Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/11/07/02-27251/exit-routes-emergency-action-plans-and-fire-prevention-plans
Timestamp: 2019-05-26 07:16:03
Document Index: 72453583

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', 'art 1910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', 'art 1910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', 'art 1910', 'art 1911', 'art 1911', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', 'art\n9', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', 'art 1911', 'art 1911', 'art 1911', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910']

Federal Register :: Exit Routes, Emergency Action Plans, and Fire Prevention Plans
A Rule by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on 11/07/2002
The final rule becomes effective December 9, 2002.
67949-67965 (17 pages)
1218-AB82
02-27251
Appendix A to § 1910.272 Grain Handling Facilities
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/02-27251 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/02-27251
Start Preamble Start Printed Page 67950
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is revising its standards for means of egress. The purpose of this revision is to rewrite the existing requirements in clearer language so they will be easier to understand by employers, employees, and others who use them.
Also, OSHA is changing the name of the subpart from “Means of Egress” to “Exit Routes, Emergency Action Plans, and Fire Prevention Plans” to better describe the contents.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates the Associate Solicitor of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of the Solicitor of Labor, Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 to receive petitions for review of the final rule.
OSHA, Ms. Bonnie Friedman, Director, Office of Public Affairs, N-3647, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999. For additional copies of this Federal Register document, contact: OSHA, Office of Publications, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3103, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1888.
References to comments and testimony in the rulemaking record (Docket S-052) are found throughout the text of the preamble. In the preamble comments are identified by an assigned exhibit number as follows: “Ex. 5-1” means Exhibit 5-1 in Docket S-052. For quoted material in the preamble, the page number where the quote can be located is included if other than page one. The transcript of the public hearing is cited by the page number as follows: Tr. 37. A list of the exhibits, copies of the exhibits, and transcripts are available in the OSHA Docket Office.
In 1971 and 1972, OSHA adopted hundreds of national consensus and established Federal standards under section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Section 6(a) allowed the Agency to adopt these standards for a limited period of time without going through traditional rulemaking. Many of these “start-up standards” have been criticized for being overly wordy, difficult to understand, repetitive and internally inconsistent.
OSHA discovered during the review process that some provisions of subpart E were outdated and not consistent with contemporary fire safety options in then current NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, 1994 Edition. Where it was possible to expand permissible employer compliance options without lessening employee safety, the proposal included these expanded options. For example, OSHA incorporated NFPA 101, 1994 Edition, the Life Safety Code's option to exit to a refuge area rather than to the outside (proposed paragraph 1910.36(f)(3)). The proposal also permitted the use of self-luminous and electroluminescent exit signs (proposed paragraph 1910.37(c)(6)). (E.g., Exs. 5-18, 40, 45, 54.) The proposal enabled employers to avail themselves of these Start Printed Page 67951newer options or continue with current compliance methods. In this way OSHA increased compliance flexibility without reducing safety.
OSHA did not substitute performance-oriented language for current language where doing so would either eliminate a requirement that protects employee safety and health, or expand an employer's compliance obligation. For example, the proposal continued the existing requirement that a means of egress must be at least 28 inches wide (proposed paragraph 1910.37(j)). The Agency chose not to substitute performance-oriented criteria for this provision (such as “means of egress be of adequate width to support building occupants”) because this change would eliminate the existing minimum width specification and might not provide adequate protection to employees leaving the workplace in an emergency. For this reason, OSHA decided not to revise the minimum clearance requirement.
Other significant revisions to subpart E include: Removal of obligations that are not related to employee protection but pertain to the protection of the general public, and the deletion of any recommended as opposed to required actions (i.e., provisions that use “should” or “may”).
The majority of commenters supported OSHA's use of plain language. Owens Manufacturing, Inc. (Ex. 5-1) stated they were “in favor of this change as it allows the production people in our manufacturing area to understand the scope and meaning of this regulation much easier.” United Refining Company (Ex. 5-2) remarked “For those individuals who occasionally reference a standard the Plain English version will be beneficial.” The commenter from Medical Environment, Inc. (Ex. 5-7) stated “I commend your actions in correcting the highly technical language into wording that is understandable to the average person. I have read your proposed changes, and find them to be significantly improved.” The Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits (IPC) (Ex. 5-25) observed that:
Given IPC members' commitment to advancing employee health and safety, IPC applauds OSHA's proposed Means of Egress rule. The proposed changes are designed to make the standard more understandable and, therefore promote industry compliance. “Translating” OSHA's current regulations into “plain English” is an outstanding activity that should be aggressively applied to ALL federal regulations—not just OSHA regulations, and IPC supports OSHA's actions to effect such change.
[I]s pleased to see the Occupational Safety and Health Administration attempt to develop plain English standards. This International Union feels that this approach to safety and health standards will enable our members and other workers across the Start Printed Page 67952country to better understand their OSHA rights and their employer's obligations.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, Ex. 5-42) also supported the effort observing that “By revising the Means of Egress rule in easy to understand terms as part of a shorter, performance-oriented standard, the standard will be easier to use and provide more compliance options for employers.”
On the other hand, some commenters did object to the revision of subpart E on the grounds either that it was not productive for OSHA to re-write these standards, or that the revised language actually changed the requirements. For example, James R. Hutton, a fire protection engineer (Ex. 5-9), believed the “proposed revisions will complicate and cause more difficulties, not less, for smaller businesses who do not have the resources to undergo the time or expense required to develop “custom solutions” to “plain English” requirements.” OSHA disagrees. The revised subpart E only makes compliance requirements clearer and it refers employers and employees to NFPA 101 for added details, when necessary.
NFPA agrees with several of the goals as contained in the OSHA/NPRM but find serious flaws in the methodology being proposed to attain these goals. Specifically, NFPA applauds OSHA's goal “to maintain the safety and health protection provided to employees by subpart E * * *” and “to create a regulation that is easily understood.” We also applaud OSHA's desire “to allow employers the flexibility of relying on more contemporary compliance approaches.”
However, we do not believe these goals can be achieved by either “plain English” alternative taken together or separately as being proposed by OSHA in the NPRM. Specifically, NFPA recommends OSHA abandon its attempt to rewrite a 25-year old standard as represented in the first alternative of the NPRM * * *.
OSHA has evaluated NFPA 101-2000 and has concluded that an employer who complies with the provisions of that code for means of egress will provide employees with safety that is comparable with compliance with OSHA's revised Exit Routes standard. OSHA is adding a new § 1910.35 to the final rule to recognize NFPA 101-2000 in this regard.
The South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation (Ex. 5-49, p.2) remarked that “It is a shame to spend this amount of time to adjust the wording when the whole standard is in need of repair.”
Others criticized the proposal, feeling that it did not achieve its stated goal. For example, the American Health Care Association (Ex. 53) indicated that by “Developing new terminology for traditional means of egress requirements, we firmly believe, is a step backward and counter to OSHA's stated goal of creating a regulation that is easily understood.” The United Steelworkers of America (Ex. 5-69) objected “to the very general performance language of this proposal. The language gives little, if any direction to employers and employees on how to comply with this proposed standard * * * Further, the proposed standard is somewhat confusing.” (See also Exs. 5-33, 38, 40, 62, 66-68, 71).
OSHA does not agree with commenters who have concluded that OSHA has failed to meet its goals of (1) maintaining the safety and health protection provided to employees by subpart E without increasing the regulatory burden; (2) creating a regulation that is easily understood; and, (3) stating employers' obligations in performance-oriented language to the extent possible. Many commenters suggested improvements and language changes. Unfortunately in some cases the recommendations would have made substantive changes in the requirements of subpart E (e.g., Exs. 5-4, 11, 18, 21, Start Printed Page 6795324, 40, 47, 49, 63). OSHA has considered and incorporated many comments that improve the clarity of the text, without making substantive changes in the obligations and protections offered by existing subpart E. The final rule as revised and reorganized, incorporates many commenter suggestions. OSHA strongly believes the final rule fulfills its goal of providing employers and employees with much clearer standards in subpart E. In addition, as already discussed, employers may take advantage of a more recent version of NFPA 101 under § 1910.35 which recognizes compliance with the 2000 Edition of the Life Safety Code.
In response to comments, OSHA has changed the name of subpart E to better reflect the contents of the final rule. OSHA proposed to call the subpart “Exit Routes,” but several commenters (Exs. 5-24, 40, 45) noted that the subpart contains provisions not only for exit routes but also for emergency action plans, and fire prevention plans. OSHA agrees with these commenters and has therefore changed the name of subpart E to reflect its coverage of Exit Routes, Emergency Action Plans, and Fire Prevention Plans.
In the preamble to the proposal OSHA stated that it included a table of contents to make it easier to access the provisions. The table was inadvertently left out of the proposed regulatory language in the Federal Register notice. OSHA believes that a table of contents will be helpful to employers and employees in locating provisions in the subpart and therefore, is including a table of contents in § 1910.33.
Commenters who addressed this issue indicated a preference for the traditional regulatory format as opposed to the question and answer format. For example, Medical Environment, Inc. (Ex. 5-7) supported the traditional “regulatory format, because this is what everyone is used to seeing. The question/answer format seemed too “loose” to find an answer to a specific question.” Similarly, the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) (Ex. 5-22) believed “that the “traditional” plain English version is the preferred version. In contrast, we find that the question and answer format quickly becomes condescending, and to a degree, annoying.”
Additional comments ranged from remarks that OSHA should do nothing, revise subpart E and reference NFPA 101, or adopt NFPA 101 entirely (Exs. 5-10, 18, 28, 38, 41, 47, 53, 62, 66, 68, 71). The subject of how to address NFPA 101 in the plain language revision was also issue 1 in the hearing notice (at 62 FR 9403). Liberty Mutual Insurance Group (Ex. 5-19) recommended that OSHA “include a provision that compliance with a national consensus standard such as NFPA 101, Life Safety Code * * *would be recognized as compliance with the OSHA standard.” The Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) stated that it believed that “it is essential for OSHA to add appendix language stating that compliance with the Life Safety Codes NFPA 101, constitutes compliance with subpart E. Current OSHA practices essentially recognize this now (Tr. 23).”
OSHA's intention in the proposed rule was to simplify subpart E, not to replace it. First, OSHA could not simply adopt “NFPA 101” as an OSHA standard, because it can only consider versions of that standard that are currently in existence. To do otherwise (i.e., attempting to approve a future edition) would result in an illegal delegation of agency authority. Second, adoption of NFPA 101-2000 as the OSHA standard goes beyond the limited purpose of this rulemaking. Such action would involve substantive rulemaking, including detailed analysis of the differences between OSHA current rules and NFPA 101-2000, including costs to employers and benefits to employees.
As discussed earlier, OSHA has reviewed NFPA 101-2000 and has determined that compliance with that standard will provide comparable protection to subpart E. Although the Agency is not adopting NFPA 101-2000, an employer who demonstrates compliance with that standard will be deemed to be in compliance with §§ 1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37 of subpart E. Many commenters (e.g., Exs. 5-10, 18, 19, 41, 46, 48, 61) supported language that would allow employers to comply with the NFPA 101 standard as an alternative to the OSHA standard for Exit Routes. OSHA has incorporated such language into § 1910.35 of the final rule.
OSHA emphasizes again that it did not propose to substantively revise subpart E, nor did it propose to allow the use of building codes to comply with subpart E. OSHA is not familiar enough with the detailed requirements Start Printed Page 67954of the various building codes to determine unequivocally whether compliance with any or all of them could be considered to fulfill employer obligations imposed by subpart E. Moreover the contents of these building codes were not analyzed, evaluated or considered as part of this rulemaking. The BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI Codes vary considerably in their requirements and coverage relating to areas covered by subpart E. This rulemaking was not designed to address these differences, nor was it intended to expand the coverage of subpart E. Accordingly, OSHA declines to extend recognition to building codes as a means of determining compliance with subpart E. This decision only involves the narrow issue of whether compliance with a given building code demonstrates compliance with subpart E. OSHA recognizes and acknowledges the importance and the value of building codes in assuring that buildings are constructed safely.
In the proposal, § 1910.35 was entitled “Coverage.” It noted that all general industry employers were covered by subpart E, and that “exits” and “exit routes” were covered. The section went on to define these unique terms in the proposal. OSHA has retitled this section as “coverage and definitions,” and has moved it to § 1910.34 of the final rule. The “coverage” paragraph, § 1910.34(a), specifies that the standard covers all workplaces in general industry except mobile workplaces. Paragraph (b) sets forth the “coverage” of the subpart: The minimum requirements for exit routes, emergency action plans, and fire prevention plans. Paragraph (c) of § 1910.34 includes the definitions pertinent to the subpart.
In the proposal, OSHA included definitions for “Exit” and “Exit Route,” eliminating all other definitions, believing they were unnecessary. However, commenters thought that OSHA went too far by not defining other terms or inappropriately failed to define other important terms (e.g., Exs. 5-18, 21, 24, 28, 41, 45, 47, 49.) After due consideration, OSHA agrees with these commenters and in the final rule (now paragraph 1910.34(c)) has added and clarified definitions for words used in the proposal that commenters found unclear. OSHA has clarified the terms “exit” and “exit route” and has added definitions for electroluminescent, exit access, exit discharge, high hazard area, occupant load, refuge area, and self-luminous.
One commenter, IMC Global, Inc. (Ex. 5-54), suggested that OSHA include information in the standard or the appendix that would specify what construction materials or combination of materials would meet the fire resistance-ratings required by the standard. They explained that the information would be used by in-house personnel who make alterations or repairs to the building. OSHA believes that the reference to NFPA 101 in § 1910.35 will assist employers and employees in answering these questions.
IMC Global, Inc. also recommended that OSHA define the term “story,” suggesting that OSHA use the definition used in the NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, but did not provide any rationale or support to demonstrate that the failure to include a definition would have a negative impact on worker safety or health. OSHA notes that the NPFA 101-2000, defines the term “story” to mean “That portion of a building between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above.” OSHA believes this definition to be generally understood and has determined not to include a definition of “story” in the regulatory text of the final rule.
The final rule differs from the proposal in that it permits fire doors to remain open as long as they close automatically during an emergency. This change was made in response to comments from H. M. Bucci and the NFPA (Exs. 5-10, 18). Both pointed out that NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, permits the exception. OSHA notes that Start Printed Page 67955the additional flexibility provided from this provision is in keeping with the Agency's intent in rewriting subpart E, i.e., to add flexibility if it does not detract from employee safety or health and does not impose additional costs or compliance obligations.
Paragraph 1910.36(a)(3) (proposed paragraph 1910.36(c)), requires that each fire door, including its frame and hardware, be listed or approved by a nationally recognized testing laboratory. The International Dairy Foods Association (Ex. 5-22), suggested that OSHA include the definition of the terms “listed,” “approved,” and “nationally recognized testing laboratory” in the regulatory language of the final rule instead of giving a cross-reference to another section of the standards. Section 1910.7 contains what employers need to know about “listed,” “approved,” and “nationally recognized testing laboratory.” OSHA does not agree that adding additional definitions, which are duplicated elsewhere in part 1910, to the standard would be particularly helpful. Therefore, OSHA has retained in the final rule the cross-reference to the standard containing the terms.
Although OSHA does not have direct authority to regulate non-employee occupants of a building, in assuring the safe evacuation of employees, the impact of other occupants in a building must be taken into consideration to assure a safe evacuation of all employees. Thus, OSHA refers to “other building occupants” generally as it does in the existing subpart E.
“As far away as practical” (“remote” in the proposal) means that exit routes must be located far enough apart so that if one exit route is blocked by fire or smoke, employees can evacuate using the second exit route. The paragraph also provides a note that employers must consider the number of employees, the size of the building, its occupancy, and the arrangement of the workplace to determine the correct number of exit routes, recommending that employers consult the NFPA 101-2000 for the number of exit routes appropriate to their particular workplace.
Other commenters suggested that the expression in proposed paragraph 1910.36(b)(2), “other means of escape * * * should be available,” invited confusion, made the provision vague, and was unenforceable, and that OSHA should remove it in the final rule (Exs. 5-4, 11, 24, 40). OSHA agrees with the commenters and has eliminated the advisory wording in the final provision.
Section 1910.35(b)(2) should be revised to clarify that an exit route does not necessarily lead to the outside but could lead to a refuge area * * *. Start Printed Page 67956
As currently written, section 1910.35(b)(2) incorrectly defines an ‘exit route’ as a means of travel to safety ‘outside’ and further states that one part of an ‘exit route’ is the way from the exit to the ‘outside.’ is incorrectly misleads users into thinking that the only endpoint for an exit route is outside.
Similarly, the heading of section 1910.36(f) incorrectly states that an exit must lead to the outside. This heading should be amended to include the endpoint of a refuge area. Organization Resources Counselors, Inc. (5-45, p. 3) stated that it “agrees that the concept of refuge areas is one that should be adopted by OSHA.”
In response to the comments, OSHA has revised the definition of exit route (paragraph 1910.34(c) of the final rule) to reflect the acceptability of refuge areas. Also, the heading to paragraph 1910.36(f) of the proposal, “An Exit Must Lead Outside,” has been changed to “Exit Discharge” in final rule paragraph 1910.36(c).
The final rule requirements on locking exit doors are essentially those in the proposal, except that the provisions are now located in paragraph 1910.36(d) in the final rule (instead of paragraph 1910.36(g) in the proposal). There were three comments on the proposal addressing locking exit doors. Commenter Dennis Kirson (Ex. 5-4) suggested that OSHA delete the sentence “A device that locks from the outside such as a panic bar is permitted because,” he said, “it deals with ingress (to be locked out) rather than egress (to be locked in), it serves no purpose.” Mr. Kirson further noted that this sentence did not modify the first sentence. OSHA has not made the suggested change because to avoid any misunderstandings it believes that the rule should include specific language to indicate what is acceptable. The Agency believes it is necessary in this context to state what is permitted along with what is not permitted, because of the widespread use of panic bars. The commenter also suggested OSHA delete the reference to mental, penal, or correctional institutions because they did not appear to fit the definition of general industry worksites. OSHA has not made the suggested change because such institutions are indeed “general industry” establishments and employees in these establishments are afforded the same protections as employees in other general industry workplaces. In recognition of the unique problems these institutions have with regard to the need to ensure occupants remain inside the facilities, OSHA is providing specific language to indicate clearly the performance to be achieved at these worksites.
Another commenter, the Department of Energy (Ex. 5-11), suggested that this last provision should also reflect national security at Federal locations and that OSHA should add “or other facility requiring security from unauthorized access.” While OSHA does not disagree with the commenter, it has not made the suggested change because the inclusion of this additional language is beyond the stated scope of this proceeding. However the Agency will consider adding the suggested language in the future when substantive revisions are made to this subpart.
The final rule provision in paragraph 1910.36(e) is essentially the same as the proposed provision (paragraph 1910.36(h) in the proposal) with minor reorganizing to emphasize the requirements of the provisions. OSHA has divided the paragraph into two concise paragraphs in the final rule, paragraphs 1910.36(e)(1) and (2). Two commenters recommended changing the language of the proposed provision that required exit doors “swing out.” Mr. Dennis Kirson (Ex. 5-4) suggested adding an exception to the provision that doors swing out, to allow for containment of hazardous materials, because of the greater hazard (to the public) of loss of containment of such materials. Such a change is beyond the scope of this project but the Agency may consider such a change as part of a future rulemaking. Tenneco (Ex. 5-41) suggested the phrase be changed to “swing with the exit travel” for further clarity. OSHA has revised the provision to incorporate the recommended change.
Several commenters (Exs. 5-14, 36) expressed concerns about how to determine adequate capacity or the expected occupancy load for each floor. Argonne National Laboratory (Ex. 5-14) suggested that OSHA adopt the latest NFPA 101 to determine “whether or not adequate exiting capacity is provided from an area.” Another commenter, Mr. Donald R. Delano (Ex. 5-36), suggested that OSHA define “maximum permitted occupant load” and “expected occupant Start Printed Page 67957load.” IMC Global, Inc. (Ex. 5-54) asked that OSHA define “occupant load.” In response to these comments OSHA has added a definition for the term “occupant load” and explained generally how to calculate the occupant load in the definition. The calculation can be done in accordance with NFPA 101-2000, since there are a wide variety of general industry occupancies which may be subject to different considerations.
Several commenters addressed this paragraph. Two commenters (Exs. 5-29, 40) suggested adding the wording “if a fall hazard exists” to the requirement for guardrails. OSHA agrees that guardrails only need to protect unenclosed sides if a fall hazard exists. One commenter (Ex. 5-10) suggested that the Agency use a 50 foot dead-end rather than a 20 foot dead-end. This would be a significant change and appears to be a decrease in safety to employees during emergencies and therefore OSHA has not changed the length of a dead-end. Other changes to these provisions are editorial only.
OSHA proposed in § 1910.37 to include provisions covering the operation and maintenance of exit routes. OSHA has expanded the name from the proposal's “Operation and Maintenance Requirements for Exit Routes” to better reflect its contents. In the final rule, § 1910.37 is entitled “Maintenance, safeguards, and operational features for exit routes.” Provisions of this section include the safe use of exit routes during an emergency, lighting and marking exit routes, fire retardant paints, exit routes during construction, repairs, or alterations, and employee alarm systems.
OSHA has made several changes to paragraph 1910.37(a) of the proposed rule, by combining related provisions. In the final rule, paragraph 1910.37(a) remains titled “The Danger To Employees Must Be Minimized” and addresses furnishings and decorations (proposed paragraph 1910.37(a)(2)), travel toward a high hazard area (proposed paragraph 1910.37(a)(3)), unobstructed access to exit routes (proposed paragraph 1910.36(e)), and properly operating safeguards designed to protect employees (proposed paragraphs 1910.37(a) and 1910.37(e)). Minor editorial changes have been made to these paragraphs, with the exception that final paragraph 1910.37(a)(2) has been modified because commenters found the requirement confusing (Exs. 5-5, 18, 26, 63). This confusion resulted from OSHA's use of the terminology “An exit route must not require employees to travel toward materials that burn very quickly, emit poisonous fumes, or are explosive.” OSHA has modified the language to more closely reflect the current subpart E language: “Exit routes must be arranged so that employees will not have to travel toward a high hazard area, unless the path of travel is effectively shielded from the high hazard area by suitable partitions or other physical barriers.” In addition, OSHA added a definition for “high hazard area” to the final rule's definition section, 1910.34. The new definition is from NFPA-101 with slight editorial changes.
In the proposal, paragraph 1910.37(b) required that exit route lighting be adequate, and paragraph 1910.37(c) required that exits be marked appropriately. OSHA has combined these paragraphs into paragraph 1910.37(b) in the final rule, in part because the provisions are closely related and the Agency believes that the standard will be easier to understand and use if all the requirements covering lighting and marking of exit routes are arranged together. The content of these paragraphs remains virtually the same in the final rule except for editorial clarifications (e.g., “lighted” instead of “illuminated”) and the addition of specifications (issue 5 in the hearing notice at 62 FR 9403) for exit signs in response to comments (e.g., Exs. 5-4, 14, 18, 21, 43, 54). OSHA believes that these changes will enable employers and employees to have better and clearer information concerning the requirements for exit routes.
Issue 6 in the hearing notice (62 FR at 9403) asked whether the proposed requirements for exit lighting were too general. Some commenters objected to OSHA's use of the word “adequate” to describe the required amount of lighting in exit routes (Exs. 5-4, 18, 19, 22, 54, 57, 63, 64). (Issue 6 in the hearing notice at 62 FR 9403.) OSHA's current subpart E uses the term “adequate” (existing paragraph 1910.36(b)(6)); OSHA did not revise the word “adequate” in the proposal because specifying a level of lighting could be viewed as a substantive change. However, OSHA has clarified in the final rule (paragraph 1910.37(b)(1)), to make it clear and performance-oriented. The revised provision requires that employees with normal vision be able to see their way along an exit route. Therefore, OSHA has retained the word “adequate” but clarified its meaning in the final rule. Employers and employees can refer to NFPA 101-2000 for more detailed guidance.
Final paragraph 1910.37(b)(4) (proposed paragraphs 1910.37(c)(3) and (c)(4)), addresses the marking of the direction of travel to an exit. Signs would be redundant where the direction of travel is apparent. Therefore, OSHA has added the existing subpart E language to the final rule “where the direction of travel to the nearest exit is not immediately apparent” because such signs are needed only in that situation (Exs. 5-4, 14, 21, 64).
Final paragraph 1910.37(b)(5) (proposed paragraph 1910.37(c)(5)), requires that doors that could be mistaken for exit doors must be marked Start Printed Page 67958to indicate the actual use of the door. In the proposal, OSHA required the use of the term “Not an Exit” on such doors. Doing so eliminated the provision's performance nature. In the final rule OSHA has added the language currently found in subpart E (paragraph 1910.37(q)(2)) (“'Not an Exit” or similar designation”). This change allows employers to comply with the current OSHA language or the NFPA language. (E.g., Exs. 5-14, 36).
In final paragraph 1910.37(b)(6) (proposed paragraph 1910.37(c)(6)), OSHA has restored the language from subpart E referring to the color of exit signs. In the proposal OSHA stated “An exit sign must show a designated color.” OSHA has changed the language back to the current subpart E language, “distinctive in color” (paragraph 1910.37(q)(4)) at the request of several commenters (Exs. 5-30, 41). OSHA does not believe that the proposed language improved the provision and has accordingly changed it back to existing subpart E as recommended by commenters. This paragraph also retains the use of “electroluminescent” and “self-luminous” signs and has defined the terms in the definition section (§ 1910.34).
Paragraph 1910.37(b)(7) of the final rule was not in the proposed rule. OSHA proposed to delete the following requirement from current subpart E (paragraph 1910.37(q)(8)) “Every exit sign shall have the word ‘Exit’ in plainly legible letters not less than 6 inches high, with the principal strokes of letters not less than three-fourths-inch wide.” The Agency believed that this requirement could be handled without specifications (issue 5 in the hearing notice at 62 FR 9403). Commenters disagreed and suggested that the current exit sign dimensions also be included in the final rule. For example, Donald R. Delano, P.E., (Ex. 5-36, p. 3) remarked:
The exit signs as dictated by the current standard have become traditional and easily recognized by the general public. An employer's interpretation of ‘clearly visible’ may not create an easily recognized sign. Therefore, in an emergency the lack of the traditional and consistent format may be detrimental. NNS suggests that the text from the current standard stay in effect.
Final paragraph 1910.37(c) (proposed paragraph 1910.37(d)), addresses the upkeep of fire-retardant properties of paints or solutions used in the workplace that might impact the safety of an exit route. In the proposal, OSHA stated that an employer must maintain the fire retardant properties of paints or other coatings used in the workplace. Commenters suggested that OSHA return to the existing subpart E language because the proposed language is vague and harder to understand than the existing language (e.g., Exs. 5-4, 18, 21, 43, 54). OSHA believes the language in the final rule has been made clearer by returning to the subpart E language fire-retardant paints or “solutions,” rather than “coatings.” OSHA has further clarified the requirement by specifying that paints or solutions used in an exit route must be renewed as often as necessary to maintain the necessary flame retardant properties.
Final paragraph 1910.37(d) (proposed paragraph 1910.37(f)) addresses the maintenance of exit routes during construction, repairs, or alterations. “Alterations” were not included in the heading of the proposed provision; however, in the final rule, the heading has been modified to include “alterations.” Both the proposal and final rule include the word “alterations” in the regulatory text.
The first paragraph concerning new construction remains the same as proposed and is now paragraph 1910.37(d)(1). Minor editorial changes have been made to final paragraph 1910.37(d)(2) that address repairs and alterations. Final paragraph 1910.37(d)(3) concerning flammable and explosive substances or equipment used during construction, repairs, or alterations, remains the same as proposed except for some minor changes. As discussed above OSHA has added the word “alterations” to the proposed language. In addition, the Agency returned to the use of “substances” instead of “materials.” Finally, OSHA has added “equipment” to the paragraph. The words “substances” and “equipment” are in the present subpart E requirement (paragraph 1910.37(c)(3)) but were inadvertently left out of the proposal. OSHA has changed the proposed language “flammable or explosive materials used during construction or repair must not expose employees to hazards * * *” to “Employees must not be exposed to hazards of flammable or explosive substances or equipment used during construction, repairs, or alterations, that are beyond the normal permissible conditions in the workplace * * *.”
Final rule paragraph 1910.37(e) (proposed paragraph 1910.37(g)), requires the installation and maintenance of an employee alarm system meeting § 1910.165, unless employees can promptly see or smell a fire or other hazard. This requirement remains unchanged from the proposed rule.
In the final rule, OSHA has retained the separate sections for emergency action plans and fire prevention plans, §§ 1910.38 and 1910.39 respectively. OSHA believes it is clearer for the plans and their requirements to be contained in separate sections. Because commenters tended to address both plans at the same time in their comments or their comments were quite similar about the plans, OSHA is discussing them together.
3. Portable Fire Extinguishers, paragraphs 1910.157(a) and (b)(1), emergency action plan and fire prevention plan. Start Printed Page 67959
The Department of Energy (Ex. 5-11, p. 2) suggested that plans should be communicated orally to a “limited number” of employees rather than the 10 or fewer required by OSHA because the intent would be better served by not using an arbitrary number. OSHA disagrees with this suggestion. Since their promulgation in 1980, the emergency action plan and the fire prevention plan have used 10 as a reasonable number of employees for a plan to be communicated orally.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) (Ex. 5-31, p. 6) did not agree with the language in proposed paragraph 1910.38(a)(2) and paragraph 1910.39(a)(2), which stated that “the plan must be made available to employees on request.” IBT asked the Agency to use the current language of subpart E, requiring the plans “be available for employees to review.” The IBT believed the proposed language added an obstacle to employees by making them request to see the plan. OSHA agrees; in the proposal it had inadvertently changed the language from the current subpart E. OSHA fully believes that the plan should be available for employee review and in the final rule the language reflects this intent.
Final paragraphs 1910.38(c)(2), (3), and (4) remain for the most part the same as the proposed paragraphs—procedures for evacuation and exit route assignments, procedures to be followed by employees who remain to operate critical plant operations before they evacuate, and procedures to account for all employees after evacuation.
In final paragraph 1910.38(c)(5), which requires that the plan include procedures for rescue or medical duties, OSHA has added language to clarify that the requirements only apply to those employees who will be performing such duties. This language parallels more closely the current subpart E language (paragraph 1910.38(a)(2)(iv)). The Agency has also changed “rescue and medical duties” in the proposal to “rescue or medical duties” (emphasis added) since employees may do one or the other but not necessarily both.
OSHA is also amending the sections listed in the preamble's discussion of 1910.38 and 1910.39 above (e.g., 29 CFR 1910.120, 1910.157, etc.). These changes are necessary to conform with new section and paragraph designations for Emergency Action Plans and Fire Protection Plans found in this revised subpart E. Start Printed Page 67960
As discussed earlier in this preamble, OSHA asked a series of questions in its hearing notice (62 FR 9402). To the extent possible, OSHA has included the questions with the pertinent discussions in the preamble. For example, the use of performance-oriented language in the proposal was discussed earlier in this preamble (issue 3). “Are terms too technical” (issue 7) was discussed by commenters addressing the definitions of the standard or when commenters identified unclear language. However, some of the issues raised in the questions were more general and the vast majority of commenters did not definitively respond to these questions. These issues were numbered 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the hearing notice (62 FR at 9403), and they asked: Would performance-oriented standards create compliance problems; are there terms that might be too technical; whether the revision imposes additional obligations; whether any requirements result in greater safety; and whether any requirements present technical feasibility problems. The questions raised in the hearing notice were intended to assure that various aspects of the proposal were fully considered. Some commenters addressed the issues through their comments regarding specific provisions of the proposal and did not respond to the questions specifically set forth in the hearing notice. To the extent that interested persons commented on these issues, OSHA has responded to these comments in the context of specific provisions of the proposed rule.
Because the final rule is only a plain language redrafting of a former Agency subpart, it is not necessary to determine significant risk or the extent to which the final rule reduces that risk. As noted above, most of the provisions of subpart E were adopted under section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which gave the Secretary of Labor the authority, for a limited period of time, to adopt as occupational safety and health standards any established Federal Standard or national consensus standards unless the promulgation of such a standard would not result in improved safety and health for designated employees. By including section 6(a) in the OSH Act, Congress implicitly found that the promulgation of occupational safety and health standards was reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment. In Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that before OSHA can increase the protection afforded by a standard, the Agency must find that the hazard being regulated poses a significant risk to employees and that a new, more protective standard is “reasonably necessary and appropriate” to reduce that risk. The final rule that replaces the Agency's former rules regulating means of egress, emergency action plans, and fire prevention plans does not directly increase or decrease the protection afforded to employees, nor does it increase employers' compliance obligations. Therefore, no finding of significant risk is necessary.
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) expresses Congress' intent to preempt state laws where OSHA has promulgated occupational safety and Start Printed Page 67961health standards. Under the OSH Act, a state can avoid preemption on issues covered by Federal standards only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan for the development of such standards and their enforcement (State-Plan state). 29 U.S.C. 667. Occupational safety and health standards developed by such State-Plan states must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal standards. Subject to these requirements, State-Plan states are free to develop and enforce their own requirements for exit routes, emergency action plans, and fire prevention plans. Having already adopted OSHA's former standards on means of egress, emergency action plans, and fire prevention plans, (or having developed alternative standards acceptable to OSHA), State-Plan states are not obligated to adopt the final rule; they may, however, choose to adopt the final rule, and OSHA encourages them to do so.
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), (8-76 41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable.
2.a. In subpart E, §§ 1910.33, 1910.34, and 1910.39 are added, and §§ 1910.35 through 1910.38 are revised.
b. In the appendix to subpart E to part 1910, the heading is revised, and in the third sentence of section 1, “in paragraph 1910.38(a)(2)” is revised to read “in paragraph 1910.38(c)”.
§ 1910.33
This section lists the sections and paragraph headings contained in §§ 1910.34 through 1910.39.
§ 1910.34 Coverage and definitions.
§ 1910.35 Compliance with NFPA 101-2000, Life Safety Code.
§ 1910.36 Design and construction requirements for exit routes.
§ 1910.37 Maintenance, safeguards, and operational features for exit routes.
§ 1910.38 Emergency action plans.
§ 1910.39 Fire prevention plans.
§ 1910.34
(b) Exits routes are covered. The rules in §§ 1910.34 through 1910.39 cover the minimum requirements for exit routes that employers must provide in their workplace so that employees may evacuate the workplace safely during an emergency. Sections 1910.34 through 1910.39 also cover the minimum requirements for emergency action plans and fire prevention plans.
Exit discharge means the part of the exit route that leads directly outside or to a street, walkway, refuge area, public way, or open space with access to the outside. An example of an exit Start Printed Page 67962discharge is a door at the bottom of a two-hour fire resistance-rated enclosed stairway that discharges to a place of safety outside the building.
Occupant load means the total number of persons that may occupy a workplace or portion of a workplace at any one time. The occupant load of a workplace is calculated by dividing the gross floor area of the workplace or portion of a workplace by the occupant load factor for that particular type of workplace occupancy. Information regarding “Occupant load” is located in NFPA 101-2000, Life Safety Code.
(2) A floor with at least two spaces, separated from each other by smoke-resistant partitions, in a building protected throughout by an automatic sprinkler system that complies with § 1910.159 of this part.
§ 1910.35
Compliance with NFPA 101-2000, Life Safety Code.
An employer who demonstrates compliance with the exit route provisions of NFPA 101-2000, the Life Safety Code, will be deemed to be in compliance with the corresponding requirements in §§ 1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37.
§ 1910.36
Design and construction requirements for exit routes.
(3) Openings into an exit must be limited. An exit is permitted to have only those openings necessary to allow access to the exit from occupied areas of the workplace, or to the exit discharge. An opening into an exit must be protected by a self-closing fire door that remains closed or automatically closes in an emergency upon the sounding of a fire alarm or employee alarm system. Each fire door, including its frame and hardware, must be listed or approved by a nationally recognized testing laboratory. Section 1910.155(c)(3)(iv)(A) of this part defines “listed” and § 1910.7 of this part defines a “nationally recognized testing laboratory.”
Note to paragraph 1910.36(b):
For assistance in determining the number of exit routes necessary for your workplace, consult NFPA 101-2000, Life Safety Code.
Note to paragraph 1910.36(f):
Information regarding “Occupant load” is located in NFPA 101-2000, Life Safety Code.
(h) An outdoor exit route is permitted. Each outdoor exit route must meet the minimum height and width requirements for indoor exit routes and Start Printed Page 67963must also meet the following requirements:
§ 1910.37
(2) Each exit must be clearly visible and marked by a sign reading “Exit.”
(5) Each doorway or passage along an exit access that could be mistaken for an exit must be marked “Not an Exit” or similar designation, or be identified by a sign indicating its actual use (e.g., closet).
(7) Each exit sign must have the word “Exit” in plainly legible letters not less than six inches (15.2 cm) high, with the principal strokes of the letters in the word “Exit” not less than three-fourths of an inch (1.9 cm) wide.
(e) An employee alarm system must be operable. Employers must install and maintain an operable employee alarm system that has a distinctive signal to warn employees of fire or other emergencies, unless employees can promptly see or smell a fire or other hazard in time to provide adequate warning to them. The employee alarm system must comply with § 1910.165.
§ 1910.38
(d) Employee alarm system. An employer must have and maintain an employee alarm system. The employee alarm system must use a distinctive signal for each purpose and comply with the requirements in § 1910.165.
§ 1910.39
(3) Procedures for regular maintenance of safeguards installed on Start Printed Page 67964heat-producing equipment to prevent the accidental ignition of combustible materials;
“Appendix E To Part 1910—Exit Routes, Emergency Action Plans, and Fire Prevention Plans.”
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Orders Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059, 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. Sections 1910.103, 1910.106 through 1910.111, and 1910.119, 1910.120, and 190.122 through 126 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911. Section 1910.119 also issued under section 304, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-549), reprinted at 29 U.S.C. 655 Note. Section 1910.120 also issued under section 126, Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 as amended (29 U.S.C. 655 Note), and 5 U.S.C. 553.
4. In § 1910.119, the first sentence of paragraph (n) is revised to read as follows:
§ 1910.119
5. In § 1910.120, paragraphs (l)(1)(ii), (p)(8)(i), (q)(1), and the first sentence of paragraph (q)(11)(ii) are revised to read as follows:
§ 1910.120
7. In § 1910.157, paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) are revised to read as follows:
§ 1910.157
End Authority Start Printed Page 67965 Start Amendment Part
9. In § 1910.268, paragraph (b)(1)(iii) is revised to read as follows:
§ 1910.268
10.a. In § 1910.272, paragraph (d) is revised.
b. In Appendix A to § 1910.272, under the heading “2. Emergency Action Plans” the second sentence is revised.
§ 1910.272
* * * The emergency action plan (§ 1910.38) covers those designated actions employers and employees are to take to ensure employee safety from fire and other emergencies. * * *
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), and 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911. All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C 653), except those substances that have exposure limits in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. Section 1910.1000 also issued under section (6)(a) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 655(a)). Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 CFR part 1911, except for the inorganic arsenic, benzene, and cotton dust listings. Section 1910.1001 also issued under section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 333) and 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911. Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, and 1910.1200 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.
12. In § 1910.1047, paragraph (h)(1)(iii) is revised to read as follows:
§ 1910.1047
(iii) The plan shall include the elements prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.38 and 29 CFR 1910.39, “Emergency action plans” and “Fire prevention plans,” respectively.
13. In § 1910.1050, paragraph (d)(1)(iii) is revised to read as follows:
§ 1910.1050
(iii) The plan shall specifically include provisions for alerting and evacuating affected employees as well as the elements prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.38 and 29 CFR 1910.39, “Emergency action plans” and “Fire prevention plans,” respectively.
14. In § 1910.1051, paragraph (j) is revised to read as follows:
§ 1910.1051
(j) Emergency situations. Written plan. A written plan for emergency situations shall be developed, or an existing plan shall be modified, to contain the applicable elements specified in 29 CFR 1910.38 and 29 CFR 1910.39, “Emergency action plans” and “Fire prevention plans,” respectively, and in 29 CFR 1910.120, “Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response,” for each workplace where there is the possibility of an emergency.