As part of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s July 1, 2025 deregulatory efforts (read our client alert summarizing the actions here), the agency proposed a series of changes to chemical-specific respirator standards affecting multiple hazardous substances including asbestos, benzene, lead, cadmium, and ethylene oxide. The proposals were primarily aimed at consolidating substance-specific respirator requirements under OSHA’s general respiratory protection standard at 29 CFR 1910.134, which the agency contended would eliminate duplicative obligations without reducing worker protections. Additional proposed changes would expand compliance flexibility by permitting assigned protection factor (APF)-based respirator selection, allowing half-mask respirators paired with appropriate eye protection in circumstances currently requiring full-face masks, and authorizing a broader range of NIOSH-certified particulate filters in place of the HEPA filters expressly required under several existing standards.
OSHA’s Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH), a construction sector advisory panel, convened on May 19, 2026, to provide recommendations on the proposals and recommendations were generally divided. Notably, panel members split depending on their position as an employee or employer representative, and it was the public representative panelists who acted as swing votes in the committee’s recommendations. The panel narrowly supported relying on 1910.134 to determine when respirators are required for most of the covered substances and voted unanimously in favor of allowing alternate canister locations for benzene, ethylene oxide, and inorganic arsenic. However, ACCSH unanimously opposed the proposal to remove express HEPA filter requirements for substances such as asbestos, cadmium, lead, and inorganic arsenic. This position was similarly shared by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), which argued in written comments that not all NIOSH-certified particulate filters provide equivalent protection against submicron particles and fine asbestos fibers. ACCSH also deadlocked on whether to endorse the shift to APF-based requirements and consolidating chemical-specific respirator training into the general standard, in part because generalized training requirements may not convey the specific hazards associated with individual substances. ACCSH does not yet appear to have issued a formal recommendation on OSHA’s proposal to eliminate medical evaluation requirements for filtering facepiece respirators and loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators.
OSHA’s explanation memorandum (available for download here) states that the proposals are supported by advances in filtration technology since the chemical-specific standards were originally promulgated. The agency also emphasized that employers retain an obligation to conduct exposure assessments and select respirators appropriate to actual workplace hazard levels, providing a continued check on respirator adequacy regardless of which specific standard governs the selection.
Public hearings are expected and it is anticipated that worker safety organizations will continue to push back on the proposed changes. We will continue to follow this and other OSHA-proposed deregulatory efforts at the Corporate Environmental Lawyer.