Back to Federal guidance

Facial hair and tight-fitting respirators

Summary A member of Congress asked whether a worker could waive the no-beard requirement for a tight-fitting respirator. OSHA said individual releases could not exempt an employer from the respirator rule; a respirator without a face seal might be an option if appropriate. The page includes a 1999 correction to the quoted rule text.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1984-01-18
Date issued
January 18, 1984
Status
Active
Status last verified October 10, 2026

Apply this to your situation

This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.

About this page: The full text below is the official document from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.

January 18, 1984

Honorable James T. Broyhill
U.S. House of Representatives
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Congressman Broyhill:

Thank you for your letter of November 17, 1983, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Paul Abernathy, regarding shaving beards to wear respiratory protection equipment.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a standard on respiratory protection which employers are required to follow when their employees must wear respirators (29 CFR 1910.134). This standard states in part: ~~"Respirators shall not be worn when conditions prevent a good face seal. Such conditions may be a growth of beard...."~~

(Correction 3/30/99)

[(g)(1) Facepiece seal protection.

(i) The employer shall not permit respirators with tight-fitting facepieces to be worn by employees who have:
(A) Facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interferes with valve function; or
(B) Any condition that interferes with the face-to-facepiece seal or valve function.]

Mr. Abernathy's employer is apparently complying with this standard as required. It is not permissible to negotiate individual exemptions from such requirements by signing a release as suggested. There are certain types of respirators, however, which do not require a facepiece-to-face seal to function properly, for example, a supplied-air hood. Perhaps Mr. Abernathy can discuss with his employer whether or not such an alternative would be appropriate or feasible in his work situation. If not, however, and if Mr. Abernathy's job requires wearing a respirator which seals the facepiece to the face, no facial hair which interferes with that seal is permitted.

We hope this information will be helpful to you in responding to your constituent. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

R. Leonard Vance, Ph.D.
Director
Health Standards Programs

What does federal law require in your situation?

Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace