Proposed OSHA Regs - Primers and Powder

[Futuristic]

I searched and didn't find any reference to this at BE already, so here goes. This information has already shown up at several other major Gun Forums so please bear with my duplication.

OSHA has proposed changes to rules regarding the classification of Small Arms Ammunition, Primers, and Smokless Powder so that those would now be treated as Explosives rather than their current category of Flammable.

There have been several different interpretations of this from folks at other sites, ranging from 'TEOTWAWKI' to 'No big deal, just clarifying overlapping regs, no real changes, don't sweat it.'

I was hoping that the good folks here would be able to ferret out the truth of the matter.

Below is the info from the OSHA Proposed Rulemaking (please excuse the length, I don't feel qualified to know which parts are snippable, also the embedded smileys are actually just coincidental, apparently some of the regulations' section identifiers are also smiley code!!):

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main

Go to the Option 4 drop down menu and select "Document ID"

Key this ID in to the action box ... OSHA-2007-0032

Click on the SUBMIT button

OSHA has proposed rules that may adversely affect the transportation of black and smokeless powder, primers and small arms ammunition, and may affect prices and availability. Below are some sections of the proposed rule (55 PDF pages) that I felt had a direct impact on shooters.

Comments in italics are mine. Bolding is also mine.

Explosive. This term would be defined to mean any device, or liquid

or solid chemical compound or mixture, the primary or common purpose of

which is to function by explosion. The term ``explosive'' would be

defined to include all material included as a Class 1 explosive by DOT

in accordance with 49 CFR chapter I. The term would include, but would

not be limited to, dynamite, black powder, pellet powders, detonators,

blasting agents, initiating explosives, blasting caps, safety fuse,

fuse lighters, fuse igniters, squibs, cordeau detonant fuse,

instantaneous fuse, igniter cord, igniters, pyrotechnics, special

industrial explosive materials, small arms ammunition, small arms

ammunition primers, smokeless propellant, cartridges for propellant-

actuated power devices, and cartridges for industrial guns.

Paragraph ©(1)(ii) would require the employer to ensure that only

persons trained in accordance with paragraph (j) of this section handle

or use explosives. Loading and unloading of explosives are examples of

handling, and blasting of slag pockets is an example of the use of

explosives. This is a new requirement that reinforces the importance of

training for all employees engaged in the handling and use of

explosives.

Paragraph ©(1)(vii) would require the employer to ensure that no

person is allowed to enter facilities containing explosives, or to

transport, handle, or use explosives while under the influence of

intoxicating liquors, narcotics, or other drugs that may cause the

person to act in an unsafe manner in the workplace. Due to safety

considerations, OSHA is proposing that such persons be completely

restricted from access to a facility where explosives are manufactured

or stored as well as restricting them from the handling and

transportation of explosives.

This would appear to require some sort of drug testing to be in compliance.

Paragraph ©(1)(ix) would require the employer to ensure that no

flammable cleaning solvents are present in facilities containing

explosives except where authorized by the employer and where their

presence does not endanger the safety of employees. This is a new

requirement and is based on a recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1).

Due to their potential to create a fire and thus cause an explosion, it

is generally not safe to have flammable cleaning solvents in facilities

containing explosives.

Paragraph ©(2)(i) would require the employer to ensure that the

primary electrical supply to any part of the facility (e.g., building,

loading dock, etc.) containing explosives can be disconnected at a safe

remote location away from that part of the facility. A safe remote

location from a part of the facility containing explosives is a

location far enough away to ensure that, if all the explosives in that

part of the facility detonated, a person at the remote location would

not be injured by the explosion. In determining what a safe remote

location is, the employer will need to consider factors such as the

type and amount of explosives present.

This is a new requirement

Would this even be possible in a small gunshop?

Proposed paragraph ©(2)(ii) deals with safety hazards caused by

electrical storms. During the approach and progress of an electrical

storm, paragraph ©(2)(ii)(A) would require the employer to ensure

that all explosive manufacturing and blasting operations are suspended,

and paragraph ©(2)(ii)( would require the employer to ensure that

employees located in or near facilities containing explosives, or in

blast sites, are withdrawn immediately to a safe remote location. A

safe remote location in this case would be a location far enough away

from all the explosives in the facility or blast site so that a person

would not be injured if there were an explosion. These proposed

requirements are based on therequirements in existing paragraph (e)(1)(vii)(a) which requires

employers to remove employees from the blasting area during the

approach and progress of an electrical storm. However, proposed

paragraph ©(2)(ii)(A) has been expanded to require the suspension of

explosive manufacturing operations and proposed paragraph ©(2)(ii)(

also requires the immediate withdrawal of employees located near

explosives. This reduces the time the employees are exposed to a

potential hazard. The expansion of the existing requirement is in

recognition that an electrical storm may be hazardous to employees at

facilities and blast sites containing explosives and that employees

need to be kept a safe distance away from a potential explosion. This

is standard practice in the industry and is consistent with a

recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1).

Static electricity as a potential source of ignition is probably

the single greatest concern for facilities and blast sites containing

explosives. The Petition (Ex. 2-1) recommends new requirements for

static electricity protection that would require any new static

electricity protection system to comply with NFPA 77, Static

Electricity (Ex. 2-7). However, it recommended limiting the application

of the requirements only to systems installed after the effective date

of the new standard and would not require an existing manufacturing

facility to install a new system or modify an existing system to meet

the requirements of NFPA 77. IME informed OSHA that certain explosives

are not static-sensitive and do not require protection. IME further

argues that, since explosives manufacturing is subject to the

requirements of OSHA's PSM standard at Sec. 1910.119, areas in an

explosives manufacturing facility where static electricity protection

systems may be needed should already have been identified through the

process hazard analysis requirements of the PSM standard, and adequate

safeguards should have been instituted in accordance with the PSM

standard.

OSHA believes that static electricity protection systems can be

important safety features for facilities containing explosives. The

Agency considered proposing a requirement in paragraph © that would

require the employer to ensure that all facilities containing

explosives have appropriate and effective static electricity protection

systems, with suggested methods of compliance found in NFPA 77. The

Agency decided not to propose such language because it lacked

sufficient data and information on the types and effectiveness of

static electricity protection systems. OSHA is seeking additional

information on these issues through public comments.

The hazards of flame, matches, and spark producing devices are

dealt with in proposed paragraph ©(3)(iii)(A) by requiring the

employer to ensure that no open flames, matches, or spark producing

devices are located within 50 feet of explosives or facilities

containing explosives. As mentioned earlier, ``facilities containing

explosives'' refers to any building on a site where explosives are

manufactured, handled or stored.

Stripsearch customers?

Issue #4: OSHA seeks specific comments on the impact proposed

paragraph ©(3)(iii) would have on the storage and retail sale of

small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants.

Do open flames, matches, or spark producing devices create a hazard

when located within 50 feet of small arms ammunition, small arms

primers, or smokeless propellants, or facilities containing these

products? Can employers involved in the storage or retail sale of small

arms ammunition, small arms primers, or smokeless propellants prevent

all open flames, matches, or spark producing devices from coming within

50 feet of these products or facilities containing these products? If

not, why not? Should proposed paragraph ©(3)(iii) use a protective

distance other than 50 feet and, if so, what distance should it be and

why? Should OSHA exclude small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and

smokeless propellants from the requirements of proposed paragraph

©(3)(iii)?

Proposed paragraph ©(3)(iii)© would require the employer to

ensure that no person carries firearms, ammunition, or similar articles

in facilities containing explosives

No armed employees in gunshops? No legally-armed customers? How about cops?

Issue #9: Should OSHA require lightning protection systems for any

facility that contains ammonium nitrate or explosives? What would these

systems cost?

Proposed paragraph (e)(1) addresses general provisions associated

with the transportation of explosives. Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i)

would require the employer to ensure that no employee smokes, carries

matches or any other flame-producing device, or carries any firearms or

cartridges (except firearms and cartridges required to be carried by

guards) while in, or within 25 feet (7.63m) of, a vehicle containing

explosives.

Paragraph (e)(1)(iii) would require the employer to ensure that

explosives are not transferred from one vehicle to another without

informing local fire and police departments. This will help to ensure

that the transfer is performed in a safe manner. In addition, a

competent person must supervise the transfer of explosives. This is

applicable to all transfer work whether it is done within private

facilities or on public highways.

UPS, Fed-ex & DHL will just love this.

Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would require the employer to ensure that

small arms ammunition is separated from flammable liquids, flammable

solids, and oxidizing materials by a fire barrier wall with at least a

1-hour fire resistance rating or by a distance of at least 25 feet.

Small gunshops better get bigger.

Paragraph (h)(3)(i)( would require the employer to ensure that no

more than 20 pounds of smokeless propellants, in containers not to

exceed 1 pound, are displayed in a commercial establishment.

Paragraph (h)(4)(i)( would require the employer to ensure that

small arms ammunition primers be separated from flammable liquids,

flammable solids, and oxidizing materials by a fire barrier wall with

at least a 1-hour fire resistance rating or by a distance of at least

25 feet.

Paragraph (h)(4)(i)© would require the employer to ensure that no

more than 10,000 small arms primers be displayed in a commercial

establishment.

Issue #21: Proposed paragraphs (h)(3)(i)( and (h)(4)(i)© place

restrictions on the quantity of smokeless propellants and small arms

primers, respectively, that can be displayed in commercial

establishments. Should OSHA further clarify the quantity limitations

for smokeless propellants and small arms primers to allow multiple

displays in commercial establishments? If so, what quantities should be

allowed and should the quantities be based on the size of the

commercial establishment? Should there be a minimum distance between

displays to ensure employee safety? Should the same limitations placed

on commercial establishments also apply to gun shows?

Paragraph (j) Training. Proposed paragraph (j) is new and contains

proposed training requirements for employees in the explosives

industry.

This proposes training and re-training commensurate with each employee's duties and the requisite record-keeping.

Futuristic

[Mr Glack]

I took a look at this and there is a proposed rule posted at OSHA.gov

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.sh...&p_id=19509

There may be some SAAMI members out there that know more about this.

First of all this is an OSHA regulation and does not apply outside the jurisdiction of OSHA. It does not apply to sport shooting outside of the employer-employee relationship. See the summary section and purpose of the regulations:

"SUMMARY: OSHA proposes to revise the explosives and blasting agents

standard in subpart H of part 1910. This revision of Sec. 1910.109 is

intended to enhance the protections provided to employees engaged in

the manufacture, storage, sale, transportation, handling, and use of

explosives. The proposal updates and clarifies the regulatory language,

addresses regulatory inconsistencies between OSHA and other Federal

agencies, incorporates updated consensus standards, and provides the

regulated community with greater compliance flexibility."

These are not new regulations either but modification of existing regulations. It appears to be an update based on changes to NFPA standards:

"This proposed rule contains a complete revision and re-organization

of existing Sec. 1910.109. In addition to requesting comments on any

of the requirements in the proposed standard, OSHA has identified

issues throughout the preamble and has requested comments on these

issues.

OSHA's development of the proposed rule was based in part on the

2001 edition of NFPA 495--Explosive Materials Code. NFPA has recently

issued a 2006 edition of this code. OSHA has compared the differences

between the 2001 and 2006 editions. Any significant changes relevant to

the proposed rule in the 2006 edition compared to the 2001 edition are

discussed at the appropriate location in the preamble. OSHA is

interested in comments on whether there are any requirements in the

2006 edition of NFPA 495 that should be in the proposed rule but have

not been included."

The changes to the rules seems to be in response to a petition by IME and SAAMI. This is not surprising since these organizations were probably involved in developing changes to the NFPA standards and now wants antiquated OSHA regulations to be updated to reflect their work with NFPA.

"On July 29, 2002, OSHA received a petition (the Petition) from the

Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) and the Sporting Arms and

Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) to revise the standard. A

copy of the Petition can be found at Docket No. OSHA-S031-2006-0665

(Ex. 2-1). IME is an association of manufacturers of high explosives

and other companies that distribute explosives or provide other related

services and the SAAMI is an association of manufacturers of sporting

firearms, ammunition, and related components. The Petition claimed that

Sec. 1910.109 does not reflect significant technological and safety

advances made by the explosives industry since the standard was

promulgated. It further contended that the standard contains outdated

references, classifications, and jurisdiction-related provisions that

do not accurately represent the current regulatory environment."

There are also definition changes which make sense since years ago U.S. DOT started adopting international dangerous goods code definitions for explosives which are a lot different from the old U.S. definitions and needed changing by OSHA (who apparently adopted a lot of the old DOT definitions).

[3GunF1Guy]

I can't believe there isn't 10 pages on this subject. We could get screwed with this. It will almost be imposable to ship primers, powder or ammo if this regulation goes through. It will almost be imposable for any of the companies that you buy powder, primers or ammo from to have it shipped to them. And almost no way for you to mail order it. We could almost be out of the shooting sports with this.

Here are some instructions on how to post your comments to osha on this regulation. I copied these instruction from Mike Power over at Shotgunworld.com. I'm sure he wouln't mind if I posted them here. Here is the link to the posts on shotgunworld.com

http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic....asc&start=0

OSHA-2007-0032

Also, I highly recommend we all go to www.regulations.gov

Once there, scroll down until you see Option 4 in the Search Documents box.

Click the drop-down menu and select Document ID and then enter the docket number I listed above into the search field and run the search.

That should bring you to a page that will list a whole bunch of attributes of the notice across the screen. On the right side, there's a column for Comments and in line with the information for the document there is a little yellow bubble and the date the comments are due: 07-12-2007.

Click the yellow bubble, fill in the necessary blanks and submit your comments in the box provided.

Small bit of advice: be nice. This a government agency that we're dealing with and unfortunately, how much power they have is only limited most times by how much they choose to exercise. BE DIPLOMATIC. In clear, concise, neutral terms, state your opposition to the proposed regulations and why. It is unlikely you will be opposed to the whole of the proposal by OSHA, but if you don't have time to read the whole thing, just state your opposal and why. "Unauthorized," "arbitrary and capricious," and most importantly, "unnecessary and illegal burden on the flow of interstate commerce," should find their way into your comments.

The regulation of interstate commerce is exclusively the privilege of Congress and it's one they DON'T delegate. Getting into that area is the only likely way to defeat the transportation regulations.

Scott

[Kingman]

Ok, trying to find it on the website. Seems like that site does not want us to find it.

I tried searching and it just is not coming up for me.

[Kingman]

release on osha's site. Found it here

This is absurd we have to do something.

For a search to get on the area to post comments you need to go to regulations.gov

Once there do a search for proposed regulations by Occupational Safety and Health Agency

It will be the second one.

Edited July 2, 2007 by Kingman

[slavex]

we have something similar happening up here. the first time our explosives guys came up with some ideas, we hammered them with snail mail and emails. you guys have to do the same. this is how they'll take your guns without a fight.

[ffl]

As a member of NSSF I also got information from them on their Bullet Points newletter. We will respond accordingly you can be assured of that.

david

[3GunF1Guy]

The NSSF just put this on their web site.

http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?PRloc=...PR=BP070207.cfm

I hope more people see it and respond or we are in big trouble. This reloading forum may become irrelevant and useless if something is not done.

Scott

Edited July 3, 2007 by 3GunF1Guy

[SiG Lady]

I heard about this on another forum...... God, this is horrible.

[The Law]

The NSSF just put this on their web site.

http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?PRloc=...PR=BP070207.cfm

I hope more people see it and respond or we are in big trouble. This reloading forum may become irrelevant and useless if something is not done.

Scott

I just submitted my letter. Thanks for the link!!

[ChrisStock]

This would eliminate package carriers from handling our toy components for sure, forcing us to buy from Walmart. I think I'll slip over to ETrade now and see what I can pick up in the form of stock in Olin and Winchester

Seriously though, this blows...just when I was starting to have fun.

[Waltermitty]

I submitted my letter then the web site locked up...

So I called my Representative and both Senators.

[PHolsted]

Well I added my comments to the http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main public submissions section for what it will be worth. I also dropped a line to both my Senators and my Representatives not that they will listen or help in any way.

Just my $.02

[TRG65]

I copied the following from a post on snipershide. I followed the link and directions and was able to submit a comment. I also called my representative in DC

I don't know what happened to this thread, but this cannot go without attention. EVERYONE THAT IS A SHOOTER MUST GO TO THIS WEBSITE AND RESPOND. I just got off the phone with a very nice gentleman at OSHA concerning this matter. He stated that it is VERY important that everyone go to this website and comment on the proposed changes. I forget his name, but his phone number is 202-693-9999. Call and make a comment to him IN ADDITION TO responding on this website: http://www.regulations.gov then choose option 4, select DOCUMENT ID, then type in OSHA-2007-0032-0001. When the document title comes up, go to the right side of the screen and click on COMMENTS ADD / DUE BY 7/12/07. To date, there are only 17 commments. FOLKS, THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE FUTURE OF SHOOTING COULD BE IN THE BALANCE. THE NRA STATED THAT THIS MAY GO THROUGH BECAUSE IT IS A BEAUROCRATIC ORGANIZATION AND NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS. If you have any trouble accessing this website, contact the NRA-ILA @ 800-392-8683 and they will walk you through it.

[Slowhand]

I sent my letter today.

Bet the proposed regs get plenty of support from the antis.

[SLM]

Anybody have a good "form" letter to submit on this? It just seems so stupid I don't know what to say!

[MasterLefty]

Anybody have a good "form" letter to submit on this? It just seems so stupid I don't know what to say!

Here is the letter from NSSF. (Click Here)

Kenny

[j2fast]

I just submitted letters to all my congress critters along with OSHA; definitely wouldn't hurt for everyone to take 5-10 minutes to do the same.

[Barrettone]

This SUCKS!!!

[zhunter]

Letter submitted

[Vlad]

Their online form doesn't let me actually submit a comment. It just goes back to the same friking submition page with no errors.

[Jaxshooter]

Comment added 7-4-07 3:30 PM

[et45]

Comment added,letters to US Rep and Senators sent as well.

[3GunF1Guy]

Their online form doesn't let me actually submit a comment. It just goes back to the same friking submition page with no errors.

I made sure I put something in the "company" then it would work for me.

Scott

[et45]

I put "none" in the company space.