Today, the Institute of Hazardous Materials Management [IHMM] filed comments on two OSHA proposed rulemakings. As always, the Institute prefaces its comments on proposed regulations with an introduction to the subject matter experts who are the certificants of IHMM, along with our accredited credentials, recertification requirements, and professional development activities. The Institute thanks the subject matter experts who contributed to the construction of these comments, as they are a critical resource for our ability to speak with government.

  1. Interpretation of the General Duty Clause: Limitation for Inherently Risky Professional Activities – OSHA–2025–0720

OSHA is proposing a formal reinterpretation of the General Duty Clause (29 S.C. 654(a)(1)), clarifying that it does not allow enforcement against hazards that are inherent and inseparable from professional, performance-based activities, such as those in sports, entertainment, animal handling, or motorsports

  • The rule would add a new section (29 CFR 7) stating that OSHA cannot cite employers under the General Duty Clause for such inherently risky activities—provided:
    1. The risk is integral to the job,
    2. Removing it would fundamentally alter the activity,
    3. The employer has made reasonable efforts (e.g., PPE, controls)

 

2. Amending the Medical Evaluation Requirements in the Respiratory Protection Standard for Certain Types of Respirators – OSHA–2025–0006-0013
  • OSHA is proposing to eliminate the mandatory medical evaluation requirement under 29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1) for workers using filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) (e.g., N95s) and loose‑fitting powered air‑purifying respirators (PAPRs)
  • The rest of the Respiratory Protection Standard remains intact: hazard assessment, respirator selection, fit testing, training, maintenance, recordkeeping, etc.
  • OSHA argues that existing evidence does not show a material health benefit from medical evaluations for those respirator types, even after widespread use during COVID-19, and that only a small percentage (~1–2 %) of workers were restricted or denied respirator use based on such evaluations.