[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67950-67965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-27251]
[[Page 67949]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Part 1910
Exit Routes, Emergency Action Plans, and Fire Prevention Plans; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2002 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 67950]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
RIN 1218-AB82
Exit Routes, Emergency Action Plans, and Fire Prevention Plans
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: 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.
The revisions reorganize the text, remove inconsistencies among
sections, and eliminate duplicative requirements. The rules are
performance-oriented to the extent possible, and more concise than the
original, with fewer subparagraphs, and fewer cross-references to other
OSHA standards. Additionally, a table of contents has been added that
is intended to make the standards easier to use.
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.
Finally, OSHA has evaluated the National Fire Protection
Association's Standard 101, Life Safety Code, 2000 Edition (NFPA 101-
2000), and has concluded that the standard provides comparable safety
to the Exit Routes Standard. Therefore, employers who wish to comply
with the NFPA 101-2000 instead of the OSHA standards for Exit Routes
may do so.
DATES: The final rule becomes effective December 9, 2002.
ADDRESSES: 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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.
For electronic copies of this Federal Register document, as well as
news releases, fact sheets, and other relevant documents, visit OSHA's
homepage at http://www.osha.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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.
I. Background
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.
On September 10, 1996, OSHA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register (61 FR 47712) proposing to revise subpart E of part
1910. OSHA proposed to rewrite the existing requirements of subpart E
in plain language so that the requirements would be easier to
understand by employers, employees, and others who use them. The
proposal did not intend to change the regulatory obligations of
employers or the safety and health protection provided to employees by
the original standard.
OSHA proposed two versions of the revision of subpart E. The first
version was organized in the traditional regulatory format
characteristic of most OSHA standards. The second version was in a
question and answer format. OSHA invited interested parties to comment
on the content and effectiveness of the proposed changes and to
indicate which version they preferred. Both versions left unchanged the
regulatory obligations placed on employers and the safety and health
protection provided to employees. Based on the majority of comments
(e.g., Exs. 5-13, 17, 24-26, 45-47, 58-60) OSHA has decided to use its
traditional regulatory text format for this final rule. OSHA believes
that the revised subpart E is more performance-oriented and more
compliance options will be available to employers.
In the proposal, OSHA stated what it expected to achieve by
revising subpart E: (1) To maintain the safety and health protection
provided to employees without increasing the regulatory burden on
employers; (2) to create a regulation that is easily understood and;
(3) to state employers' obligations in performance-oriented language to
the extent possible.
The proposal attempted to simplify, rather than to substantively
revise, OSHA's means of egress standards. In finalizing this proposal,
the Agency has been careful to ensure that the protections afforded
employees were not weakened. Employers who are in compliance with the
original subpart E will continue to be in compliance with the revised
subpart E that is being promulgated in this rule.
In developing the proposal, OSHA reviewed relevant OSHA decisions
of the Federal courts, the Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission, and Agency letters of interpretation (Ex. 2) to determine
how each provision of subpart E has been interpreted. Also, OSHA
reviewed comparable State regulations, training materials and current
consensus standards including the National Fire Protection
Association's Life Safety Code, NFPA 101 (at that time the 1994
Edition). This review enabled OSHA to reorganize subpart E, eliminate
duplicative provisions, and have confidence that the revisions did not
diminish the safety and health protection afforded by existing rules.
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
[[Page 67951]]
newer 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.
OSHA noted in the proposal that for some employers, reliance on
performance-oriented standards might create confusion as to the
specific precautions necessary in a variety of situations. In the past,
OSHA has used NFPA 101 as an aid in interpreting subpart E. OSHA
intends to continue to rely on NFPA 101 as guidance in implementing
performance-oriented provisions of revised subpart E.
In addition to organizing the requirements of the revised subpart E
in a logical and understandable manner, OSHA has organized the
requirements around three aspects of exit routes: (1) Design and
construction requirements; (2) maintenance, safeguards, and operational
requirements; and (3) requirements for warning employees of the need to
escape. Reorganizing subpart E in this manner has enabled OSHA to
eliminate many duplicative provisions. For example, in existing subpart
E, both paragraph 1910.36(b)(8) and paragraph 1910.37(e) contain the
design requirements that where workplaces are required to have two
means of egress, these means of egress must be located as far away as
practical (remote) from one another.
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'').
II. Regulatory Format
As noted above, OSHA proposed two versions of subpart E; a
traditional regulatory text version and a question and answer version.
The traditional regulatory text version was preceded by a descriptive
section heading that told the reader what information could be found in
that section. The question and answer version was written in a form by
which an employer might ask a question about the rule, and this
question was then followed by an answer that told the employer about
the requirement.
Other efforts to make subpart E more user-friendly included:
removal of unused terms and ordinary terms from the definitions;
elimination of cross-references to other standards; removal of overly
technical terms in favor of more common words; use of the active voice;
and, the use of positive as opposed to negative sentences.
The Agency invited public comment and requests for a hearing on the
proposed revision to subpart E. An informal public hearing was
requested by the National Fire Protection Association (Ex. 5-18) and
Hallmark Cards (Ex. 5-51).
On March 3, 1997, OSHA published a notice in the Federal Register
(62 FR 9402) announcing an informal public hearing and a reopening of
the written comment period. Written comments on the proposed standard
were to be postmarked by April 19, 1997. The hearing was held in
Washington, DC on April 29-30, 1997.
In the hearing notice, OSHA invited comment on ten issues that will
be discussed below in more detail. In summary, OSHA asked: (1) How OSHA
should use the Life Safety Code in the final rule; (2) how or if OSHA
should use model building codes; (3) whether the use of performance
language creates new enforcement problems; (4) how OSHA should address
the issues of exit capacity and the number of required exits; (5)
whether or not the exit sign provisions were too general; (6) whether
or not the revised requirements for exit illumination were too general;
(7) whether or not there were still provisions or terms in the proposed
revision that were too technical or difficult to understand; (8)
whether OSHA achieved in the proposed revision its goal of not changing
employers obligations; (9) whether any of the proposed provisions
provided greater protection than in the original subpart E; and (10)
whether any of the requirements presented technological feasibility
problems for affected employers.
The subpart E rulemaking record contains 23 exhibits, 69 comments,
170 pages of testimony and four post-hearing comments.
III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule
This section contains an analysis of the record evidence and policy
decisions pertaining to the various provisions of revised subpart E.
As stated previously, OSHA's goals in revising subpart E were to
maintain the safety and health protection provided to employees in
subpart E without increasing the regulatory burden on employers, create
a regulation that is easily understood, and, to the extent possible,
express employers' obligations in performance-oriented language.
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:
* * * Because IPC members are predominantly small companies, they
have limited resources to track down, read, understand, and comply
with the substantial volume of federal, state, and local
regulations. In many firms, the company president, plant manager, or
production supervisor is responsible for facility-wide health and
safety compliance in addition to running production and perhaps
running the company.
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.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Ex. 5-31) commended
OSHA for undertaking the revision effort and stated that the
International:
[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
[[Page 67952]]
country 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.''
Schirmer Engineering Corporation (Ex. 5-57) stated:
Review of the revisions introduced in the proposed rule
indicates an effort to provide language which is more condensed and
clear, with the removal of verbose wording. The sections that were
deleted from the original version did not greatly affect the overall
life safety concept as it pertains to egress from a building. In
addition, the reorganization helps to clarify some of the
requirements of the code which, in turn, facilitates overall
compliance.
(See also Exs. 5-5, 12, 13, 15-17, 20-24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 35, 37,
39, 43, 45, 47, 51, 52, 54-56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 70.)
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.
It was also suggested by some commenters that instead of finalizing
the proposed revision, OSHA should adopt NFPA 101, the Life Safety
Code, or that OSHA should rely on building codes, instead of revising
subpart E. (See e.g., Exs. 5-10, 15, 18, 19, 26, 41, 46, 48, 61, 68;
Tr. 14, 23; Ex. 10.)
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA, Ex. 5-18)
remarked:
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 * * *.
Further, NFPA asserted that OSHA's rewrite would make enforcement
more difficult especially when performance-oriented language is
substituted for specifications; that the proposal drops all references
to the NFPA Life Safety Code even though the proposal indicated OSHA
would continue to rely on that Code; and, that the proposed rewrite did
not specifically allow for contemporary compliance options as
contemplated by OSHA and as set forth in the current edition of NFPA
101 (1994). NFPA recommended that:
[T]he first alternative be abandoned [traditional regulatory
text] and that OSHA instead adopt by reference the 1994 edition of
NFPA 101 * * * Further, NFPA believes the adoption of the 1994
edition of NFPA 101, together with a supplemental Q&A (question and
answer) format as proposed in the second NPRM alternative, would be
the best approach to achieve the desired goals as stated by OSHA in
the NPRM.
At the time of the proposal, the latest version of NFPA 101 was the
1994 Edition. NFPA subsequently issued a 1997 edition and then a 2000
edition. OSHA has reviewed the NFPA 101-2000 edition carefully and
found that compliance with its provisions would protect employees as
well as the parallel provisions of subpart E. Adopting NFPA 101 as an
OSHA standard would require OSHA to conduct a full rulemaking under
section 6(b) of the OSH Act, scrutinizing each provision, accounting
for each cost impact on employers, justifying why the new standard is
reasonably necessary and appropriate, and showing that the adoption
would reduce significant risk to employees. This would be inconsistent
with the goal of this project which was to clarify employer obligations
without increasing compliance burdens. However, OSHA has been convinced
by commenters that consideration should be given to compliance with
NFPA 101.
The 2000 Life Safety Code goes far beyond the requirements of
OSHA's standard, both in details of compliance and flexibility for
unique workplace conditions. If an employer complies with NFPA 101-
2000, OSHA will deem such compliance to be compliance with the OSHA
standard. OSHA believes that allowing employers to comply with NFPA 101
as an alternative to the revised Exit Routes standard will provide
greater flexibility to employers who want to go beyond OSHA's basic
provisions. Additionally, the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 3701 (1996)) directs Federal
agencies to use voluntary consensus standards to the extent
practicable. Under section 6(b)(8) of the OSH Act, the Agency must
consider using national consensus standards as the basis for its safety
and health standards wherever possible. By allowing employers to comply
with the exit route provisions of NFPA 101-2000, OSHA has struck a
balance that is consistent with its goals for this rulemaking as well
as the spirit of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.
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 Sec. 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,
[[Page 67953]]
24, 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 Sec.
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 Sec.
1910.33.
As indicated in the Regulatory Format section above, the proposed
rule offered two versions of a revised subpart E. The first version was
written in the traditional format of OSHA standards. The second version
was written in a question and answer format.
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.''
The American Petroleum Institute (API) (Ex. 5-29, p.2) supported
the traditional format because of perceived pitfalls in the question
and answer format.
While the Q/A version has some appeal in terms of better first-
impression, API believes that the traditional format makes it easier
to understand the rule in total, and to locate specific
requirements.
Another API concern is that of confusion. The Q/A format could
be associated with OSHA's Field Directives, in which questions and
answers are sometimes used to explain requirements. The questions
and answers in Field Directives, however, do not hold the same
weight as regulatory language. As a result, confusion could be
caused by the use of questions and answers in both the OSHA
standards and in Field Directives.
API is also concerned that the potential for inadvertent change
of requirements is greater during a Q/A conversion. This is because
more structural revision and reorganization is required to
accommodate the Q/A approach, as demonstrated by comparison of the
two approaches in this pilot conversion. It follows that the Q/A
approach would face even greater conversion problems for other, more
complicated safety and health regulations.
In addition, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters recommended
that OSHA not adopt the question and answer format because the union
believed that the format is neither well organized nor easy to read.
(See also Exs. 5-2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27,
30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49.)
Several commenters stated that either version would be acceptable
(Exs. 5-12, 17, 25). Other commenters supported the question and answer
version (Exs. 5-16, 23, 32, 42, 48). Some suggested that the question
and answer version be included in an appendix or some other OSHA
publication (Exs. 5-20, 24, 26, 45, 54, 59). The Agency, after
considering the comments, has decided to use the traditional format in
the final rule. The Agency believes that including the question and
answer version in an appendix might result in confusion. OSHA does use
the question and answer format for other, non-regulatory documents, and
will consider that format for future guidance in this area.
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 Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. 1910.35 of the
final rule.
Some commenters also asserted that OSHA should base its standard on
the model building codes or allow compliance with the various national
building codes (Exs. 5-19, 27, 47, 67; Tr. 23, 26, 32, 43). At the time
of the rulemaking, there were three different national building codes
in the United States: The Building Officials and Code Administrators'
(BOCA) National Building Code, the International Conference of Building
Officials' (ICBO) Uniform Building Code, and the Southern Building Code
Congress International's (SBCCI) Standard Building Code.
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
[[Page 67954]]
of 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.
Final Rule
Section 1910.34, Coverage and Definitions
In the proposal, Sec. 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 Sec.
1910.34 of the final rule. The ``coverage'' paragraph, Sec.
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
Sec. 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.
Section 1910.35, Compliance With NFPA 101-2000, Life Safety Code
As discussed previously in this preamble, this section provides
that an employer who complies with corresponding provisions of NFPA
101-2000 is deemed to be in compliance with subpart E, sections
1910.34-1910.37.
Section 1910.36, Design and Construction Requirements for Exit Routes
Section 1910.36 contains requirements for the design and
construction of exit routes. It includes a requirement that exit routes
be permanent, addresses fire resistance-ratings of construction
materials used in exit stairways (exits), describes openings into
exits, defines the minimum number of exit routes in workplaces,
addresses exit discharges, and discusses locked exit route doors, and
exit route doors. It also addresses the capacity, height and width of
exit routes, and finally, it sets forth requirements for exit routes
that are outside a building.
Many of these requirements are identical or nearly the same as
those proposed, but have been rearranged in a more logical order or
reworded so that the requirements are clearer and easier to understand
and follow.
Paragraph (a)(1) of 1910.36 (proposed paragraph 1910.36(a)),
requires that exit routes be a permanent part of the workplace. This
provision remains as proposed. OSHA believes that exit routes must be a
permanent part of a structure and that employees must know the route to
safety. Otherwise, during an emergency, employees may become confused
and take the wrong path to safety.
Paragraph (a)(2) of 1910.36 (proposed paragraph 1901.36(d)),
specifies the fire resistance-rating of construction materials used to
separate exits from other parts of the workplace (e.g., stairways). For
example, where an exit stairway connects three or fewer stories, it
must be constructed of materials having a 1-hour fire resistance-
rating. If the exit stairway connects four or more stories, it must be
constructed of materials having a 2-hour fire resistance-rating.
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 Sec. 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.
Another commenter, the American Trucking Association (Ex. 5-52),
suggested that OSHA reword proposed paragraph 1910.36(d), to make it
similar to the wording in the existing subpart E concerning fire
resistant-materials (paragraphs 1910.37(b)(1) and (b)(2)). That wording
requires that for exits protected by separation from other parts of the
building, the separation shall meet certain construction requirements.
The commenter noted that the proposed wording appears to require all
exits to be separated by fire resistant-materials. OSHA agrees that the
provision was not clearly worded and has revised the language of the
final rule to specify the required fire resistance-rating of materials
used to construct separations, i.e., enclosed stairways. The revised
language reflects the concerns raised by the commenter.
Paragraph (a)(3) of 1910.36 (proposed paragraph 1910.36(c)),
restricts the number of openings into exits to those openings necessary
to allow access to the exit from occupied areas of the workplace, or
from the exit to the exit discharge. It also specifies that openings
must be protected by a self-closing fire door that remains closed
unless the fire door automatically closes in an emergency when the fire
alarm or employee alarm system is sounded.
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
[[Page 67955]]
the 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.
A commenter, Dennis Kirson (Ex. 5-4), noted that the proposed
provision did not provide guidance on the fire rating for fire doors
opening into an exit. Such ratings are based on the purpose of the
door. To be listed or approved as a fire door, the door would have to
meet the fire rating set by a nationally recognized testing laboratory
(see next paragraph).
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.
Two commenters (Exs. 5-10, 11) commented on OSHA's failure to
address other openings in exits made for electrical and mechanical
systems. One commenter (Ex. 5-11) suggested that OSHA delete the
provision because it precludes the use of protected openings when such
openings are necessary for certain mechanical or electrical
penetrations. The other commenter (Ex. 5-10) asked OSHA to address such
openings by requiring that they be sealed with an approved fire barrier
sealant or fire stop. The existing rule does not contain requirements
addressing such openings and, as discussed above, the purpose of the
revision is not to add new requirements that would impose new
obligations on employers. If an employer has these openings, OSHA notes
that such openings into exits are addressed in NFPA 101. The employer
may use NFPA 101-2000 for guidance even though the final rule does not
address this issue.
Paragraph 1910.36(b) of the final rule, the proposal, and issue 4
in the hearing notice (at 62 FR 9403), all address the general
requirement that all workplaces have at least two exit routes, as far
away as practical from each other, to ensure that all employees and
other building occupants can promptly and safely evacuate the workplace
during an emergency. Where two are insufficient, the employer must have
additional exit routes (see NFPA 101-2000 for guidance). The number of
exit routes can be reduced to one where the number of employees, the
size of the building, its occupancy, or the arrangement of the
workplace is such that all employees would be able to evacuate safely
during an emergency.
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.
The provision in the final rule differs from the proposed rule in
that it has been reworded to state specifically that an employer must
have at least two exits (final paragraph 1910.36(b)(1)), or a
sufficient number of exit routes (final paragraph 1910.36(b)(2)) to
ensure that all occupants can safely and promptly leave the workplace
during an emergency. An exception to the two-exit route rule is
provided in those circumstances where an employer can demonstrate that
the number of employees, size of the building or arrangement of the
workplace is such that one exit route alone is sufficient (final
paragraph 1910.36(b)(3)).
There were a number of comments on the required number of exit
routes provision in the proposal (e.g., Exs. 5-4, 5, 8, 11, 18, 24, 26,
40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 54, 63) with many commenters suggesting that
the provision be rewritten to state clearly that two exit routes are
required. Commenters also suggested that OSHA more fully explain how to
determine when one exit route would be permitted or suggested that this
exception be eliminated (Exs. 5-4, 5, 8, 26, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 54,
63).
OSHA agrees with some of the commenters in part, and has made it
clear that employers must have at least two exit routes, except where
one exit route would be sufficient to allow all employees to evacuate
the workplace safely and promptly. OSHA has added a note to the
provision stating that employers may consult NFPA 101-2000 for guidance
on how to determine the appropriate number of exit routes.
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.
Paragraph 1910.36(c)(1) of the final rule (proposed paragraph
1910.36(f)) requires that each exit discharge lead directly outside or
to a street, walkway, refuge area, public way, or open space with
access to the outside. Paragraph 1910.36(c)(2) requires that the
street, walkway, refuge area, public way, or open space to which an
exit discharge leads must be large enough to accommodate the building
occupants likely to use the exit.
Lastly, paragraph 1910.36(c)(3) (proposed paragraph 1910.36(f)(4))
requires that exit stairs that continue beyond the level on which the
exit discharge is located must be interrupted at that level by doors,
partitions, or other effective means to make clear the direction to go
to the exit discharge. This paragraph differs from the proposed
provision. It has been reworded to make it clear that where exit stairs
continue beyond the level of the exit discharge, there must be some
effective way to direct occupants to the exit discharge. This rewording
responds to comments questioning the clarity of the provision as
proposed (Exs. 5-22, 41).
A number of commenters indicated their support for allowing exit
discharges to lead to a refuge area as proposed in paragraph
1910.36(f)(3) (Exs. 5-24, 29, 40, 45); they also suggested that the
paragraph heading and the definition of exit route needed to be
reworded to reflect the acceptability of refuge areas. The American
Petroleum Institute remarked:
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 * * *.
[[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).
Paragraphs 1910.36(d)(1), (2), and (3) of the final rule (proposed
as paragraph 1910.36(g)), address locking exit route doors. Paragraph
1910.36(d)(1) specifies that employees must be able to open an exit
route door from the inside at all times without keys, tools, or special
knowledge. Devices that only lock from the outside at the exit
discharge door, such as panic bars, are permitted. Paragraph
1910.36(d)(2) specifies that exit route doors must be free of any
device or alarm that could restrict emergency use of the exit route if
the device or alarm fails. Finally, paragraph 1910.36(d)(3) of the
final rule states that in mental, penal or correctional facilities, an
exit route door may be locked from the inside if supervisory personnel
are continuously on duty and the employer has a plan to remove
occupants from the facility during an emergency.
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.
Paragraph 1910.36(e) (proposed paragraph 1910.36(h)), sets out
requirements for doors leading to an exit route. The paragraph requires
that a side-hinged door must be used to connect any room to an exit
route and that the door that connects any room to an exit route must
swing out in the direction of exit travel if the room is designed to be
occupied by more than 50 people or if the room is used as a high hazard
area (i.e., contains contents that are likely to burn with extreme
rapidity or explode).
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.
Eastman Kodak Company (Ex. 5-21) asked if security pass-through
gates/turnstiles that free wheel when an alarm goes off would be
considered an exit. Another commenter (Ex. 5-18) suggested that sliding
doors be acceptable to OSHA if their operation is maintained to NFPA
101 specifications. The commenter noted that the current code (at that
time NFPA 101-1994) allows vertical and sliding doors. OSHA has not
modified the provision to address sliding doors or turnstiles because
it would be a substantive change to the Exit Routes standard. However,
these configurations are addressed in NFPA 101-2000. Employers who
comply with that standard for the requirements concerning gates,
turnstiles, and vertical or sliding doors, will be deemed to comply
with this provision of subpart E.
Final rule paragraph 1910.36(f) (proposed paragraph 1910.36(i)) and
issue 4 in the hearing notice (at 62 FR 9403)), address the required
capacity for exit routes. The paragraph requires that exit routes be
able to support the maximum permitted occupant load for each floor
served by the exit routes, and that the capacity of exit routes may not
decrease in the direction of exit route travel to the exit discharge.
OSHA has divided this proposed provision into two provisions in the
final rule. The Agency has also made an editorial change in response to
a concern raised by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) (Ex. 5-47).
TVA pointed out that in the existing standard, each exit route does not
have to support the maximum permitted occupant load; rather, the
existing standard requires that the combined capacity of the exits must
support the maximum permitted occupant load for that floor. OSHA agrees
with the commenter and has revised final paragraph 1910.36(f)
accordingly.
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
[[Page 67957]]
load.'' 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.
Final rule paragraph 1910.36(g) (proposed paragraph 1910.36(j))
addresses the height and width requirements for exit routes and
specifies that the ceiling of an exit route must be at least seven feet
six inches (2.3 m) high. The paragraph specifies that any projection
from the ceiling cannot decrease the space between the projection and
the floor to less than six feet eight inches (2.0 m). Paragraph
1910.36(g) also specifies that the width of an exit access must be at
least 28 inches (71.1 cm) wide at all points and that where a single
way of exit access leads to an exit, its width must be at least equal
to the width of the exit to which it leads.
Final paragraph 1910.36(g) also specifies that the width of an exit
route must be sufficient to accommodate the maximum permitted occupant
load of each floor served by the exit route. Lastly, the paragraph
specifies that any objects that project into the exit route must not
reduce the width of the exit route to less than the minimum width
requirements for exit routes.
Paragraphs 1910.36(h)(1) through (4) (proposed paragraphs
1910.36(k)(1)(i) through (iv)), set out special requirements for exit
routes that are outside of a building. The paragraphs require that each
outdoor exit route must meet the minimum height and width requirements
for indoor exit routes and must also meet certain other requirements.
Specifically, (1) an outdoor exit route must have guardrails to protect
unenclosed sides if a fall hazard exists; (2) an outdoor exit route
must be covered if snow or ice is likely to accumulate along the route,
unless the employer can demonstrate that any snow or ice accumulation
will be removed before it presents a slipping hazard; (3) an outdoor
exit route must be reasonably straight and have smooth, solid,
substantially level walkways; and (4) an outdoor exit route must not
have a dead-end that is longer than 20 feet (6.2 m).
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.
Section 1910.37, Maintenance, Safeguards, and Operational Features for
Exit Routes
OSHA proposed in Sec. 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, Sec.
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
[[Page 67958]]
to 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 (Sec. 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:
Deletion of reference to design parameters for exit signs leaves no
adequate frame of reference. Exit signs need to be of a minimum size
and design, just as a national standard exists for a highway STOP
sign.
Further, Tenneco Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS, Ex. 5-41, p.2) stated:
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.
(See also Exs. 5-5, 14, 18, 31, 39, 63.) OSHA agrees with these
commenters and has included in the final rule new paragraph
1910.37(b)(7) specifying the height and stroke width of exit signs (as
it appears in the existing subpart E, paragraph 1910.37(q)(8)).
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 Sec. 1910.165, unless employees can promptly see or smell a
fire or other hazard. This requirement remains unchanged from the
proposed rule.
Section 1910.38, Emergency Action Plans, and Section 1910.39, Fire
Prevention Plans
In the final rule, OSHA has retained the separate sections for
emergency action plans and fire prevention plans, Sec. Sec. 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.
Final paragraph 1910.38(a) states that an emergency action plan is
required, and final paragraph 1910.39(a) states that a fire prevention
plan is required, when an OSHA standard requires such a plan. A number
of commenters (Exs. 5-14, 20, 21, 23, 40, 49) recommended that OSHA
include a listing of all OSHA standards that require an emergency
action plan or a fire prevention plan. The Agency considered modifying
the appendix to add a list of such standards. Instead, OSHA has issued
a Compliance Directive that contains a list of current OSHA standards
that require emergency action plans or fire prevention plans. The
Agency has included this information in a Compliance Directive instead
of an appendix to the standard because it is easier to amend the
Compliance Directive as needed to keep it current.
For informational purposes, OSHA has identified the following
general industry standards that require an emergency action plan or a
fire prevention plan.
1. Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals,
paragraph 1910.119(n), emergency action plan.
2. Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, paragraphs
1910.120(l)(1)(ii), (p)(8)(i), (q)(1), and (q)(11)(ii), emergency
action plan.
3. Portable Fire Extinguishers, paragraphs 1910.157(a) and (b)(1),
emergency action plan and fire prevention plan.
[[Page 67959]]
4. Grain Handling Facilities, paragraph 1910.272(d), emergency
action plan.
5. Ethylene Oxide, paragraph 1910.1047(h)(1)(iii), emergency action
plan and fire prevention plan.
6. Methylenedianiline, paragraph 1910.1050(d)(1)(iii), emergency
action plan and fire prevention plan.
7. 1,3-Butadiene, paragraph 1910.1051(j), emergency action plan and
fire prevention plan.
Final paragraph 1910.38(b) and paragraph 1910.39(b) address written
emergency action plans and fire prevention plans respectively. They
require that the plans must be in writing and available; and for
employers with 10 or fewer employees the plan may be transmitted orally
rather than in writing. In the final rule, proposed paragraphs
1910.38(a)(2) and (a)(3) are combined into one paragraph, 1910.38(b),
and proposed paragraphs 1910.39(a)(2) and (a)(3) become final paragraph
1910.39(b). Combining these paragraphs involved some minor editorial
changes.
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.
OSHA has reordered final paragraph 1910.38(c), containing the
elements of an emergency action plan, to better reflect the order of an
emergency response. Final paragraph 1910.38(c)(1) (proposed paragraph
1910.38(b)(3)) requires that the plan include procedures for reporting
a fire or other emergency. OSHA believes reporting a fire or other
emergency should be the first thing done in an emergency. The rest of
the elements remain in the same order.
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.
Final paragraph 1910.38(c)(3) concerning emergency operations or
shutdown of plant equipment during an emergency has been changed back
to the current subpart E language. This was done to clarify that this
element of the plan does not apply to all employees and all plants,
only to those plants that use employees for these emergency or shutdown
procedures (Exs. 5-4, 18, 54).
Eastman Kodak Company (Ex. 5-21, p.3) suggested that OSHA delete
the wording that addresses accounting for employees (final paragraph
1910.38(c)(4)):
[sbull] Procedures to assure that the fire area is clear of
employees, visitors and contractors. Expectations to track employees
such as maintenance personnel, service providers, or engineers is
very burdensome. In today's work environment many transient
employees work in multiple locations making it difficult to track
who will be in any work area in an emergency. Hence, many emergency
plans require the use of trained searchers to assure that the area
being evacuated is clear of all personnel regardless of their normal
work locations.
OSHA disagrees with this commenter and believes that accounting for
employees after an emergency is critically important information to
rescuers. Employees could, for example, be assigned designated
locations away from the facility at which to meet.
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.
Final paragraph 1910.38(c)(6), which addresses names or job titles
of employees to be contacted for more information or for an explanation
of duties, has been revised from the proposal and is closer to the
current language in subpart E (paragraph 1910.38(a)(2)(vi)). The change
clarifies the requirement.
A few commenters (e.g., Ex. 5-4) contended that proposed paragraphs
1910.38(d) and 1910.37(g), are redundant. However, while both
paragraphs require alarm systems, the two provisions are different.
Proposed paragraph 1910.37(g) (paragraph 1910.37(e) in the final rule)
requires that an employee alarm system be installed and maintained,
unless employees can promptly see or smell a fire or other hazard. It
applies regardless of whether the employer must have an emergency
action plan. Paragraph 1910.38(d) requires that employers have and
maintain an alarm system when an employer is required to have an
emergency action plan by another OSHA standard. That alarm system must
be provided even if employees can promptly see or smell a fire or other
hazard. These paragraphs remain the same as proposed in the final rule.
Final paragraph 1910.38(e), regarding training of designated
employees to assist in a safe and orderly evacuation of other
employees, remains as proposed except for minor reorganization.
Final paragraph 1910.38(f) (proposed paragraph 1910.38(e)) requires
that employers review the emergency action plan with each employee when
the plan is developed or the employee is assigned initially to a job,
when responsibility under the plan changes or the plan changes. Only
minor editorial changes have been made to the final provision.
With regard to 29 CFR 1910.39, fire prevention plans, final
paragraph 1910.39(c) (proposed paragraph 1910.39(b)) remains the same
as proposed. Few comments were received with respect to the elements of
the fire prevention plan.
Final rule paragraph 1910.39(d) (proposed rule paragraph
1910.39(c)) requires employers to inform employees of workplace fire
hazards and review those parts of the fire prevention plan necessary
for the employee's self-protection. Only minor editorial changes were
made to this paragraph.
Miscellaneous Changes
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.
[[Page 67960]]
Other Hearing Issues
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.
III. Legal Considerations
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.
The Agency believes, however, that improved employee protection is
likely to result from promulgation of the final rule because employers
and employees who clearly understand a rule's requirements are more
likely to comply with that rule. In addition, employers may find it
easier to comply with the final rule because the final rule is more
performance-oriented than the former rule.
IV. Economic Analysis
This final rule has been designated as significant and reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. It is
not an economically significant rule under Executive Order 12866 or a
major rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act or section 801 of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). The final
rule imposes no additional costs on any private or public sector entity
and does not meet any of the criteria for an economically significant
or major rule specified by the Executive Order or the other statutes.
Certain provisions of the rule that add flexibility, such as permitting
fire doors to remain open as long as they close automatically during an
emergency and modifying the definition of exit route to reflect the
acceptability of refuge areas, may even reduce costs for employers.
Because the rule does not impose any additional costs on employers for
exit routes, emergency action plans, and fire prevention plans, no
economic or regulatory flexibility analysis of the final rule is
required.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
In accord with the Regulatory Flexibility act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
(as amended), OSHA has examined the regulatory requirements of the
final rule to determine if it will have a significant economic effect
on a substantial number of small entities. As indicated in the previous
section of this preamble, the final rule does not increase employers'
compliance costs, and may even reduce the regulatory burden on all
affected employers, both large and small. Accordingly, the Agency
certifies that the final rule does not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities.
VI. Environmental Impact Assessment
OSHA has reviewed the final rule in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), of the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations (40 U.S.C. part 1500 et seq.), and the Department of
Labor's NEPA regulations (29 CFR part 11). As noted earlier in this
preamble, the final rule imposes the same requirements on employers as
the standards it replaces. Consequently, the final rule has no
additional impact beyond the impact imposed by OSHA's former standards
for means of egress on the environment, including no impact on the
release of materials that contaminate natural resources or the
environment.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The final rule contains no information collection requirements
(paperwork) that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore,
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act is unnecessary.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
For the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, this
rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in increased
expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or increased
expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million in any
year.
IX. Federalism
OSHA has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Executive
Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255) which requires
that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting state
policy options, consult with states prior to taking any actions that
would restrict state policy options, and take such actions only when
there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a problem
of national scope. The Order provides for preemption of State law only
if there is a clear Congressional intent for the Agency to do so. Any
such preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
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
[[Page 67961]]
health 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.
Although Congress has expressed a clear intent for OSHA standards
to preempt State job safety and health rules in areas involving the
safety and health rules of employees, this rule nevertheless limits
State policy options to a minimal extent.
OSHA concludes that this action does not significantly limit State
policy options.
X. State Plan States
OSHA encourages the 26 States and Territories with their own OSHA-
approved occupational safety and health plans to revise their standards
regulating means of egress, emergency action plans, and fire prevention
plans according to the final rule that resulted from this rulemaking.
These states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut (state
and local government employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey (state and local
government employees only), New Mexico, New York (state and local
government employees only), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands,
Washington, and Wyoming.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR 1910
Means of egress, Exit, Exit route, Emergency action plan, Fire
prevention, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and
recordkeeping, Signs and symbols.
XI. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of John L. Henshaw,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210.
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
Order No. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017) and 29 CFR part 1911.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 21st day of October, 2002.
John L. Henshaw,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
OSHA amends 29 CFR part 1910 as follows:
PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for subpart E of part 1910 is revised to
read as follows:
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, Sec. Sec. 1910.33, 1910.34, and 1910.39 are
added, and Sec. Sec. 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)''.
The added and revised text is set forth as follows:
Subpart E--Exit Routes, Emergency Action Plans, and Fire Prevention
Plans
Sec. 1910.33 Table of contents.
This section lists the sections and paragraph headings contained in
Sec. Sec. 1910.34 through 1910.39.
Sec. 1910.34 Coverage and definitions.
(a) Every employer is covered.
(b) Exit routes are covered.
(c) Definitions.
Sec. 1910.35 Compliance with NFPA 101-2000, Life Safety Code.
Sec. 1910.36 Design and construction requirements for exit routes.
(a) Basic requirements.
(b) The number of exit routes must be adequate.
(c) Exit discharge.
(d) An exit door must be unlocked.
(e) A side-hinged exit door must be used.
(f) The capacity of an exit route must be adequate.
(g) An exit route must meet minimum height and width
requirements.
(h) An outdoor exit route is permitted.
Sec. 1910.37 Maintenance, safeguards, and operational features for
exit routes.
(a) The danger to employees must be minimized.
(b) Lighting and marking must be adequate and appropriate.
(c) The fire retardant properties of paints or solutions must be
maintained.
(d) Exit routes must be maintained during construction, repairs,
or alterations.
(e) An employee alarm system must be operable.
Sec. 1910.38 Emergency action plans.
(a) Application.
(b) Written and oral emergency action plans.
(c) Minimum elements of an emergency action plan.
(d) Employee alarm system.
(e) Training.
(f) Review of emergency action plan.
Sec. 1910.39 Fire prevention plans.
(a) Application.
(b) Written and oral fire prevention plans.
(c) Minimum elements of a fire prevention plan.
(d) Employee information.
Sec. 1910.34 Coverage and definitions.
(a) Every employer is covered. Sections 1910.34 through 1910.39
apply to workplaces in general industry except mobile workplaces such
as vehicles or vessels.
(b) Exits routes are covered. The rules in Sec. Sec. 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.
(c) Definitions.
Electroluminescent means a light-emitting capacitor. Alternating
current excites phosphor atoms when placed between the electrically
conductive surfaces to produce light. This light source is typically
contained inside the device.
Exit means that portion of an exit route that is generally
separated from other areas to provide a protected way of travel to the
exit discharge. An example of an exit is a two-hour fire resistance-
rated enclosed stairway that leads from the fifth floor of an office
building to the outside of the building.
Exit access means that portion of an exit route that leads to an
exit. An example of an exit access is a corridor on the fifth floor of
an office building that leads to a two-hour fire resistance-rated
enclosed stairway (the Exit).
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
[[Page 67962]]
discharge 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.
Exit route means a continuous and unobstructed path of exit travel
from any point within a workplace to a place of safety (including
refuge areas). An exit route consists of three parts: The exit access;
the exit; and, the exit discharge. (An exit route includes all vertical
and horizontal areas along the route.)
High hazard area means an area inside a workplace in which
operations include high hazard materials, processes, or contents.
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.
Refuge area means either:
(1) A space along an exit route that is protected from the effects
of fire by separation from other spaces within the building by a
barrier with at least a one-hour fire resistance-rating; or
(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 Sec. 1910.159 of this
part.
Self-luminous means a light source that is illuminated by a self-
contained power source (e.g., tritium) and that operates independently
from external power sources. Batteries are not acceptable self-
contained power sources. The light source is typically contained inside
the device.
Sec. 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 Sec. Sec.
1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37.
Sec. 1910.36 Design and construction requirements for exit routes.
(a) Basic requirements. Exit routes must meet the following design
and construction requirements: (1) An exit route must be permanent.
Each exit route must be a permanent part of the workplace.
(2) An exit must be separated by fire resistant materials.
Construction materials used to separate an exit from other parts of the
workplace must have a one-hour fire resistance-rating if the exit
connects three or fewer stories and a two-hour fire resistance-rating
if the exit connects four or more stories.
(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 Sec. 1910.7 of this part defines a
``nationally recognized testing laboratory.''
(b) The number of exit routes must be adequate. (1) Two exit
routes. At least two exit routes must be available in a workplace to
permit prompt evacuation of employees and other building occupants
during an emergency, except as allowed in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section. The exit routes must be located as far away as practical from
each other so that if one exit route is blocked by fire or smoke,
employees can evacuate using the second exit route.
(2) More than two exit routes. More than two exit routes must be
available in a workplace if the number of employees, the size of the
building, its occupancy, or the arrangement of the workplace is such
that all employees would not be able to evacuate safely during an
emergency.
(3) A single exit route. A single exit route is permitted where the
number of employees, the size of the building, its occupancy, or the
arrangement of the workplace is such that all employees would be able
to evacuate safely during an emergency.
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.
(c) Exit discharge. (1) Each exit discharge must lead directly
outside or to a street, walkway, refuge area, public way, or open space
with access to the outside.
(2) The street, walkway, refuge area, public way, or open space to
which an exit discharge leads must be large enough to accommodate the
building occupants likely to use the exit route.
(3) Exit stairs that continue beyond the level on which the exit
discharge is located must be interrupted at that level by doors,
partitions, or other effective means that clearly indicate the
direction of travel leading to the exit discharge.
(d) An exit door must be unlocked. (1) Employees must be able to
open an exit route door from the inside at all times without keys,
tools, or special knowledge. A device such as a panic bar that locks
only from the outside is permitted on exit discharge doors.
(2) Exit route doors must be free of any device or alarm that could
restrict emergency use of the exit route if the device or alarm fails.
(3) An exit route door may be locked from the inside only in
mental, penal, or correctional facilities and then only if supervisory
personnel are continuously on duty and the employer has a plan to
remove occupants from the facility during an emergency.
(e) A side-hinged exit door must be used. (1) A side-hinged door
must be used to connect any room to an exit route.
(2) The door that connects any room to an exit route must swing out
in the direction of exit travel if the room is designed to be occupied
by more than 50 people or if the room is a high hazard area (i.e.,
contains contents that are likely to burn with extreme rapidity or
explode).
(f) The capacity of an exit route must be adequate. (1) Exit routes
must support the maximum permitted occupant load for each floor served.
(2) The capacity of an exit route may not decrease in the direction
of exit route travel to the exit discharge.
Note to paragraph 1910.36(f): Information regarding ``Occupant
load'' is located in NFPA 101-2000, Life Safety Code.
(g) An exit route must meet minimum height and width requirements.
(1) The ceiling of an exit route must be at least seven feet six inches
(2.3 m) high. Any projection from the ceiling must not reach a point
less than six feet eight inches (2.0 m) from the floor.
(2) An exit access must be at least 28 inches (71.1 cm) wide at all
points. Where there is only one exit access leading to an exit or exit
discharge, the width of the exit and exit discharge must be at least
equal to the width of the exit access.
(3) The width of an exit route must be sufficient to accommodate
the maximum permitted occupant load of each floor served by the exit
route.
(4) Objects that project into the exit route must not reduce the
width of the exit route to less than the minimum width requirements for
exit routes.
(h) An outdoor exit route is permitted. Each outdoor exit route
must meet the minimum height and width requirements for indoor exit
routes and
[[Page 67963]]
must also meet the following requirements:
(1) The outdoor exit route must have guardrails to protect
unenclosed sides if a fall hazard exists;
(2) The outdoor exit route must be covered if snow or ice is likely
to accumulate along the route, unless the employer can demonstrate that
any snow or ice accumulation will be removed before it presents a
slipping hazard;
(3) The outdoor exit route must be reasonably straight and have
smooth, solid, substantially level walkways; and
(4) The outdoor exit route must not have a dead-end that is longer
than 20 feet (6.2 m).
Sec. 1910.37 Maintenance, safeguards, and operational features for
exit routes.
(a) The danger to employees must be minimized. (1) Exit routes must
be kept free of explosive or highly flammable furnishings or other
decorations.
(2) 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.
(3) Exit routes must be free and unobstructed. No materials or
equipment may be placed, either permanently or temporarily, within the
exit route. The exit access must not go through a room that can be
locked, such as a bathroom, to reach an exit or exit discharge, nor may
it lead into a dead-end corridor. Stairs or a ramp must be provided
where the exit route is not substantially level.
(4) Safeguards designed to protect employees during an emergency
(e.g., sprinkler systems, alarm systems, fire doors, exit lighting)
must be in proper working order at all times.
(b) Lighting and marking must be adequate and appropriate. (1) Each
exit route must be adequately lighted so that an employee with normal
vision can see along the exit route.
(2) Each exit must be clearly visible and marked by a sign reading
``Exit.''
(3) Each exit route door must be free of decorations or signs that
obscure the visibility of the exit route door.
(4) If the direction of travel to the exit or exit discharge is not
immediately apparent, signs must be posted along the exit access
indicating the direction of travel to the nearest exit and exit
discharge. Additionally, the line-of-sight to an exit sign must clearly
be visible at all times.
(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).
(6) Each exit sign must be illuminated to a surface value of at
least five foot-candles (54 lux) by a reliable light source and be
distinctive in color. Self-luminous or electroluminescent signs that
have a minimum luminance surface value of at least .06 footlamberts
(0.21 cd/m2) are permitted.
(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.
(c) The fire retardant properties of paints or solutions must be
maintained. Fire retardant paints or solutions must be renewed as often
as necessary to maintain their fire retardant properties.
(d) Exit routes must be maintained during construction, repairs, or
alterations. (1) During new construction, employees must not occupy a
workplace until the exit routes required by this subpart are completed
and ready for employee use for the portion of the workplace they
occupy.
(2) During repairs or alterations, employees must not occupy a
workplace unless the exit routes required by this subpart are available
and existing fire protections are maintained, or until alternate fire
protection is furnished that provides an equivalent level of safety.
(3) 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, or that would impede exiting the workplace.
(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 Sec. 1910.165.
Sec. 1910.38 Emergency action plans.
(a) Application. An employer must have an emergency action plan
whenever an OSHA standard in this part requires one. The requirements
in this section apply to each such emergency action plan.
(b) Written and oral emergency action plans. An emergency action
plan must be in writing, kept in the workplace, and available to
employees for review. However, an employer with 10 or fewer employees
may communicate the plan orally to employees.
(c) Minimum elements of an emergency action plan. An emergency
action plan must include at a minimum:
(1) Procedures for reporting a fire or other emergency;
(2) Procedures for emergency evacuation, including type of
evacuation and exit route assignments;
(3) Procedures to be followed by employees who remain to operate
critical plant operations before they evacuate;
(4) Procedures to account for all employees after evacuation;
(5) Procedures to be followed by employees performing rescue or
medical duties; and
(6) The name or job title of every employee who may be contacted by
employees who need more information about the plan or an explanation of
their duties under the plan.
(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 Sec.
1910.165.
(e) Training. An employer must designate and train employees to
assist in a safe and orderly evacuation of other employees.
(f) Review of emergency action plan. An employer must review the
emergency action plan with each employee covered by the plan:
(1) When the plan is developed or the employee is assigned
initially to a job;
(2) When the employee's responsibilities under the plan change; and
(3) When the plan is changed.
Sec. 1910.39 Fire prevention plans.
(a) Application. An employer must have a fire prevention plan when
an OSHA standard in this part requires one. The requirements in this
section apply to each such fire prevention plan.
(b) Written and oral fire prevention plans. A fire prevention plan
must be in writing, be kept in the workplace, and be made available to
employees for review. However, an employer with 10 or fewer employees
may communicate the plan orally to employees.
(c) Minimum elements of a fire prevention plan. A fire prevention
plan must include:
(1) A list of all major fire hazards, proper handling and storage
procedures for hazardous materials, potential ignition sources and
their control, and the type of fire protection equipment necessary to
control each major hazard;
(2) Procedures to control accumulations of flammable and
combustible waste materials;
(3) Procedures for regular maintenance of safeguards installed on
[[Page 67964]]
heat-producing equipment to prevent the accidental ignition of
combustible materials;
(4) The name or job title of employees responsible for maintaining
equipment to prevent or control sources of ignition or fires; and
(5) The name or job title of employees responsible for the control
of fuel source hazards.
(d) Employee information. An employer must inform employees upon
initial assignment to a job of the fire hazards to which they are
exposed. An employer must also review with each employee those parts of
the fire prevention plan necessary for self-protection.
``Appendix E To Part 1910--Exit Routes, Emergency Action Plans, and
Fire Prevention Plans.''
* * * * *
Subpart H--Hazardous Materials
3. The authority citation for subpart H of part 1910 is revised to
read as follows:
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 Sec. 1910.119, the first sentence of paragraph (n) is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.119 Process safety management of highly hazardous
chemicals.
* * * * *
(n) Emergency planning and response. The employer shall establish
and implement an emergency action plan for the entire plant in
accordance with the provisions of 29 CFR 1910.38.* * *
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 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:
Sec. 1910.120 Hazardous waste operations and emergency response.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(1)(i) * * *
(ii) Employers who will evacuate their employees from the danger
area when an emergency occurs, and who do not permit any of their
employees to assist in handling the emergency, are exempt from the
requirements of this paragraph if they provide an emergency action plan
complying with 29 CFR 1910.38. * * *
* * * * *
(p) * * *
(8) * * *
(i) Emergency response plan. An emergency response plan shall be
developed and implemented by all employers. Such plans need not
duplicate any of the subjects fully addressed in the employer's
contingency planning required by permits, such as those issued by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, provided that the contingency
plan is made part of the emergency response plan. The emergency
response plan shall be a written portion of the employer's safety and
health program required in paragraph (p)(1) of this section. Employers
who will evacuate their employees from the worksite location when an
emergency occurs and who do not permit any of their employees to assist
in handling the emergency are exempt from the requirements of paragraph
(p)(8) if they provide an emergency action plan complying with 29 CFR
1910.38.
* * * * *
(q) * * *
(1) Emergency response plan. An emergency response plan shall be
developed and implemented to handle anticipated emergencies prior to
the commencement of emergency response operations. The plan shall be in
writing and available for inspection and copying by employees, their
representatives and OSHA personnel. Employers who will evacuate their
employees from the danger area when an emergency occurs, and who do not
permit any of their employees to assist in handling the emergency, are
exempt from the requirements of this paragraph if they provide an
emergency action plan in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.38.
* * * * *
(11) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) Where the clean-up is done on plant property using plant or
workplace employees, such employees shall have completed the training
requirements of the following: 29 CFR 1910.38, 1910.134, 1910.1200, and
other appropriate safety and health training made necessary by the
tasks they are expected to perform such as personal protective
equipment and decontamination procedures. * * *
* * * * *
Subpart L--Fire Protection
6. The authority citation for subpart L of part 1910 is revised to
read as follows:
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
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 F 35736),
6-96 (62 FR 111), or 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable; and 29 CFR
part 1911.
7. In Sec. 1910.157, paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 1910.157 Portable fire extinguishers.
(a) Scope and application. The requirements of this section apply
to the placement, use, maintenance, and testing of portable fire
extinguishers provided for the use of employees. Paragraph (d) of this
section does not apply to extinguishers provided for employee use on
the outside of workplace buildings or structures. Where extinguishers
are provided but are not intended for employee use and the employer has
an emergency action plan and a fire prevention plan that meet the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.38 and 29 CFR 1910.39 respectively, then
only the requirements of paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section apply.
(b) Exemptions. (1) Where the employer has established and
implemented a written fire safety policy which requires the immediate
and total evacuation of employees from the workplace upon the sounding
of a fire alarm signal and which includes an emergency action plan and
a fire prevention plan which meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.38
and 29 CFR 1910.39 respectively, and when extinguishers are not
available in the workplace, the employer is exempt from all
requirements of this section unless a specific standard in part 1910
requires that a portable fire extinguisher be provided.
* * * * *
Subpart R--Special Industries
8. The authority citation for subpart R of part 1910 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable;
and 29 CFR part 1911.
[[Page 67965]]
9. In Sec. 1910.268, paragraph (b)(1)(iii) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.268 Telecommunications.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(iii) Working spaces. Maintenance aisles, or wiring aisles, between
equipment frame lineups are working spaces and are not an exit route
for purposes of 29 CFR 1910.34.
* * * * *
10.a. In Sec. 1910.272, paragraph (d) is revised.
b. In Appendix A to Sec. 1910.272, under the heading ``2.
Emergency Action Plans'' the second sentence is revised.
The revised text is set forth as follows:
Sec. 1910.272 Grain handling facilities.
* * * * *
(d) Emergency action plan. The employer shall develop and implement
an emergency action plan meeting the requirements contained in 29 CFR
1910.38.
* * * * *
Appendix A to Sec. 1910.272 Grain Handling Facilities
* * * * *
2. Emergency Action Plan
* * * The emergency action plan (Sec. 1910.38) covers those
designated actions employers and employees are to take to ensure
employee safety from fire and other emergencies. * * *
* * * * *
Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
11. The authority citation for subpart Z of part 1910 is revised to
read as follows:
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 Sec. 1910.1047, paragraph (h)(1)(iii) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.1047 Ethylene oxide.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(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 Sec. 1910.1050, paragraph (d)(1)(iii) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.1050 Methylenedianiline
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(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 Sec. 1910.1051, paragraph (j) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.1051 1,3-Butadiene
* * * * *
(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.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-27251 Filed 11-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P