Behind the mask: OSHA proposes to loosen its respirator standard
A worker who is required to use a respirator must first be medically evaluated to determine whether that worker is able to wear it safely. The Respiratory Protection standard at 29 CFR 1910.134 applies to all types of respirators. However, a recent proposed rule would remove the medical evaluation requirement where workers are required to use just filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), such as N95s and P100s, and/or loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs).
Medical evaluations would still be required for tight-fitting and supplied-air respirators. Other elements of the Respiratory Protection standard, such as hazard assessments, fit testing, training, and maintenance, would also remain in effect.
What’s behind OSHA’s proposed changes?
OSHA developed the Respiratory Protection standard at 1910.134 in the 1990s. Back then, the use of medical evaluations was a well-accepted best practice to identify underlying conditions where respirator use of any kind could cause adverse health or functional effects. Based on studies and comments OSHA received when developing the standard, the agency concluded that the use of any respirator requires a prior medical evaluation to determine a worker’s physical fitness.
Fast forward 30 years, OSHA says it now believes that this approach is too broad in practice for several reasons:
- There are no large-scale epidemiological studies that assess how effective medical evaluations are for workers who wear FFRs or loose-fitting PAPRs.
- Despite large spikes in respirator usage during COVID–19, no evidence has surfaced illustrating the need for medical evaluations for FFR and loose-fitting PAPR use.
- Data reported in the final rule for Respiratory Protection in the late 1990s found that 2 percent or fewer workers did not pass the medical evaluation. That proportion is fairly consistent with more recent studies. This means not that many workers are refused respirators following a medical evaluation.
- Workers are able to respond quickly when symptoms arise. In the rare circumstances that a worker develops symptoms from wearing an FFR or loose-fitting PAPR, they’re not immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) situations. This is because FFRs and loose-fitting PAPRs are not permitted to protect workers in IDLH environments.
- Available data mainly shows minimal impact on health. While self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) respirators require a great deal of exertion given their weight, existing literature shows that any physiological effects from wearing much lighter FFRs and PAPRs are minimal during low to moderate exertion. OSHA believes this would be typical of the vast majority of workplaces.
Agency seeks feedback on proposed rule
OSHA seeks feedback on all aspects of the July 1, 2025, proposed rule. However, particular key points are of interest to the agency:
- The extent to which medical evaluations are effective at preventing adverse health outcomes resulting from the use of FFRs and loose-fitting PAPRs,
- The extent to which workers have worn FFRs and loose-fitting PAPRs without medical evaluations since the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020,
- How many adverse events are being avoided by restricting the use of FFRs and loose-fitting PAPRs by workers, and
- Whether the proposed changes impose additional or more stringent requirements than the existing standard.
Even if the rule is finalized, state-plan states may keep their existing medical evaluation requirements; OSHA seeks comment on this, too.
Interested parties may comment by September 2, 2025. Search for OSHA-2025-0006 at regulations.gov to read and enter public comments. If an informal public hearing on the proposed rule is requested by the September 2 deadline, OSHA will schedule one and announce it in the Federal Register.
Note that 1910.134 is a general industry standard. Yet, OSHA recognizes that if the revisions become final, they would also impact the construction and maritime industries. That’s because the standards for those industries reference 1910.134. See 1926.103 (construction), 1915.154 (shipyards), 1917.92 (marine terminals), and 1918.102 (longshoring).
Key to remember: Under a recent proposed rule, OSHA would remove the medical evaluation requirement for workers who are required to use FFRs and loose-fitting PAPRs. Stakeholders have until September 2 to comment on the proposal.