[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9402-9404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5176]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 9404]]

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 Sec. 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