Petitions for amendments process

Under 1905.3, any person may file a written petition to the Assistant Secretary to revise, amend, or revoke provisions of this part, and the petition must state the requested rule language (or substance) plus concise reasons and expected effects. See the petition rule in 1905.3 for the exact language.

• Include either the exact terms you want changed or a clear description of the change.
• Provide a concise statement of the reasons for the change and the effects it would have (what problem you want fixed and how the change helps).

This is consistent with OSHA’s direction that variance and petition submissions explain how alternatives provide at least equivalent protection when seeking relief from standards (see the variance guidance in 1905).

Under 1905.3, the petition process lets any person ask the Assistant Secretary to amend the rule text, while a variance application is a separate process for asking OSHA to exempt an employer from a standard under specified conditions. See 1905.3 on petitions and the broader Part 1905 rules on variances.

• A petition seeks a change to the regulation itself (rulemaking) that would apply broadly if adopted.
• A variance request asks OSHA to allow a specific employer to use alternative practices or equipment for their workplace; the employer must show the alternative provides an equal or greater level of safety (see related interpretation on how variances are evaluated in the crane load over people LOI).

Under 1905.3, yes—a petition must be submitted in writing to the Assistant Secretary and should include the terms or substance of the requested rule change plus concise reasons and effects. See the text of 1905.3.

• Keep the description clear and focused on how the change improves safety or resolves a compliance problem.
• If you later decide you need a variance instead of a rule change, remember variance procedures are covered elsewhere in Part 1905 and in OSHA letters of interpretation such as the variance request guidance.

Under 1905.3, your petition should include a concise statement of the reasons for the change and the effects thereof—meaning clear, focused facts about how the change will affect safety, operations, costs, and affected workers. See 1905.3.

• Discuss expected safety benefits and any potential hazards the change eliminates.
• Describe who or what workplaces would be affected and any economic or operational impacts.
• For guidance on what OSHA expects when evaluating alternatives, see the variance application requirements referenced in Part 1905 and LOIs such as the 1999 crane LOI.

Under 1905.3, any person—including individual workers, employers, unions, trade associations, or members of the public—may submit a written petition to the Assistant Secretary to revise, amend, or revoke provisions of this part. See 1905.3.

• OSHA’s petition rule is intentionally broad: it does not limit who can petition.
• Petitions from individuals should still follow the rule’s content requirements (terms or substance and concise reasons/effects).

Under 1905.3, OSHA is not required to grant a petition; the rule simply allows any person to submit a written petition asking the Assistant Secretary to revise, amend, or revoke provisions—OSHA will review and decide whether to initiate rulemaking. See 1905.3.

• OSHA evaluates petitions based on the merits, evidence provided, legal considerations, and potential safety impacts.
• If a petitioner seeks relief that concerns a specific employer’s conditions, OSHA may suggest a variance instead; LOIs and previous variance decisions (for example, the 1996 digester exits LOI) show that OSHA may deny variance requests or require additional protections if the proposed alternative is not equivalent.

Under 1905.3, a petition may set forth either the exact terms desired or the substance of the rule desired; proposing an alternative practice as the substance is allowed, but OSHA will evaluate whether that alternative provides an equivalent or better level of protection before changing the regulation. See 1905.3 and the general Part 1905 variance framework.

• If your petition describes an alternative practice, explain clearly how it achieves equal or greater worker protection.
• OSHA has required detailed equivalence analyses in variance contexts (see the lockheed Martin variance discussion in the 1995 LOI).

Under 1905.3, a petition to amend a regulation is different from requesting an interpretation—petitions ask OSHA to change the rule itself, while interpretation requests ask OSHA to explain how an existing rule applies; both are submitted in writing but serve different purposes. See 1905.3 and note OSHA’s separate practice of issuing Letters of Interpretation (LOIs) such as the fixed ladders in wind turbines LOI which explain how a standard applies.

Under 1905.3, a petitioner can request that OSHA adopt or reference consensus standards, but OSHA will evaluate whether adopting those standards meets the statutory requirements and provides adequate worker protection before initiating any rulemaking. See 1905.3.

• OSHA has previously considered consensus standards when interpreting or applying rules (see discussion in the fixed ladders LOI referencing ANSI A-14.3).
• Provide evidence that the consensus standard improves safety and explain how it aligns or conflicts with existing OSHA requirements.

Under 1905.3 and Part 1905 generally, OSHA’s petition process does not automatically provide interim relief; interim relief is generally not available through a petition, and OSHA’s stance on interim orders for variances is limited (for example, OSHA has stated interim relief is inoperative for some variance requests). See 1905.3 and the variance/interim relief explanation in the 1995 LOI on safety valves.

• If you need immediate relief for a specific employer, consider applying for a variance per Part 1905 procedures and review past LOIs for how OSHA has handled interim requests.

Under 1905.3, petitions should include the terms or substance of the desired rule and a concise statement of reasons and effects, so including workplace-specific technical details that support your request is helpful but keep the overall statement concise and focused on how the change affects worker safety. See 1905.3.

• Technical details that show why the current rule is inadequate or how the amendment improves safety strengthen a petition.
• For employer-specific technical alternatives (like unique engineering fixes), OSHA may suggest a variance instead; see how OSHA has evaluated technical variance requests in the digester exits variance LOI.

Under 1905.3, a petition may request revision, amendment, or revocation of a provision—including temporary changes in substance—but OSHA decides whether to proceed with rulemaking, whether temporary measures are appropriate, or whether a variance or other enforcement discretion is more suitable. See 1905.3.

• If the need is specific to one employer or short-term circumstances, OSHA often directs applicants toward the variance process rather than rulemaking (see the variance options discussed in the 2001 crane LOI).

Under 1905.3, petitioners should include supporting data or studies that demonstrate the need for the change and the likely effects, and OSHA will consider such evidence when evaluating the petition as part of its rulemaking or denial decision. See 1905.3.

• Well-documented petitions with technical data, injury statistics, or engineering studies are more persuasive.
• OSHA’s review of variances and petitions has relied on applicant-provided evidence in past LOIs (see the digester exits LOI where OSHA evaluated requested alternatives and supporting materials).

Under 1905.3, OSHA’s national office interpretations and rulemaking authority supersede regional informal letters; if a regional letter conflicts with national policy, OSHA will follow national office guidance and the rulemaking process rather than a superseded regional letter. See 1905.3 and the clarification in the fixed ladders LOI noting regional LOIs are superseded by National Office LOIs.

• If your petition relies on a regional interpretation, explain why the national rule should be changed and include legal/technical support.
• OSHA’s national office will evaluate the petition in light of current national policy and standards.

Under 1905.3, a petition can ask OSHA to adopt an alternative already accepted for a specific employer, but OSHA will independently evaluate whether that employer-specific alternative is appropriate for broader adoption and whether it provides equal or better protection for all affected workplaces. See 1905.3 and review of prior variance decisions such as the 1999 variance guidance on crane loads over people.

• Employer-specific variances do not automatically become general rules.
• Provide strong evidence that the alternative is broadly applicable and protective when petitioning for a rule change.

Under 1905.3, a petitioner should include a concise statement of the effects of the requested rule change, which should address likely economic impacts (costs and benefits) as part of the reasons supporting the petition. See 1905.3.

• Explain both the cost of compliance with current rules and the cost or savings from the proposed change.
• OSHA considers economic and technical evidence when deciding whether to begin rulemaking; similar economic considerations are evident in OSHA’s variance reviews (see the crane and digester LOIs and [https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1996-05-29]).

Under 1905.3, the rule requires a written petition that sets forth the terms or substance of the rule desired with a concise statement of reasons and effects; it does not prescribe a specific form, so a clear, well-structured letter that includes those elements is acceptable. See 1905.3.

• Use headings or sections to show requested language, reasons, safety impacts, and supporting evidence.
• For procedures and expectations when seeking relief for a particular employer (e.g., a variance), review Part 1905 guidance and past LOIs to ensure you include necessary technical detail.

Under 1905.3, a petition may request revision, amendment, or revocation of any provision of the part, so you may petition to revoke a specific provision or propose broader changes; however, OSHA will evaluate the request based on the petition evidence and public interest. See 1905.3.

• Large-scale revocations will require strong justification and usually a full rulemaking process.
• OSHA’s evaluation may consider alternative means such as targeted amendments or variances when a full revocation is not appropriate (see past variance analyses in LOIs like the 1996 digester exits LOI).

Under 1905.3, if a petition affects requirements beyond Part 1905, OSHA will coordinate internally and with relevant program offices to consider the broader regulatory implications before any rulemaking or decision. See 1905.3.

• OSHA has historically coordinated across offices when technical standards overlap, as seen in LOIs that reference other standards (for example, the fixed ladders LOI referencing 1910.27 and 1910.269).
• Explain all cross-cutting impacts in your petition to speed evaluation.

Under 1905.3 and related guidance, OSHA has in several instances directed parties toward variances or denied changes when the requested alternative was appropriate only for specific situations rather than a broad rule change; LOIs and variance correspondence explain that variances are the proper mechanism for employer-specific relief (see the 1999 crane LOI on variances and the 1996 digester exits LOI).

• OSHA evaluates whether a proposed change is broadly applicable; if it’s employer-specific, a variance is often recommended.
• The LOIs show OSHA’s practice: variance requests must demonstrate an alternative that provides equivalent safety and are assessed case-by-case.