[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9402-9404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5176]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. S-052]
RIN 1218-AB55
Exit Routes (Means of Egress)
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Informal public hearing; reopening of written comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice schedules an informal public hearing regarding the
notice of proposed rulemaking which OSHA issued on September 10, 1996
(61 FR 47712), concerning a proposed revision of the Agency's General
Industry standards for Means of Egress (Subpart E of Part 1910). This
notice also reopens the comment period for written responses to the
proposed rule.
DATES: Notices of intention to appear at the informal public hearing
must be postmarked by April 1, 1997. Hearing participants requesting
more than 10 minutes for their presentations, and participants who will
submit documentary evidence at the hearing, must submit the full text
of their testimony and all documentary evidence to the Docket Office,
postmarked no later than April 14, 1997. Written comments on the
proposed standard must also be postmarked by April 14, 1997. The
hearing will be held in Washington, D.C. and is scheduled to begin on
April 29, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments, notices of intention to appear at the informal
public hearing, testimony, and documentary evidence are to be submitted
in quadruplicate to: Docket Office, Docket S-052; Room N2625; U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 20210 (Telephone: 202-219-
7894).
Written comments, notices of intention to appear, testimony, and
all other material related to the development of this proposed standard
will be available for inspection and copying in the Docket Office, Room
N2625, at the above address.
The hearing will be held in C5521, Seminar Room #4, of the U.S.
Department of Labor (Frances Perkins Building), 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Friedman, Office of Information
and Consumer Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, Room N3647; 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210 (202-219-8148, FAX 202-219-5986).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On September 10, 1996, OSHA published a notice in the Federal
Register (61 FR 47712) that proposed to revise Subpart E of Part 1910,
Means of Egress. The purpose of the proposed revision was to rewrite
the existing requirements of Subpart E in plain English so they would
be more understandable to employers, employees, and others who use
them. The proposal did not intend to change the regulatory obligations
of employers or the safety and health protections provided to
employees.
Although OSHA recognized that some portions of Subpart E may
warrant updating, the Agency did not propose to update the requirements
of Subpart E at this time. Instead, the proposal focused on rewriting
the existing requirements in order to be easier to read, understand,
and use. Toward this goal, the proposal used performance-oriented
requirements where possible, reorganized the text to keep subject
matter consistent, removed internal inconsistencies, and eliminated
duplicate requirements. Additionally, OSHA proposed to change the name
of Subpart E from ``Means of Egress'' to ``Exit Routes.''
OSHA also proposed two alternative plain English versions of the
revision to Subpart E. The first version was organized in the
traditional OSHA regulatory format. The second version used a question
and answer format. OSHA invited interested parties to comment on the
content and effectiveness of the proposed changes and on the plain
English version of Subpart E that they preferred. The Agency
established a comment period of 60 days for interested parties to
submit written comments and to request a hearing on the proposed
revision to Subpart E.
II. Response to Proposed Revision of Subpart E
The Agency received a total of 59 written comments in response to
the proposed revision of Subpart E. A vast majority of the commenters
supported the concept of rewriting the existing requirements of Subpart
E in ``plain English,'' even though many of these commenters suggested
various means of improving the revision to Subpart E. A large majority
of commenters also preferred the ``traditional'' format rather
[[Page 9403]]
than the ``question and answer'' format. These commenters believe that
the ``question and answer'' format may be appropriate for an appendix,
but that the ``traditional'' format is clearer, makes it easier to
locate answers to specific questions, and is easier to follow and
understand.
Two of the commenters, the National Fire Protection Association
(Ex. 5: 18) and Hallmark Cards (Ex.5: 51), requested a hearing in order
to allow for a dialogue among life safety professionals; to have
greater public involvement in the rulemaking process; and, to
facilitate a full discussion of certain important issues.
Accordingly, OSHA has decided to schedule an informal public
hearing in order to facilitate a full discussion of the proposed
revision, and to address certain important issues resulting from the
comments.
OSHA is scheduling a hearing only in Washington, DC. The hearing
will commence on Tuesday, April 29, 1997. The Agency is also reopening
the rulemaking record for Subpart E until April 1, 1997, to receive
additional written comments on the proposed revision.
III. Hearing Issues
1. Most of the commenters suggested that OSHA either adopt, in
total, the latest edition of the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) Life Safety Code (NFPA-101); reference NFPA-101 for specific
ways of meeting the performance requirements of the proposed standard;
or, state in the regulatory text of the standard, or in the appendix to
the standard, that compliance with NFPA-101 meets the requirements of
the OSHA Subpart E standard. Should OSHA utilize one of these
approaches? If so, how should the Agency implement the approach,
especially with respect to periodic future revisions of NFPA-101? For
example, if OSHA adopted a specific edition of NFPA-101, such as the
1994 edition, then the Subpart E provisions would not keep pace with
future editions of NFPA-101. On the other hand, OSHA cannot actually
adopt NFPA-101 as an OSHA standard without specifying a particular
edition because of delegation restraints. OSHA is required to conduct
rulemaking to update its standards, and this requirement would apply to
any future changes to NFPA-101 if it were to be adopted as an OSHA
standard.
2. One commenter strongly asserted that OSHA should base its
standard on the model building codes, such as the Building Officials
and Code Administrators International (BOCA) Code or the International
Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Code, rather than the NFPA Life
Safety Code.
Many of the same issues apply here as those discussed above with
regard to adopting NFPA-101. OSHA would like to receive information and
testimony regarding the role of model building codes in the revision to
Subpart E, including how, and if, the Agency should utilize these codes
in the final rule.
3. Several commenters expressed concern that the performance-
oriented nature of the proposed requirements may result in compliance
problems. OSHA is interested in receiving comments as to whether some
of the proposed requirements are so performance-oriented that they
would not be easily enforced. Also, could some of the proposed
provisions be interpreted in ways that would be inconsistent with
previous interpretations relied on by OSHA or other authorities?
4. There were differing views regarding OSHA's proposed provisions
dealing with exit capacity and the number of exits considered to be
adequate for a workplace building. Some commenters supported the
Agency's performance-oriented approach because they believe that OSHA
standards should contain only general criteria for exit routes and that
the more specific criteria pertaining to the number of exits and the
capacity of exits are more appropriately enforced through local
building and fire codes.
Other commenters opposed OSHA's approach because they believe that
some of the proposed provisions are too general. These commenters
suggested that OSHA reinstate more definitive criteria with respect to
the number of exits and exit capacity for different types of
workplaces.
OSHA requests information, comments, and testimony concerning the
most appropriate and effective means of addressing exit capacity and
the number of exits that need to be available in the broad array of
workplaces covered by the OSHA standard, whether the workplace is a
tower, single story building, or multistory building.
5. Several commenters disagreed with OSHA's proposed requirements
for exit signs because the proposed version does not specify minimum
physical characteristics for exit signs. These commenters contend that
the requirements are too general and would create compliance problems
for employers. Should OSHA retain specific criteria for exit signs? If
so, what criteria should OSHA use?
6. Similarly, some commenters believe that the revised requirements
for exit illumination are also too general and would result in
compliance problems for employers. Should OSHA include specific
criteria for the illumination of exits and exit signs?
7. Although OSHA has attempted to rewrite Subpart E in order to
clarify and simplify requirements, are there provisions or terms that
are still too technical or difficult to understand? If so, please
identify the provision or term and suggest a recommended action.
8. OSHA did not intend the proposed revision of Subpart E to impose
any compliance obligations on employers beyond those imposed by
existing Subpart E. Did OSHA achieve that goal, or would employers
following the proposed revision be required to change their current
practices in any way? If so, which proposed requirements would impose
new obligations and how would they do so?
9. Do any of the proposed requirements provide greater safety and
health protections for employees? If yes, which requirements do so and
how would they provide additional protection to employees?
10. Do any of the proposed requirements present technological
feasibility problems for affected employers? If yes, which requirements
do so and what problems do they present?
OSHA invites comments and testimony on these issues and any other
issues pertaining to the proposed revision of Subpart E.
Public Participation
Interested persons are requested to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the proposal of September 10, 1996, and the
additional issues raised in this document. These comments must be
postmarked by April 14, 1997, and submitted in quadruplicate to the
Docket Office, Docket No. S-052 Room N2625, U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC. 20210.
All written comments received within the specified comment period
will be made a part of the record and will be available for public
inspection and copying at the above Docket Office address.
Notice of Intention To Appear at the Informal Hearing
Pursuant to section 6(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act, an opportunity to submit oral testimony concerning the issues
raised by the
[[Page 9404]]
proposed standard will be provided at an informal public hearing to be
held in Washington, DC. on April 29, 1997, and extending through May 1,
1997, depending on the number of persons intending to participate in
the hearing.
The hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. on April 29, 1997, in C5521,
Seminar Room #4, of the Frances Perkins Building, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. 20210.
All persons desiring to participate in the hearing must file in
quadruplicate a notice of intention to appear, postmarked on or before
April 1, 1997. The notice of intention to appear, which will be
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office (Room
N2625), telephone (202) 219-7894, must contain the following
information:
1. The name, address, and telephone number of each person to
appear;
2. The capacity in which the person will appear;
3. The approximate amount of time required for the presentation;
4. The issues that will be addressed;
5. A brief statement of the position that will be taken with
respect to each issue; and,
6. Whether the party intends to submit documentary evidence and, if
so, a brief summary of it.
The notice of intention to appear shall be mailed to: Docket
Office, Docket S-052, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC. 20210; telephone (202) 219-7894.
A notice of intention to appear also may be transmitted by
facsimile to (202) 219-5046 (Attention: Docket S-052), by the same
date, provided the original and 3 copies are sent to the same address
and postmarked no more than 3 days later.
Filing of Testimony and Evidence Before the Hearing
Any party requesting more than 10 minutes for a presentation at the
hearing, or who will submit documentary evidence, must provide in
quadruplicate, the complete text of the testimony, including any
documentary evidence to be presented at the hearing. One copy shall not
be stapled or bound and be suitable for copying. These materials must
be provided to the Docket Office at the address above and be postmarked
no later than April 14, 1997.
Each such submission will be reviewed in light of the amount of
time requested in the notice of intention to appear. In those instances
when the information contained in the submission does not justify the
amount of time requested, a more appropriate amount of time will be
allocated and the participant will be notified of that fact prior to
the informal public hearing.
Any party who has not substantially complied with this requirement
may be limited to a 10 minute presentation, and may be requested to
return for questioning at a later time.
Any party who has not filed a notice of intention to appear may be
allowed to testify for no more than 10 minutes as time permits, at the
discretion of the Administrative Law Judge, but will not be allowed to
question witnesses.
Notice of intention to appear, testimony, and evidence will be
available for copying at the Docket Office at the address above.
Conduct and Nature of the Hearing
The hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. on April 29, 1997. At that
time, any procedural matters pertaining to the proceeding will be
resolved.
The nature of an informal rulemaking hearing is established in the
legislative history of section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act and is reflected by OSHA's rules of procedure for hearings (29 CFR
1911.15(a)). Although the presiding officer is an Administrative Law
Judge, and limited questioning by persons who have filed notices of
intention to appear is allowed on crucial issues, the proceeding is
informal and legislative in type. The Agency's intent, in essence, is
to provide interested persons with an opportunity to make effective
oral presentations that can proceed expeditiously in the absence of
procedural restraints that impede or protract the rulemaking process.
Additionally, since the hearing is primarily for information
gathering and clarification, it is an informal administrative
proceeding rather than one of an adjudicative nature.
The technical rules of evidence, for example, do not apply. The
regulations that govern hearings and the pre-hearing guidelines to be
issued for this hearing will ensure fairness and due process and also
facilitate the development of a clear, accurate, and complete record.
Those rules and guidelines will be interpreted in a manner that
furthers that development. Thus, questions of relevance, procedure, and
participation generally will be decided so as to favor development of
the record.
The hearing will be conducted in accordance with 29 CFR Part 1911.
It should be noted that Sec. 1911.4 specifies that the Assistant
Secretary may, upon reasonable notice, issue alternative procedures to
expedite proceedings or for other good cause.
The hearing will be presided over by an Administrative Law Judge
who makes no decision or recommendation on the merits of OSHA's
proposal. The responsibility of the Administrative Law Judge is to
ensure that the hearing proceeds at a reasonable pace and in an orderly
manner. The Administrative Law Judge, therefore, will have all of the
powers necessary and appropriate to conduct a full and fair informal
hearing as provided in 29 CFR 1911, including the powers:
1. To regulate the course of the proceedings;
2. To dispose of procedural requests, objections, and comparable
matters;
3. To confine the presentations to the matters pertinent to the
issues raised;
4. To regulate the conduct of those present at the hearing by
appropriate means;
5. At the Judge's discretion, to question and permit the
questioning of any witness and to limit the time for questioning; and,
6. At the Judge's discretion, to keep the record open for a
reasonable, stated time (known as the post-hearing comment period) to
receive written information and additional data, views, and arguments
from any person who has participated in the oral proceedings.
OSHA recognizes that there may be interested persons who, through
their knowledge of safety or their experience in the subject matter of
this proceeding, would wish to endorse or support certain provisions in
the proposed standard. OSHA welcomes such supportive comments in order
that the record of this rulemaking will present a balanced picture of
the public response on the issues involved.
Signed at Washington, DC. this 26th day of February 1997.
Gregory R. Watchman,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 97-5176 Filed 2-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P