Opinion ID: 2641518
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Respirator Fit-Testing Citation

Text: OSHA also cited Shaw for failing to perform annual respirator fittesting. The respirator fit-testing regulation requires employers to “ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator is fit-tested prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece . . . is used, and at least annually thereafter.” § 1910.134(f)(2) (emphasis added). The annual fit-testing requirement is based on “the recognition that standardized fit-testing protocols greatly increase the effectiveness of respirators.” Respiratory Protection, 63 Fed. Reg. 1152, 1157 (Jan. 8, 1998) (codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.134). The parties do not contest that there was a sixteen-month gap between the initial fit-testing and the subsequent test for four of Shaw’s employees. Therefore, the only issue on appeal is whether § 1910.134(f)(2)’s requirement that testing be performed “at least annually” allows for this gap between testing. Shaw argues that “at least annually” requires that testing must occur at least once per calendar year. Therefore, under Shaw’s approach, because the initial fit-testing was performed in June 2007, its subsequent fit-testing in October 2008 was timely. Notably, under this interpretation an employer who performs testing in January would not be required to perform additional testing until December of the following year, thereby creating a twenty-three 6 Case: 12-60834 Document: 00512432611 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 No. 12-60834 month gap between fit-testing. Such an approach is unreasonable in light of the regulation’s plain language requiring testing “at least annually.” It would also subvert the regulation’s purpose of creating standardized testing protocols because it would allow for gaps ranging from twelve to twenty-three months between fit-testing. Conversely, the Secretary interprets this phrase as requiring fit-testing “no later than 365 days after the previous testing.” We defer to the Secretary’s interpretation of OSHA regulations when it “is consistent with the regulatory language and is otherwise reasonable.” Trinity Marine, 275 F.3d at 427 (emphasis omitted) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Interpreting “annually” to refer to a 365-day period, as advocated by the Secretary, is consistent with the regulation’s plain language and achieves the purpose of standardizing the fit-testing protocols by ensuring that there are not significant fluctuations in the amount of time between tests. 3 See 63 Fed. Reg. 1152, 1157. Therefore, because Shaw’s sixteen-month gap between fit-testing violated § 1910.134(f)(2)’s requirement that testing be performed “at least annually,” we affirm the ALJ’s order with respect to the fit-testing citation. Accordingly, Shaw’s petition for review is DENIED and the orders of the ALJ and the Commission are AFFIRMED. 3 While the regulation’s reference to “at least annually” cannot reasonably be interpreted to allow for a sixteen-month gap in testing, we leave for another day the question of whether a gap between testing of a year and a few days would violate § 1910.134(f)(2). 7