OSHA has revised subsection E to make it clear that employers must meet their requirements and indicate how compliance is to be achieved. OSHA has continued to use command words such as “shall” when the intent is to impose clear obligations on employers to take positive steps to protect workers. As a result, OSHA has avoided the use of words such as “should” that recommend a particular action but do not require it, or “may,” which give the employer discretion to act, unless the agency recommends or approves the related actions. (d) What are the maintenance requirements for flame retardant paints? The employer must maintain the flame retardant properties of paints or other coatings used in the workplace. This project is a language revision project, not an attempt at a fundamental revision of OSHA`s exit standards. Therefore, the Agency was careful not to weaken the protection afforded to workers by Subsection E in the review process. Employers who complied with Subdivision E prior to this proposal will continue to comply with the new regulations after they come into force. Similarly, employees who are accustomed to relying on these OSHA requirements to ensure a safe exit from the workplace in the event of an emergency can continue to rely on these requirements with confidence. The NFPA exit routes (NFPA 101 – Life Safety Code) also provide useful information for employers. For example, the organization explains what types of lighting are acceptable for exit signs: external lighting sources, internal lighting, and photo lights. OSHA has considered NFPA requirements when designing its regulations so that those who follow NFPA guidelines comply with OSHA. OSHA does not believe that the meaningful risk analysis that the Agency normally conducts before proposing a safety standard is necessary here.
In the division of the Industrial Union of the American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980), the Supreme Court held that subsection 3(8) of the Act, which sets out an occupational health and safety standard, requires the Board to determine, as a threshold, whether the hazard it seeks to regulate poses a significant hazard in the workplace and that a new lower standard is “reasonably necessary and proportionate” to reduce the risk to workers. OSHA considers that a meaningful risk analysis is not necessary here and would not even be useful, as the Agency is not proposing any substantial changes to the requirements of subsection E. Since this proposal does not impose new regulatory burdens and does not impact health and safety, any attempt to measure the “benefits” of these efforts would not be effective. (k) An external exit route is permitted. (1) An outside exit path is permitted if it meets the requirements of an inside exit path and the following additional requirements: OSHA has grouped the requirements around three common themes: (1) design and construction requirements for exit lanes; (2) the rules governing the operation and maintenance of exit routes; and (3) the obligation to warn employees of the need to flee. For example, design requirements for exit lanes were scattered across 1910.36 and 1910.37. Previously, the requirement that exits be directed directly into a public street or open space was a general requirement of 1910.37(h)(1). Since the location or location of exits is a requirement that employers must consider when designing workplaces, this requirement has been moved to paragraph (f) of section 1910.36, which deals with the design of exit routes.
Employers who own buildings must ensure that these construction and design requirements are met. However, employers renting space in commercial buildings must continue to maintain a working environment with appropriate exit routes and should consult with building owners to make structural changes if necessary. Since OSHA is not proposing to change the substantive requirements of Subpart E, the Board finds that the material risk test described by the Supreme Court in American Petroleum Institute v. Industrial Union Department [448 U.S. 607(1980)] does not apply to this regulation. In addition, OSHA concluded that these regulations do not require technological changes or result in higher costs. In fact, the proposed Regulations can reduce compliance costs by providing employers with more flexible compliance options. As a result, OSHA has determined that an analysis of the technological and economic feasibility of the standard is not required.
“Maintenance and manufacturing.” Escape routes shall be kept permanently free of obstacles or obstacles for full immediate use in the event of fire or other emergency situations. f) Are there additional requirements for maintenance of exit lanes during construction and repairs? Yes, there are three special rules for exit lanes during construction and repair. When constructing new construction, the employer must ensure that employees do not occupy a workplace until a sufficient number of exit routes that comply with these rules are available for the part of the workplace that the employees will occupy. In the case of repairs and alterations, the employer must ensure that workers do not occupy an existing workplace unless all exits and existing fire safety are maintained or other fire protection is provided to ensure an equivalent level of safety. The employer must also ensure that flammable or explosive materials used during construction or repair do not expose workers to hazards that are not otherwise present in the workplace or interfere with emergency evacuation from the workplace. (j) What are the height and width requirements for exit lanes? The employer must ensure that the exit lane must be at least 6 feet and 8 inches high at all points. The employer must ensure that the exit lane is at least 28 inches wide at all points between handrails. An exit lane must be more than 28 inches wide if necessary to accommodate the expected number of occupants. Objects thrown into the exit lane must not reduce the minimum height and width of an exit channel. In addition, the requirements of Subpart E have been reformulated with simple, straightforward and easy-to-understand terms. The proposed rules are performance-based and shorter than existing standards. They reduce the number of subsections and contain fewer references to other OSHA standards.
Each of the two proposed versions of subsection E contains a detailed table of contents to facilitate the application of the standards. A positive phrase is preferred when an idea can be expressed positively or negatively, although a negative phrase is an obvious choice when the subject of a standard is a prohibition, for example: “No employee is allowed ***” In keeping with the objectives of this review, OSHA has framed the requirements positively rather than negatively. For example, instead of saying, “No furniture, decoration or other article may be placed in such a way as to obstruct the exit, access, exit or visibility thereof,” the revised wording would read: “The escape route shall be free of materials and equipment.” To help workplaces understand exit route requirements, OSHA offers an electronic tool for evacuation plans and procedures. Demonstrations of the organisation`s exit routes are particularly useful because they provide visual information on different types of offences, allowing users to test their knowledge of exit route requirements. For some employers, the use of performance-based regulations can lead to confusion about the special precautions to be taken in various situations. In the past, OSHA has used the NFPA Life Safety Code as a tool in interpreting subsection E. OSHA intends to continue to rely on the NFPA Life Safety Code and other consensus standards to guide the implementation of the performance-based requirements of the revised subsection E. In general, OSHA has tried to use short, focused sentences to keep the requirements simple. OSHA believes that a readable sentence is affirmative, declarative, and limited to a single idea or thought. As a result, qualifying sentences longer than a few words were moved to separate sentences.
OSHA also believes that paragraphs should be short and devoted to a single, coherent topic. The Clinton administration`s initiative to reinvent government, led by Vice President Gore, has once again drawn attention to the difficulties many employers and employees have in understanding OSHA`s requirements. In response to President Clinton and Vice President Gore`s challenge, the Department of Labor developed a comprehensive regulatory reform strategy in June 1995 to “emphasize plain language to make the rules more user-friendly.” During the revision process, OSHA realized that some provisions of subsection E are obsolete. In fact, the NFPA`s current Life Safety Code and other consensus standards provide employers with timely fire safety compliance options that are not allowed by existing rules. Where it was possible to revise the proposed wording of subsection E to give employers the flexibility to rely on these more timely compliance approaches without reducing the protection of requirements or increasing employers` obligations, OSHA suggested doing so. For example, existing OSHA rules require exits to lead directly to the outside, while recent revisions to the NFPA code allow exit lanes leading to a sanctuary area, particularly in high-rise buildings.