{"id":11050,"date":"2026-06-26T21:04:04","date_gmt":"2026-06-26T21:04:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/osha-proposes-new-rules-on-respiratory-protection-and-20-other-standards\/"},"modified":"2026-06-26T21:04:04","modified_gmt":"2026-06-26T21:04:04","slug":"osha-proposes-new-rules-on-respiratory-protection-and-20-other-standards","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/osha-proposes-new-rules-on-respiratory-protection-and-20-other-standards\/","title":{"rendered":"OSHA Proposes New Rules on Respiratory Protection and 20 Other Standards"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n

Seyfarth Synopsis: <\/strong>Federal OSHA has proposed new rulemakings seek to minimize respiratory protection requirements for employers which may require employers to update practices in 2026.  <\/em><\/p>\n

In June 2026, OSHA has advanced a proposal to amend the Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134) and scheduled virtual public hearings on this and other proposed rulemakings.<\/p>\n

1. What’s the Change to the Respiratory Protection Standard?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Under the current Respiratory Protection Standard, employees whose job duties might require them to use respirators must be medically evaluated, receive fit tests, and receive appropriate training.  Voluntary use of filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) can be allowed with special Appendix D training (and no medical evaluation or fit test), but only where there is no exposure to a respiratory hazard above an occupational exposure limit.<\/p>\n

OSHA’s proposed regulatory update would remove medical evaluation requirements for employees using filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), such as N95s, and loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs).  All other Respiratory Protection Standard program elements—hazard assessment, training, fit testing, and maintenance—would remain unchanged.<\/p>\n

2. Why the Change?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Medical evaluations ask detailed questions and require follow-up for a range of common respiratory and cardiovascular conditions, resulting in substantial administrative costs to employers. In practice, doctors rarely prohibit employees from donning FFRs (e.g. N-95 masks commonly worn during the pandemic) and PAPRs (which feed air into a mask and do not require negative pressure through a filter). Further, OSHA notes that FFRs and PAPRs impose minimal physiological burden in typical work conditions, and cites the limited evidence that medical evaluations improve safety outcomes for FFR and PAPR users.<\/p>\n

3. Potential Legal Claims Founded on Respirator Injuries<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Regardless of the alleged low physiological burden created by FFRs and PAPRs and the limited evidence of improved safety outcomes, the Respiratory Protection Standard’s medical evaluation requirements were founded on an understanding that respirator use could cause injuries to certain sensitive employees. Respirator use without medical evaluations could result in or coincide with physical injuries or mental health crises (e.g. claustrophobia from the confining mask of a PAPR). For direct employees, these incidents could result in unanticipated workers’ compensation claims. Staffing agency employees or third-party contractors could file tort claims against the host employer. <\/p>\n

4. Overlooked ADA liabilities?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Because workers who would only don an FFR or PAPR would no longer be required to have a medical evaluation performed, a policy that requires medical evaluations for these employees may constitute an unlawful medical inquiry under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, subjecting the employer to ADA liability.  Accordingly, the Respiratory Protection Standard revision may require employers to update their respiratory protection programs and analyze which types of respirators employees will use to ensure they can lawfully be medically evaluated.<\/p>\n

5. Additional Chemical Standard Proposed Changes<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

OSHA is also proposing rulemakings on regulations relating to 16 chemicals, to expand the types of permissible respirators. <\/p>\n

Chemical standards proposed for change include: 2-dibromo-3-chloropropane; 1, 3-Butadiene; 13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.); Acrylonitrile; Asbestos; Benzene; Cadmium; Coke Oven Emissions; Cotton Dust; Ethylene Oxide; Formaldehyde; Inorganic Arsenic; Lead; Methylene Chloride; Methylenedianiline; and Vinyl Chloride.<\/em><\/p>\n

6.  Fixed Ladder Proposed Changes<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

OSHA proposed amending the Walking Working Surface Standard with regard to fixed ladders to eliminate the November 18, 2036 deadline requiring employers to retrofit all existing fixed ladders over 24 feet with personal fall arrest or ladder safety systems.<\/p>\n

For questions on these issues or other workplace safety and environmental inquiries, contact your attorney from Seyfarth’s Workplace Safety and Environmental team.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Seyfarth Synopsis: Federal OSHA has proposed new rulemakings seek to minimize respiratory protection requirements for employers which may require employers to update practices in 2026.   In June […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[7230,1542,2811,8185,351,5682],"class_list":["post-11050","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-osha","tag-proposes","tag-protection","tag-respiratory","tag-rules","tag-standards"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11050","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11050"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11050\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11050"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11050"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11050"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}