Futuristic Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Glack Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3GunF1Guy Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slavex Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffl Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3GunF1Guy Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiG Lady Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I heard about this on another forum...... God, this is horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Law Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 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!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisStock Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waltermitty Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I submitted my letter then the web site locked up... So I called my Representative and both Senators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHolsted Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRG65 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowhand Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I sent my letter today. Bet the proposed regs get plenty of support from the antis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLM Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Anybody have a good "form" letter to submit on this? It just seems so stupid I don't know what to say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterLefty Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j2fast Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrettone Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 This SUCKS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Letter submitted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Their online form doesn't let me actually submit a comment. It just goes back to the same friking submition page with no errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxshooter Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Comment added 7-4-07 3:30 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
et45 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Comment added,letters to US Rep and Senators sent as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3GunF1Guy Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
et45 Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 I put "none" in the company space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now