Exit Signs

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

May 25, 2022

Scott Brody, EIT
11 Largo Lane
Livingston, New Jersey 070039

Dear Mr. Brody:

The discharge from exits in the Blackwill Burner Company plant.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

June 29, 1977

Mr. A. Quayle
Blackwell Burner Co.
P.O. Box 37383
San Antonio, Texas 78237
Dear Mr. Quayle:

This is in response to your correspondence of June 8, 1977, regarding the discharge from exits in your plant. Your specific question relates to the adequacy of a 15 foot wide discharge from exits. The exits discharge includes the yard behind the plant, which has free access to a public street.

Interpretation for doorways not complying with exit route requirements.

Archive Notice - OSHA Archive

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

May 1, 1975

Mr. James Hahn
Plant Manager
Cudahy Tanning Company, Inc.
5043 South Packard Avenue
Cudahy, Wisconsin 53110

Dear Mr. Hahn:

This is in reference to your application for a variance from [29 CFR 1910.36(g)(1)] of the Occupational Safety and Health Standards.

How means of egress shall be located and identified.

Archive Notice - OSHA Archive

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

December 18, 1975

Mr. Richard P. Landers
Manager Labor Relations
Gould Pumps, Inc.
Seneca Falls, New York 13146

Dear Mr. Landers:

This is in response to your letter requesting a clarification of OSHA standards on means of egress.

Minimum width of exit routes; redesignation of 1910.1020.

Archive Notice - OSHA Archive

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

April 27, 2000

Mr. Gregory W. Faeth
President
Safety Consulting & Training Services
PO Box 1718
Fairfield, IA 52556

Dear Mr. Faeth:

Electronic door opening device used with a security system.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

June 10, 1981

Mr. William B. Reitze
Vice President
Chief Environmental Scientist Health,
Safety and Environment Department
Johns-Manville Sales Corporation
Ken-Caryl Ranch
Denver, Colorado 80217

Dear Mr. Reitze:

This is in response to your inquiry of May 21, 1981, concerning an electronic door opening device used with a security system.

Security door lock system presently installed in the Research and Development building.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

March 12, 1981

Mr. William B. Reitze
Vice President
Chief Environmental Scientist Health,
Safety and Environment Department
Johns-Manville Sales Corporation
Ken-Caryl Ranch
Denver, Colorado 80217

Dear Mr. Reitze:

This is in response to your correspondence regarding your security door lock system presently installed in the Research and Development building.

Interpretation when height of exit route corridors are lower than specified.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

 

Exit Routes.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

November 27, 1978

L.C. Nicholas, P.E.
The H.K. Ferguson Company
One Erieview Plaza
Cleveland, Ohio 44114

Dear Mr. Nicholas:

This is in response to your recent letter addressed to Mr. Donald Shay and confirms a telephone conversation with a member of my staff, Mr. William Simms, concerning [exit routes]. Your letter was referred to this office for response.