthcare and other economic 

costs. NHTSA and the Governors 

Highway Safety Association previously 

collaborated on a minimum set of 

performance measures to be used by 

States to develop and implement 

behavioral HSPs and programs. States 

establish safety targets and report 

progress for 12 core outcome measures, 

1 behavior measure, and 3 activity 

measures. The measures cover the major 

areas common to State HSPs and use 

existing data systems. Except for the 

addition of a bicyclist performance 

measure in 2015, the measures were last 

updated in 2008. 

11. Should these measures be revised? If 

so, what changes are needed? 

12. Section 24102 of the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law requires performance 

targets ‘‘that demonstrate constant or 

improved performance.’’ What information 

should NHTSA consider in implementing 

this requirement? 

13. What should be provided in the Annual 

Report to ensure performance target progress 

is assessed and that projects funded in the 

past fiscal year contributed to meeting 

performance targets? 

14. How can the Annual Report best inform 

future HSPs? 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 

and 501.5. 

Barbara Sauers, 

Acting Associate Administrator, Regional 

Operations and Program Delivery. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08484 Filed 4–20–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1952 

[Docket No. OSHA–2021–0012] 

RIN 1218–AD43 

Arizona State Plan for Occupational 

Safety and Health; Proposed 

Reconsideration and Revocation 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), U.S. 

Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

written comments; notice of informal 

public hearing. 

SUMMARY: On June 20, 1985, the Federal 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) granted 

Arizona’s occupational safety and 

health plan (State Plan) final approval 

under Section 18(e) of the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH 

Act). In this notice, OSHA proposes to 

revoke its affirmative determination 

granting final approval to the State Plan. 

If revocation is determined to be 

appropriate, the Arizona State Plan will 

revert to initial approval and Federal 

authority for discretionary concurrent 

enforcement would resume, allowing 

Federal OSHA to ensure that private 

sector employees in Arizona are 

receiving protections that are at least as 

effective as those afforded to employees 

covered by Federal OSHA. 

DATES:

Written comments: Comments and 

requests for a hearing must be submitted 

by May 26, 2022. 

Informal public hearing: Any 

interested person may request an 

informal hearing concerning the 

proposed revocation. OSHA will hold 

such a hearing if the Assistant Secretary 

of Labor for Occupational Safety and 

Health (Assistant Secretary) finds that 

substantial objections have been filed. 

To allow for this possibility, the agency 

has tentatively scheduled an informal 

public hearing on this proposal, 

beginning August 16, 2022, at 10:00 

a.m., ET. If necessary, the hearing will 

continue from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 

p.m., ET, on subsequent days. The 

hearing will be held virtually on WebEx. 

Additional information on how to 

access the informal hearing will be 

posted when available at https://

www.osha.gov/stateplans. 

Stakeholders should be aware that if, 

after reviewing the comments received 

during the written comment period, the 

Assistant Secretary finds that no 

substantial objections have been filed, 

then this informal public hearing will be 

cancelled. OSHA will provide notice in 

advance of the hearing date if the public 

hearing will not be held. 

Notice of intention to appear to 

provide testimony or question witnesses 

at the hearing: Interested persons who 

intend to present testimony or question 

witnesses at the hearing must submit a 

notice of their intention to do so by May 

11, 2022. Please note that a notice of 

intention to appear at the hearing is not 

the same as a substantial objection. To 

determine whether a substantial 

objection has been filed, the Assistant 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
23784 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1 Documents submitted to the docket by OSHA or 

stakeholders are assigned document identification 

numbers (Document ID) for easy identification and 

retrieval. The full Document ID is the docket 

number plus a unique four-digit code. 

2Section 18(c) provides that the Secretary shall 

approve the plan submitted by a State under 

subsection (b), or any modification thereof, if such 

plan in his judgement: Designates a State agency or 

agencies as the agency or agencies responsible for 

administering the plan throughout the State; 

provides for the development and enforcement of 

safety and health standards relating to one or more 

safety or health issues, which standards (and the 

enforcement of which standards) are or will be at 

least as effective in providing safe and healthful 

employment and places of employment as the 

standards promulgated under section 6 which relate 

to the same issues, and which standards, when 

applicable to products which are distributed or 

used in interstate commerce, are required by 

compelling local conditions and do not unduly 

burden interstate commerce; provides for a right of 

entry and inspection of all workplaces subject to the 

OSH Act which is at least as effective as that 

provided in section 8, and includes a prohibition 

on advance notice of inspections; contains 

satisfactory assurances that such agency or agencies 

have or will have the legal authority and qualified 

personnel necessary for the enforcement of such 

standards; gives satisfactory assurances that such 

State will devote adequate funds to the 

administration and enforcement of such standards; 

contains satisfactory assurances that such State 

will, to the extent permitted by its law, establish 

and maintain an effective and comprehensive 

occupational safety and health program applicable 

to all employees of public agencies of the State and 

its political subdivisions, which program is as 

effective as the standards contained in an approved 

plan; requires employers in the State to make 

reports to the Secretary in the same manner and to 

the same extent as if the plan were not in effect; 

and provides that the State agency will make such 

reports to the Secretary in such form and containing 

such information, as the Secretary shall from time 

to time require (29 U.S.C. 667(c)). 

Secretary will consider the substance of 

the written comments submitted. 

Hearing testimony and documentary 

evidence: Interested persons who 

request more than 5 minutes to present 

testimony or who intend to submit 

documentary evidence at the hearing 

must submit the full text of their 

testimony and all documentary 

evidence by May 26, 2022. See ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ below for details on how 

to file a notice of intention to appear, 

submit documentary evidence at the 

hearing, and request an appropriate 

amount of time to present testimony. 

Publication in Arizona: No later than 

10 days following the date of 

publication of this notification in the 

Federal Register, Arizona shall publish, 

or cause to be published, reasonable 

notice within the State containing the 

same information contained herein. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments. You may 

submit written comments and requests 

for an informal hearing electronically at 

www.regulations.gov, which is the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow the 

online instructions for making 

electronic submissions. 

Instructions. All submissions must 

include the agency’s name and the 

docket number for this rulemaking 

(Docket No. OSHA–2021–0012).1 All 

comments, including any personal 

information you provide, are placed in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

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. Submissions 

must clearly identify the issues 

addressed and the positions taken. 

Informal public hearing: The hearing, 

if necessary, will be held virtually on 

WebEx. 

Notice of intention to appear, hearing 

testimony, and documentary evidence: 

You may submit your notice of 

intention to appear, hearing testimony, 

and documentary evidence, identified 

by the agency’s name and the docket 

number (Docket No. OSHA–2021–0012) 

electronically at www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the online instructions for 

making electronic submissions. 

Docket: To read or download 

comments or other material in the 

docket, go to Docket No. OSHA–2021– 

0012 at www.regulations.gov. All 

comments and submissions are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index; 

however, some information (e.g., 

copyrighted material) is not publicly 

available to read or download through 

that website. All comments and 

submissions, including copyrighted 

material, are available for inspection 

through the OSHA Docket Office. 

Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 

693–2350 (TTY number: (877) 889– 

5627) or https://www.osha.gov/ 

contactus/byoffice/dtsem/technicaldata-center for assistance in locating 

docket submissions. Other information 

about the Arizona State Plan is posted 

on the State’s website at https://

www.azica.gov/divisions/adosh or 

https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/az. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For press inquiries: Contact Frank 

Meilinger, OSHA Office of 

Communications, U.S. Department of 

Labor; telephone (202) 693–1999; email 

meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. 

For general and technical 

information: Contact Douglas J. 

Kalinowski, Director, OSHA Directorate 

of Cooperative and State Programs, U.S. 

Department of Labor; telephone (202) 

693–2200; email: kalinowski.doug@

dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. 651 

et seq. (OSH Act), provides that states 

which desire to assume responsibility 

for the development and enforcement of 

occupational safety and health 

standards may do so by submitting, and 

obtaining Federal approval of, a State 

Plan. Procedures for State Plan 

submission and approval are set forth in 

regulations at 29 CFR part 1902. If the 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(Assistant Secretary) finds that the State 

Plan satisfies, or will satisfy, the criteria 

set forth in Section 18(c) of the OSH Act 

and 29 CFR 1902.3 and 1902.4, ‘‘initial 

approval’’ is granted (29 CFR 

1902.2(a)).2

A state may commence operations 

under its Plan after the initial approval 

determination is made, but the Assistant 

Secretary retains discretionary 

concurrent Federal authority over 

occupational safety and health issues 

covered by the Plan during the initial 

approval period as provided by Section 

18(e) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 667(e); 

see also, e.g., 29 CFR 1902.32(a), 

1954.1(c)). OSHA regulations provide 

that in states with initially approved 

Plans, OSHA and the state enter into an 

operational status agreement describing 

the division of responsibilities between 

them, as deemed appropriate (29 CFR 

1954.3). 

If, after a period of no less than three 

years, the Assistant Secretary 

determines that the State Plan has 

satisfied and continues to meet all 

criteria in Section 18(c) of the OSH Act, 

the Assistant Secretary may make an 

affirmative determination under Section 

18(e) of the OSH Act (referred to as 

‘‘final approval’’ of the State Plan), 

which results in the relinquishment of 

concurrent Federal authority in the state 

with respect to occupational safety and 

health issues covered by the Plan (29 

U.S.C. 667(e)). Procedures for Section 

18(e) determinations are found in 29 

CFR part 1902, subpart D. In general, in 

order to be granted final approval, 

actual performance by the state must be 

at least as effective as the Federal OSHA 

program in all areas covered under the 

State Plan. 

Upon receiving final approval, a 

state’s ongoing retention of that 

approval is conditioned on its 

continued ability to maintain a program 

which meets the requirements of 

Section 18(c) of the OSH Act and is at 

least as effective as Federal program 

operations (29 CFR 1902.32(e); 29 CFR 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 23785 

1902.44(a)). As discussed in more detail 

below, this includes a requirement that, 

when Federal OSHA makes a program 

change that renders its program more 

effective, the State Plan must timely 

adopt a corresponding change in order 

to maintain a safety and health program 

that is at least as effective as Federal 

OSHA (Id.). After a State Plan receives 

final approval, Section 18(f) of the OSH 

Act requires OSHA to ‘‘make a 

continuing evaluation’’ of the State 

Plan, to ensure that it continues to meet 

all its obligations (29 U.S.C. 667(f)). 

As noted above, one of Section 18(c)’s 

requirements is that State Plans must be 

at least as effective as Federal OSHA in 

their development and enforcement of 

occupational safety and health 

standards (29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2)). When 

OSHA promulgates a new safety and 

health standard, or adopts an 

enforcement policy that it determines 

necessary for the enforcement of such 

standards, State Plans are obligated to 

timely adopt identical or at least as 

effective standards or enforcement 

policies if they do not already have 

existing at least as effective measures in 

place (see 29 CFR 1953.4(b); 29 CFR 

1953.5). This requirement also includes 

adoption of any emergency temporary 

standard (ETS) promulgated by Federal 

OSHA (29 CFR 1953.5(b)). State Plans 

must generally adopt standards and 

other Federal program changes that have 

an impact on the ‘‘at least as effective’’ 

status of the State Plan within six 

months of the Federal promulgation 

date for standards, or from the date of 

notification for other Federal program 

changes (29 CFR 1953.4(b); 29 CFR 

1953.5(a)). Given the emergency nature 

of an ETS, State Plans must notify 

Federal OSHA of the action they will 

take with respect to adoption of the ETS 

within 15 days of its promulgation and 

complete adoption of the ETS within 30 

days (29 CFR 1953.5(b)). 

State Plans are aware of these 

obligations. They commit to meeting 

these obligations as part of the State 

Plan approval process (see, e.g., 50 FR 

25561, 25562, 25570 (June 20, 1985)). 

They also are regularly reminded of 

these obligations by Federal OSHA in 

Federal Register notices announcing 

new standards and through OSHA’s 

State Plan Application (SPA). SPA is an 

electronic system designed to track State 

Plan adoption of OSHA standards and 

directives (among other items). OSHA 

enters each Federal standard and 

directive into SPA, which then 

generates a notice to all users, including 

State Plan users, reiterating the State 

Plan adoption requirements contained 

in the preamble or State Plan impact 

section of the standard or directive, and 

including the specific due dates for 

response and adoption. In addition, 

State Plans receive communication and 

reminders of adoption requirements in 

regular meetings and discussions with 

Federal OSHA, and as part of the 

Federal Annual Monitoring and 

Evaluation (FAME) process. Further, 

State Plans annually recommit to 

meeting these requirements as part of 

their applications for Federal grants 

(see, e.g., Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 

Instructions for 23(g) State Plan Grants, 

available at: www.osha.gov/sites/ 

default/files/enforcement/directives/ 

CSP_02-20-01.pdf (‘‘In addition to its 

strategic and performance goals, each 

State Plan must continue to satisfy the 

mandated activities of the OSH Act and 

29 CFR parts 1902 or 1956 (e.g., 

standards, enforcement program, 

prohibition against advance notice, etc.) 

and so certify in its application and 

demonstrate in actual performance.’’)). 

State Plans are also well aware of the 

potential consequences if they do not 

meet their obligations. Specifically, each 

grant of final approval specifies that the 

Assistant Secretary may revoke all or 

part of an affirmative 18(e) 

determination if a State does not 

continue to meet its obligations as a 

State Plan (see 29 CFR 1902.43(a)(4); 29 

CFR 1902.44(b); see also 50 FR 25561, 

25570 (June 20, 1985) (Arizona State 

Plan final approval discussing the 

possibility of revocation if the State fails 

to maintain a program which is at least 

as effective as operations under the 

Federal program, or if the State does not 

submit program change supplements to 

the Assistant Secretary as required by 29 

CFR part 1953)). 

The rules regarding revocation are 

spelled out in OSHA’s regulations. In 

short, these regulations provide that the 

Assistant Secretary may revoke all or 

part of an affirmative 18(e) 

determination if a State does not 

continue to meet its obligations as a 

State Plan (see 29 CFR 1902.32(e)–(f); 29 

CFR 1902.44(b)). Specifically, the 

Assistant Secretary may initiate 

revocation proceedings if a State Plan 

does not maintain its commitment to 

provide a program for employee safety 

and health protection that meets the 

requirements of Section 18(c) of the 

OSH Act and is at least as effective as 

the Federal OSHA program in providing 

employee safety and health protection at 

covered workplaces (29 CFR 1902.32(e)– 

(f); 1902.44(a)–(b)). Again, maintaining 

such a program includes timely 

adopting plan changes when Federal 

OSHA makes program changes that add 

to or enhance existing protections or 

requirements (such as new standards or 

enforcement policies) (29 CFR 

1902.32(e); 29 CFR 1902.44(a); 29 CFR 

1953.4(b); 29 CFR 1953.5). 

In addition to revocation of a State 

Plan’s final approval, OSHA may 

consider, if necessary, pursuing 

complete withdrawal of a State Plan’s 

approval upon finding that there is a 

‘‘failure to comply substantially’’ with 

the State Plan (29 U.S.C. 667(f); 29 CFR 

1902.44(b); see also 29 CFR part 1955). 

OSHA’s regulations permit the Assistant 

Secretary to use the revocation 

procedure to reinstate Federal 

enforcement authority in conjunction 

with plan withdrawal proceedings in 

order to ensure that there is no serious 

gap in the Assistant Secretary’s 

commitment to ensure safe and 

healthful working conditions so far as 

possible for every employee (29 CFR 

1902.32(f)). 

When OSHA determines that a State 

Plan’s failures warrant revocation of the 

State Plan’s final approval, OSHA may 

initiate proceedings to revoke final 

approval and reinstate Federal 

concurrent authority over occupational 

safety and health issues covered by the 

Plan (see 29 CFR 1902.32; 29 CFR 

1902.44(b); 29 CFR 1902.47–.48). After 

reconsideration and revocation are 

complete, concurrent Federal 

enforcement and standards authority 

will be reinstated within the state ‘‘for 

a reasonable time’’ until Federal OSHA 

determines whether to restore final 

approval status or withdraw the State 

Plan’s approval, in total or in part (29 

CFR 1902.52(b)). During this period of 

concurrent authority, an operational 

status agreement will delineate the areas 

of Federal and state coverage. 

Procedures for reconsideration and 

revocation of final approval are found at 

29 CFR 1902.47–.53. 

II. A History of Shortcomings in the 

Arizona State Plan 

Arizona administers an OSHAapproved State Plan to develop and 

enforce occupational safety and health 

standards for public and private sector 

employers, pursuant to the provisions of 

Section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 

667). OSHA granted the Arizona State 

Plan initial approval on November 5, 

1974 (39 FR 39037). The Arizona 

Division of Occupational Safety and 

Health (ADOSH) is designated as the 

state agency responsible for 

administering the State Plan. Pursuant 

to Section 18(e) of the OSH Act, OSHA 

granted Arizona final approval effective 

June 20, 1985 (50 FR 25561). 

As noted above, after a State Plan 

receives final approval, Section 18(f) of 

the OSH Act requires OSHA to ‘‘make 

a continuing evaluation’’ of the State 

Plan to ensure that it continues to meet 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
23786 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

3For example, on February 12, 2020, Arizona 

adopted the Final Rule on Walking-Working 

Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment and 

the Final Rule on Crane Operator Certification 

Requirements, well after the respective due dates of 

May 18, 2017, and May 9, 2019. 

all of its obligations (29 U.S.C. 667(f)). 

OSHA’s continued evaluation of 

Arizona’s State Plan has revealed that 

over the past decade, the State Plan has 

routinely failed to maintain its 

commitment to provide a program that 

is at least as effective as the Federal 

OSHA program in providing employee 

safety and health protection at covered 

workplaces, as required by Section 18(c) 

of the Act. 

As discussed more fully below, OSHA 

became concerned with Arizona’s State 

Plan in 2012 with the Arizona 

legislature’s passage of a bill which 

implemented residential construction 

fall protection requirements that were 

clearly less effective than the Federal 

requirements. Arizona did not remedy 

this issue until after OSHA initiated 

revocation proceedings in 2014 and 

formally rejected Arizona’s fall 

protection requirements in 2015. 

Furthermore, in every FAME report 

since FY 2015, OSHA has included a 

finding regarding Arizona’s failure to 

respond and/or adopt standards and 

directives in a timely manner. In 

addition, as OSHA has noted in recent 

FAME reports, Arizona has not yet 

fulfilled its State Plan obligation to 

adopt penalty levels that are at least as 

effective as Federal OSHA’s, which 

were raised and tied to the Consumer 

Price Index in accordance with the 

Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Act of 

1990, as amended by the Federal Civil 

Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act 

Improvements Act of 2015 on November 

2, 2015. The State Plan also failed to 

satisfy its obligation to adopt 

requirements at least as effective as 

OSHA’s June 21, 2021 COVID–19 ETS 

applicable to the healthcare industry 

(Healthcare ETS), and its handling of 

the ETS issue has raised questions for 

OSHA about whether the State Plan 

actually has the required authority to 

promulgate ETSs more generally. 

Together, this lengthy series of 

shortcomings in the Arizona program 

demonstrates fundamental deficiencies 

in the Arizona State Plan, and this has 

prompted OSHA to reconsider and 

propose revocation of its Section 18(e) 

determination until OSHA receives 

satisfactory assurances that these 

deficiencies have been addressed and 

that Arizona remains committed to 

providing a program meeting the 

requirements of section 18(c). The 

remainder of this section discusses this 

history of shortcomings in greater detail. 

1. Arizona’s 2012 Fall Protection 

Requirements 

In 2012, the Arizona legislature 

passed SB 1441, which implemented 

residential construction fall protection 

requirements that were clearly less 

effective than the Federal requirements, 

including, notably, that they only 

required employers to implement fall 

protection for workers at 15 feet where 

OSHA’s requirements required fall 

protection at heights of 6 feet (79 FR 

49465 (August 21, 2014)). OSHA 

officials conducted several meetings 

with Arizona between 2012 and 2014 to 

explain and illustrate how Arizona’s fall 

protection requirements were not at 

least as effective as OSHA’s, but Arizona 

continued to refuse to adopt at least as 

effective fall protection requirements. 

In 2014, after more than two years of 

negotiations with Arizona, OSHA issued 

a Federal Register Notice similar to this 

one, reconsidering and proposing to 

revoke Arizona’s final approval. It was 

only after OSHA initiated the revocation 

proceedings in 2014 and formally 

rejected Arizona’s fall protection 

requirements in 2015 (80 FR 6652 

(February 6, 2015)) that Arizona finally 

came into compliance with its State 

Plan obligations on fall protection. 

Specifically, the Arizona legislature 

passed SB 1307, which required repeal 

of the State’s weaker fall protection 

requirements if OSHA formally rejected 

them. This Bill was approved by the 

Governor on April 22, 2014, and it 

eventually forced the state to revert to 

Federal OSHA’s fall protection 

requirements. Given that change, OSHA 

withdrew its reconsideration of the 

Arizona State Plan’s final approval (84 

FR 35989 (July 26, 2019)). Although 

Arizona finally reverted to a fall 

protection standard that is at least as 

effective as Federal OSHA’s standard, 

employees doing residential 

construction work in Arizona were not 

as protected as workers covered by 

Federal OSHA during the several years 

when Arizona’s fall protection 

requirements were in effect. 

2. Issues With Plan Effectiveness Dating 

Back to 2015 

Since 2015, Arizona has also been 

delinquent in responding to and/or 

adopting several other items that require 

adoption in order for the State Plan to 

remain at least as effective as Federal 

OSHA. In every FAME report since FY 

2015, OSHA has included a finding 

regarding Arizona’s failure to respond to 

and/or adopt standards and directives in 

a timely manner (see, e.g., FY 2015 

Comprehensive FAME Report; FY 2016 

Follow-up FAME Report; FY 2017 

Comprehensive FAME Report; FY 2018 

Follow-up FAME Report; FY 2019 

Comprehensive FAME Report; FY 2020 

Follow-up FAME Report, all 

documenting Arizona’s failure to adopt 

standards and/or directives.) The 

failures included in these reports 

include, for example, Arizona’s failure 

to adopt two important national 

emphasis programs as part of its State 

Plan—the National Emphasis Program 

on Amputations in Manufacturing 

Industries, CPL 03–00–022 (adoption 

due June 10, 2020), and the National 

Emphasis Program on Respirable 

Crystalline Silica, CPL 03–00–023 

(adoption due August 4, 2020)—and the 

failure to adopt at least two 

occupational safety and health 

standards: The Beryllium Standard for 

Construction and Shipyards (adoption 

due February 27, 2021) and the 

Standards Improvement Project—Phase 

IV (adoption due November 14, 2019) 

(https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/ 

adoption/standards/2020-08-31; https:// 

www.osha.gov/stateplans/adoption/ 

standards/2019-05-14). In addition, 

some of the standards that the State Plan 

has adopted over the years were 

adopted long after their due dates,3 and, 

in some cases, Arizona failed to provide 

OSHA with the required documentation 

of adoption. For example, although the 

State Plan advised OSHA that it had 

adopted the National Emphasis Program 

on Trenching and Excavation, CL–00– 

161 (adoption due April 5, 2019), 

OSHA’s records indicate that any such 

adoption was completed past the 

deadline, and the State Plan has not 

provided OSHA with the required 

documentation of the adoption (see also, 

FY 2020 Follow-up FAME Report) 

(stating: ‘‘OSHA discussed the list of 

outstanding items [not adopted] during 

each quarterly meeting and reached out 

via email several times during the year 

to request updates. However, [the 

Arizona State Plan] did not provide a 

formal transmittal, updated web links, 

or SPA updates to close out any pending 

[Federal Program Changes (FPC)] during 

FY 2020. [The Arizona State Plan] must 

adopt and/or provide a plan change 

supplement [i.e., the required 

documentation] (transmittal) for 14 

FPCs to become current.’’)). 

Furthermore, Arizona has not yet 

fulfilled its State Plan obligation to 

adopt penalty levels that are at least as 

effective as Federal OSHA’s, which 

were raised and tied to the Consumer 

Price Index in accordance with the 

Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Act of 

1990, as amended by the Federal Civil 

Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act 

Improvements Act of 2015 on November 

2, 2015 (FY 2015 Comprehensive FAME 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 23787 

4Although Arizona failed to adopt the Healthcare 

ETS in its entirety, as required, it informed OSHA 

that it did adopt two of the rule’s provisions eight 

months after issuance of the Healthcare ETS when 

advised that OSHA considered those provisions to 

be permanent regulations under Section 8 of the 

OSH Act. OSHA adopted the recordkeeping and 

reporting provisions of the Healthcare ETS (29 CFR 

1910.502(q) and (r)) under two sections of the OSH 

Act: Section 6(c), 29 U.S.C. 655(c) (which 

empowers the Secretary to issue emergency 

temporary standards), and Section 8, 29 U.S.C. 657 

(which authorizes the Secretary to engage in certain 

activities related to recordkeeping and reporting, 

including issuing regulations). As to the issuance of 

these provisions under Section 8, OSHA found 

good cause to forgo notice and comment in light of 

the grave danger presented by the pandemic. On 

February 9, 2022, OSHA advised State Plans at an 

Occupational Safety and Health State Plan 

Association (OSHSPA) meeting that State Plans 

must revise their State regulations to either adopt 

the recordkeeping requirements related to the 

COVID–19 log (i.e., the requirements at 29 CFR 

1910.502(q)(2)(ii) and (q)(3)(ii)–(iv)) and reporting 

(i.e., 29 CFR 1910.502(r)) as a permanent regulation 

or demonstrate that such a change is unnecessary 

because their State Plan already has requirements 

that are the same as or at least as effective as the 

Federal OSHA requirements. OSHA notified State 

Plans of this obligation in SPA on February 14, 

2022. Arizona informed OSHA that it subsequently 

adopted the COVID–19 log and reporting provisions 

effective February 16, 2022, and provided 

documentation for OSHA’s review. 

Report; FY 2017 Comprehensive FAME 

Report; FY 2019 Comprehensive FAME 

Reports; FY 2016 Follow-up FAME 

Report; FY 2018 Follow-up FAME 

Report; FY 2020 Follow-up FAME 

Reports). Although Arizona recently 

developed a plan of action for 

accomplishing the legislative change 

necessary for adoption of OSHA’s 

maximum penalties and minimum 

willful violation penalty level, the State 

has not yet adopted the levels and has 

failed to be at least as effective as 

Federal OSHA in this area for more than 

six years. 

3. The 2021 Healthcare ETS 

The Arizona State Plan also recently 

failed to adopt OSHA’s Healthcare ETS, 

which OSHA issued on June 21, 2021, 

to protect healthcare and healthcare 

support service workers from 

occupational exposure to COVID–19 (86 

FR 32376). Because the Healthcare ETS 

was published on June 21, 2021, the 

deadline for State Plans to communicate 

their intended actions to OSHA was July 

6, 2021, and the due date for State Plan 

adoption of the ETS or of an at least as 

effective alternative was July 21, 2021. 

Arizona failed to meet both of these 

deadlines. 

OSHA had a number of 

communications with Arizona over the 

months following issuance of the 

Healthcare ETS. These conversations 

were unfruitful, however; the Arizona 

State Plan never adopted an ETS or 

other comprehensive standard to protect 

healthcare workers in the State from 

COVID–19.4 Moreover, during the 

period in which OSHA was working to 

address this issue with the State Plan, 

the Industrial Commission of Arizona 

held a meeting in which it suggested 

that the State Plan might not even have 

the appropriate authority to adopt ETSs 

based on OSHA’s finding of ‘‘grave 

danger’’ and ‘‘necessity,’’ as required by 

the OSH Act and OSHA regulations. 

Rather, the Commission maintained that 

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) only 

authorizes the State Plan to adopt an 

ETS by making its own independent 

findings on ‘‘grave danger’’ and 

‘‘necessity’’ (Industrial Commission of 

Arizona Meeting Minutes, dated 

October 7, 2021). Specifically, § 23– 

414(A) provides that ‘‘[t]he Commission 

may provide for emergency temporary 

standards or regulations to take 

immediate effect upon filing with the 

secretary of state, if it determines that 

employees are exposed to grave danger 

. . . and that such emergency standard 

or regulation is necessary/to protect 

employees from such danger’’ (emphasis 

added). 

As has been explained in greater 

detail elsewhere in this proposal, the 

Arizona State Plan is required by 

Section 18(c) of the OSH Act to provide 

for the development of standards that 

are at least as effective as Federal 

OSHA’s standards, and this includes an 

obligation to timely adopt all standards, 

including any ETS, issued by Federal 

OSHA (see 29 CFR 1953.4(b); 29 CFR 

1953.5). This obligation does not give 

the State Plan discretion to determine 

which Federal standards to adopt or to 

independently evaluate the need for 

such a standard. Accordingly, OSHA 

specifically invites comment from the 

Arizona State Plan to clarify how its 

state law complies with the Federal 

OSHA requirement that a State Plan 

adopt a Federal ETS within 30 days of 

its promulgation. And OSHA separately 

invites the Arizona State Plan to include 

in its comment an explanation of why 

that process was not followed for 

adoption of the Healthcare ETS. 

III. Reconsideration and Proposed 

Revocation of Section 18(e) 

Determination 

The OSH Act obligates OSHA to 

ensure, so far as possible, safe and 

healthful working conditions for every 

working person in the Nation (29 U.S.C. 

651(b)). The agency carries out this 

mission, in part, by encouraging States 

to assume the fullest responsibility for 

the administration and enforcement of 

their own occupational safety and 

health laws (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(11)). 

Where, as in Arizona, it appears that a 

State Plan has not maintained its 

commitment to provide a program for 

employee safety and health that meets 

the requirements of Section 18(c) of the 

OSH Act and is at least as effective in 

protecting workers as the Federal OSHA 

program, then the Assistant Secretary 

may reconsider their decision to grant 

an affirmative 18(e) determination (see 

29 CFR 1902.32(e)–(f); 29 CFR 

1902.44(a); 29 CFR 1902.47(a)). 

OSHA’s decision to move forward 

with reconsideration and proposed 

revocation at this time is based on its 

continuing evaluation of Arizona’s State 

Plan, the history of shortcomings 

described above, and the numerous 

areas where the State Plan continues to 

be less effective than OSHA (including 

on penalty levels and important 

emphasis programs). OSHA is 

concerned that, together, the State 

Plan’s actions suggest that Arizona is 

either unable or unwilling to maintain 

its commitment to provide a program for 

employee safety and health protection 

that meets the requirements of Section 

18(c) of the OSH Act and is at least as 

effective as the Federal OSHA program 

in providing employee safety and health 

protection at covered workplaces. 

As previously noted, OSHA’s 

regulations provide that the Assistant 

Secretary may at any time reconsider 

the decision to grant an affirmative 18(e) 

determination based on results of the 

continuing evaluation of a State Plan (29 

CFR 1902.47). If, as a result of OSHA’s 

reconsideration, OSHA proposes to 

revoke its affirmative 18(e) 

determination, OSHA’s regulations 

provide that a notice must be published 

in the Federal Register and interested 

parties must be provided an opportunity 

to submit in writing, data, views, and 

arguments on the proposal within 35 

days after publication (29 CFR 1902.48– 

.49). Further, the regulations provide 

that any interested person may request 

an informal hearing, and that OSHA 

must afford an opportunity for an 

informal hearing on the proposed 

revocation if the Assistant Secretary 

finds that substantial objections have 

been filed (29 CFR 1902.49(c)). 

In order to allow for the submission 

of informed and specific public 

comment, OSHA encourages 

commenters to review the documents 

contained in Docket No. OSHA–2021– 

0012, which can be accessed 

electronically at www.regulations.gov. 

In drafting their comments, 

stakeholders should note that OSHA is 

not beginning proceedings for the 

withdrawal of approval of the plan, or 

any portion thereof, pursuant to 29 CFR 

part 1955, but rather is only proposing 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
23788 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

revocation of Arizona’s affirmative 18(e) 

determination at this time. This is 

because OSHA believes that the issues 

with Arizona’s State Plan discussed 

above can be temporary in nature if 

Arizona takes prompt steps to resolve 

OSHA’s concerns and demonstrates a 

commitment to meet its obligations in a 

timely manner in the future. 

OSHA further wishes to advise 

stakeholders that their comments 

should be directed only to OSHA’s 

proposed revocation and the bases for 

that revocation (see 29 CFR 1902.49(c) 

(requiring that OSHA allow for 

submission of comments ‘‘on the 

proposal’’ and ‘‘particularized written 

objections’’ specifically ‘‘concerning the 

proposed revocation’’)). Accordingly, 

OSHA will consider comments 

addressing matters other than the 

proposed revocation to be beyond the 

scope of this proposal, and the agency 

will not consider such comments in 

assessing whether ‘‘substantial 

objections’’ have been filed 

necessitating an informal public 

hearing, nor in making a final decision 

on the proposal. OSHA provides here a 

non-exhaustive list of matters that the 

agency deems outside of the scope of 

this proposal: 

• Any comment criticizing the 

regulatory and statutory requirements 

imposed on State Plans as a condition 

of their continuous approval to operate 

a State Plan. 

• Any comment directed to the 

wisdom and/or necessity of the various 

OSHA standards and directives 

referenced in this Federal Register 

Notice. 

• Any comment directed to Federal 

OSHA’s legal authority to promulgate 

the Healthcare ETS, or the advisability 

of its promulgation, including but not 

limited to OSHA’s findings on Grave 

Danger and Necessity, and the need for 

any particular provision or requirement 

of the Healthcare ETS. 

• Any comment related to OSHA’s 

now-withdrawn November 5, 2022, ETS 

on COVID–19 Vaccination and Testing 

(see 86 FR 61402; 87 FR 3928) or the 

litigation that arose out of it. 

• Any comment suggesting that 

OSHA’s findings in the Healthcare ETS, 

or other rulemakings, are not relevant to 

or do not apply to workers or 

workplaces in Arizona. 

A. Effect of Determination 

After review of any written comments 

received and the results of any informal 

hearing held, the Assistant Secretary 

will determine whether Arizona has 

failed to meet its obligations to provide 

a program for employee safety and 

health protection that meets the 

requirements of Section 18(c) of the 

OSH Act and is at least as effective as 

the Federal OSHA program in providing 

employee safety and health protection at 

covered workplaces, and, if so, whether 

the Assistant Secretary’s affirmative 

Section 18(e) determination granting 

final approval of the Arizona State Plan 

should be revoked (29 CFR 1902.52). A 

notice of the Assistant Secretary’s 

determination will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

In the event that the Assistant 

Secretary determines that revocation is 

appropriate, the Federal Register notice 

will specify that upon revocation, 

concurrent Federal enforcement and 

standards authority will be reinstated 

within the State for a reasonable time, 

until the Assistant Secretary has 

determined whether to withdraw 

approval of the State Plan, or any 

separable portion thereof, under 29 CFR 

1955, or to reinstate Section 18(e) 

approval if the State has met the 

required criteria (29 CFR 1902.52(b)). 

OSHA notes that the present proposal is 

to revoke the Arizona State Plan’s final 

approval in full. However, in making a 

final determination, OSHA may 

consider instead revoking only a 

separable portion of the Arizona State 

Plan’s final approval, based on, e.g., 

changed circumstances or other 

practical considerations. 

OSHA further notes that, as provided 

by regulation, if the agency were to 

revoke the Arizona State Plan’s final 

approval, resumption of Federal 

OSHA’s concurrent enforcement and 

standards setting authority would occur 

automatically (see 29 CFR 1902.52(b)). 

Any notice announcing the revocation 

of the State Plan’s final approval would 

specify the areas of coverage over which 

OSHA intends to immediately resume 

and exercise that authority. The 

agency’s final decision on which issues 

(if any) to resume coverage over will 

depend on factors including information 

submitted in response to this Federal 

Register Notice, as well as the 

circumstances at the time the revocation 

decision is made. 

Finally, OSHA notes its regulations 

provide that in states with initially 

approved plans, OSHA and the state 

enter into a procedural agreement 

describing the division of 

responsibilities between them (29 CFR 

1954.3). OSHA typically refers to these 

types of agreements as ‘‘Operational 

Status Agreements’’ or OSAs. If the 

Assistant Secretary decides to revoke 

Arizona’s affirmative Section 18(e) 

determination, Federal OSHA’s 

resumption of coverage will be 

announced in the final determination 

notice and the State and OSHA will 

enter into an OSA that describes the 

division of responsibilities between 

them, consistent with any resumption of 

coverage announced in OSHA’s final 

determination notice. Such an 

agreement could also include a 

timetable for remedial action to make 

state operations as least as effective in 

order for OSHA to consider whether to 

reinstate the State Plan’s final approval 

status. Notice would be provided in the 

Federal Register of any such agreement. 

IV. Documents of Record 

All information and data presently 

available to OSHA relating to this 

proceeding have been made a part of the 

record and placed in the OSHA Docket 

Office. Most of these documents have 

also been posted electronically at 

www.regulations.gov, which is the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal; however, 

some information (e.g., copyrighted 

material) is not publicly available to 

read or download through that website. 

All comments and submissions are 

available for inspection and, where 

permissible, copying at the OSHA 

Docket Office, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Room N–3508, Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone: 202–693–2350 (TTY number: 

877–889–5627). 

V. Public Participation 

The Assistant Secretary’s decision 

whether to continue or revoke the 

Arizona State Plan’s affirmative 18(e) 

determination will be made after careful 

consideration of all relevant information 

presented in the rulemaking (29 CFR 

1902.52(a)). To aid the Assistant 

Secretary in making this decision, 

OSHA is soliciting public participation 

in this process. Interested parties are 

encouraged to submit all relevant 

information, views, data, and arguments 

related to the indices, criteria, and 

factors presented in 29 U.S.C. 667(c) 

and 29 CFR part 1902, as they apply to 

the Arizona State Plan. 

Notice in the State of Arizona: 

Arizona is required to publish 

reasonable notice of the contents of this 

Federal Register notice within the State 

no later than 10 days following the date 

of publication of this notice (29 CFR 

1902.49(a)). 

Written comments: OSHA invites 

interested persons to submit written 

data, views, and comments with respect 

to this reconsideration and proposed 

revocation of affirmative Section 18(e) 

determination of the Arizona State Plan. 

When submitting comments, persons 

must follow the procedures specified 

above in the sections titled DATES and 

ADDRESSES. Submissions must clearly 

identify the issues addressed and the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 23789 

positions taken. Comments received by 

the end of the specified comment period 

will become part of the record and will 

be available for public inspection and, 

where permissible, copying at the 

OSHA Docket Office, as well as online 

at www.regulations.gov (Docket Number 

OSHA–2021–0012). 

Informal public hearing: Pursuant to 

29 CFR 1902.49(c), any interested 

person may request an informal hearing 

concerning the reconsideration and 

proposed revocation. To allow for this 

possibility, the agency has tentatively 

scheduled a virtual informal public 

hearing on this proposal. For more 

information on the timing of the 

hearing, see the section titled DATES

above. 

OSHA will hold the informal hearing 

if the Assistant Secretary finds that 

substantial objections have been filed. 

However, if, after reviewing the 

comments received during the written 

comment period, the Assistant Secretary 

finds that no substantial objections have 

been filed, then the informal public 

hearing will be cancelled. OSHA will 

provide notice in advance of the hearing 

date if the public hearing will not be 

held. 

The informal hearing, if held, will be 

legislative in type (29 CFR 1902.50). The 

rules of procedure for the hearing will 

be those contained in 29 CFR 1902.40 

(29 CFR 1902.50). The essential intent is 

to provide an opportunity for 

participation and comment by 

interested persons which can be carried 

out expeditiously and without rigid 

procedures which might unduly impede 

or protract the 18(e) determination 

process (1902.40(a)). 

As required by 29 CFR 1902.40(b)(1), 

the hearing’s presiding officer will be a 

hearing examiner appointed under 5 

U.S.C. 3105 (i.e., an Administrative Law 

Judge (ALJ)). The ALJ will provide an 

opportunity for cross-examination on 

pertinent issues (1902.40(b)(2)). The 

hearing shall be reported verbatim, and 

a transcript shall be available to any 

interested person on such terms as the 

ALJ may provide (1902.40(b)(3)). At the 

hearing, the ALJ will have all the power 

necessary or appropriate to conduct a 

fair and full hearing, including the 

powers to: Regulate the course of the 

proceedings; dispose of procedural 

requests, objections, and comparable 

matters; confine the presentation to the 

issues specified in the notice of hearing, 

or, where appropriate, to matters 

pertinent to the issue before the 

Assistant Secretary; regulate the 

conduct of those present at the hearing 

by appropriate means; take official 

notice of material facts not appearing in 

the evidence in the record, as long as 

the parties are afforded an opportunity 

to show evidence to the contrary; and in 

the ALJ’s discretion, keep the record 

open for a reasonable and specified time 

to receive additional written 

recommendations with supporting 

reasons and any additional data, views, 

and arguments from any person who has 

participated in the oral proceeding (29 

CFR 1902.40(c)(1)–(c)(6)). 

Notice of intention to appear to 

provide testimony or question witnesses 

at the hearing: Interested persons who 

intend to present testimony or question 

witnesses at the hearing must file a 

notice of intention to appear by using 

the procedures specified above in the 

sections titled DATES and ADDRESSES. 

This notice must provide the following 

information: 

• Name, address, email address, and 

telephone number of each individual 

who will give oral testimony; 

• Name of the establishment or 

organization each individual represents, 

if any; 

• Occupational title and position of 

each individual testifying; 

• Approximate amount of time 

required for each individual’s 

testimony; 

• A brief statement of the position 

each individual will take with respect to 

the issues raised by the reconsideration 

and proposed revocation; and 

• A brief summary of documentary 

evidence each individual intends to 

present at the hearing, if any. 

OSHA emphasizes that while the 

hearing is open to the public, only 

individuals who file a notice of 

intention to appear may question 

witnesses and participate fully at the 

hearing. If time permits, and at the 

discretion of the ALJ, an individual who 

did not file a notice of intention to 

appear may be allowed to testify at the 

hearing, but for no more than 5 minutes. 

As noted above, a notice of intention to 

appear at the hearing is not the same as 

a substantial objection and OSHA will 

only hold a hearing if the Assistant 

Secretary finds that substantial 

objections have been filed. If interested 

persons believe that they have 

substantive objections to this proposal 

and wish to present testimony or 

question witnesses, they should submit 

written comments detailing their 

objections (see more details above on 

how to submit written comments) and 

separately file a notice of intention to 

appear. The Assistant Secretary will 

consider all written comments 

submitted when determining whether a 

substantial objection has been filed. 

Hearing testimony and documentary 

evidence: Individuals who request more 

than 5 minutes to present their oral 

testimony at the hearing or who will 

submit documentary evidence at the 

hearing must submit the full text of their 

testimony and all documentary 

evidence by using the procedures 

specified above in the sections titled 

DATES and ADDRESSES. 

The agency will review each 

submission and determine if the 

information it contains warrants the 

amount of time the individual requested 

for the presentation. If OSHA believes 

the requested time is excessive, the 

agency will allocate an appropriate 

amount of time for the presentation. The 

agency also may limit to 5 minutes the 

presentation of any participant who fails 

to comply substantially with these 

procedural requirements, and may 

request that the participant return for 

questioning at a later time. Before the 

hearing, OSHA will notify participants 

of the time the agency will allow for 

their presentation and, if less than 

requested, the reasons for its decision. 

VI. Certification of the Hearing Record 

and Assistant Secretary Final 

Determination 

Upon the completion of the oral 

presentations, the transcripts thereof, 

together with written submissions on 

the proceedings, exhibits filed during 

the hearing, and all post-hearing 

comments, recommendations, and 

supporting reasons shall be certified by 

the officer presiding at the hearing to 

the Assistant Secretary (29 CFR 

1902.40(d); 29 CFR 1902.51). 

Within a reasonable time after the 

close of the comment period (if no 

hearing is held) or after the certification 

of the record (if a hearing is held), after 

consideration of all relevant information 

which has been presented, the Assistant 

Secretary shall issue a decision on the 

continuation or revocation of the 

affirmative 18(e) determination (29 CFR 

1902.52(a)). Any decision revoking such 

determination shall also reflect the 

Assistant Secretary’s determination that 

concurrent Federal enforcement and 

standards authority will be reinstated 

within the State for a reasonable time 

until the Assistant Secretary has 

withdrawn their approval of the plan, or 

any separable portion thereof, pursuant 

to part 1955 of this chapter or has 

determined that the State has met the 

criteria for an 18(e) determination 

pursuant to the applicable procedures of 

Part 1902, Subpart D (29 CFR 

1902.52(b)). The Assistant Secretary’s 

decision will be published in the 

Federal Register (29 CFR 1902.53). 

VII. Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

emphasizes consultation between 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
23790 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Federal agencies and the States and 

establishes specific review procedures 

the Federal government must follow as 

it carries out policies which affect state 

or local governments. OSHA has 

included in the Background section of 

today’s request for public comments an 

explanation of the relationship between 

Federal OSHA and the State Plans 

under the OSH Act. Although it appears 

that the specific consultation 

procedures provided in section 6 of 

Executive Order 13132 are not 

mandatory for final approval-related 

decisions under the OSH Act (including 

revocation of final approval), which 

neither impose a burden upon the state 

nor generally involve preemption of any 

state law, OSHA has nonetheless 

consulted extensively with Arizona on 

the matter of maintaining its State Plan 

in compliance with Federal OSHA. 

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

OSHA certifies pursuant to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this 

reconsideration and proposed 

revocation, if finalized, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

OSHA’s decision to reconsider and 

proposal to revoke the affirmative 

Section 18(e) determination granting 

final approval of the Arizona State Plan 

would not place small employers in 

Arizona under any new or different 

requirements beyond what the State 

Plan was required to adopt to remain at 

least as effective as OSHA. No 

additional burden would be placed 

upon the State government beyond the 

responsibilities already assumed as part 

of the approved plan. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1952 

State Plans, Approval. 

Authority and Signature 

Douglas L. Parker, Assistant Secretary 

of Labor for Occupational Safety and 

Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC, authorized the preparation of this 

notice. OSHA is issuing this notice 

under the authority specified by Section 

18 of the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667), 

Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 8–2020 

(85 FR 58393 (Sept. 18, 2020)), and 29 

CFR parts 1902, 1952, 1953, 1954, and 

1955. 

Signed in Washington, DC. 

Douglas L. Parker, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, OSHA proposes to amend 29 

CFR part 1952 as follows: 

PART 1952—APPROVED STATE 

PLANS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF 

STATE STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1952 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 

U.S.C. 667); 29 CFR part 1902; Secretary of 

Labor’s Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 

25, 2012), or 8–2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 

2020), as applicable. 

Subpart A—List of Approved State 

Plans for Private-Sector and State and 

Local Government Employees 

■ 2. Amend § 1952.19 by redesignating 

paragraph (d) as paragraph (e) and 

adding a new paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1952.19 Arizona. 

* * * * * 

(d) On [DATE OF FINAL 

DETERMINATION], OSHA modified the 

State Plan’s approval status from final 

approval to initial approval, and 

reinstated concurrent Federal authority 

pending a determination as to whether 

OSHA will make a new final approval 

determination or withdraw the State 

Plan’s approval under part 1955. All 

issues over which OSHA decides to 

assume enforcement authority, as well 

as any operational status agreement 

entered into by OSHA and Arizona, will 

be announced in the Federal Register. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–08424 Filed 4–20–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0173; FRL–9702–01– 

R9] 

Air Plan Approval; Nevada; Clark 

County Department of Environment 

and Sustainability 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Clark County Department 

of Environment and Sustainability 

(DES) portion of the Nevada State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision clarifies and amends an 

administrative rule consistent with 

changes to state statutes and county 

code. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 23, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2022–0173 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 947–4125 or by 

email at vineyard.christine@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. This 

proposal addresses the following local 

rule: Clark County DES Section 4, 

Control Officer, revised 12/17/19 and 

submitted 3/16/20. Elsewhere, in the 

Rules and Regulations section of this 

Federal Register, we are approving the 

local rule in a direct final action without 

prior proposal because we believe this 

SIP revision is not controversial. If we 

receive adverse comments, however, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and address the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1