9402 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ADDRESSES: Comments (preferably in

triplicate) must be submitted to U.S.

Customs Service, ATTN: Regulations

Branch, Franklin Court, 1301

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

D.C. 20229, and may be inspected at the

Regulations Branch, 1099 14th Street,

NW., Suite 4000, Washington, D.C. All

comments submitted will be available

for public inspection in accordance with

the Freedom of Information Act (5

U.S.C. 552), § 1.4, Treasury Department

Regulations (31 CFR 1.4), and

§ 103.11(b), Customs Regulations (19

CFR 103.11(b)), between 9:00 a.m. and

4:30 p.m. on normal business days at

the latter address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Hegland, Office of Regulations and

Rulings, (202–482–7040).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Customs published a document in the

Federal Register on January 21, 1997

(62 FR 3082), inviting the public to

comment on proposed amendments to

its regulations regarding drawback.

Specifically, the document would revise

the regulations to implement the

extensive and significant changes to the

drawback law contained in the Customs

modernization portion of the North

American Free Trade Agreement

Implementation Act; change some

administrative procedures involving

manufacturing and unused merchandise

drawback; and generally simplify and

improve the editorial clarity of the

regulations.

A trade association comprised of

many members has submitted a request

to extend the period of time for

comments on the proposed rule for an

additional 30 days (until April 24,

1997), in order to have ample time to

disseminate to its membership the

proposed regulations, review them,

meet to discuss changes, and then to

prepare a uniform association position

in this regard.

Customs believes under the

circumstances that this request has

merit. Accordingly, the period of time

for the submission of comments is being

extended as requested.

Dated: February 26, 1997.

John A. Durant,

Acting Assistant Commissioner, Office of

Regulations and Rulings.

[FR Doc. 97–5145 Filed 2–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. S–052]

RIN 1218–AB55

Exit Routes (Means of Egress)

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Informal public hearing;

reopening of written comment period.

SUMMARY: This notice schedules an

informal public hearing regarding the

notice of proposed rulemaking which

OSHA issued on September 10, 1996 (61

FR 47712), concerning a proposed

revision of the Agency’s General

Industry standards for Means of Egress

(Subpart E of Part 1910). This notice

also reopens the comment period for

written responses to the proposed rule.

DATES: Notices of intention to appear at

the informal public hearing must be

postmarked by April 1, 1997. Hearing

participants requesting more than 10

minutes for their presentations, and

participants who will submit

documentary evidence at the hearing,

must submit the full text of their

testimony and all documentary

evidence to the Docket Office,

postmarked no later than April 14, 1997.

Written comments on the proposed

standard must also be postmarked by

April 14, 1997. The hearing will be held

in Washington, D.C. and is scheduled to

begin on April 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments, notices of

intention to appear at the informal

public hearing, testimony, and

documentary evidence are to be

submitted in quadruplicate to: Docket

Office, Docket S–052; Room N2625; U.S.

Department of Labor, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration, 200

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,

DC. 20210 (Telephone: 202–219–7894).

Written comments, notices of

intention to appear, testimony, and all

other material related to the

development of this proposed standard

will be available for inspection and

copying in the Docket Office, Room

N2625, at the above address.

The hearing will be held in C5521,

Seminar Room #4, of the U.S.

Department of Labor (Frances Perkins

Building), 200 Constitution Avenue

NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bonnie Friedman, Office of Information

and Consumer Affairs, U.S. Department

of Labor, Occupational Safety and

Health Administration, Room N3647;

200 Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20210 (202–219–8148,

FAX 202–219–5986).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On September 10, 1996, OSHA

published a notice in the Federal

Register (61 FR 47712) that proposed to

revise Subpart E of Part 1910, Means of

Egress. The purpose of the proposed

revision was to rewrite the existing

requirements of Subpart E in plain

English so they would be more

understandable to employers,

employees, and others who use them.

The proposal did not intend to change

the regulatory obligations of employers

or the safety and health protections

provided to employees.

Although OSHA recognized that some

portions of Subpart E may warrant

updating, the Agency did not propose to

update the requirements of Subpart E at

this time. Instead, the proposal focused

on rewriting the existing requirements

in order to be easier to read, understand,

and use. Toward this goal, the proposal

used performance-oriented

requirements where possible,

reorganized the text to keep subject

matter consistent, removed internal

inconsistencies, and eliminated

duplicate requirements. Additionally,

OSHA proposed to change the name of

Subpart E from ‘‘Means of Egress’’ to

‘‘Exit Routes.’’

OSHA also proposed two alternative

plain English versions of the revision to

Subpart E. The first version was

organized in the traditional OSHA

regulatory format. The second version

used a question and answer format.

OSHA invited interested parties to

comment on the content and

effectiveness of the proposed changes

and on the plain English version of

Subpart E that they preferred. The

Agency established a comment period of

60 days for interested parties to submit

written comments and to request a

hearing on the proposed revision to

Subpart E.

II. Response to Proposed Revision of

Subpart E

The Agency received a total of 59

written comments in response to the

proposed revision of Subpart E. A vast

majority of the commenters supported

the concept of rewriting the existing

requirements of Subpart E in ‘‘plain

English,’’ even though many of these

commenters suggested various means of

improving the revision to Subpart E. A

large majority of commenters also

preferred the ‘‘traditional’’ format rather
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules 9403

than the ‘‘question and answer’’ format.

These commenters believe that the

‘‘question and answer’’ format may be

appropriate for an appendix, but that

the ‘‘traditional’’ format is clearer,

makes it easier to locate answers to

specific questions, and is easier to

follow and understand.

Two of the commenters, the National

Fire Protection Association (Ex. 5: 18)

and Hallmark Cards (Ex.5: 51),

requested a hearing in order to allow for

a dialogue among life safety

professionals; to have greater public

involvement in the rulemaking process;

and, to facilitate a full discussion of

certain important issues.

Accordingly, OSHA has decided to

schedule an informal public hearing in

order to facilitate a full discussion of the

proposed revision, and to address

certain important issues resulting from

the comments.

OSHA is scheduling a hearing only in

Washington, DC. The hearing will

commence on Tuesday, April 29, 1997.

The Agency is also reopening the

rulemaking record for Subpart E until

April 1, 1997, to receive additional

written comments on the proposed

revision.

III. Hearing Issues

1. Most of the commenters suggested

that OSHA either adopt, in total, the

latest edition of the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) Life

Safety Code (NFPA–101); reference

NFPA–101 for specific ways of meeting

the performance requirements of the

proposed standard; or, state in the

regulatory text of the standard, or in the

appendix to the standard, that

compliance with NFPA–101 meets the

requirements of the OSHA Subpart E

standard. Should OSHA utilize one of

these approaches? If so, how should the

Agency implement the approach,

especially with respect to periodic

future revisions of NFPA–101? For

example, if OSHA adopted a specific

edition of NFPA–101, such as the 1994

edition, then the Subpart E provisions

would not keep pace with future

editions of NFPA–101. On the other

hand, OSHA cannot actually adopt

NFPA–101 as an OSHA standard

without specifying a particular edition

because of delegation restraints. OSHA

is required to conduct rulemaking to

update its standards, and this

requirement would apply to any future

changes to NFPA–101 if it were to be

adopted as an OSHA standard.

2. One commenter strongly asserted

that OSHA should base its standard on

the model building codes, such as the

Building Officials and Code

Administrators International (BOCA)

Code or the International Conference of

Building Officials (ICBO) Code, rather

than the NFPA Life Safety Code.

Many of the same issues apply here as

those discussed above with regard to

adopting NFPA–101. OSHA would like

to receive information and testimony

regarding the role of model building

codes in the revision to Subpart E,

including how, and if, the Agency

should utilize these codes in the final

rule.

3. Several commenters expressed

concern that the performance-oriented

nature of the proposed requirements

may result in compliance problems.

OSHA is interested in receiving

comments as to whether some of the

proposed requirements are so

performance-oriented that they would

not be easily enforced. Also, could some

of the proposed provisions be

interpreted in ways that would be

inconsistent with previous

interpretations relied on by OSHA or

other authorities?

4. There were differing views

regarding OSHA’s proposed provisions

dealing with exit capacity and the

number of exits considered to be

adequate for a workplace building.

Some commenters supported the

Agency’s performance-oriented

approach because they believe that

OSHA standards should contain only

general criteria for exit routes and that

the more specific criteria pertaining to

the number of exits and the capacity of

exits are more appropriately enforced

through local building and fire codes.

Other commenters opposed OSHA’s

approach because they believe that

some of the proposed provisions are too

general. These commenters suggested

that OSHA reinstate more definitive

criteria with respect to the number of

exits and exit capacity for different

types of workplaces.

OSHA requests information,

comments, and testimony concerning

the most appropriate and effective

means of addressing exit capacity and

the number of exits that need to be

available in the broad array of

workplaces covered by the OSHA

standard, whether the workplace is a

tower, single story building, or

multistory building.

5. Several commenters disagreed with

OSHA’s proposed requirements for exit

signs because the proposed version does

not specify minimum physical

characteristics for exit signs. These

commenters contend that the

requirements are too general and would

create compliance problems for

employers. Should OSHA retain specific

criteria for exit signs? If so, what criteria

should OSHA use?

6. Similarly, some commenters

believe that the revised requirements for

exit illumination are also too general

and would result in compliance

problems for employers. Should OSHA

include specific criteria for the

illumination of exits and exit signs?

7. Although OSHA has attempted to

rewrite Subpart E in order to clarify and

simplify requirements, are there

provisions or terms that are still too

technical or difficult to understand? If

so, please identify the provision or term

and suggest a recommended action.

8. OSHA did not intend the proposed

revision of Subpart E to impose any

compliance obligations on employers

beyond those imposed by existing

Subpart E. Did OSHA achieve that goal,

or would employers following the

proposed revision be required to change

their current practices in any way? If so,

which proposed requirements would

impose new obligations and how would

they do so?

9. Do any of the proposed

requirements provide greater safety and

health protections for employees? If yes,

which requirements do so and how

would they provide additional

protection to employees?

10. Do any of the proposed

requirements present technological

feasibility problems for affected

employers? If yes, which requirements

do so and what problems do they

present?

OSHA invites comments and

testimony on these issues and any other

issues pertaining to the proposed

revision of Subpart E.

Public Participation

Interested persons are requested to

submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the proposal of

September 10, 1996, and the additional

issues raised in this document. These

comments must be postmarked by April

14, 1997, and submitted in

quadruplicate to the Docket Office,

Docket No. S–052 Room N2625, U.S.

Department of Labor, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration, 200

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

DC. 20210.

All written comments received within

the specified comment period will be

made a part of the record and will be

available for public inspection and

copying at the above Docket Office

address.

Notice of Intention To Appear at the

Informal Hearing

Pursuant to section 6(b)(3) of the

Occupational Safety and Health Act, an

opportunity to submit oral testimony

concerning the issues raised by the
9404 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules

proposed standard will be provided at

an informal public hearing to be held in

Washington, DC. on April 29, 1997, and

extending through May 1, 1997,

depending on the number of persons

intending to participate in the hearing.

The hearing will commence at 9:30

a.m. on April 29, 1997, in C5521,

Seminar Room #4, of the Frances

Perkins Building, U.S. Department of

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC. 20210.

All persons desiring to participate in

the hearing must file in quadruplicate a

notice of intention to appear,

postmarked on or before April 1, 1997.

The notice of intention to appear, which

will be available for inspection and

copying at the OSHA Docket Office

(Room N2625), telephone (202) 219–

7894, must contain the following

information:

1. The name, address, and telephone

number of each person to appear;

2. The capacity in which the person

will appear;

3. The approximate amount of time

required for the presentation;

4. The issues that will be addressed;

5. A brief statement of the position

that will be taken with respect to each

issue; and,

6. Whether the party intends to

submit documentary evidence and, if so,

a brief summary of it.

The notice of intention to appear shall

be mailed to: Docket Office, Docket S–

052, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

DC. 20210; telephone (202) 219–7894.

A notice of intention to appear also

may be transmitted by facsimile to (202)

219–5046 (Attention: Docket S–052), by

the same date, provided the original and

3 copies are sent to the same address

and postmarked no more than 3 days

later.

Filing of Testimony and Evidence

Before the Hearing

Any party requesting more than 10

minutes for a presentation at the

hearing, or who will submit

documentary evidence, must provide in

quadruplicate, the complete text of the

testimony, including any documentary

evidence to be presented at the hearing.

One copy shall not be stapled or bound

and be suitable for copying. These

materials must be provided to the

Docket Office at the address above and

be postmarked no later than April 14,

1997.

Each such submission will be

reviewed in light of the amount of time

requested in the notice of intention to

appear. In those instances when the

information contained in the

submission does not justify the amount

of time requested, a more appropriate

amount of time will be allocated and the

participant will be notified of that fact

prior to the informal public hearing.

Any party who has not substantially

complied with this requirement may be

limited to a 10 minute presentation, and

may be requested to return for

questioning at a later time.

Any party who has not filed a notice

of intention to appear may be allowed

to testify for no more than 10 minutes

as time permits, at the discretion of the

Administrative Law Judge, but will not

be allowed to question witnesses.

Notice of intention to appear,

testimony, and evidence will be

available for copying at the Docket

Office at the address above.

Conduct and Nature of the Hearing

The hearing will commence at 9:30

a.m. on April 29, 1997. At that time, any

procedural matters pertaining to the

proceeding will be resolved.

The nature of an informal rulemaking

hearing is established in the legislative

history of section 6 of the Occupational

Safety and Health Act and is reflected

by OSHA’s rules of procedure for

hearings (29 CFR 1911.15(a)). Although

the presiding officer is an

Administrative Law Judge, and limited

questioning by persons who have filed

notices of intention to appear is allowed

on crucial issues, the proceeding is

informal and legislative in type. The

Agency’s intent, in essence, is to

provide interested persons with an

opportunity to make effective oral

presentations that can proceed

expeditiously in the absence of

procedural restraints that impede or

protract the rulemaking process.

Additionally, since the hearing is

primarily for information gathering and

clarification, it is an informal

administrative proceeding rather than

one of an adjudicative nature.

The technical rules of evidence, for

example, do not apply. The regulations

that govern hearings and the pre-hearing

guidelines to be issued for this hearing

will ensure fairness and due process

and also facilitate the development of a

clear, accurate, and complete record.

Those rules and guidelines will be

interpreted in a manner that furthers

that development. Thus, questions of

relevance, procedure, and participation

generally will be decided so as to favor

development of the record.

The hearing will be conducted in

accordance with 29 CFR Part 1911. It

should be noted that § 1911.4 specifies

that the Assistant Secretary may, upon

reasonable notice, issue alternative

procedures to expedite proceedings or

for other good cause.

The hearing will be presided over by

an Administrative Law Judge who

makes no decision or recommendation

on the merits of OSHA’s proposal. The

responsibility of the Administrative Law

Judge is to ensure that the hearing

proceeds at a reasonable pace and in an

orderly manner. The Administrative

Law Judge, therefore, will have all of the

powers necessary and appropriate to

conduct a full and fair informal hearing

as provided in 29 CFR 1911, including

the powers:

1. To regulate the course of the

proceedings;

2. To dispose of procedural requests,

objections, and comparable matters;

3. To confine the presentations to the

matters pertinent to the issues raised;

4. To regulate the conduct of those

present at the hearing by appropriate

means;

5. At the Judge’s discretion, to

question and permit the questioning of

any witness and to limit the time for

questioning; and,

6. At the Judge’s discretion, to keep

the record open for a reasonable, stated

time (known as the post-hearing

comment period) to receive written

information and additional data, views,

and arguments from any person who has

participated in the oral proceedings.

OSHA recognizes that there may be

interested persons who, through their

knowledge of safety or their experience

in the subject matter of this proceeding,

would wish to endorse or support

certain provisions in the proposed

standard. OSHA welcomes such

supportive comments in order that the

record of this rulemaking will present a

balanced picture of the public response

on the issues involved.

Signed at Washington, DC. this 26th day of

February 1997.

Gregory R. Watchman,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 97–5176 Filed 2–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Parts 56, 57, 62, 70, and 71

RIN 1219–AA53

Health Standards for Occupational

Noise Exposure

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health

Administration, (MSHA) Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; change of dates

for hearings.

SUMMARY: Due to a scheduling conflict,

MSHA is changing the dates of two of

the public hearings announced in the