Opinion ID: 74019
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Change Schedule Requirement for Air-Purifying Respirators

Text: 29 We turn next to the Industry's challenge to the conditions expressed in 29 C.F.R. 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(B) on the use of air-purifying respirators. By way of background, there are two categories of respirators. First, there are atmosphere-supplying respirators (ASRs), which suppl[y] the respirator user with breathing air from a source independent of the ambient atmosphere, e.g., an oxygen tank. 29 C.F.R. 1910.134(b). Second, there are air-purifying respirators (APRs), which use the air from the ambient atmosphere but are equipped with a filter, cartridge, or canister designed to remove air contaminants before they reach the user and are inhaled. Id. The main shortcoming associated with APRs is that the filters, cartridges, or canisters generally have a limited lifetime and may cease to function properly without the user's knowledge, thereby exposing the user to toxic contaminants. This situation is sometimes called the breakthrough problem. Of course, the breakthrough problem is avoided entirely by the use of [ASRs]. Such respirators do not rely on filter sorbents and instead deliver clean outside air to the wearer's respirator. 63 Fed. Reg. at 1204. The Industry generally prefers APRs because they are cheaper and interfere less with workplace duties. 30 The Standard provides that in workplace atmospheres that are not immediately dangerous to life and health (non-IDLH), an APR may be used only if one of two conditions is met. 29 C.F.R. 1910.134(d)(3)(iii). First, an APR may be used if it is equipped with an end-of-service-life indicator (ESLI); the parties agree that this is very rare because there are only a few certified ESLIs. 29 C.F.R. 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(B)(1). Second and alternatively, an APR may be used if the employer implements a change schedule for canisters and cartridges that is based on objective information or data that will ensure that canisters and cartridges are changed before their end of service life. 29 C.F.R. 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(B)(2). The Industry's disagreement with OSHA centers on this latter condition (Change Schedule Condition), which it feels is overly stringent and unnecessarily limits the use of APRs. 31 The Change Schedule Condition approach was selected by OSHA to the exclusion of a competing approach, discussed in the proposed standard and drawn from prior informal practice. The prior practice relied on a totally different criterion: whether the substance in question had adequate warning properties. Adequate warning properties are characteristics, for example gaseous odor or skin irritation, that would alert a user to the fact that the cartridge or canister had reached the end of service life and was no longer working properly. If the user would be alerted to a malfunction, the reasoning went, there would be no risk of contamination because the user could then promptly change the cartridge or canister. The Standard abandons the reliance on adequate warning properties in favor of the more objective criteria of ESLIs and change schedules. 63 Fed. Reg. at 1204-07. As OSHA explains, there is too much variation between individuals [in perception of sensory thresholds], . . . there is no good screening mechanism to identify persons with sensory receptor problems, and ... employees [would] be overexposed to hazardous air contaminants. Id. at 1204. The new conditions are admittedly narrow because (1) ESLIs are extremely rare; and (2) the breakthrough test data upon which change schedules are generally based are notavailable for many hazardous gases and vapors. In the issuing release, OSHA conceded that breakthrough test data are scarce, and implied that to some extent the Standard is technology-forcing: [R]espirator manufacturers, chemical manufacturers, and even [the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health] must provide more information about how long respirator cartridges and canisters can be expected to provide protection for employees. Id. at 1205. The Industry argues that the Change Schedule Condition leads to an overwhelming preference for ASRs that may actually increase the risk of accidents because ASRs tend to be bulky and cumbersome, and employees in some lines of work are accustomed to using APRs. According to the Industry, these problems with ASRs represent an important aspect of the problem which OSHA entirely failed to consider. See generally Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42, 103 S. Ct. 2856, 2867, 77 L.Ed.2d 443(1983). 32 OSHA responds that the Change Schedule Condition does not automatically favor ASRs. In fact, compared to the adequate-warning-properties approach, the Change Schedule Condition in some ways permits wider use of APRs. Whereas under the prior regime APRs could be used only if the toxic substance carried adequate warning properties, now APRs can be used even if there are no warning properties, provided that a reliable change schedule is in place. Thus, the Change Schedule Condition restricts the use of APRs in some ways but expands the use of them in others. OSHA further contends that the Industry's concerns about weight and mobility problems associated with ASRs are overstated. Finally, OSHA notes that even if breakthrough data are not widely available, employers may rely on other information, for example, change schedule recommendations from respirator manufacturers, as long as that information is reliable. OSHA also calls on the respirator industry to disseminate change schedule information more widely and effectively. 63 Fed. Reg. at 1205. 33 Because the Industry's challenge to the Change Schedule Condition is exclusively factual in nature, our review is limited to whether OSHA's determinations are supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. 29 U.S.C. 655(f). After reviewing the record, we conclude that OSHA's decision to replace the subjective adequate-warning-properties approach with the Change Schedule Condition is supported by substantial evidence. There was a consensus among commentors that inherent unreliability problems exist with odor and irritation thresholds. See 63 Fed. Reg. at 1204-06. Change schedules based on objective information or data better promote worker safety by ensuring on a consistent basis that APRs are properly serviced and maintained. Moreover, the record belies the Industry's argument that OSHA entirely failed to consider the fact that ASRs tend to be bulky and cumbersome. The record reflects that OSHA did consider the uncomfortableness and mobility restrictions causedby APRs and weighed those factors in the balance. 63 Fed. Reg. at 1204 (quoting Associated Builders and Contractors' comment). Thus, the factual determinations and policy choices underlying the Change Schedule Condition are consistent with the OSH Act and supported by substantial evidence. 34