[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28463-28472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12235]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket # OSHA-2025-0006]
RIN 1218-AD48
Amending the Medical Evaluation Requirements in the Respiratory
Protection Standard for Certain Types of Respirators
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of
Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to remove some medical evaluation
requirements in the Respiratory Protection Rule for certain types of
respirators. This proposed change would only impact filtering facepiece
respirators and loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2025.
Informal public hearing: OSHA will schedule an informal public
hearing on the proposed rule if requested during the comment period. If
a hearing is requested, the location and date of the hearing,
procedures for interested parties to notify the agency of their
intention to participate, and procedures for participants to submit
their testimony and documentary evidence will be announced in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments: You may submit comments and attachments,
identified by Docket No. OSHA-2025-0006, electronically at http://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-2025-0006). All
comments, including any personal information that is provided, are
placed in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA
[[Page 28464]]
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.
When uploading multiple attachments to http://www.regulations.gov,
please number all of your attachments because http://www.regulations.gov will not automatically number the attachments. This
numbering will be very useful in identifying all attachments in the
preamble for the final rule. 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 http://www.regulations.gov.
Docket: To read or download comments or other materials in the
docket, go to Docket No. OSHA-2025-0006 at http://www.regulations.govthe http://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. 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. Some Document ID numbers
also include one or more attachments.
When citing exhibits in the docket, OSHA includes the term
``Document ID'' followed by the last four digits of the Document ID
number. For example, document OSHA-2025-0006 would appear as ``Document
ID 0006.'' Citations also include the attachment number or tab number,
if applicable. In a citation that contains two or more Document ID
numbers, the Document ID numbers are separated by semi-colons (e.g.,
``Document ID 1231, Attachment 1; 1383, Attachment 1''). OSHA may also
cite items that appear in another docket. When that is the case, OSHA
includes the full document ID for the corresponding docket entry.
This information can be used to search for a supporting document in
the docket at http://www.regulations.gov. Contact the OSHA Docket
Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY number: 877-889-5627) for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For press inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger, Office of
Communications, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-1999; email [email protected].
For general information: Contact Andrew Levinson, Director,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-1950;
email: [email protected].
For copies of this Federal Register document: Electronic copies of
this Federal Register notice are available at http://www.regulations.gov. This notice, as well as news releases and other
relevant information, are also available at OSHA's web page at
www.osha.gov. A 100-word summary of this proposed rule is available on
http://www.regulations.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Executive Summary
B. Health Literature Background
II. Discussion
A. Pertinent Legal Authority
B. Additional Requirements
i. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
ii. State Plans
iii. NEPA
iv. Statutory and Executive Order Considerations
C. Summary and Explanation
III. Authority and Signature
IV. Proposed Regulatory Text
I. Background
A. Executive Summary
In 1971, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
adopted the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard Z88.2
1969, ``Practices for Respiratory Protection,'' as well as ANSI
Standard K13.1 1969, ``Identification of Gas Mask Canisters'' as its
standard for respiratory protection. In April of 1971, OSHA promulgated
29 CFR 1926.103, the initial respiratory protection standard for the
construction industry. On February 9, 1979, OSHA announced that 29 CFR
1910.134 would be formally recognized as also being applicable to the
construction industry (44 FR 8577). On November 15, 1994, OSHA issued a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to revise 29 CFR 1910.134 (59 FR 58884).
On January 8, 1998, OSHA issued a Final Rule in the Federal Register
(63 FR 1152) revising 29 CFR 1910.134. The prior respirator standard
was re-designated as 1910.139 and applied only to respiratory
protection against M. tuberculosis (TB). On December 31, 2003, OSHA
withdrew 1910.139 and made compliance with 1910.134 effective
immediately (68 FR 75776). On August 24, 2006, OSHA published revisions
to the 1910.134 Final Rule, to add definitions and requirements for
Assigned Protection Factors (APFs) and Maximum Use Concentrations
(MUCs) (71 FR 50122). The revisions also supersede the respirator
selection provisions of existing substance-specific standards with
these new APFs (except for the respirator selection provisions of the
1,3-Butadiene Standard).
The current OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134)
aims to protect workers from inhaling hazardous airborne contaminants
(e.g., dusts, fogs, fumes, mists, gases, smokes, sprays, vapors) in the
workplace by requiring employers to establish a comprehensive written
respiratory protection program that includes procedures for respirator
use, training, and fit testing. A key component of this program is
medical evaluation, which determines whether employees are physically
able to wear respirators safely. Before using a respirator, employees
must be evaluated by a physician or other licensed health care
professional (PLHCP), using the mandatory OSHA medical questionnaire or
an equivalent method, to assess medical conditions that could interfere
with respirator use, such as cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases. A
medical evaluation helps ensure that any employee required to use a
respirator can tolerate the physiological burden associated with
respirator use which is crucial to ensure worker safety. Additionally,
the standard mandates fit testing for tight-fitting facepiece
respirators, training on proper use and maintenance, and ongoing
monitoring of workplace conditions to ensure the selected respirators
provide adequate protection. The program must be regularly evaluated
for compliance and effectiveness, with records maintained for medical
evaluations, fit testing, and training, to reduce the risk of
respiratory-related occupational illnesses.
OSHA is proposing an update to the Respiratory Protection Standard
to amend the medical evaluation requirements specified in paragraph (e)
where an employee is required to wear either a filtering facepiece
respirator (FFR) or loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirator
(PAPR) and seeks comment on all aspects of this proposal. Using a
respirator may place a physiological burden on employees that varies
with the type of respirator worn, the job and workplace conditions in
[[Page 28465]]
which the respirator is used, and the medical status of the employee.
OSHA has preliminarily determined this burden differs based on the type
of respirator worn and therefore proposes an amendment to the medical
evaluation requirements of the standard for FFRs and loose-fitting
PAPRs.
B. Health Literature Background
Introduction
In this section, OSHA provides an overview of the agency's evidence
to determine whether this proposed rule impacts material impairment of
health. The Secretary's material impairment determinations must be made
``on the basis of the best available evidence'' and must consider the
``latest available scientific data in the field'' (29 U.S.C.
655(b)(5)). This overview briefly acknowledges the original basis for
the determination of a need for medical evaluations before using FFRs
and loose fitting PAPRs as well as considers research published after
the promulgation of that rule.
OSHA concludes that the data available for health effects are
lacking and insufficient to establish that medical evaluations
meaningfully reduce material impairment caused by wearing an FFR or a
loose fitting PAPR. Even though ``OSHA is not required to state with
scientific certainty or precision the exact point at which each type of
[harm] becomes a material impairment'' (AFL-CIO v. OSHA, 965 F.2d 962,
975 (11th Cir. 1992)), the level of evidence in the following
discussion is unconvincing as it pertains to the ability of medical
evaluations to prevent material impairment induced by the wearing of
FFRs or PAPRs. The Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 651,
et seq.) (``the Act'' or ``the OSH Act'') charges OSHA with addressing
all forms of material impairment, not just death or serious physical
harm (Id.). The agency acknowledges that respirators may negatively
impact some workers' health due to extreme exertion while wearing one,
impact on communication or ability to see, triggering mental health
concerns (e.g., claustrophobia), and other impacts on their quality of
life. However, medical evaluation before use of an FFR or loose fitting
PAPR is not well evidenced to prevent these outcomes.
Original Basis of the Medical Questionnaire Requirement
When OSHA developed the respiratory protection standard in the
1990s, the use of medical evaluations to identify underlying conditions
where respirator use could cause material impairment was a well-
accepted best practice. This process was ``derived from studies of Navy
SCUBA (self-contained underwater breathing apparatus) or military users
under conditions unlike most current use'' (Harber et al., 2025). For
the proposed standard (``Respiratory Protection Standard; Proposed
Rule, 59 FR 58884), OSHA gathered information and presented for comment
several alternatives ranging from in-person medical evaluations by
physicians, exempting workers who use respirators for less than five
hours a week, or using medical questionnaires presented by a PLCHP as a
screening tool before a medical evaluation would be required. From this
robust stakeholder engagement process, OSHA concluded that medical
questionnaires would be permitted as a screening tool to identify
individuals for whom an in-person medical examination would then be
required in the final rule (63 FR 1152-1300). The questionnaire was
adapted from ANSI Z88.6-1984.
In the 1998 final rule (63 FR 1210), OSHA determined that there
existed ``the potential for adverse health effects resulting from
respirator use, even for healthy employees using respirators designed
for low breathing resistance and used for short durations.'' OSHA also
found that ``respirator use would impose a substantial risk of material
impairment to the health of employees who have preexisting respiratory
and cardiovascular impairments.'' Based on the results of studies in
the record as well as the comments received, OSHA determined ``the use
of any respirator requires a prior medical evaluation to determine
fitness.''
OSHA now believes that the requirement for medical evaluations
before the use of any type of respirator is too broad in practice;
specifically with respect to the use of FFRs and loose fitting PAPRs.
Even the 1998 final rule included two commenters who expressed that
medical limitations on their workforce were fairly limited with
Organization Resources Counselors, Inc (Ex. 54-424) noting that 2% of
their workforce were limited based on claustrophobia, asthma, and heavy
smoking and Boeing (Ex. 54-445) reporting that 1-2% of their workforce
was limited due to not undergoing the evaluation or because of employee
preference (63 FR 1213, 1219). While 2% of the workforce is a small yet
significant number, it does not identify actual avoided adverse
outcomes from wearing a respirator. While it may have been reasonable
to avoid this increased risk at the time, the agency concludes that it
is important to consider new evidence in the years since the rule was
published.
Lack of Data Showing Material Impairment Avoided by Medical Evaluations
i. Lack of large scale epidemiological studies.
The use of medical evaluations in respiratory protection programs
as a prospective measure to avoid adverse health outcomes remains a
well-accepted best practice. However, the agency is not aware of any
epidemiological studies that evaluate their efficacy for FFRs and loose
fitting PAPRs.
Many workers currently use FFRs and loose fitting PAPRs without
medical evaluations. For instance, NIOSH found that in the immediate
wake of the publishing of the 1998 Respiratory Protection Standard
51.2% of an estimated 281,776 establishments may not have performed
medical evaluations to determine fitness for wearing a respirator
(Doney et al., 2005). A 2015 study (Brousseau et al., 2015) reported
that 14% of hospital workers in Illinois and 23% in Minnesota did not
receive a medical evaluation. Medical evaluations are likely far less
prevalent in many industries with smaller and more dispersed
workforces. For instance, workers in hog farms commonly wear
respirators, predominantly N95s, when performing some tasks, but are
generally not subject to the Respiratory Protection Standard and are
likely not following it (Gibbs et al., 2020). The agency knows of no
data related to these worker populations showing that the lack of
medical evaluations is causing adverse health effects. OSHA requests
comment on the extent to which medical evaluations are effective at
preventing adverse health outcomes resulting from the use of FFRs and
loose-fitting PAPRs.
ii. Despite large increases in respirator usage after the emergence
of COVID-19, no evidence has surfaced illustrating the need for medical
evaluations for FFR and PAPR usage.
FFR and PAPR usage increased immensely after the emergence of
COVID-19. Workers across industries performing a wide variety of tasks
were suddenly wearing these respirators, often for their entire shifts
every work day. Despite this sudden increased and widespread usage of
these respirators, often without a medical evaluation, the agency is
not aware of any data identifying adverse outcomes from individuals
with underlying medical conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. OSHA
requests comment on
[[Page 28466]]
the extent to which workers have worn FFRs and loose-fitting PAPRs
without medical evaluations since the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020.
With this lack of data about medical evaluation efficacy for FFRs
and loose fitting PAPRs, it is difficult to reaffirm that medical
evaluations are either necessary or appropriate for preventing adverse
health outcomes.
iii. Few workers are refused respirators.
As noted earlier, the data reported in the final rule for
Respiratory Protection (29 CFR 1910.134) found that 2% or fewer workers
did not pass the medical evaluation. That proportion appears to be
fairly consistent with more recent studies. A 1999 study (Pappas et
al.) found that out of 5,569 workers who had a medical evaluation only
1.3% had limitations placed upon their work and 0.2% were denied use.
Pregnancy was the reason for denial and the researchers found that
physical examination and spirometry added nothing to the analysis. A
2017 study (Desai et al.) found that only 1.48% of 337 subjects who
passed the medical questionnaire evaluation failed the spirometry test
under the American Thoracic Society criteria. In a survey of 35 clinics
or clinic groups, Harber et al. (2025) found that nearly all workers
were approved without restrictions and it was considered very unusual
to decline approval.
In practice, few workers have their respirator use limited.
Additionally, we currently have no ability to estimate, to the agency's
knowledge, how many adverse events are being avoided by restricting the
use of FFRs and PAPRs by workers. As such, it is difficult to ascertain
whether there is material impairment in these scenarios if a worker who
should be restricted is permitted to use a respirator. OSHA requests
comment on how many adverse events are being avoided by restricting the
use of FFRs and PAPRs by workers.
iv. Workers are able to respond quickly when symptoms arise.
In the apparently rare circumstance that a worker develops symptoms
from wearing an FFR or loose-fitting PAPR, these scenarios are not
Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) situations. This is so
because FFRs and loose fitting PAPRs are not permitted to protect
employees in IDLH environments. Therefore, the worker should be able to
seek safety with an exposure well below expected thresholds for adverse
health outcomes. This is in contrast to other respirators--(e.g., self-
contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)--) that would be required in more
dangerous exposure environments.
v. Available data on effects largely shows minimal impact on
health.
As noted in the original rule (63 FR 1152-1300), self-contained
breathing apparatus (SCBA) respirators require a great deal of exertion
given the weight of that apparatus. However, the body of literature
does largely agree that any physiological effects from wearing much
lighter FFRs and PAPRs are minimal during low to moderate exertion. In
studies assessing cardiovascular parameters, FFRs and PAPRs did not
significantly impact health in low to moderate exercise scenarios that
would be typical of the vast majority of workplaces (Epstein et al.,
2020; Anil et al., 2023). Similarly, Rothstein et al. studied 42
individuals who did not have a history of claustrophobia or metabolic
disease and found that individuals who wore N-95 respirators displayed
minor changes in respiratory and metabolic effects, but those
``physiological parameters remained within normal ranges at rest and
would not impact daily functioning'' (Rothstein et al., 2025). A
limitation on these studies is that they are performed on populations
that screen out unhealthy individuals (e.g., smokers, known
cardiovascular issues), but one would surmise that changes in
physiological parameters would be observable even in healthy
individuals and this does not seem to be the case. It is reasonable to
assume that work that requires high exertion could impact the health of
a wearer, but that high exertion work likely self-selects for
individuals who would be medically fit to wear an FFR or a PAPR.
The 1998 final rule also noted some concern about non-physiological
impacts, specifically noting claustrophobia. A more recent look into
the evidence found that the notion of large numbers of workers
experiencing claustrophobia is unfounded (Harber and Beckett, 2023). In
a letter to the editor, McClellan (2020) found that full-shift work
using an FFR could cause issues, such as psychological stresses, that
result in the wearer feeling compelled to remove their respirator in
potentially unsafe situations. While psychological stressors have been
observed and can induce physiological impairment, the agency is unable
to adequately qualify the degree to which this occurs in the affected
workplaces. And, as noted above, if a worker wearing an FFR or loose
fitting PAPR had to remove their respirator due to psychological
distress, the worker would necessarily not be exposed to an IDLH
atmosphere but would rather be able to seek safety with an exposure
well below expected thresholds for adverse health outcomes.
Conclusion
The agency preliminarily concludes that there is not sufficient
evidence to conclude that wearing FFRs and loose fitting PAPRs without
a prior medical evaluation can result in unavoidable adverse outcomes,
and that the assumption that medical evaluation effectively detects
risk for adverse effects from the occupational use of FFRs and loose
fitting PAPRs is unproven.
Literature Cited
Anil AK et al. (2023, April 1). Comparative study of the effect of
N95 facemask and powered air-purifying respirator (2 fans, N95
filter) on cardiovascular parameters of healthy individuals during
exercise. Industrial Health 61(2):125-133 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35444091/ (Anil et al., 2023).
Brosseau LM et al. (2015, January). Evaluation of Minnesota and
Illinois hospital respiratory protection programs and health care
worker respirator use. Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Hygiene 12:1-15. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15459624.2014.930560 (Brosseau et al., 2015).
Desai U et al. (2017, August 31). Evaluation of spirometry for
medical clearance in occupations requiring respirator use.
Occupational Diseases and Environmental Medicine. 5:67-77. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=79005 (Desai et al.,
2017).
Doney BC et al. (2005, May). A survey of private sector respirator
use in the United States: an overview of findings. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 2:267-276. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15459620590949020 (Doney et al.,
2005).
Epstein D et al. (2020). Return to training in the COVID-19 era: the
physiological effects of face masks during exercise. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports 31(1):70-75. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sms.13832 (Epstein et al.,
2020).
Gibbs JL et al. (2023, September). Self-reported respiratory health
symptoms and respiratory protection behaviors of young adult hog
producers in the United States. American Journal of Industrial
Medicine 66 (9): 794-804. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajim.23515 (Gibbs et al., 2023)
Harber P and WS Beckett. (2023). Health effects of filtering
facepiece respirators: research and clinical implication of comfort,
thermal, skin, psychologic, and workplace effects. American Journal
of Industrial Medicine. 66(12):1017-1032. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajim.23450 (Harber and Beckett,
2023).
[[Page 28467]]
Harber P et al. (2025). Respirator medical examinations: current
practices and future needs. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine. Pre-print. DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000003436
(Harber et al., 2025).
McLellan RK. (2020). Medical qualification for respirator use: an
essential component of respiratory protection. American Journal of
Industrial Medicine. 63:949-950. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajim.23162 (McLellan, 2020).
Pappas GP et al. (1999). Respiratory protective devices: rates of
medical clearance and causes for work restrictions. American Journal
of Industrial Medicine 35:390-394. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10086199/ (Pappas et al., 1999).
Rothstein et al. (2025). A randomized control trial comparing the
effects of N-95 respirator versus surgical mask use on resting
metabolic and respiratory changes. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine 67(5):339-343. https://journals.lww.com/joem/fulltext/2025/05000/a_randomized_control_trial_comparing_the_effects.7.aspx (Rothstein
et al., 2025)
II. Discussion
A. Pertinent Legal Authority
The purpose of 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), and 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7) (authorizing OSHA to include among a
standard's requirements labeling, monitoring, medical testing, and
other information-transmittal provisions)). 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)). A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate
within the meaning of section 652(8) if it substantially reduces or
eliminates significant risk or prevents it from developing, and is
economically and technologically feasible, cost effective, consistent
with prior Agency action or supported by a reasoned justification for
departing from prior Agency actions, and supported by substantial
evidence. See Am. Textile Mfrs. Institute, Inc. v. Donovan, 452 U.S.
490 (1981); 58 FR 16612.-16616. The Secretary may also issue
regulations requiring employers to keep records regarding their
activities relating to the Act, as well as records of work-related
deaths, injuries, and illnesses (29 U.S.C. 657(c)(1)-(2)).
As required by the OSH Act, OSHA originally determined that the
respiratory protection standard would substantially reduce a
significant risk of material harm when promulgating the standard. For
the changes in this proposed rule, OSHA has not made a new finding of
significant risk but is making changes that are reasonably related to
the purpose of the respiratory protection standard as a whole. When, as
here, OSHA has previously determined that its standard substantially
reduces a significant risk, it is unnecessary for the agency to make
additional findings on risk for every provision of that standard. See,
e.g., Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Tyson, 796 F.2d 1479, 1502
n.16 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (rejecting the argument that OSHA must ``find
that each and every aspect of its standard eliminates a significant
risk''). Rather, once OSHA makes a general significant risk finding in
support of a standard, the next question is whether a particular
requirement is reasonably related to the purpose of the standard as a
whole. See Asbestos Info. Ass'n/N. Am. v. Reich, 117 F.3d 891, 894 (5th
Cir. 1997); Forging Indus. Ass'n v. Sec'y of Labor, 773 F.2d 1436, 1447
(4th Cir. 1985); United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Marshall,
647 F.2d 1189, 1237-38 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (``Lead I'').
The Act also provides that in promulgating standards dealing with
toxic materials or harmful physical agents, OSHA must set the standard
that ``most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of
the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material
impairment of health or functional capacity even if such employee has
regular exposure to the hazard dealt with by such standard for the
period of his working life'' (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5)). As discussed in
Section IB, Health Literature Background, OSHA concludes that the data
available for health effects are lacking and insufficient to establish
that medical evaluations effectively prevent material impairment caused
by wearing an FFR or a loose fitting PAPR.
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).
OSHA has determined that this proposed rule does not impose any new
feasibility burdens on employers. All employers in compliance with the
existing standard will also be in compliance with the proposed
revisions. This proposed rule simply removes some requirements for the
use of medical evaluations for loose-fitting PAPRs and FFRs. Therefore,
OSHA has determined that the proposed changes to 29 CFR 1910.134 are
technologically feasible.
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.
Estimated Cost Savings From Eliminating Requirement for Medical
Evaluation for Filtering Facepiece Respirators and Loose-Fitting PAPRs
OSHA estimated the potential cost savings associated with removing
the medical evaluation requirement for
[[Page 28468]]
certain classes of respirators from CFR 1910.134 (Respiratory
Protection) and potential reductions in the number of employees
receiving follow-up medical exams. This required estimating the number
of employees that would no longer receive the medical questionnaire for
the specific type of respirators used as well as the number of
employees that would no longer receive follow-up medical exams. A
general description of the approach used to develop these estimates is
presented below.
Annual Medical Questionnaire Cost Savings
To estimate the number of employees that would no longer receive a
medical questionnaire, OSHA used data from the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) survey on Respirator Usage in
Private Sector Firms for 2001 (NIOSH, 2003). This survey represents the
most recent and complete dataset on respirator usage available at
present. The dataset includes estimates of the number of employees
using certain types of respirators by broad industry division. Based on
the estimates of employees using certain types of respirators, OSHA
calculated the percentage of all employees across industry groups that
use these types of respirators, comparing these estimates to employment
figures in the County Business Patterns (CBP) dataset for 2001. OSHA
then applied these percentages to the number of employees across
industry groups estimated in the CBP dataset for 2022, which represents
the most recent CBP dataset available. The NIOSH survey included mining
employees in its population sample. Because mining is not covered by
OSHA, an adjustment was made to the total number of potentially
affected employees by subtracting employees within the Mining,
Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction sector (NAICS 21) that are
outside of the following industries:
1--Crude Petroleum Extraction (NAICS 211120)
2--Natural Gas Extraction (NAICS 211130)
3--Drilling Oil and Gas Wells (NAICS 213111)
4--Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations (NAICS 213112)
One final adjustment that OSHA made for this analysis is to account
for the specific type of respirator that employees use. Only those
employees using either a filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) or loose-
fitting powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) will no longer have to
complete a medical questionnaire or receive a medical evaluation.
According to the 2022 County Business Patterns survey, there were
approximately 136 million employees in the private sector. The NIOSH
respirator survey found that about 1.939 percent of employees wore
filtering facepieces, indicating that, assuming the profile remained
the same, approximately 2.6 million employees wear filtering facepieces
currently. Another 0.098 percent reported using loose-fitting PAPRs,
which accounts for an additional 133,266 workers. These groups together
would total 2.038 percent of employees, or 2,733,069 employees in
private industry who currently use either an FFR or loose-fitting PAPR
in their work. The spreadsheet detailing these calculations is
available in the rulemaking docket on regulations.gov (Docket No. OSHA-
2025-0006).
Since the medical questionnaire is only required for new employees,
OSHA estimates the number of questionnaires that are no longer required
by multiplying the number of covered employees in non-mining private
industry that use either an FFR or loose-fitting PAPR in the course of
their work by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS') Job Openings and
Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) annual total separations rate (43.9
percent). This approach results in an estimated 1,199,817
questionnaires that are no longer required annually.
The medical questionnaire is estimated to take an employee 15
minutes \1\ on average to complete, which means that this new rule
saves approximately 299,954 hours of labor time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This estimate of workers' time was used most recently in
OSHA's estimates of cost of a respirator program in the COVID ETS
rulemaking. See Document ID OSHA-2020-0004-1031. Arguably, a
complementary amount of time would be required by the a PLHCP to
review the questionnaire, but this cost may overlap with that
already included in the cost of the exam. For simplicity this
element has been left out of the calculation and therefore may be an
underestimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA estimates the cost savings of this proposed rule using BLS'
Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics data. Specifically, OSHA
pulled the cross-industry median hourly wage for all occupations
($23.80) and calculated the loaded hourly wage to account for fringe
benefits. According to BLS' Employer Costs for Employee Compensation
(ECEC) data for December 2024, the fringe rate was 31.1 percent. OSHA
also accounts for indirect expenses that cannot be tied to producing a
specific product or service, called overhead costs. OSHA used an
overhead rate of 17 percent of base wages (EPA, 2002; Rice, 2002). This
17 percent rate is based on an estimate of overhead costs for safety
and health professionals in large private organizations. A rate of 17
percent of base wages is equivalent to 11.71 percent of the hourly wage
rate with fringe applied. To calculate the fully loaded hourly labor
cost, OSHA added the three components together: base wages + fringe
benefits (31.1 percent of total compensation) + applicable overhead (17
percent of base wages). OSHA estimates a fully loaded wage of $38.59.
Multiplying this wage by the total number of labor hours saved
(approximately 299,954) results in total annual cost savings of
$11,575,237. The total cost savings over a 10-year time period would
equal roughly $115.8 million. The present value of these cost savings
using a 3 and 7 percent discount rate would equal $98.7 and $81.3
million, respectively.
Annual Follow-Up Medical Exam Cost Savings
OSHA has previously estimated that 23 percent of all questionnaire
recipients receive follow-up medical exams under the requirements of
this standard.\2\ OSHA estimates that, with the medical questionnaire
no longer required, paralleling the earlier preamble discussion, only
about 2 percent of the original questionnaire recipients would still
receive follow-up medical exams (see Section I.B., Health Literature
Background). These employees are expected to be referred for medical
exams after undergoing training as required under paragraph (k) of the
existing respiratory protection standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See the Supporting Statement for the PRA Information
Collection Request (ICR) for 29 CFR 1910.134, Document ID OSHA-2011-
0027-0020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using these estimates, OSHA calculated cost savings associated with
medical exams no longer performed. OSHA multiplied the difference in
pre- and post-standard revision required exams outlined above (21
percent) by the number of questionnaires estimated in Section 1
(1,199,817), which yields 251,962 employees that would no longer
receive follow-up medical exams. The follow-up medical exams are
estimated to take one hour to complete.\3\ Therefore, a total of
251,962 burden hours are avoided. Using a fully loaded worker wage of
$38.59 (derived previously), the total annual labor-based cost savings
associated with medical exams equals $9,723,199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA also estimated the cost savings associated with not
administering the medical exam itself. Using price data
[[Page 28469]]
from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) (https://www.cms.gov/medicare/physician-fee-schedule/search), OSHA estimates
that these follow-up medical exams cost $193.75 each.\4\ Multiplying
this unit cost by the number of medical exams previously estimated
(251,962), OSHA calculates an additional $48,817,566 in annual cost
savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This estimate uses the costs for an office visit (HCPCS
99203), spirometry (94010), chest x-ray (71048), and EKG (93000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In total, OSHA estimates annual medical exam cost savings of
$58,540,765.
Annual Recordkeeping Cost Savings
This proposed regulatory revision also impacts the cost to maintain
medical records and provide employees access to these records upon
request. OSHA estimates that there are 1,199,817 medical questionnaires
and 251,962 follow-up medical exams that will no longer be required and
thus will also no longer have records maintained. OSHA has previously
estimated that each medical record takes a secretary five minutes on
average to record in their entity's recordkeeping system.\5\ Therefore,
this recordkeeping task is estimated to take secretaries a total of
120,982 hours annually. OSHA also has estimated that 10 percent of
employees will request their medical records, with each request
requiring five minutes of secretarial time to process and deliver
medical records to the requesting employee, totaling 12,098 hours of
total burden time.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See the Supporting Statement for the PRA Information
Collection Request (ICR) for 29 CFR 1910.134, Document ID OSHA-2011-
0027-0020.
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In aggregate, this regulatory revision is expected to save 133,080
burden hours of annual recordkeeping activities. Using a fully loaded
wage for secretaries (SOC 43-6010) (based on BLS' Occupational
Employment and Wage Statistics) of $37.00 yields $4.9 million in annual
cost savings, with a present value using both 3 and 7 percent discount
rates equaling $42.0 and $34.6 million, respectively.
Questionnaire Cost Savings if Baseline Compliance Were To Increase
As part of this regulatory revision, OSHA also accounts for
employees that have not yet received medical questionnaires that should
have in the absence of this regulatory revision. The resulting effects
will be presented as though they occur in a concentrated period of
time; however, there is uncertainty about whether the existing non-
compliance would ever be addressed, and even if so, the timing is even
more hypothetical.
OSHA calculated the number of employees that have not yet received
medical questionnaires by first subtracting the number of Mining,
Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction sector employees using FFRs from
the total projected number of employees using these respirators using
the same methodology as outlined in Section 1 (2,599,807 employees).
(Note that this does not include those employees wearing loose-fitting
PAPRs (133,262).) Next, OSHA assumed that 30 percent of these employees
started wearing respirators during the COVID-19 pandemic but were never
properly evaluated during this period. As a result, OSHA estimates
that, in the absence of this regulatory revision, there are 779,942
employees that would still need to receive the medical questionnaire.
Assuming the same 15 minutes of burden time per medical questionnaire
used in Section 1, OSHA calculates total burden savings of 194,986
hours of workers' time. OSHA multiplied this burden savings estimate by
the fully loaded worker wage ($38.59; derived previously) to estimate
cost savings of $7,524,491. Annualizing this savings over 10 years
using 3 and 7 percent discount rates equals $882,100 and $1,071,318,
respectively.
Medical Exam Cost Savings if Baseline Compliance Were To Increase
OSHA assumes that 23 percent of the employees that have not
received a medical questionnaire identified in Section 4 will also not
receive follow-up medical exams and does not require a further
adjustment from 23 percent to 2 percent as was done in Section 2.
Therefore, OSHA estimates that 179,387 current employees will not
receive a follow-up medical exam given this regulatory revision. Given
an assumed one hour to complete these follow-up medical exams, OSHA
estimates an additional 179,387 hours of burden time saved by this
regulatory revision. Using a fully loaded worker wage of $38.59, the
one-time labor-based cost savings associated with these medical exams
equals $6,922,532. Again, using the CMS-based unit cost for medical
exams ($193.75), cost savings from the medical exams themselves equals
$34,756,170. Total one-time medical exam cost savings equal
$41,678,702. Annualizing these savings over 10 years using 3 and 7
percent discount rates equals $4,886,015 and $5,934,109, respectively.
Recordkeeping Cost Savings if Baseline Compliance Were To Increase
OSHA also considers cost savings associated with the medical
records for those employees who should have but who did not receive a
medical questionnaire or follow-up exam under the existing standard,
for whom medical records will not be recorded and maintained due to
this proposed revision. OSHA estimates that a total of 959,329 medical
records (779,942 medical questionnaires and 179,387 follow-up medical
exams) will no longer be needed to comply with this standard. OSHA
assumes each medical record would have taken five minutes to record in
recordkeeping systems. OSHA also assumes that 10 percent of employees
would have requested access to these medical records, taking an
additional five minutes per records request. These recordkeeping tasks
are estimated to take 87,936 burden hours in total. Using a secretary's
fully loaded wage of $37.00, OSHA estimates one-time recordkeeping cost
savings of $3,253,723. Using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent and a
time period of ten years, annualized cost savings equal $381,436 and
$463,257, respectively.
Total Cost Savings
Table 1 shows the total annualized cost savings associated with
regulatory revisions to this standard.
Table 1--Total Cost Savings From Respiratory Protection Standard Revisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized one-time cost Total annualized cost savings
One-time cost Annual cost savings -------------------------------
Item savings * savings --------------------------------
3% 7% 3% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questionnaires.......................................... $7,524,491 $11,575,237 $882,100 $1,071,318 $12,457,337 $12,646,556
Medical Exams........................................... 41,678,702 58,540,765 4,886,015 5,934,109 63,426,781 64,474,875
[[Page 28470]]
Recordkeeping........................................... 3,253,723 4,923,950 381,436 463,257 5,305,386 5,387,207
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 52,456,917 75,039,953 6,149,551 7,468,685 81,189,504 82,508,638
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The underlying assumption for these estimates is that, in the absence of the proposed rule, existing non-compliance would be addressed in a
concentrated period of time. However, there is substantial uncertainty about the accrual of these savings and, if such accrual occurs, about the
timing.
Source: OSHA DSG Office of Regulatory Analysis.
As indicated in Table 1, OSHA estimates the annualized cost savings
would be approximately $81 million at a 3 percent discount rate, or $83
million at a 7 percent discount rate. The agency further estimates that
the present value of those savings over the next 10 years would be $693
million at a 3 percent discount rate, or $704 million at a 7 percent
discount rate. The agency has estimated these cost savings will be
spread across 131,089 firms, of which 127,351 are considered ``small''
by the Small Business Administration.
Uncertainties and Request for Comment
The agency recognizes there is uncertainty in several areas in this
calculation. One is the estimate of current respirator usage, which
relies heavily on as a baseline from NIOSH's 2001 respirator survey,
adjusted for growth in employment.\7\ The agency has reasonable grounds
for believing that the use of FFRs has likely increased in the interim,
in part because of their common usage during the COVID-19 pandemic. If
this is the case, the cost savings from this regulatory change could
potentially be larger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In 2023, NIOSH was commissioned to develop and administer
and updated respirator usage survey. That effort is still underway
and the results are not available at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another source of uncertainty is the percentage of potential
respirator wearers who are referred for medical exams currently, based
on their answers to the questionnaire. A long-standing assumption, used
in the agency's Information Collection Requests, based on earlier
information originally used in its 1998 rulemaking, indicated that 23
percent of users of all respirator types would be referred for further
medical evaluation based on the questionnaire. But given both the low
rates of employees being placed on restrictions for respirator use, and
the relatively modest physiological demands of the type of respirators
in question, suggests the percentage may be much smaller for this
subgroup of respirator wearers (i.e., those using FFRs and loose-
fitting PAPRs).
A third potential factor of uncertainty is the assumption that all
employees newly hired will need to receive a new medical assessment for
their fitness to wear a respirator. This may have been a useful
assumption initially for establishing the economic feasibility of the
Respiratory Protection rule in 1998 and the agency believes that
frequently employers will err on the side of caution. However, under
some circumstances an employer may rely on the written medical
evaluation from a prior employer's PLHCP if the work conditions and
type and weight of the respirator remains the same (see Section IX.E of
OSHA's Respiratory Protection Directive, CPL 02-00-158 (June 26, 2014),
but OSHA lacks information on how often that might occur so cannot
account for this possibility in these estimates.
These various sources of uncertainty will offset each other to some
degree, and there are no doubt other parts of this cost-savings
calculation that could be modified based on new information. The agency
welcomes comment on the various assumptions and data sources used for
this calculation.
B. 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
the revisions would affect only minor changes to the existing
information collections in 29 CFR 1910.134 (OMB Control Number 1218-
0099), OMB has waived the requirements of 5 CFR part 1320 pursuant to 5
CFR 1320.18(d).
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.'' \1\
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.
[[Page 28471]]
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). OSHA has preliminarily determined 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 certifies 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 required. 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
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 is a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the criteria in section 3(f)(4) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this proposed rule was submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not an
economically significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of
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 involves the removal
of medical evaluation requirements for employees required to use PAPRs
and FFRs, 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.
C. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule
In this NPRM, OSHA proposes to remove medical evaluation
requirements for employees required to use filtering facepiece
respirators (FFRs) or loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators
(PAPRs), as specified in paragraph (e). As defined in paragraph (b), a
filtering facepiece respirator means a negative pressure particulate
respirator with a filter as an integral part of the facepiece or with
the entire facepiece composed of the filtering medium. Paragraph (b)
also defines loose-fitting to mean a respiratory inlet covering that is
designed to form a partial seal with the face and powered air-purifying
respirator to mean an air-purifying respirator that uses a blower to
force the ambient air through air-purifying elements to the inlet
covering. OSHA proposes that the initial medical evaluation
requirements would only be removed for FFRs and loose fitting PAPRs and
the medical evaluation requirements for any other air-purifying or
supplied-air respirator would not be impacted and still apply. All
other required provisions under the Respiratory Protection Standard (29
CFR 1910.134), including the hazard assessment; selection of
respiratory protection equipment; fit testing; training and education;
and maintenance and care continue to apply under this proposal. OSHA
anticipates that this approach will allow employers to focus medical
evaluations on employees for whom those evaluations are likely to be
beneficial.
Currently, paragraph (e)(1) requires the medical evaluation of
employees required to wear a respirator and a determination that those
employees are able to use the respirators selected by the employer.
Medical evaluation of employees prior to respirator use avoids exposing
employees to the physiological stresses associated with such use. In
the 1998 final rule revising the Respiratory Protection Standard (63 FR
1152), OSHA found that adverse health effects can result, in some
cases, even from short duration use of respirators. Through extensive
literature review, the agency previously concluded there is a potential
for adverse health effects resulting from respirator use, even for
healthy employees using respirators designed for low breathing
resistance and used for short durations. As such, the agency determined
that respirator use would impose a substantial risk of material
impairment to the health of employees who have preexisting respiratory
and cardiovascular impairments.
The proposed revision to the standard, as noted above, provides an
exception for employees who use FFRs or loose-fitting PAPRs from the
requirement that employers must medically evaluate employees required
to wear a respirator. OSHA believes these revisions are appropriate due
to the lack of data illustrating material impairment from wearing FFRs
and loose-fitting PAPRs and the lack of data demonstrating that medical
evaluations effectively predict adverse outcomes for workers wearing
FFRs and loose-fitting PAPRs, as discussed in the Health Literature
Background (Section IB. of this preamble). This lack of data is
combined with widespread usage of FFRs and loose fitting PAPRs,
especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately, the agency
preliminarily concludes that a finding that medical evaluations prevent
adverse outcomes
[[Page 28472]]
from the occupational use of FFRs and loose-fitting PAPRs is
unwarranted. While the agency does not question the need for medical
evaluations for other types of respirators, the literature does not
support their efficacy when using FFRs and loose-fitting PAPRs in
environments that are not immediately dangerous to life or health. As
such, proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii) exempts employees required to use
FFRs or loose-fitting PAPRs from the requirements of paragraph (e). The
agency seeks comments on all aspects of this proposed change, including
the submission of information and data on the efficacy of medical
evaluations preventing adverse health outcomes when using FFRs or
loose-fitting PAPRs. OSHA also seeks comment on voluntary respirator
use, specifically if there are any concerns with the voluntary use of
FFRs and loose-fitting PAPRs and the actions of this NPRM.
Paragraph(s) (e)(2) through (e)(7) would not be impacted by the
proposed exemption in paragraph (e)(1) for FFRs and loose-fitting
PAPRs. If medical evaluation is required under paragraph (e)(1), the
employer must comply with all requirements of paragraph (e). OSHA seeks
comment on whether paragraph (e)(7) should remain applicable to FFR and
loose-fitting PAPR use and require the employer to provide medical
evaluations whenever symptoms arise that may be related to this use as
well as any information or data on the current frequency of medical
reevaluations as required by paragraph (e)(7).
OSHA recognizes that adopting these revisions will also result in
the revision of the respiratory protection requirements in OSHA's
construction and maritime industry standards, which apply the
requirements in 29 CFR 1910.134 to construction and maritime work. (See
29 CFR 1926.103 (construction); 29 CFR 1915.154, 29 CFR 1917.92, and 29
CFR 1918.102 (maritime)). 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.
III. Authority and Signature
Amanda Laihow, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this document under
the authority granted by sections 4 and 6 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); section 107 of the
Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (the Construction Safety
Act) (40 U.S.C. 3704); section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Worker's
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); 5 U.S.C. 553, Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393), and 29 CFR part 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC, on June 26, 2025.
Amanda Laihow,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR 1910
Health, Occupational safety and health, Respirators, Respirator
selection.
IV. Proposed Regulatory Text
Amendments
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHA is proposing to
amend 29 CFR part 1910 as follows:
PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 1910 continues to read:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 941; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; 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 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR
55355), 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), or 08-2020 (85 FR 58393); 29 CFR part
1911; and 5 U.S.C. 553, as applicable.
Subpart I--Personal Protective Equipment.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1910.134 by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.134 Respiratory Protection.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) General. (i) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph,
the employer shall provide a medical evaluation to determine the
employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee is fit
tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace. The employer
may discontinue an employee's medical evaluations when the employee is
no longer required to use a respirator.
(ii) The medical evaluation requirements of this paragraph do not
apply to the following:
(A) The required use of filtering facepiece respirators.
(B) The required use of loose-fitting powered air-purifying
respirators.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-12235 Filed 6-30-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P