Federal Register-02-27251

Thursday,
November 7, 2002
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
VerDate 0ct<31>2002 16:39 Nov 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\07NOR2.SGM 07NOR2
67950 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Federal Register document, contact: protection provided to employees.

OSHA, Office of Publications, U.S. Based on the majority of comments (e.g.,
Occupational Safety and Health Department of Labor, Room N–3103, Exs. 5–13, 17, 24–26, 45–47, 58–60)
Administration 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., OSHA has decided to use its traditional
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) regulatory text format for this final rule.
29 CFR Part 1910 693–1888. OSHA believes that the revised subpart
For electronic copies of this Federal E is more performance-oriented and
RIN 1218–AB82
Register document, as well as news more compliance options will be
Exit Routes, Emergency Action Plans, releases, fact sheets, and other relevant available to employers.
and Fire Prevention Plans documents, visit OSHA’s homepage at In the proposal, OSHA stated what it
http://www.osha.gov. expected to achieve by revising subpart
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: References E: (1) To maintain the safety and health
Administration (OSHA), Labor. to comments and testimony in the protection provided to employees
ACTION: Final rule. rulemaking record (Docket S–052) are without increasing the regulatory
found throughout the text of the burden on employers; (2) to create a
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and preamble. In the preamble comments regulation that is easily understood and;
Health Administration (OSHA) is are identified by an assigned exhibit (3) to state employers’ obligations in
revising its standards for means of number as follows: ‘‘Ex. 5–1’’ means performance-oriented language to the
egress. The purpose of this revision is to Exhibit 5–1 in Docket S–052. For quoted extent possible.
rewrite the existing requirements in material in the preamble, the page The proposal attempted to simplify,
clearer language so they will be easier number where the quote can be located rather than to substantively revise,
to understand by employers, employees, is included if other than page one. The OSHA’s means of egress standards. In
and others who use them. transcript of the public hearing is cited finalizing this proposal, the Agency has
The revisions reorganize the text, by the page number as follows: Tr. 37. been careful to ensure that the
remove inconsistencies among sections, A list of the exhibits, copies of the protections afforded employees were
and eliminate duplicative requirements. exhibits, and transcripts are available in not weakened. Employers who are in
The rules are performance-oriented to the OSHA Docket Office. compliance with the original subpart E
the extent possible, and more concise will continue to be in compliance with
than the original, with fewer I. Background the revised subpart E that is being
subparagraphs, and fewer cross- In 1971 and 1972, OSHA adopted promulgated in this rule.
references to other OSHA standards. hundreds of national consensus and In developing the proposal, OSHA
Additionally, a table of contents has established Federal standards under reviewed relevant OSHA decisions of
been added that is intended to make the section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety the Federal courts, the Occupational
standards easier to use. and Health Act of 1970. Section 6(a) Safety and Health Review Commission,
Also, OSHA is changing the name of allowed the Agency to adopt these and Agency letters of interpretation (Ex.
the subpart from ‘‘Means of Egress’’ to standards for a limited period of time 2) to determine how each provision of
‘‘Exit Routes, Emergency Action Plans, without going through traditional subpart E has been interpreted. Also,
and Fire Prevention Plans’’ to better rulemaking. Many of these ‘‘start-up OSHA reviewed comparable State
describe the contents. standards’’ have been criticized for regulations, training materials and
Finally, OSHA has evaluated the being overly wordy, difficult to current consensus standards including
National Fire Protection Association’s understand, repetitive and internally the National Fire Protection
Standard 101, Life Safety Code, 2000 inconsistent. Association’s Life Safety Code, NFPA
Edition (NFPA 101–2000), and has On September 10, 1996, OSHA 101 (at that time the 1994 Edition). This
concluded that the standard provides published a proposed rule in the review enabled OSHA to reorganize
comparable safety to the Exit Routes Federal Register (61 FR 47712) subpart E, eliminate duplicative
Standard. Therefore, employers who proposing to revise subpart E of part provisions, and have confidence that the
wish to comply with the NFPA 101– 1910. OSHA proposed to rewrite the revisions did not diminish the safety
2000 instead of the OSHA standards for existing requirements of subpart E in and health protection afforded by
Exit Routes may do so. plain language so that the requirements existing rules.
would be easier to understand by OSHA discovered during the review
DATES: The final rule becomes effective
employers, employees, and others who process that some provisions of subpart
December 9, 2002. E were outdated and not consistent with
use them. The proposal did not intend
ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28 to change the regulatory obligations of contemporary fire safety options in then
U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates employers or the safety and health current NFPA 101, Life Safety Code,
the Associate Solicitor of Labor for protection provided to employees by the 1994 Edition. Where it was possible to
Occupational Safety and Health, Office original standard. expand permissible employer
of the Solicitor of Labor, Room S–4004, OSHA proposed two versions of the compliance options without lessening
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 revision of subpart E. The first version employee safety, the proposal included
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, was organized in the traditional these expanded options. For example,
DC 20210 to receive petitions for review regulatory format characteristic of most OSHA incorporated NFPA 101, 1994
of the final rule. OSHA standards. The second version Edition, the Life Safety Code’s option to
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: was in a question and answer format. exit to a refuge area rather than to the
OSHA, Ms. Bonnie Friedman, Director, OSHA invited interested parties to outside (proposed paragraph
Office of Public Affairs, N–3647, comment on the content and 1910.36(f)(3)). The proposal also
Occupational Safety and Health effectiveness of the proposed changes permitted the use of self-luminous and
Administration, U.S. Department of and to indicate which version they electroluminescent exit signs (proposed
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., preferred. Both versions left unchanged paragraph 1910.37(c)(6)). (E.g., Exs. 5–
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) the regulatory obligations placed on 18, 40, 45, 54.) The proposal enabled
693–1999. For additional copies of this employers and the safety and health employers to avail themselves of these
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 67951
newer options or continue with current regulatory text version and a question III. Summary and Explanation of the
compliance methods. In this way OSHA and answer version. The traditional Final Rule
increased compliance flexibility without regulatory text version was preceded by This section contains an analysis of
reducing safety. a descriptive section heading that told the record evidence and policy
OSHA did not substitute the reader what information could be decisions pertaining to the various
performance-oriented language for found in that section. The question and provisions of revised subpart E.
current language where doing so would answer version was written in a form by As stated previously, OSHA’s goals in
either eliminate a requirement that which an employer might ask a question revising subpart E were to maintain the
protects employee safety and health, or about the rule, and this question was safety and health protection provided to
expand an employer’s compliance then followed by an answer that told the employees in subpart E without
obligation. For example, the proposal employer about the requirement. increasing the regulatory burden on
continued the existing requirement that Other efforts to make subpart E more employers, create a regulation that is
a means of egress must be at least 28 user-friendly included: removal of easily understood, and, to the extent
inches wide (proposed paragraph unused terms and ordinary terms from possible, express employers’ obligations
1910.37(j)). The Agency chose not to the definitions; elimination of cross- in performance-oriented language.
substitute performance-oriented criteria references to other standards; removal of The majority of commenters
for this provision (such as ‘‘means of overly technical terms in favor of more supported OSHA’s use of plain
egress be of adequate width to support common words; use of the active voice; language. Owens Manufacturing, Inc.
building occupants’’) because this and, the use of positive as opposed to (Ex. 5–1) stated they were ‘‘in favor of
change would eliminate the existing negative sentences. this change as it allows the production
minimum width specification and might The Agency invited public comment people in our manufacturing area to
not provide adequate protection to and requests for a hearing on the understand the scope and meaning of
employees leaving the workplace in an proposed revision to subpart E. An this regulation much easier.’’ United
emergency. For this reason, OSHA informal public hearing was requested Refining Company (Ex. 5–2) remarked
decided not to revise the minimum by the National Fire Protection ‘‘For those individuals who occasionally
clearance requirement. Association (Ex. 5–18) and Hallmark
OSHA noted in the proposal that for reference a standard the Plain English
Cards (Ex. 5–51). version will be beneficial.’’ The
some employers, reliance on
On March 3, 1997, OSHA published commenter from Medical Environment,
performance-oriented standards might
a notice in the Federal Register (62 FR Inc. (Ex. 5–7) stated ‘‘I commend your
create confusion as to the specific
precautions necessary in a variety of 9402) announcing an informal public actions in correcting the highly
situations. In the past, OSHA has used hearing and a reopening of the written technical language into wording that is
NFPA 101 as an aid in interpreting comment period. Written comments on understandable to the average person. I
subpart E. OSHA intends to continue to the proposed standard were to be have read your proposed changes, and
rely on NFPA 101 as guidance in postmarked by April 19, 1997. The find them to be significantly improved.’’
implementing performance-oriented hearing was held in Washington, DC on The Institute for Interconnecting and
provisions of revised subpart E. April 29–30, 1997. Packaging Electronic Circuits (IPC) (Ex.
In addition to organizing the In the hearing notice, OSHA invited 5–25) observed that:
requirements of the revised subpart E in comment on ten issues that will be * * * Because IPC members are
a logical and understandable manner, discussed below in more detail. In predominantly small companies, they have
OSHA has organized the requirements summary, OSHA asked: (1) How OSHA limited resources to track down, read,
around three aspects of exit routes: (1) should use the Life Safety Code in the understand, and comply with the substantial
final rule; (2) how or if OSHA should volume of federal, state, and local
Design and construction requirements; regulations. In many firms, the company
(2) maintenance, safeguards, and use model building codes; (3) whether
the use of performance language creates president, plant manager, or production
operational requirements; and (3) supervisor is responsible for facility-wide
requirements for warning employees of new enforcement problems; (4) how health and safety compliance in addition to
the need to escape. Reorganizing OSHA should address the issues of exit running production and perhaps running the
subpart E in this manner has enabled capacity and the number of required company.
OSHA to eliminate many duplicative exits; (5) whether or not the exit sign Given IPC members’ commitment to
provisions. For example, in existing provisions were too general; (6) whether advancing employee health and safety, IPC
or not the revised requirements for exit applauds OSHA’s proposed Means of Egress
subpart E, both paragraph 1910.36(b)(8) rule. The proposed changes are designed to
and paragraph 1910.37(e) contain the illumination were too general; (7)
whether or not there were still make the standard more understandable and,
design requirements that where therefore promote industry compliance.
workplaces are required to have two provisions or terms in the proposed ‘‘Translating’’ OSHA’s current regulations
means of egress, these means of egress revision that were too technical or into ‘‘plain English’’ is an outstanding
must be located as far away as practical difficult to understand; (8) whether activity that should be aggressively applied
(remote) from one another. OSHA achieved in the proposed to ALL federal regulations—not just OSHA
Other significant revisions to subpart revision its goal of not changing regulations, and IPC supports OSHA’s
E include: Removal of obligations that employers obligations; (9) whether any actions to effect such change.
are not related to employee protection of the proposed provisions provided The International Brotherhood of
but pertain to the protection of the greater protection than in the original Teamsters (Ex. 5–31) commended
general public, and the deletion of any subpart E; and (10) whether any of the OSHA for undertaking the revision
recommended as opposed to required requirements presented technological effort and stated that the International:
actions (i.e., provisions that use feasibility problems for affected
[I]s pleased to see the Occupational Safety
‘‘should’’ or ‘‘may’’). employers. and Health Administration attempt to
The subpart E rulemaking record develop plain English standards. This
II. Regulatory Format contains 23 exhibits, 69 comments, 170 International Union feels that this approach
As noted above, OSHA proposed two pages of testimony and four post- to safety and health standards will enable our
versions of subpart E; a traditional hearing comments. members and other workers across the
country to better understand their OSHA However, we do not believe these goals can who want to go beyond OSHA’s basic
rights and their employer’s obligations. be achieved by either ‘‘plain English’’ provisions. Additionally, the National
alternative taken together or separately as Technology Transfer and Advancement
The National Institute for being proposed by OSHA in the NPRM.
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 3701 (1996))
Specifically, NFPA recommends OSHA
(NIOSH, Ex. 5–42) also supported the abandon its attempt to rewrite a 25-year old
directs Federal agencies to use
effort observing that ‘‘By revising the standard as represented in the first voluntary consensus standards to the
Means of Egress rule in easy to alternative of the NPRM * * *. extent practicable. Under section 6(b)(8)
understand terms as part of a shorter, of the OSH Act, the Agency must
Further, NFPA asserted that OSHA’s consider using national consensus
performance-oriented standard, the rewrite would make enforcement more
standard will be easier to use and standards as the basis for its safety and
difficult especially when performance- health standards wherever possible. By
provide more compliance options for oriented language is substituted for
employers.’’ allowing employers to comply with the
specifications; that the proposal drops exit route provisions of NFPA 101–
Schirmer Engineering Corporation all references to the NFPA Life Safety
(Ex. 5–57) stated: 2000, OSHA has struck a balance that is
Code even though the proposal consistent with its goals for this
Review of the revisions introduced in the indicated OSHA would continue to rely rulemaking as well as the spirit of the
proposed rule indicates an effort to provide on that Code; and, that the proposed National Technology Transfer and
language which is more condensed and clear, rewrite did not specifically allow for Advancement Act.
with the removal of verbose wording. The contemporary compliance options as
sections that were deleted from the original
OSHA has evaluated NFPA 101–2000
contemplated by OSHA and as set forth and has concluded that an employer
version did not greatly affect the overall life
in the current edition of NFPA 101 who complies with the provisions of
safety concept as it pertains to egress from a
building. In addition, the reorganization (1994). NFPA recommended that: that code for means of egress will
helps to clarify some of the requirements of [T]he first alternative be abandoned provide employees with safety that is
the code which, in turn, facilitates overall [traditional regulatory text] and that OSHA comparable with compliance with
compliance. instead adopt by reference the 1994 edition OSHA’s revised Exit Routes standard.
of NFPA 101 * * * Further, NFPA believes OSHA is adding a new § 1910.35 to the
(See also Exs. 5–5, 12, 13, 15–17, 20–24, the adoption of the 1994 edition of NFPA
26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 35, 37, 39, 43, 45, 47, final rule to recognize NFPA 101–2000
101, together with a supplemental Q&A in this regard.
51, 52, 54–56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 70.) (question and answer) format as proposed in The South Carolina Department of
On the other hand, some commenters the second NPRM alternative, would be the
Labor, Licensing & Regulation (Ex. 5–49,
did object to the revision of subpart E best approach to achieve the desired goals as
stated by OSHA in the NPRM. p.2) remarked that ‘‘It is a shame to
on the grounds either that it was not
spend this amount of time to adjust the
productive for OSHA to re-write these At the time of the proposal, the latest wording when the whole standard is in
standards, or that the revised language version of NFPA 101 was the 1994 need of repair.’’
actually changed the requirements. For Edition. NFPA subsequently issued a Others criticized the proposal, feeling
example, James R. Hutton, a fire 1997 edition and then a 2000 edition. that it did not achieve its stated goal.
protection engineer (Ex. 5–9), believed OSHA has reviewed the NFPA 101– For example, the American Health Care
the ‘‘proposed revisions will complicate 2000 edition carefully and found that Association (Ex. 53) indicated that by
and cause more difficulties, not less, for compliance with its provisions would ‘‘Developing new terminology for
smaller businesses who do not have the protect employees as well as the parallel traditional means of egress
resources to undergo the time or provisions of subpart E. Adopting NFPA requirements, we firmly believe, is a
expense required to develop ‘‘custom 101 as an OSHA standard would require step backward and counter to OSHA’s
solutions’’ to ‘‘plain English’’ OSHA to conduct a full rulemaking stated goal of creating a regulation that
requirements.’’ OSHA disagrees. The under section 6(b) of the OSH Act, is easily understood.’’ The United
revised subpart E only makes scrutinizing each provision, accounting Steelworkers of America (Ex. 5–69)
compliance requirements clearer and it for each cost impact on employers, objected ‘‘to the very general
refers employers and employees to justifying why the new standard is performance language of this proposal.
NFPA 101 for added details, when reasonably necessary and appropriate, The language gives little, if any
necessary. and showing that the adoption would direction to employers and employees
It was also suggested by some reduce significant risk to employees. on how to comply with this proposed
commenters that instead of finalizing This would be inconsistent with the standard * * * Further, the proposed
the proposed revision, OSHA should goal of this project which was to clarify standard is somewhat confusing.’’ (See
adopt NFPA 101, the Life Safety Code, employer obligations without increasing also Exs. 5–33, 38, 40, 62, 66–68, 71).
or that OSHA should rely on building compliance burdens. However, OSHA OSHA does not agree with
codes, instead of revising subpart E. has been convinced by commenters that commenters who have concluded that
(See e.g., Exs. 5–10, 15, 18, 19, 26, 41, consideration should be given to OSHA has failed to meet its goals of (1)
46, 48, 61, 68; Tr. 14, 23; Ex. 10.) compliance with NFPA 101. maintaining the safety and health
The National Fire Protection Association The 2000 Life Safety Code goes far protection provided to employees by
(NFPA, Ex. 5–18) remarked: beyond the requirements of OSHA’s subpart E without increasing the
NFPA agrees with several of the goals as standard, both in details of compliance regulatory burden; (2) creating a
contained in the OSHA/NPRM but find and flexibility for unique workplace regulation that is easily understood;
serious flaws in the methodology being conditions. If an employer complies and, (3) stating employers’ obligations
proposed to attain these goals. Specifically, with NFPA 101–2000, OSHA will deem in performance-oriented language to the
NFPA applauds OSHA’s goal ‘‘to maintain such compliance to be compliance with extent possible. Many commenters
the safety and health protection provided to
employees by subpart E * * *’’ and ‘‘to
the OSHA standard. OSHA believes that suggested improvements and language
create a regulation that is easily understood.’’ allowing employers to comply with changes. Unfortunately in some cases
We also applaud OSHA’s desire ‘‘to allow NFPA 101 as an alternative to the the recommendations would have made
employers the flexibility of relying on more revised Exit Routes standard will substantive changes in the requirements
contemporary compliance approaches.’’ provide greater flexibility to employers of subpart E (e.g., Exs. 5–4, 11, 18, 21,
24, 40, 47, 49, 63). OSHA has The American Petroleum Institute standard such as NFPA 101, Life Safety
considered and incorporated many (API) (Ex. 5–29, p.2) supported the Code * * *would be recognized as
comments that improve the clarity of traditional format because of perceived compliance with the OSHA standard.’’
the text, without making substantive pitfalls in the question and answer The Building Owners and Managers
changes in the obligations and format. Association (BOMA) stated that it
protections offered by existing subpart While the Q/A version has some appeal in believed that ‘‘it is essential for OSHA
E. The final rule as revised and terms of better first-impression, API believes to add appendix language stating that
reorganized, incorporates many that the traditional format makes it easier to compliance with the Life Safety Codes
commenter suggestions. OSHA strongly understand the rule in total, and to locate NFPA 101, constitutes compliance with
believes the final rule fulfills its goal of specific requirements. subpart E. Current OSHA practices
providing employers and employees Another API concern is that of confusion. essentially recognize this now (Tr. 23).’’
with much clearer standards in subpart The Q/A format could be associated with OSHA’s intention in the proposed
E. In addition, as already discussed, OSHA’s Field Directives, in which questions rule was to simplify subpart E, not to
and answers are sometimes used to explain replace it. First, OSHA could not simply
employers may take advantage of a more requirements. The questions and answers in
recent version of NFPA 101 under adopt ‘‘NFPA 101’’ as an OSHA
Field Directives, however, do not hold the
§ 1910.35 which recognizes compliance same weight as regulatory language. As a
standard, because it can only consider
with the 2000 Edition of the Life Safety result, confusion could be caused by the use versions of that standard that are
Code. of questions and answers in both the OSHA currently in existence. To do otherwise
In response to comments, OSHA has standards and in Field Directives. (i.e., attempting to approve a future
changed the name of subpart E to better API is also concerned that the potential for edition) would result in an illegal
reflect the contents of the final rule. inadvertent change of requirements is greater delegation of agency authority. Second,
during a Q/A conversion. This is because adoption of NFPA 101–2000 as the
OSHA proposed to call the subpart
more structural revision and reorganization is OSHA standard goes beyond the limited
‘‘Exit Routes,’’ but several commenters required to accommodate the Q/A approach,
(Exs. 5–24, 40, 45) noted that the purpose of this rulemaking. Such action
as demonstrated by comparison of the two would involve substantive rulemaking,
subpart contains provisions not only for approaches in this pilot conversion. It
exit routes but also for emergency action follows that the Q/A approach would face
including detailed analysis of the
plans, and fire prevention plans. OSHA even greater conversion problems for other, differences between OSHA current rules
agrees with these commenters and has more complicated safety and health and NFPA 101–2000, including costs to
therefore changed the name of subpart regulations. employers and benefits to employees.
As discussed earlier, OSHA has
E to reflect its coverage of Exit Routes, In addition, the International reviewed NFPA 101–2000 and has
Emergency Action Plans, and Fire Brotherhood of Teamsters determined that compliance with that
Prevention Plans. recommended that OSHA not adopt the standard will provide comparable
In the preamble to the proposal OSHA question and answer format because the protection to subpart E. Although the
stated that it included a table of union believed that the format is neither Agency is not adopting NFPA 101–2000,
contents to make it easier to access the well organized nor easy to read. (See an employer who demonstrates
provisions. The table was inadvertently also Exs. 5–2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, compliance with that standard will be
left out of the proposed regulatory 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37, deemed to be in compliance with
language in the Federal Register notice. 40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49.) §§ 1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37 of
OSHA believes that a table of contents Several commenters stated that either subpart E. Many commenters (e.g., Exs.
will be helpful to employers and version would be acceptable (Exs. 5–12, 5–10, 18, 19, 41, 46, 48, 61) supported
employees in locating provisions in the 17, 25). Other commenters supported language that would allow employers to
subpart and therefore, is including a the question and answer version (Exs. comply with the NFPA 101 standard as
table of contents in § 1910.33. 5–16, 23, 32, 42, 48). Some suggested an alternative to the OSHA standard for
As indicated in the Regulatory Format that the question and answer version be Exit Routes. OSHA has incorporated
section above, the proposed rule offered included in an appendix or some other such language into § 1910.35 of the final
two versions of a revised subpart E. The OSHA publication (Exs. 5–20, 24, 26, rule.
first version was written in the 45, 54, 59). The Agency, after Some commenters also asserted that
traditional format of OSHA standards. considering the comments, has decided OSHA should base its standard on the
The second version was written in a to use the traditional format in the final model building codes or allow
question and answer format. rule. The Agency believes that including compliance with the various national
Commenters who addressed this issue the question and answer version in an building codes (Exs. 5–19, 27, 47, 67; Tr.
indicated a preference for the traditional appendix might result in confusion. 23, 26, 32, 43). At the time of the
regulatory format as opposed to the OSHA does use the question and answer rulemaking, there were three different
question and answer format. For format for other, non-regulatory national building codes in the United
example, Medical Environment, Inc. documents, and will consider that States: The Building Officials and Code
(Ex. 5–7) supported the traditional format for future guidance in this area. Administrators’ (BOCA) National
‘‘regulatory format, because this is what Additional comments ranged from Building Code, the International
everyone is used to seeing. The remarks that OSHA should do nothing, Conference of Building Officials’ (ICBO)
question/answer format seemed too revise subpart E and reference NFPA Uniform Building Code, and the
‘‘loose’’ to find an answer to a specific 101, or adopt NFPA 101 entirely (Exs. Southern Building Code Congress
question.’’ Similarly, the International 5–10, 18, 28, 38, 41, 47, 53, 62, 66, 68, International’s (SBCCI) Standard
Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) (Ex. 5– 71). The subject of how to address Building Code.
22) believed ‘‘that the ‘‘traditional’’ NFPA 101 in the plain language revision OSHA emphasizes again that it did
plain English version is the preferred was also issue 1 in the hearing notice (at not propose to substantively revise
version. In contrast, we find that the 62 FR 9403). Liberty Mutual Insurance subpart E, nor did it propose to allow
question and answer format quickly Group (Ex. 5–19) recommended that the use of building codes to comply
becomes condescending, and to a OSHA ‘‘include a provision that with subpart E. OSHA is not familiar
degree, annoying.’’ compliance with a national consensus enough with the detailed requirements
of the various building codes to occupant load, refuge area, and self- standard. They explained that the
determine unequivocally whether luminous. information would be used by in-house
compliance with any or all of them personnel who make alterations or
Section 1910.35, Compliance With
could be considered to fulfill employer repairs to the building. OSHA believes
NFPA 101–2000, Life Safety Code
obligations imposed by subpart E. that the reference to NFPA 101 in
Moreover the contents of these building As discussed previously in this § 1910.35 will assist employers and
codes were not analyzed, evaluated or preamble, this section provides that an employees in answering these
considered as part of this rulemaking. employer who complies with questions.
The BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI Codes corresponding provisions of NFPA 101– IMC Global, Inc. also recommended
vary considerably in their requirements 2000 is deemed to be in compliance that OSHA define the term ‘‘story,’’
and coverage relating to areas covered with subpart E, sections 1910.34– suggesting that OSHA use the definition
by subpart E. This rulemaking was not 1910.37. used in the NFPA 101, Life Safety Code,
designed to address these differences, Section 1910.36, Design and but did not provide any rationale or
nor was it intended to expand the Construction Requirements for Exit support to demonstrate that the failure
coverage of subpart E. Accordingly, Routes to include a definition would have a
OSHA declines to extend recognition to negative impact on worker safety or
Section 1910.36 contains health. OSHA notes that the NPFA 101–
building codes as a means of
requirements for the design and 2000, defines the term ‘‘story’’ to mean
determining compliance with subpart E.
construction of exit routes. It includes a ‘‘That portion of a building between the
This decision only involves the narrow
requirement that exit routes be upper surface of a floor and the upper
issue of whether compliance with a
permanent, addresses fire resistance- surface of the floor or roof next above.’’
given building code demonstrates
ratings of construction materials used in OSHA believes this definition to be
compliance with subpart E. OSHA
exit stairways (exits), describes generally understood and has
recognizes and acknowledges the
openings into exits, defines the determined not to include a definition
importance and the value of building
minimum number of exit routes in of ‘‘story’’ in the regulatory text of the
codes in assuring that buildings are
workplaces, addresses exit discharges, final rule.
constructed safely.
and discusses locked exit route doors, Another commenter, the American
Final Rule and exit route doors. It also addresses Trucking Association (Ex. 5–52),
Section 1910.34, Coverage and the capacity, height and width of exit suggested that OSHA reword proposed
Definitions routes, and finally, it sets forth paragraph 1910.36(d), to make it similar
requirements for exit routes that are to the wording in the existing subpart E
In the proposal, § 1910.35 was outside a building. concerning fire resistant-materials
entitled ‘‘Coverage.’’ It noted that all Many of these requirements are (paragraphs 1910.37(b)(1) and (b)(2)).
general industry employers were identical or nearly the same as those That wording requires that for exits
covered by subpart E, and that ‘‘exits’’ proposed, but have been rearranged in protected by separation from other parts
and ‘‘exit routes’’ were covered. The a more logical order or reworded so that of the building, the separation shall
section went on to define these unique the requirements are clearer and easier meet certain construction requirements.
terms in the proposal. OSHA has to understand and follow. The commenter noted that the proposed
retitled this section as ‘‘coverage and Paragraph (a)(1) of 1910.36 (proposed wording appears to require all exits to
definitions,’’ and has moved it to paragraph 1910.36(a)), requires that exit be separated by fire resistant-materials.
§ 1910.34 of the final rule. The routes be a permanent part of the OSHA agrees that the provision was not
‘‘coverage’’ paragraph, § 1910.34(a), workplace. This provision remains as clearly worded and has revised the
specifies that the standard covers all proposed. OSHA believes that exit language of the final rule to specify the
workplaces in general industry except routes must be a permanent part of a required fire resistance-rating of
mobile workplaces. Paragraph (b) sets structure and that employees must materials used to construct separations,
forth the ‘‘coverage’’ of the subpart: The know the route to safety. Otherwise, i.e., enclosed stairways. The revised
minimum requirements for exit routes, during an emergency, employees may language reflects the concerns raised by
emergency action plans, and fire become confused and take the wrong the commenter.
prevention plans. Paragraph (c) of path to safety. Paragraph (a)(3) of 1910.36 (proposed
§ 1910.34 includes the definitions Paragraph (a)(2) of 1910.36 (proposed paragraph 1910.36(c)), restricts the
pertinent to the subpart. paragraph 1901.36(d)), specifies the fire number of openings into exits to those
In the proposal, OSHA included resistance-rating of construction openings necessary to allow access to
definitions for ‘‘Exit’’ and ‘‘Exit Route,’’ materials used to separate exits from the exit from occupied areas of the
eliminating all other definitions, other parts of the workplace (e.g., workplace, or from the exit to the exit
believing they were unnecessary. stairways). For example, where an exit discharge. It also specifies that openings
However, commenters thought that stairway connects three or fewer stories, must be protected by a self-closing fire
OSHA went too far by not defining other it must be constructed of materials door that remains closed unless the fire
terms or inappropriately failed to define having a 1-hour fire resistance-rating. If door automatically closes in an
other important terms (e.g., Exs. 5–18, the exit stairway connects four or more emergency when the fire alarm or
21, 24, 28, 41, 45, 47, 49.) After due stories, it must be constructed of employee alarm system is sounded.
consideration, OSHA agrees with these materials having a 2-hour fire The final rule differs from the
commenters and in the final rule (now resistance-rating. proposal in that it permits fire doors to
paragraph 1910.34(c)) has added and One commenter, IMC Global, Inc. (Ex. remain open as long as they close
clarified definitions for words used in 5–54), suggested that OSHA include automatically during an emergency.
the proposal that commenters found information in the standard or the This change was made in response to
unclear. OSHA has clarified the terms appendix that would specify what comments from H. M. Bucci and the
‘‘exit’’ and ‘‘exit route’’ and has added construction materials or combination NFPA (Exs. 5–10, 18). Both pointed out
definitions for electroluminescent, exit of materials would meet the fire that NFPA 101, Life Safety Code,
access, exit discharge, high hazard area, resistance-ratings required by the permits the exception. OSHA notes that
the additional flexibility provided from notice (at 62 FR 9403), all address the would be permitted or suggested that
this provision is in keeping with the general requirement that all workplaces this exception be eliminated (Exs. 5–4,
Agency’s intent in rewriting subpart E, have at least two exit routes, as far away 5, 8, 26, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 54, 63).
i.e., to add flexibility if it does not as practical from each other, to ensure OSHA agrees with some of the
detract from employee safety or health that all employees and other building commenters in part, and has made it
and does not impose additional costs or occupants can promptly and safely clear that employers must have at least
compliance obligations. evacuate the workplace during an two exit routes, except where one exit
A commenter, Dennis Kirson (Ex. 5– emergency. Where two are insufficient, route would be sufficient to allow all
4), noted that the proposed provision the employer must have additional exit employees to evacuate the workplace
did not provide guidance on the fire routes (see NFPA 101–2000 for safely and promptly. OSHA has added
rating for fire doors opening into an exit. guidance). The number of exit routes a note to the provision stating that
Such ratings are based on the purpose can be reduced to one where the employers may consult NFPA 101–2000
of the door. To be listed or approved as number of employees, the size of the for guidance on how to determine the
a fire door, the door would have to meet building, its occupancy, or the appropriate number of exit routes.
the fire rating set by a nationally arrangement of the workplace is such Other commenters suggested that the
recognized testing laboratory (see next that all employees would be able to expression in proposed paragraph
paragraph). evacuate safely during an emergency. 1910.36(b)(2), ‘‘other means of escape
Paragraph 1910.36(a)(3) (proposed Although OSHA does not have direct * * * should be available,’’ invited
paragraph 1910.36(c)), requires that authority to regulate non-employee confusion, made the provision vague,
each fire door, including its frame and occupants of a building, in assuring the and was unenforceable, and that OSHA
hardware, be listed or approved by a safe evacuation of employees, the should remove it in the final rule (Exs.
nationally recognized testing laboratory. impact of other occupants in a building 5–4, 11, 24, 40). OSHA agrees with the
The International Dairy Foods must be taken into consideration to commenters and has eliminated the
Association (Ex. 5–22), suggested that assure a safe evacuation of all advisory wording in the final provision.
OSHA include the definition of the employees. Thus, OSHA refers to ‘‘other Paragraph 1910.36(c)(1) of the final
terms ‘‘listed,’’ ‘‘approved,’’ and building occupants’’ generally as it does rule (proposed paragraph 1910.36(f))
‘‘nationally recognized testing in the existing subpart E. requires that each exit discharge lead
laboratory’’ in the regulatory language of ‘‘As far away as practical’’ (‘‘remote’’
directly outside or to a street, walkway,
the final rule instead of giving a cross- in the proposal) means that exit routes
refuge area, public way, or open space
reference to another section of the must be located far enough apart so that
standards. Section 1910.7 contains what if one exit route is blocked by fire or with access to the outside. Paragraph
employers need to know about ‘‘listed,’’ smoke, employees can evacuate using 1910.36(c)(2) requires that the street,
‘‘approved,’’ and ‘‘nationally recognized the second exit route. The paragraph walkway, refuge area, public way, or
testing laboratory.’’ OSHA does not also provides a note that employers open space to which an exit discharge
agree that adding additional definitions, must consider the number of employees, leads must be large enough to
which are duplicated elsewhere in part the size of the building, its occupancy, accommodate the building occupants
1910, to the standard would be and the arrangement of the workplace to likely to use the exit.
particularly helpful. Therefore, OSHA determine the correct number of exit Lastly, paragraph 1910.36(c)(3)
has retained in the final rule the cross- routes, recommending that employers (proposed paragraph 1910.36(f)(4))
reference to the standard containing the consult the NFPA 101–2000 for the requires that exit stairs that continue
terms. number of exit routes appropriate to beyond the level on which the exit
Two commenters (Exs. 5–10, 11) their particular workplace. discharge is located must be interrupted
commented on OSHA’s failure to The provision in the final rule differs at that level by doors, partitions, or
address other openings in exits made for from the proposed rule in that it has other effective means to make clear the
electrical and mechanical systems. One been reworded to state specifically that direction to go to the exit discharge.
commenter (Ex. 5–11) suggested that an employer must have at least two exits This paragraph differs from the
OSHA delete the provision because it (final paragraph 1910.36(b)(1)), or a proposed provision. It has been
precludes the use of protected openings sufficient number of exit routes (final reworded to make it clear that where
when such openings are necessary for paragraph 1910.36(b)(2)) to ensure that exit stairs continue beyond the level of
certain mechanical or electrical all occupants can safely and promptly the exit discharge, there must be some
penetrations. The other commenter (Ex. leave the workplace during an effective way to direct occupants to the
5–10) asked OSHA to address such emergency. An exception to the two-exit exit discharge. This rewording responds
openings by requiring that they be route rule is provided in those to comments questioning the clarity of
sealed with an approved fire barrier circumstances where an employer can the provision as proposed (Exs. 5–22,
sealant or fire stop. The existing rule demonstrate that the number of 41).
does not contain requirements employees, size of the building or A number of commenters indicated
addressing such openings and, as arrangement of the workplace is such their support for allowing exit
discussed above, the purpose of the that one exit route alone is sufficient discharges to lead to a refuge area as
revision is not to add new requirements (final paragraph 1910.36(b)(3)). proposed in paragraph 1910.36(f)(3)
that would impose new obligations on There were a number of comments on (Exs. 5–24, 29, 40, 45); they also
employers. If an employer has these the required number of exit routes suggested that the paragraph heading
openings, OSHA notes that such provision in the proposal (e.g., Exs. 5– and the definition of exit route needed
openings into exits are addressed in 4, 5, 8, 11, 18, 24, 26, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, to be reworded to reflect the
NFPA 101. The employer may use 49, 54, 63) with many commenters acceptability of refuge areas. The
NFPA 101–2000 for guidance even suggesting that the provision be American Petroleum Institute remarked:
though the final rule does not address rewritten to state clearly that two exit Section 1910.35(b)(2) should be revised to
this issue. routes are required. Commenters also clarify that an exit route does not necessarily
Paragraph 1910.36(b) of the final rule, suggested that OSHA more fully explain lead to the outside but could lead to a refuge
the proposal, and issue 4 in the hearing how to determine when one exit route area * * *.
As currently written, section 1910.35(b)(2) is permitted along with what is not scope of this project but the Agency may
incorrectly defines an ‘exit route’ as a means permitted, because of the widespread consider such a change as part of a
of travel to safety ‘outside’ and further states use of panic bars. The commenter also future rulemaking. Tenneco (Ex. 5–41)
that one part of an ‘exit route’ is the way from
suggested OSHA delete the reference to suggested the phrase be changed to
the exit to the ‘outside.’ is incorrectly
misleads users into thinking that the only mental, penal, or correctional ‘‘swing with the exit travel’’ for further
endpoint for an exit route is outside. institutions because they did not appear clarity. OSHA has revised the provision
Similarly, the heading of section 1910.36(f) to fit the definition of general industry to incorporate the recommended
incorrectly states that an exit must lead to the worksites. OSHA has not made the change.
outside. This heading should be amended to suggested change because such Eastman Kodak Company (Ex. 5–21)
include the endpoint of a refuge area. institutions are indeed ‘‘general asked if security pass-through gates/
Organization Resources Counselors, Inc. (5– industry’’ establishments and turnstiles that free wheel when an alarm
45, p. 3) stated that it ‘‘agrees that the goes off would be considered an exit.
employees in these establishments are
concept of refuge areas is one that should be
adopted by OSHA.’’ afforded the same protections as Another commenter (Ex. 5–18)
employees in other general industry suggested that sliding doors be
In response to the comments, OSHA workplaces. In recognition of the unique acceptable to OSHA if their operation is
has revised the definition of exit route problems these institutions have with maintained to NFPA 101 specifications.
(paragraph 1910.34(c) of the final rule) regard to the need to ensure occupants The commenter noted that the current
to reflect the acceptability of refuge remain inside the facilities, OSHA is code (at that time NFPA 101–1994)
areas. Also, the heading to paragraph providing specific language to indicate allows vertical and sliding doors. OSHA
1910.36(f) of the proposal, ‘‘An Exit clearly the performance to be achieved has not modified the provision to
Must Lead Outside,’’ has been changed at these worksites. address sliding doors or turnstiles
to ‘‘Exit Discharge’’ in final rule Another commenter, the Department because it would be a substantive
paragraph 1910.36(c). of Energy (Ex. 5–11), suggested that this change to the Exit Routes standard.
Paragraphs 1910.36(d)(1), (2), and (3) last provision should also reflect However, these configurations are
of the final rule (proposed as paragraph national security at Federal locations addressed in NFPA 101–2000.
1910.36(g)), address locking exit route and that OSHA should add ‘‘or other Employers who comply with that
doors. Paragraph 1910.36(d)(1) specifies facility requiring security from standard for the requirements
that employees must be able to open an unauthorized access.’’ While OSHA concerning gates, turnstiles, and vertical
exit route door from the inside at all does not disagree with the commenter, or sliding doors, will be deemed to
times without keys, tools, or special it has not made the suggested change comply with this provision of subpart E.
knowledge. Devices that only lock from because the inclusion of this additional Final rule paragraph 1910.36(f)
the outside at the exit discharge door, language is beyond the stated scope of (proposed paragraph 1910.36(i)) and
such as panic bars, are permitted. this proceeding. However the Agency issue 4 in the hearing notice (at 62 FR
Paragraph 1910.36(d)(2) specifies that will consider adding the suggested 9403)), address the required capacity for
exit route doors must be free of any language in the future when substantive exit routes. The paragraph requires that
device or alarm that could restrict revisions are made to this subpart. exit routes be able to support the
emergency use of the exit route if the Paragraph 1910.36(e) (proposed maximum permitted occupant load for
device or alarm fails. Finally, paragraph paragraph 1910.36(h)), sets out each floor served by the exit routes, and
1910.36(d)(3) of the final rule states that requirements for doors leading to an exit that the capacity of exit routes may not
in mental, penal or correctional route. The paragraph requires that a decrease in the direction of exit route
facilities, an exit route door may be side-hinged door must be used to travel to the exit discharge.
locked from the inside if supervisory connect any room to an exit route and OSHA has divided this proposed
personnel are continuously on duty and that the door that connects any room to provision into two provisions in the
the employer has a plan to remove an exit route must swing out in the final rule. The Agency has also made an
occupants from the facility during an direction of exit travel if the room is editorial change in response to a
emergency. designed to be occupied by more than concern raised by the Tennessee Valley
The final rule requirements on 50 people or if the room is used as a Authority (TVA) (Ex. 5–47). TVA
locking exit doors are essentially those high hazard area (i.e., contains contents pointed out that in the existing
in the proposal, except that the that are likely to burn with extreme standard, each exit route does not have
provisions are now located in paragraph rapidity or explode). to support the maximum permitted
1910.36(d) in the final rule (instead of The final rule provision in paragraph occupant load; rather, the existing
paragraph 1910.36(g) in the proposal). 1910.36(e) is essentially the same as the standard requires that the combined
There were three comments on the proposed provision (paragraph capacity of the exits must support the
proposal addressing locking exit doors. 1910.36(h) in the proposal) with minor maximum permitted occupant load for
Commenter Dennis Kirson (Ex. 5–4) reorganizing to emphasize the that floor. OSHA agrees with the
suggested that OSHA delete the requirements of the provisions. OSHA commenter and has revised final
sentence ‘‘A device that locks from the has divided the paragraph into two paragraph 1910.36(f) accordingly.
outside such as a panic bar is permitted concise paragraphs in the final rule, Several commenters (Exs. 5–14, 36)
because,’’ he said, ‘‘it deals with ingress paragraphs 1910.36(e)(1) and (2). Two expressed concerns about how to
(to be locked out) rather than egress (to commenters recommended changing the determine adequate capacity or the
be locked in), it serves no purpose.’’ Mr. language of the proposed provision that expected occupancy load for each floor.
Kirson further noted that this sentence required exit doors ‘‘swing out.’’ Mr. Argonne National Laboratory (Ex. 5–14)
did not modify the first sentence. OSHA Dennis Kirson (Ex. 5–4) suggested suggested that OSHA adopt the latest
has not made the suggested change adding an exception to the provision NFPA 101 to determine ‘‘whether or not
because to avoid any misunderstandings that doors swing out, to allow for adequate exiting capacity is provided
it believes that the rule should include containment of hazardous materials, from an area.’’ Another commenter, Mr.
specific language to indicate what is because of the greater hazard (to the Donald R. Delano (Ex. 5–36), suggested
acceptable. The Agency believes it is public) of loss of containment of such that OSHA define ‘‘maximum permitted
necessary in this context to state what materials. Such a change is beyond the occupant load’’ and ‘‘expected occupant
load.’’ IMC Global, Inc. (Ex. 5–54) asked only need to protect unenclosed sides if definition is from NFPA–101 with slight
that OSHA define ‘‘occupant load.’’ In a fall hazard exists. One commenter (Ex. editorial changes.
response to these comments OSHA has 5–10) suggested that the Agency use a In the proposal, paragraph 1910.37(b)
added a definition for the term 50 foot dead-end rather than a 20 foot required that exit route lighting be
‘‘occupant load’’ and explained dead-end. This would be a significant adequate, and paragraph 1910.37(c)
generally how to calculate the occupant change and appears to be a decrease in required that exits be marked
load in the definition. The calculation safety to employees during emergencies appropriately. OSHA has combined
can be done in accordance with NFPA and therefore OSHA has not changed these paragraphs into paragraph
101–2000, since there are a wide variety the length of a dead-end. Other changes 1910.37(b) in the final rule, in part
of general industry occupancies which to these provisions are editorial only. because the provisions are closely
may be subject to different related and the Agency believes that the
considerations. Section 1910.37, Maintenance, standard will be easier to understand
Final rule paragraph 1910.36(g) Safeguards, and Operational Features and use if all the requirements covering
(proposed paragraph 1910.36(j)) for Exit Routes lighting and marking of exit routes are
addresses the height and width OSHA proposed in § 1910.37 to arranged together. The content of these
requirements for exit routes and include provisions covering the paragraphs remains virtually the same
specifies that the ceiling of an exit route operation and maintenance of exit in the final rule except for editorial
must be at least seven feet six inches routes. OSHA has expanded the name clarifications (e.g., ‘‘lighted’’ instead of
(2.3 m) high. The paragraph specifies from the proposal’s ‘‘Operation and ‘‘illuminated’’) and the addition of
that any projection from the ceiling Maintenance Requirements for Exit specifications (issue 5 in the hearing
cannot decrease the space between the Routes’’ to better reflect its contents. In notice at 62 FR 9403) for exit signs in
projection and the floor to less than six the final rule, § 1910.37 is entitled response to comments (e.g., Exs. 5–4,
feet eight inches (2.0 m). Paragraph ‘‘Maintenance, safeguards, and 14, 18, 21, 43, 54). OSHA believes that
1910.36(g) also specifies that the width operational features for exit routes.’’ these changes will enable employers
of an exit access must be at least 28 Provisions of this section include the and employees to have better and
inches (71.1 cm) wide at all points and safe use of exit routes during an clearer information concerning the
that where a single way of exit access emergency, lighting and marking exit requirements for exit routes.
leads to an exit, its width must be at Issue 6 in the hearing notice (62 FR
routes, fire retardant paints, exit routes
least equal to the width of the exit to at 9403) asked whether the proposed
during construction, repairs, or
which it leads. requirements for exit lighting were too
alterations, and employee alarm
Final paragraph 1910.36(g) also general. Some commenters objected to
systems.
specifies that the width of an exit route OSHA’s use of the word ‘‘adequate’’ to
must be sufficient to accommodate the OSHA has made several changes to describe the required amount of lighting
maximum permitted occupant load of paragraph 1910.37(a) of the proposed in exit routes (Exs. 5–4, 18, 19, 22, 54,
each floor served by the exit route. rule, by combining related provisions. 57, 63, 64). (Issue 6 in the hearing notice
Lastly, the paragraph specifies that any In the final rule, paragraph 1910.37(a) at 62 FR 9403.) OSHA’s current subpart
objects that project into the exit route remains titled ‘‘The Danger To E uses the term ‘‘adequate’’ (existing
must not reduce the width of the exit Employees Must Be Minimized’’ and paragraph 1910.36(b)(6)); OSHA did not
route to less than the minimum width addresses furnishings and decorations revise the word ‘‘adequate’’ in the
requirements for exit routes. (proposed paragraph 1910.37(a)(2)), proposal because specifying a level of
Paragraphs 1910.36(h)(1) through (4) travel toward a high hazard area lighting could be viewed as a
(proposed paragraphs 1910.36(k)(1)(i) (proposed paragraph 1910.37(a)(3)), substantive change. However, OSHA
through (iv)), set out special unobstructed access to exit routes has clarified in the final rule (paragraph
requirements for exit routes that are (proposed paragraph 1910.36(e)), and 1910.37(b)(1)), to make it clear and
outside of a building. The paragraphs properly operating safeguards designed performance-oriented. The revised
require that each outdoor exit route to protect employees (proposed provision requires that employees with
must meet the minimum height and paragraphs 1910.37(a) and 1910.37(e)). normal vision be able to see their way
width requirements for indoor exit Minor editorial changes have been made along an exit route. Therefore, OSHA
routes and must also meet certain other to these paragraphs, with the exception has retained the word ‘‘adequate’’ but
requirements. Specifically, (1) an that final paragraph 1910.37(a)(2) has clarified its meaning in the final rule.
outdoor exit route must have guardrails been modified because commenters Employers and employees can refer to
to protect unenclosed sides if a fall found the requirement confusing (Exs. NFPA 101–2000 for more detailed
hazard exists; (2) an outdoor exit route 5–5, 18, 26, 63). This confusion resulted guidance.
must be covered if snow or ice is likely from OSHA’s use of the terminology Final paragraph 1910.37(b)(4)
to accumulate along the route, unless ‘‘An exit route must not require (proposed paragraphs 1910.37(c)(3) and
the employer can demonstrate that any employees to travel toward materials (c)(4)), addresses the marking of the
snow or ice accumulation will be that burn very quickly, emit poisonous direction of travel to an exit. Signs
removed before it presents a slipping fumes, or are explosive.’’ OSHA has would be redundant where the direction
hazard; (3) an outdoor exit route must modified the language to more closely of travel is apparent. Therefore, OSHA
be reasonably straight and have smooth, reflect the current subpart E language: has added the existing subpart E
solid, substantially level walkways; and ‘‘Exit routes must be arranged so that language to the final rule ‘‘where the
(4) an outdoor exit route must not have employees will not have to travel direction of travel to the nearest exit is
a dead-end that is longer than 20 feet toward a high hazard area, unless the not immediately apparent’’ because
(6.2 m). path of travel is effectively shielded such signs are needed only in that
Several commenters addressed this from the high hazard area by suitable situation (Exs. 5–4, 14, 21, 64).
paragraph. Two commenters (Exs. 5–29, partitions or other physical barriers.’’ In Final paragraph 1910.37(b)(5)
40) suggested adding the wording ‘‘if a addition, OSHA added a definition for (proposed paragraph 1910.37(c)(5)),
fall hazard exists’’ to the requirement for ‘‘high hazard area’’ to the final rule’s requires that doors that could be
guardrails. OSHA agrees that guardrails definition section, 1910.34. The new mistaken for exit doors must be marked
to indicate the actual use of the door. In and has included in the final rule new explosive substances or equipment used
the proposal, OSHA required the use of paragraph 1910.37(b)(7) specifying the during construction, repairs, or
the term ‘‘Not an Exit’’ on such doors. height and stroke width of exit signs (as alterations, that are beyond the normal
Doing so eliminated the provision’s it appears in the existing subpart E, permissible conditions in the workplace
performance nature. In the final rule paragraph 1910.37(q)(8)). * * *.’’
OSHA has added the language currently Final paragraph 1910.37(c) (proposed Final rule paragraph 1910.37(e)
found in subpart E (paragraph paragraph 1910.37(d)), addresses the (proposed paragraph 1910.37(g)),
1910.37(q)(2)) (‘‘’Not an Exit’’ or similar upkeep of fire-retardant properties of requires the installation and
designation’’). This change allows paints or solutions used in the maintenance of an employee alarm
employers to comply with the current workplace that might impact the safety system meeting § 1910.165, unless
OSHA language or the NFPA language. of an exit route. In the proposal, OSHA employees can promptly see or smell a
(E.g., Exs. 5–14, 36). stated that an employer must maintain fire or other hazard. This requirement
In final paragraph 1910.37(b)(6) the fire retardant properties of paints or remains unchanged from the proposed
(proposed paragraph 1910.37(c)(6)), other coatings used in the workplace. rule.
OSHA has restored the language from Commenters suggested that OSHA
return to the existing subpart E language Section 1910.38, Emergency Action
subpart E referring to the color of exit
because the proposed language is vague Plans, and Section 1910.39, Fire
signs. In the proposal OSHA stated ‘‘An
and harder to understand than the Prevention Plans
exit sign must show a designated color.’’
OSHA has changed the language back to existing language (e.g., Exs. 5–4, 18, 21, In the final rule, OSHA has retained
the current subpart E language, 43, 54). OSHA believes the language in the separate sections for emergency
‘‘distinctive in color’’ (paragraph the final rule has been made clearer by action plans and fire prevention plans,
1910.37(q)(4)) at the request of several returning to the subpart E language fire- §§ 1910.38 and 1910.39 respectively.
commenters (Exs. 5–30, 41). OSHA does retardant paints or ‘‘solutions,’’ rather OSHA believes it is clearer for the plans
not believe that the proposed language than ‘‘coatings.’’ OSHA has further and their requirements to be contained
improved the provision and has clarified the requirement by specifying in separate sections. Because
accordingly changed it back to existing that paints or solutions used in an exit commenters tended to address both
subpart E as recommended by route must be renewed as often as plans at the same time in their
commenters. This paragraph also retains necessary to maintain the necessary comments or their comments were quite
the use of ‘‘electroluminescent’’ and flame retardant properties. similar about the plans, OSHA is
‘‘self-luminous’’ signs and has defined Final paragraph 1910.37(d) (proposed discussing them together.
the terms in the definition section paragraph 1910.37(f)) addresses the
Final paragraph 1910.38(a) states that
(§ 1910.34). maintenance of exit routes during
an emergency action plan is required,
construction, repairs, or alterations.
Paragraph 1910.37(b)(7) of the final and final paragraph 1910.39(a) states
‘‘Alterations’’ were not included in the
rule was not in the proposed rule. that a fire prevention plan is required,
heading of the proposed provision;
OSHA proposed to delete the following when an OSHA standard requires such
however, in the final rule, the heading
requirement from current subpart E a plan. A number of commenters (Exs.
has been modified to include
(paragraph 1910.37(q)(8)) ‘‘Every exit 5–14, 20, 21, 23, 40, 49) recommended
‘‘alterations.’’ Both the proposal and
sign shall have the word ‘Exit’ in plainly that OSHA include a listing of all OSHA
final rule include the word ‘‘alterations’’
legible letters not less than 6 inches standards that require an emergency
in the regulatory text.
high, with the principal strokes of The first paragraph concerning new action plan or a fire prevention plan.
letters not less than three-fourths-inch construction remains the same as The Agency considered modifying the
wide.’’ The Agency believed that this proposed and is now paragraph appendix to add a list of such standards.
requirement could be handled without 1910.37(d)(1). Minor editorial changes Instead, OSHA has issued a Compliance
specifications (issue 5 in the hearing have been made to final paragraph Directive that contains a list of current
notice at 62 FR 9403). Commenters 1910.37(d)(2) that address repairs and OSHA standards that require emergency
disagreed and suggested that the current alterations. Final paragraph action plans or fire prevention plans.
exit sign dimensions also be included in 1910.37(d)(3) concerning flammable and The Agency has included this
the final rule. For example, Donald R. explosive substances or equipment used information in a Compliance Directive
Delano, P.E., (Ex. 5–36, p. 3) remarked: during construction, repairs, or instead of an appendix to the standard
Deletion of reference to design parameters for alterations, remains the same as because it is easier to amend the
exit signs leaves no adequate frame of proposed except for some minor Compliance Directive as needed to keep
reference. Exit signs need to be of a minimum changes. As discussed above OSHA has it current.
size and design, just as a national standard added the word ‘‘alterations’’ to the For informational purposes, OSHA
exists for a highway STOP sign. proposed language. In addition, the has identified the following general
Further, Tenneco Newport News Agency returned to the use of industry standards that require an
Shipbuilding (NNS, Ex. 5–41, p.2) ‘‘substances’’ instead of ‘‘materials.’’ emergency action plan or a fire
stated: Finally, OSHA has added ‘‘equipment’’ prevention plan.
to the paragraph. The words 1. Process Safety Management of
The exit signs as dictated by the current
standard have become traditional and easily ‘‘substances’’ and ‘‘equipment’’ are in Highly Hazardous Chemicals, paragraph
recognized by the general public. An the present subpart E requirement 1910.119(n), emergency action plan.
employer’s interpretation of ‘clearly visible’ (paragraph 1910.37(c)(3)) but were 2. Hazardous Waste Operations and
may not create an easily recognized sign. inadvertently left out of the proposal. Emergency Response, paragraphs
Therefore, in an emergency the lack of the OSHA has changed the proposed 1910.120(l)(1)(ii), (p)(8)(i), (q)(1), and
traditional and consistent format may be language ‘‘flammable or explosive (q)(11)(ii), emergency action plan.
detrimental. NNS suggests that the text from materials used during construction or 3. Portable Fire Extinguishers,
the current standard stay in effect. repair must not expose employees to paragraphs 1910.157(a) and (b)(1),
(See also Exs. 5–5, 14, 18, 31, 39, 63.) hazards * * *’’ to ‘‘Employees must not emergency action plan and fire
OSHA agrees with these commenters be exposed to hazards of flammable or prevention plan.
4. Grain Handling Facilities, fire or other emergency should be the 1910.38(a)(2)(vi)). The change clarifies
paragraph 1910.272(d), emergency first thing done in an emergency. The the requirement.
action plan. rest of the elements remain in the same A few commenters (e.g., Ex. 5–4)
5. Ethylene Oxide, paragraph order. contended that proposed paragraphs
1910.1047(h)(1)(iii), emergency action Final paragraphs 1910.38(c)(2), (3), 1910.38(d) and 1910.37(g), are
plan and fire prevention plan. and (4) remain for the most part the redundant. However, while both
6. Methylenedianiline, paragraph same as the proposed paragraphs— paragraphs require alarm systems, the
1910.1050(d)(1)(iii), emergency action procedures for evacuation and exit route two provisions are different. Proposed
plan and fire prevention plan. assignments, procedures to be followed paragraph 1910.37(g) (paragraph
7. 1,3-Butadiene, paragraph by employees who remain to operate 1910.37(e) in the final rule) requires that
1910.1051(j), emergency action plan and critical plant operations before they an employee alarm system be installed
fire prevention plan. evacuate, and procedures to account for
Final paragraph 1910.38(b) and and maintained, unless employees can
all employees after evacuation. promptly see or smell a fire or other
paragraph 1910.39(b) address written Final paragraph 1910.38(c)(3)
emergency action plans and fire hazard. It applies regardless of whether
concerning emergency operations or the employer must have an emergency
prevention plans respectively. They shutdown of plant equipment during an
require that the plans must be in writing action plan. Paragraph 1910.38(d)
emergency has been changed back to the requires that employers have and
and available; and for employers with current subpart E language. This was
10 or fewer employees the plan may be maintain an alarm system when an
done to clarify that this element of the employer is required to have an
transmitted orally rather than in writing. plan does not apply to all employees
In the final rule, proposed paragraphs emergency action plan by another
and all plants, only to those plants that OSHA standard. That alarm system
1910.38(a)(2) and (a)(3) are combined use employees for these emergency or
into one paragraph, 1910.38(b), and must be provided even if employees can
shutdown procedures (Exs. 5–4, 18, 54). promptly see or smell a fire or other
proposed paragraphs 1910.39(a)(2) and Eastman Kodak Company (Ex. 5–21,
(a)(3) become final paragraph hazard. These paragraphs remain the
p.3) suggested that OSHA delete the
1910.39(b). Combining these paragraphs same as proposed in the final rule.
wording that addresses accounting for
involved some minor editorial changes. employees (final paragraph Final paragraph 1910.38(e), regarding
The Department of Energy (Ex. 5–11, 1910.38(c)(4)): training of designated employees to
p. 2) suggested that plans should be assist in a safe and orderly evacuation
communicated orally to a ‘‘limited • Procedures to assure that the fire area is of other employees, remains as
clear of employees, visitors and contractors.
number’’ of employees rather than the Expectations to track employees such as proposed except for minor
10 or fewer required by OSHA because maintenance personnel, service providers, or reorganization.
the intent would be better served by not engineers is very burdensome. In today’s Final paragraph 1910.38(f) (proposed
using an arbitrary number. OSHA work environment many transient employees paragraph 1910.38(e)) requires that
disagrees with this suggestion. Since work in multiple locations making it difficult employers review the emergency action
their promulgation in 1980, the to track who will be in any work area in an
emergency. Hence, many emergency plans
plan with each employee when the plan
emergency action plan and the fire is developed or the employee is
prevention plan have used 10 as a require the use of trained searchers to assure
that the area being evacuated is clear of all assigned initially to a job, when
reasonable number of employees for a personnel regardless of their normal work responsibility under the plan changes or
plan to be communicated orally. locations. the plan changes. Only minor editorial
The International Brotherhood of changes have been made to the final
Teamsters (IBT) (Ex. 5–31, p. 6) did not OSHA disagrees with this commenter provision.
agree with the language in proposed and believes that accounting for
paragraph 1910.38(a)(2) and paragraph With regard to 29 CFR 1910.39, fire
employees after an emergency is
1910.39(a)(2), which stated that ‘‘the prevention plans, final paragraph
critically important information to
plan must be made available to 1910.39(c) (proposed paragraph
rescuers. Employees could, for example,
employees on request.’’ IBT asked the 1910.39(b)) remains the same as
be assigned designated locations away
Agency to use the current language of proposed. Few comments were received
from the facility at which to meet.
subpart E, requiring the plans ‘‘be In final paragraph 1910.38(c)(5), with respect to the elements of the fire
available for employees to review.’’ The which requires that the plan include prevention plan.
IBT believed the proposed language procedures for rescue or medical duties, Final rule paragraph 1910.39(d)
added an obstacle to employees by OSHA has added language to clarify that (proposed rule paragraph 1910.39(c))
making them request to see the plan. the requirements only apply to those requires employers to inform employees
OSHA agrees; in the proposal it had employees who will be performing such of workplace fire hazards and review
inadvertently changed the language duties. This language parallels more those parts of the fire prevention plan
from the current subpart E. OSHA fully closely the current subpart E language necessary for the employee’s self-
believes that the plan should be (paragraph 1910.38(a)(2)(iv)). The protection. Only minor editorial
available for employee review and in Agency has also changed ‘‘rescue and changes were made to this paragraph.
the final rule the language reflects this medical duties’’ in the proposal to Miscellaneous Changes
intent. ‘‘rescue or medical duties’’ (emphasis
OSHA has reordered final paragraph added) since employees may do one or OSHA is also amending the sections
1910.38(c), containing the elements of the other but not necessarily both. listed in the preamble’s discussion of
an emergency action plan, to better Final paragraph 1910.38(c)(6), which 1910.38 and 1910.39 above (e.g., 29 CFR
reflect the order of an emergency addresses names or job titles of 1910.120, 1910.157, etc.). These changes
response. Final paragraph 1910.38(c)(1) employees to be contacted for more are necessary to conform with new
(proposed paragraph 1910.38(b)(3)) information or for an explanation of section and paragraph designations for
requires that the plan include duties, has been revised from the Emergency Action Plans and Fire
procedures for reporting a fire or other proposal and is closer to the current Protection Plans found in this revised
emergency. OSHA believes reporting a language in subpart E (paragraph subpart E.
Other Hearing Issues CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, final rule does not increase employers’
As discussed earlier in this preamble, 448 U.S. 607 (1980), the Supreme Court compliance costs, and may even reduce
OSHA asked a series of questions in its ruled that before OSHA can increase the the regulatory burden on all affected
hearing notice (62 FR 9402). To the protection afforded by a standard, the employers, both large and small.
extent possible, OSHA has included the Agency must find that the hazard being Accordingly, the Agency certifies that
questions with the pertinent discussions regulated poses a significant risk to the final rule does not have a significant
in the preamble. For example, the use of employees and that a new, more economic effect on a substantial number
performance-oriented language in the protective standard is ‘‘reasonably of small entities.
proposal was discussed earlier in this necessary and appropriate’’ to reduce
that risk. The final rule that replaces the VI. Environmental Impact Assessment
preamble (issue 3). ‘‘Are terms too
Agency’s former rules regulating means OSHA has reviewed the final rule in
technical’’ (issue 7) was discussed by
of egress, emergency action plans, and accordance with the requirements of the
commenters addressing the definitions
fire prevention plans does not directly National Environmental Policy Act
of the standard or when commenters
increase or decrease the protection (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
identified unclear language. However,
afforded to employees, nor does it of the Council on Environmental
some of the issues raised in the
increase employers’ compliance Quality regulations (40 U.S.C. part 1500
questions were more general and the
obligations. Therefore, no finding of et seq.), and the Department of Labor’s
vast majority of commenters did not
significant risk is necessary. NEPA regulations (29 CFR part 11). As
definitively respond to these questions. The Agency believes, however, that noted earlier in this preamble, the final
These issues were numbered 3, 7, 8, 9, improved employee protection is likely rule imposes the same requirements on
and 10 in the hearing notice (62 FR at to result from promulgation of the final employers as the standards it replaces.
9403), and they asked: Would rule because employers and employees Consequently, the final rule has no
performance-oriented standards create who clearly understand a rule’s additional impact beyond the impact
compliance problems; are there terms requirements are more likely to comply imposed by OSHA’s former standards
that might be too technical; whether the with that rule. In addition, employers for means of egress on the environment,
revision imposes additional obligations; may find it easier to comply with the including no impact on the release of
whether any requirements result in final rule because the final rule is more materials that contaminate natural
greater safety; and whether any performance-oriented than the former resources or the environment.
requirements present technical rule.
feasibility problems. The questions VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
raised in the hearing notice were IV. Economic Analysis
The final rule contains no information
intended to assure that various aspects This final rule has been designated as collection requirements (paperwork)
of the proposal were fully considered. significant and reviewed by the Office of that are subject to the Paperwork
Some commenters addressed the issues Management and Budget under Reduction Act. Therefore, approval
through their comments regarding Executive Order 12866. It is not an under the Paperwork Reduction Act is
specific provisions of the proposal and economically significant rule under unnecessary.
did not respond to the questions Executive Order 12866 or a major rule
specifically set forth in the hearing under the Unfunded Mandates Reform VIII. Unfunded Mandates
notice. To the extent that interested Act or section 801 of the Small Business For the purposes of the Unfunded
persons commented on these issues, Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act Mandates Reform Act of 1995, this rule
OSHA has responded to these (SBREFA). The final rule imposes no does not include any Federal mandate
comments in the context of specific additional costs on any private or public that may result in increased
provisions of the proposed rule. sector entity and does not meet any of expenditures by State, local, and tribal
the criteria for an economically governments, or increased expenditures
III. Legal Considerations
significant or major rule specified by the by the private sector of more than $100
Because the final rule is only a plain Executive Order or the other statutes. million in any year.
language redrafting of a former Agency Certain provisions of the rule that add
subpart, it is not necessary to determine flexibility, such as permitting fire doors IX. Federalism
significant risk or the extent to which to remain open as long as they close OSHA has reviewed this final rule in
the final rule reduces that risk. As noted automatically during an emergency and accordance with the Executive Order on
above, most of the provisions of subpart modifying the definition of exit route to Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64
E were adopted under section 6(a) of the reflect the acceptability of refuge areas, FR 43255) which requires that agencies,
Occupational Safety and Health Act, may even reduce costs for employers. to the extent possible, refrain from
which gave the Secretary of Labor the Because the rule does not impose any limiting state policy options, consult
authority, for a limited period of time, additional costs on employers for exit with states prior to taking any actions
to adopt as occupational safety and routes, emergency action plans, and fire that would restrict state policy options,
health standards any established prevention plans, no economic or and take such actions only when there
Federal Standard or national consensus regulatory flexibility analysis of the is clear constitutional authority and the
standards unless the promulgation of final rule is required. presence of a problem of national scope.
such a standard would not result in The Order provides for preemption of
improved safety and health for V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification State law only if there is a clear
designated employees. By including In accord with the Regulatory Congressional intent for the Agency to
section 6(a) in the OSH Act, Congress Flexibility act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (as do so. Any such preemption is to be
implicitly found that the promulgation amended), OSHA has examined the limited to the extent possible.
of occupational safety and health regulatory requirements of the final rule Section 18 of the Occupational Safety
standards was reasonably necessary or to determine if it will have a significant and Health (OSH) Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et
appropriate to provide safe or healthful economic effect on a substantial number seq.) expresses Congress’ intent to
employment and places of employment. of small entities. As indicated in the preempt state laws where OSHA has
In Industrial Union Department, AFL– previous section of this preamble, the promulgated occupational safety and
health standards. Under the OSH Act, a XI. Authority and Signature (h) An outdoor exit route is permitted.
state can avoid preemption on issues § 1910.37 Maintenance, safeguards, and
This document was prepared under operational features for exit routes.
covered by Federal standards only if it the direction of John L. Henshaw, (a) The danger to employees must be
submits, and obtains Federal approval Assistant Secretary of Labor for minimized.
of, a plan for the development of such Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. (b) Lighting and marking must be adequate
standards and their enforcement (State- Department of Labor, 200 Constitution and appropriate.
Plan state). 29 U.S.C. 667. Occupational Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. (c) The fire retardant properties of paints
safety and health standards developed or solutions must be maintained.
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the (d) Exit routes must be maintained during
by such State-Plan states must, among Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
other things, be at least as effective in construction, repairs, or alterations.
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s (e) An employee alarm system must be
providing safe and healthful Order No. 3–2000 (65 FR 50017) and 29 CFR operable.
employment and places of employment part 1911. § 1910.38 Emergency action plans.
as the Federal standards. Subject to Signed in Washington, DC, this 21st day of (a) Application.
these requirements, State-Plan states are October, 2002. (b) Written and oral emergency action
free to develop and enforce their own plans.
John L. Henshaw,
requirements for exit routes, emergency (c) Minimum elements of an emergency
Assistant Secretary of Labor. action plan.
action plans, and fire prevention plans. OSHA amends 29 CFR part 1910 as (d) Employee alarm system.
Having already adopted OSHA’s former follows: (e) Training.
standards on means of egress, (f) Review of emergency action plan.
emergency action plans, and fire PART 1910—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY § 1910.39 Fire prevention plans.
prevention plans, (or having developed AND HEALTH STANDARDS (a) Application.
alternative standards acceptable to (b) Written and oral fire prevention plans.
OSHA), State-Plan states are not 1. The authority citation for subpart E (c) Minimum elements of a fire prevention
obligated to adopt the final rule; they of part 1910 is revised to read as plan.
follows: (d) Employee information.
may, however, choose to adopt the final
rule, and OSHA encourages them to do Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational § 1910.34 Coverage and definitions.
so. Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, (a) Every employer is covered.
655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s Order Nos. Sections 1910.34 through 1910.39 apply
Although Congress has expressed a
12–71 (36 FR 8754), (8–76 41 FR 25059), 9– to workplaces in general industry except
clear intent for OSHA standards to 83 (48 FR 35736) or 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–
preempt State job safety and health 96 (62 FR 111), or 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), as
mobile workplaces such as vehicles or
rules in areas involving the safety and applicable. vessels.
health rules of employees, this rule (b) Exits routes are covered. The rules
2.a. In subpart E, §§ 1910.33, 1910.34, in §§ 1910.34 through 1910.39 cover the
nevertheless limits State policy options and 1910.39 are added, and §§ 1910.35
to a minimal extent. minimum requirements for exit routes
through 1910.38 are revised. that employers must provide in their
OSHA concludes that this action does b. In the appendix to subpart E to part workplace so that employees may
not significantly limit State policy 1910, the heading is revised, and in the evacuate the workplace safely during an
options. third sentence of section 1, ‘‘in emergency. Sections 1910.34 through
paragraph 1910.38(a)(2)’’ is revised to 1910.39 also cover the minimum
X. State Plan States read ‘‘in paragraph 1910.38(c)’’. requirements for emergency action
The added and revised text is set forth
OSHA encourages the 26 States and plans and fire prevention plans.
as follows: (c) Definitions.
Territories with their own OSHA-
approved occupational safety and health Electroluminescent means a light-
Subpart E—Exit Routes, Emergency
plans to revise their standards emitting capacitor. Alternating current
Action Plans, and Fire Prevention
regulating means of egress, emergency excites phosphor atoms when placed
Plans
action plans, and fire prevention plans between the electrically conductive
according to the final rule that resulted § 1910.33 Table of contents. surfaces to produce light. This light
from this rulemaking. These states This section lists the sections and source is typically contained inside the
include Alaska, Arizona, California, paragraph headings contained in device.
Connecticut (state and local government §§ 1910.34 through 1910.39. Exit means that portion of an exit
employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, route that is generally separated from
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, other areas to provide a protected way
§ 1910.34 Coverage and definitions.
Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey (state (a) Every employer is covered.
of travel to the exit discharge. An
and local government employees only), (b) Exit routes are covered. example of an exit is a two-hour fire
New Mexico, New York (state and local (c) Definitions. resistance-rated enclosed stairway that
§ 1910.35 Compliance with NFPA 101– leads from the fifth floor of an office
government employees only), North
2000, Life Safety Code. building to the outside of the building.
Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South
§ 1910.36 Design and construction Exit access means that portion of an
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, requirements for exit routes. exit route that leads to an exit. An
Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, (a) Basic requirements. example of an exit access is a corridor
and Wyoming. (b) The number of exit routes must be on the fifth floor of an office building
adequate. that leads to a two-hour fire resistance-
List of Subjects in 29 CFR 1910 (c) Exit discharge.
(d) An exit door must be unlocked.
rated enclosed stairway (the Exit).
Means of egress, Exit, Exit route, (e) A side-hinged exit door must be used.
Exit discharge means the part of the
Emergency action plan, Fire prevention, (f) The capacity of an exit route must be exit route that leads directly outside or
Occupational safety and health, adequate. to a street, walkway, refuge area, public
Reporting and recordkeeping, Signs and (g) An exit route must meet minimum way, or open space with access to the
symbols. height and width requirements. outside. An example of an exit
discharge is a door at the bottom of a materials used to separate an exit from means that clearly indicate the direction
two-hour fire resistance-rated enclosed other parts of the workplace must have of travel leading to the exit discharge.
stairway that discharges to a place of a one-hour fire resistance-rating if the (d) An exit door must be unlocked. (1)
safety outside the building. exit connects three or fewer stories and Employees must be able to open an exit
Exit route means a continuous and a two-hour fire resistance-rating if the route door from the inside at all times
unobstructed path of exit travel from exit connects four or more stories. without keys, tools, or special
any point within a workplace to a place (3) Openings into an exit must be knowledge. A device such as a panic bar
of safety (including refuge areas). An limited. An exit is permitted to have that locks only from the outside is
exit route consists of three parts: The only those openings necessary to allow permitted on exit discharge doors.
exit access; the exit; and, the exit access to the exit from occupied areas of (2) Exit route doors must be free of
discharge. (An exit route includes all the workplace, or to the exit discharge. any device or alarm that could restrict
vertical and horizontal areas along the An opening into an exit must be emergency use of the exit route if the
route.) protected by a self-closing fire door that device or alarm fails.
High hazard area means an area remains closed or automatically closes (3) An exit route door may be locked
inside a workplace in which operations in an emergency upon the sounding of from the inside only in mental, penal,
include high hazard materials, a fire alarm or employee alarm system. or correctional facilities and then only
processes, or contents. Each fire door, including its frame and if supervisory personnel are
Occupant load means the total hardware, must be listed or approved by continuously on duty and the employer
number of persons that may occupy a a nationally recognized testing has a plan to remove occupants from the
workplace or portion of a workplace at laboratory. Section 1910.155(c)(3)(iv)(A) facility during an emergency.
any one time. The occupant load of a of this part defines ‘‘listed’’ and § 1910.7 (e) A side-hinged exit door must be
workplace is calculated by dividing the of this part defines a ‘‘nationally used. (1) A side-hinged door must be
gross floor area of the workplace or recognized testing laboratory.’’ used to connect any room to an exit
portion of a workplace by the occupant (b) The number of exit routes must be route.
load factor for that particular type of adequate. (1) Two exit routes. At least (2) The door that connects any room
workplace occupancy. Information two exit routes must be available in a to an exit route must swing out in the
regarding ‘‘Occupant load’’ is located in workplace to permit prompt evacuation direction of exit travel if the room is
NFPA 101–2000, Life Safety Code. of employees and other building designed to be occupied by more than
Refuge area means either: occupants during an emergency, except 50 people or if the room is a high hazard
(1) A space along an exit route that is as allowed in paragraph (b)(3) of this area (i.e., contains contents that are
protected from the effects of fire by section. The exit routes must be located likely to burn with extreme rapidity or
separation from other spaces within the as far away as practical from each other explode).
building by a barrier with at least a one- so that if one exit route is blocked by (f) The capacity of an exit route must
hour fire resistance-rating; or fire or smoke, employees can evacuate be adequate. (1) Exit routes must
(2) A floor with at least two spaces, using the second exit route. support the maximum permitted
separated from each other by smoke- (2) More than two exit routes. More occupant load for each floor served.
resistant partitions, in a building than two exit routes must be available (2) The capacity of an exit route may
protected throughout by an automatic in a workplace if the number of not decrease in the direction of exit
sprinkler system that complies with employees, the size of the building, its route travel to the exit discharge.
§ 1910.159 of this part. occupancy, or the arrangement of the Note to paragraph 1910.36(f): Information
Self-luminous means a light source workplace is such that all employees regarding ‘‘Occupant load’’ is located in
that is illuminated by a self-contained would not be able to evacuate safely NFPA 101–2000, Life Safety Code.
power source (e.g., tritium) and that during an emergency.
(g) An exit route must meet minimum
operates independently from external (3) A single exit route. A single exit
height and width requirements. (1) The
power sources. Batteries are not route is permitted where the number of
ceiling of an exit route must be at least
acceptable self-contained power employees, the size of the building, its
seven feet six inches (2.3 m) high. Any
sources. The light source is typically occupancy, or the arrangement of the
projection from the ceiling must not
contained inside the device. workplace is such that all employees
reach a point less than six feet eight
would be able to evacuate safely during
§ 1910.35 Compliance with NFPA 101– inches (2.0 m) from the floor.
an emergency.
2000, Life Safety Code. (2) An exit access must be at least 28
Note to paragraph 1910.36(b): For inches (71.1 cm) wide at all points.
An employer who demonstrates assistance in determining the number of exit
compliance with the exit route Where there is only one exit access
routes necessary for your workplace, consult leading to an exit or exit discharge, the
provisions of NFPA 101–2000, the Life NFPA 101–2000, Life Safety Code.
Safety Code, will be deemed to be in width of the exit and exit discharge
compliance with the corresponding (c) Exit discharge. (1) Each exit must be at least equal to the width of the
requirements in §§ 1910.34, 1910.36, discharge must lead directly outside or exit access.
and 1910.37. to a street, walkway, refuge area, public (3) The width of an exit route must be
way, or open space with access to the sufficient to accommodate the
§ 1910.36 Design and construction outside. maximum permitted occupant load of
requirements for exit routes. (2) The street, walkway, refuge area, each floor served by the exit route.
(a) Basic requirements. Exit routes public way, or open space to which an (4) Objects that project into the exit
must meet the following design and exit discharge leads must be large route must not reduce the width of the
construction requirements: (1) An exit enough to accommodate the building exit route to less than the minimum
route must be permanent. Each exit occupants likely to use the exit route. width requirements for exit routes.
route must be a permanent part of the (3) Exit stairs that continue beyond (h) An outdoor exit route is permitted.
workplace. the level on which the exit discharge is Each outdoor exit route must meet the
(2) An exit must be separated by fire located must be interrupted at that level minimum height and width
resistant materials. Construction by doors, partitions, or other effective requirements for indoor exit routes and
must also meet the following a sign indicating its actual use (e.g., (c) Minimum elements of an
requirements: closet). emergency action plan. An emergency
(1) The outdoor exit route must have (6) Each exit sign must be illuminated action plan must include at a minimum:
guardrails to protect unenclosed sides if to a surface value of at least five foot- (1) Procedures for reporting a fire or
a fall hazard exists; candles (54 lux) by a reliable light other emergency;
(2) The outdoor exit route must be source and be distinctive in color. Self- (2) Procedures for emergency
covered if snow or ice is likely to luminous or electroluminescent signs evacuation, including type of
accumulate along the route, unless the that have a minimum luminance surface evacuation and exit route assignments;
employer can demonstrate that any value of at least .06 footlamberts (0.21 (3) Procedures to be followed by
snow or ice accumulation will be cd/m2) are permitted. employees who remain to operate
removed before it presents a slipping (7) Each exit sign must have the word critical plant operations before they
hazard; ‘‘Exit’’ in plainly legible letters not less evacuate;
(3) The outdoor exit route must be (4) Procedures to account for all
than six inches (15.2 cm) high, with the
reasonably straight and have smooth, employees after evacuation;
principal strokes of the letters in the (5) Procedures to be followed by
solid, substantially level walkways; and word ‘‘Exit’’ not less than three-fourths
(4) The outdoor exit route must not employees performing rescue or medical
of an inch (1.9 cm) wide. duties; and
have a dead-end that is longer than 20 (c) The fire retardant properties of
feet (6.2 m). (6) The name or job title of every
paints or solutions must be maintained. employee who may be contacted by
§ 1910.37 Maintenance, safeguards, and Fire retardant paints or solutions must employees who need more information
operational features for exit routes. be renewed as often as necessary to about the plan or an explanation of their
(a) The danger to employees must be maintain their fire retardant properties. duties under the plan.
minimized. (1) Exit routes must be kept (d) Exit routes must be maintained (d) Employee alarm system. An
free of explosive or highly flammable during construction, repairs, or employer must have and maintain an
furnishings or other decorations. alterations. (1) During new construction, employee alarm system. The employee
(2) Exit routes must be arranged so employees must not occupy a workplace alarm system must use a distinctive
that employees will not have to travel until the exit routes required by this signal for each purpose and comply
toward a high hazard area, unless the subpart are completed and ready for with the requirements in § 1910.165.
path of travel is effectively shielded employee use for the portion of the (e) Training. An employer must
from the high hazard area by suitable workplace they occupy. designate and train employees to assist
partitions or other physical barriers. (2) During repairs or alterations, in a safe and orderly evacuation of other
(3) Exit routes must be free and employees must not occupy a workplace employees.
unobstructed. No materials or unless the exit routes required by this (f) Review of emergency action plan.
equipment may be placed, either subpart are available and existing fire An employer must review the
permanently or temporarily, within the protections are maintained, or until emergency action plan with each
exit route. The exit access must not go alternate fire protection is furnished that employee covered by the plan:
through a room that can be locked, such provides an equivalent level of safety. (1) When the plan is developed or the
as a bathroom, to reach an exit or exit (3) Employees must not be exposed to employee is assigned initially to a job;
discharge, nor may it lead into a dead- hazards of flammable or explosive (2) When the employee’s
end corridor. Stairs or a ramp must be substances or equipment used during responsibilities under the plan change;
provided where the exit route is not construction, repairs, or alterations, that and
are beyond the normal permissible (3) When the plan is changed.
substantially level.
(4) Safeguards designed to protect conditions in the workplace, or that § 1910.39 Fire prevention plans.
employees during an emergency (e.g., would impede exiting the workplace. (a) Application. An employer must
sprinkler systems, alarm systems, fire (e) An employee alarm system must have a fire prevention plan when an
doors, exit lighting) must be in proper be operable. Employers must install and OSHA standard in this part requires
working order at all times. maintain an operable employee alarm one. The requirements in this section
(b) Lighting and marking must be system that has a distinctive signal to apply to each such fire prevention plan.
adequate and appropriate. (1) Each exit warn employees of fire or other (b) Written and oral fire prevention
route must be adequately lighted so that emergencies, unless employees can plans. A fire prevention plan must be in
an employee with normal vision can see promptly see or smell a fire or other writing, be kept in the workplace, and
along the exit route. hazard in time to provide adequate be made available to employees for
(2) Each exit must be clearly visible warning to them. The employee alarm review. However, an employer with 10
and marked by a sign reading ‘‘Exit.’’ system must comply with § 1910.165. or fewer employees may communicate
(3) Each exit route door must be free the plan orally to employees.
of decorations or signs that obscure the § 1910.38 Emergency action plans.
(c) Minimum elements of a fire
visibility of the exit route door. (a) Application. An employer must prevention plan. A fire prevention plan
(4) If the direction of travel to the exit have an emergency action plan must include:
or exit discharge is not immediately whenever an OSHA standard in this (1) A list of all major fire hazards,
apparent, signs must be posted along the part requires one. The requirements in proper handling and storage procedures
exit access indicating the direction of this section apply to each such for hazardous materials, potential
travel to the nearest exit and exit emergency action plan. ignition sources and their control, and
discharge. Additionally, the line-of-sight (b) Written and oral emergency action the type of fire protection equipment
to an exit sign must clearly be visible at plans. An emergency action plan must necessary to control each major hazard;
all times. be in writing, kept in the workplace, (2) Procedures to control
(5) Each doorway or passage along an and available to employees for review. accumulations of flammable and
exit access that could be mistaken for an However, an employer with 10 or fewer combustible waste materials;
exit must be marked ‘‘Not an Exit’’ or employees may communicate the plan (3) Procedures for regular
similar designation, or be identified by orally to employees. maintenance of safeguards installed on
heat-producing equipment to prevent (ii) Employers who will evacuate their protective equipment and
the accidental ignition of combustible employees from the danger area when decontamination procedures. * * *
materials; an emergency occurs, and who do not * * * * *
(4) The name or job title of employees permit any of their employees to assist
responsible for maintaining equipment in handling the emergency, are exempt Subpart L—Fire Protection
to prevent or control sources of ignition from the requirements of this paragraph
or fires; and if they provide an emergency action 6. The authority citation for subpart L
(5) The name or job title of employees plan complying with 29 CFR 1910.38. of part 1910 is revised to read as
responsible for the control of fuel source * * * follows:
hazards. * * * * * Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
(d) Employee information. An (p) * * * Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
employer must inform employees upon (8) * * * (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s
initial assignment to a job of the fire (i) Emergency response plan. An Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR
hazards to which they are exposed. An emergency response plan shall be 25059), 9–83 (48 F 35736), 6–96 (62 FR 111),
employer must also review with each or 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable; and
developed and implemented by all 29 CFR part 1911.
employee those parts of the fire employers. Such plans need not
prevention plan necessary for self- duplicate any of the subjects fully 7. In § 1910.157, paragraphs (a) and
protection. addressed in the employer’s (b)(1) are revised to read as follows:
‘‘Appendix E To Part 1910—Exit contingency planning required by
Routes, Emergency Action Plans, and § 1910.157 Portable fire extinguishers.
permits, such as those issued by the
Fire Prevention Plans.’’ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (a) Scope and application. The
* * * * * provided that the contingency plan is requirements of this section apply to the
made part of the emergency response placement, use, maintenance, and
Subpart H—Hazardous Materials plan. The emergency response plan testing of portable fire extinguishers
shall be a written portion of the provided for the use of employees.
3. The authority citation for subpart H Paragraph (d) of this section does not
of part 1910 is revised to read as employer’s safety and health program
required in paragraph (p)(1) of this apply to extinguishers provided for
follows: employee use on the outside of
section. Employers who will evacuate
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the their employees from the worksite workplace buildings or structures.
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 location when an emergency occurs and Where extinguishers are provided but
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s who do not permit any of their are not intended for employee use and
Orders Nos. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR employees to assist in handling the the employer has an emergency action
25059, 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR
emergency are exempt from the plan and a fire prevention plan that
9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR meet the requirements of 29 CFR
50017), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. requirements of paragraph (p)(8) if they
provide an emergency action plan 1910.38 and 29 CFR 1910.39
Sections 1910.103, 1910.106 through respectively, then only the requirements
1910.111, and 1910.119, 1910.120, and complying with 29 CFR 1910.38.
of paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section
190.122 through 126 also issued under 29 * * * * *
CFR part 1911. apply.
(q) * * * (b) Exemptions. (1) Where the
Section 1910.119 also issued under section (1) Emergency response plan. An
304, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 employer has established and
emergency response plan shall be implemented a written fire safety policy
(Pub. L. 101–549), reprinted at 29 U.S.C. 655
developed and implemented to handle which requires the immediate and total
Note.
Section 1910.120 also issued under section anticipated emergencies prior to the evacuation of employees from the
126, Superfund Amendments and commencement of emergency response workplace upon the sounding of a fire
Reauthorization Act of 1986 as amended (29 operations. The plan shall be in writing alarm signal and which includes an
U.S.C. 655 Note), and 5 U.S.C. 553. and available for inspection and emergency action plan and a fire
copying by employees, their prevention plan which meet the
4. In § 1910.119, the first sentence of representatives and OSHA personnel.
paragraph (n) is revised to read as requirements of 29 CFR 1910.38 and 29
Employers who will evacuate their CFR 1910.39 respectively, and when
follows: employees from the danger area when extinguishers are not available in the
§ 1910.119 Process safety management of an emergency occurs, and who do not workplace, the employer is exempt from
highly hazardous chemicals. permit any of their employees to assist all requirements of this section unless a
* * * * * in handling the emergency, are exempt specific standard in part 1910 requires
(n) Emergency planning and response. from the requirements of this paragraph that a portable fire extinguisher be
The employer shall establish and if they provide an emergency action provided.
implement an emergency action plan for plan in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.38. * * * * *
the entire plant in accordance with the
provisions of 29 CFR 1910.38.* * * * * * * * Subpart R—Special Industries
* * * * * (11) * * *
5. In § 1910.120, paragraphs (l)(1)(ii), (i) * * * 8. The authority citation for subpart R
(ii) Where the clean-up is done on of part 1910 is revised to read as
(p)(8)(i), (q)(1), and the first sentence of
plant property using plant or workplace follows:
paragraph (q)(11)(ii) are revised to read
employees, such employees shall have
as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, 8 of the
completed the training requirements of
the following: 29 CFR 1910.38, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
§ 1910.120 Hazardous waste operations
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s
and emergency response. 1910.134, 1910.1200, and other Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR
* * * * * appropriate safety and health training 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 6–96 (62 FR
(l) * * * made necessary by the tasks they are 111), or 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable;
(1)(i) * * * expected to perform such as personal and 29 CFR part 1911.
9. In § 1910.268, paragraph (b)(1)(iii) Subpart Z—Toxic and Hazardous and 29 CFR 1910.39, ‘‘Emergency action
is revised to read as follows: Substances plans’’ and ‘‘Fire prevention plans,’’
respectively.
§ 1910.268 Telecommunications. 11. The authority citation for subpart * * * * *
* * * * * Z of part 1910 is revised to read as
(b) * * * follows: 13. In § 1910.1050, paragraph
(1) * * * (d)(1)(iii) is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
(i) * * * Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 § 1910.1050 Methylenedianiline
(ii) * * * (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); Secretary of * * * * *
(iii) Working spaces. Maintenance Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (d) * * *
aisles, or wiring aisles, between (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55
(1) * * *
equipment frame lineups are working FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), and 3–2000 (65
spaces and are not an exit route for FR 50017), as applicable, and 29 CFR part (i) * * *
purposes of 29 CFR 1910.34. 1911. (ii) * * *
All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) (iii) The plan shall specifically
* * * * * of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of include provisions for alerting and
10.a. In § 1910.272, paragraph (d) is 1970 (29 U.S.C 653), except those substances evacuating affected employees as well
revised. that have exposure limits in Tables Z–1, Z–
2, and Z–3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. Section
as the elements prescribed in 29 CFR
b. In Appendix A to § 1910.272, under 1910.38 and 29 CFR 1910.39,
the heading ‘‘2. Emergency Action 1910.1000 also issued under section (6)(a) of
the Act (29 U.S.C. 655(a)). Section 1910.1000, ‘‘Emergency action plans’’ and ‘‘Fire
Plans’’ the second sentence is revised. Tables Z–1, Z–2, and Z–3 also issued under prevention plans,’’ respectively.
The revised text is set forth as follows: 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 CFR part 1911, * * * * *
except for the inorganic arsenic, benzene,
§ 1910.272 Grain handling facilities. 14. In § 1910.1051, paragraph (j) is
and cotton dust listings.
* * * * * Section 1910.1001 also issued under revised to read as follows:
(d) Emergency action plan. The section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and
§ 1910.1051 1,3–Butadiene
employer shall develop and implement Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 333) and 5
an emergency action plan meeting the U.S.C. 553. * * * * *
requirements contained in 29 CFR Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 (j) Emergency situations. Written plan.
1910.38. U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 U.S.C. 655 or A written plan for emergency situations
29 CFR part 1911. shall be developed, or an existing plan
* * * * * Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, and
shall be modified, to contain the
Appendix A to § 1910.272 Grain 1910.1200 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.
applicable elements specified in 29 CFR
Handling Facilities 12. In § 1910.1047, paragraph 1910.38 and 29 CFR 1910.39,
* * * * * (h)(1)(iii) is revised to read as follows: ‘‘Emergency action plans’’ and ‘‘Fire
prevention plans,’’ respectively, and in
2. Emergency Action Plan § 1910.1047 Ethylene oxide. 29 CFR 1910.120, ‘‘Hazardous Waste
* * * The emergency action plan * * * * * Operations and Emergency Response,’’
(h) * * * for each workplace where there is the
(§ 1910.38) covers those designated (1) * * *
actions employers and employees are to possibility of an emergency.
(i) * * *
take to ensure employee safety from fire (ii) * * * * * * * *
and other emergencies. * * * (iii) The plan shall include the [FR Doc. 02–27251 Filed 11–6–02; 8:45 am]
* * * * * elements prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.38 BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

Federal Register-02-27251

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Federal Register-02-27251

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thursday,

29 CFR Part 1910

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Federal Register document, contact: protection provided to employees.

You might also like