Opinion ID: 584066
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Material Impairment

Text: 26 In this rulemaking, OSHA grouped the 428 substances into eighteen categories by the primary health effects of those substances, for example, neuropathic effects, sensory irritation, and cancer. See 54 Fed.Reg. at 2402-03. Industry petitioners charge that for several categories of substances OSHA failed to adequately justify its determination that the health effects caused by exposure to these substances are material impairments. We disagree. 27 Petitioners cite the category of sensory irritation as a particularly egregious example. Id. at 2434. At the beginning of the discussion for each category, the agency summarized the types of health effects within that category, and discussed why those effects constituted material impairments. The Description of Health Effects for the sensory irritation category includes the following discussion: 28 The symptoms of sensory irritation include stinging, itching, and burning of the eyes, tearing (or lacrimation), a burning sensation in the nasal passages, rhinitis (nasal inflammation), cough, sputum production, chest pain, wheezing, and dyspnea (breathing difficulty).... 29 These effects may cause severe discomfort and can be seriously disabling, as is the case with dyspnea or wheezing. The tearing and eye irritation associated with exposure to sensory irritants are often severe and can be as disabling as the weeping caused by exposure to tear gas. In addition to these primary effects, workers distracted by material irritant effects are more likely than nonexposed workers to have accidents and thus to endanger both themselves and others. (These adverse health effects also clearly have substantial productivity impacts.) 30 .... 31 During the rulemaking, the question arose as to the level of irritation that constitutes a significant risk of material impairment.... Some commenters were of the opinion that transient irritant effects should not be considered material impairment of health.... 32 Most commentators, however, recommended that these signs and symptoms be regarded as material health impairments.... 33 .... 34 ... [A]ccording to NIOSH 16 sensory irritants interfere with job performance and safety, cause inflammation, may increase the victim's susceptibility to other irritants and infectious agents, lead to permanent injury or dysfunction, or permit greater absorption of hazardous substances. 35 .... 36 OSHA concludes that exposure limits are needed for those substances for which PELs are being established in this rulemaking to protect against sensory irritant effects that result in objective signs of irritation, such as coughing, wheezing, conjunctivitis, and tearing. Such levels of mucous membrane irritation may require medical treatment, adversely affect the well-being of employees, and place the affected individuals at risk from increased absorption of the substance and decreased resistance to infection. Exposing workers repeatedly to irritants at levels that cause subjective irritant effects 17 may cause workers to become inured to the irritant warning properties of these substances and thus increase the risk of overexposure. 37 54 Fed.Reg. at 2444-45 (citations omitted). In addition, in the more general discussion of OSHA's approach to this rulemaking, OSHA also recognized that 38 irritation also covers a spectrum of effects, some serious and some trivial. Hence, complaints of minor irritation would not in and of itself constitute material impairment. 39 In addition, OSHA would weigh irritation with physical manifestations more heavily than irritation with purely subjective responses. This does not mean that purely subjective responses would not constitute material impairment. That judgment would depend on the magnitude of the irritation. 40 Id. at 2362. We interpret this explanation as indicating that OSHA finds that although minor irritation may not be a material impairment, there is a level at which such irritation becomes so severe that employee health and job performance are seriously threatened, even though those effects may be transitory. We find this explanation adequate. OSHA is not required to state with scientific certainty or precision the exact point at which each type of sensory or physical irritation becomes a material impairment. Moreover, section 6(b)(5) of the Act charges OSHA with addressing all forms of material impairment of health or functional capacity, and not exclusively death or serious physical harm or grave danger from exposure to toxic substances. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 654(a)(1), 655(c). Overall, we find that OSHA's determinations of what constitute material impairments are adequately explained and supported in the record.