Osha to regulate ammo and components - higher cost?

[WhiteFeather]

Read the orginal here all comments and bold are missing in my post

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=151495

Osha to regulate ammo and components

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is pasted the proposed Osha regulations. These are regulations and have the force of law but it doesn't go through congress. Basically, they want to define ammunition, powder and primers as explosives and them regulate any business that deals with them in the name of worker safety. This, I suppose, is because of all the accidents, explosions and worker deaths due to exploding ammo. This could make it quite expensive to deal in any of these items.

Comments and bold are by someone else.

New OSHA Rulemaking-Black & Smokeless Powder, Primers, Ammo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (c)(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 (c)(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 (c)(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 (c)(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 (c)(2)(ii) deals with safety hazards caused by
electrical storms. During the approach and progress of an electrical
storm, paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) would require the employer to ensure
that all explosive manufacturing and blasting operations are suspended,
and paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) 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 (c)(2)(ii)(A) has been expanded to require the suspension of
explosive manufacturing operations and proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B)
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 (c) 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 (c)(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 (c)(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 (c)(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
(c)(3)(iii)?

Proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(C) 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)(B) 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)(B) 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)(C) 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)(B) and (h)(4)(i)(C) 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

[Agent Ronin]

WTF... This will be the end of reloading as we know it... Not to mention mail order components/ammunition.

Is there anything that can be done to fight this? Or are we totally screwed...

[Brick]

OSHA has to get the authority from somewhere. So somewhere there has to be a law authorizing OSHA to regulate these materials. I strongly suggest you start beating on your congresscritters to get this killed.

Note, OSHA's catagorization of smokeless powders as an explosive is in direct conflict with other federal and LAWS and regulations.

[WhiteFeather]

Here is the link to the National Shooting Sports Foundation with some direction on where is comes from, what to do about it stopping IF we can.

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

Proposed OSHA Regulation Threatens
Firearm and Ammunition Industry

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the government agency charged with assuring the safety and health of America's workers, is proposing a regulatory rule affecting the manufacturing, transportation and storage of small arms ammunition, primers and smokeless propellants.

As written, the proposed rule would force the closure of nearly all ammunition manufacturers and force the cost of small arms ammunition to skyrocket beyond what the market could bear—essentially collapsing our industry. This is not an exaggeration. The cost to comply with the proposed rule for the ammunition industry, including manufacturer, wholesale distributors and retailers, will be massive and easily exceed $100 million. For example, ammunition and smokeless propellant manufacturers would have to shut down and evacuate a factory when a thunderstorm approached and customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition (displayed or otherwise stored) without first being searched for matches or lighters.

NSSF and SAAMI have already had a preliminary meeting with OSHA officials to begin the process of explaining to them the major problems this proposed rule presents for all levels of the firearms and ammunition industry. Furthermore, NSSF and SAAMI are each seeking a 60 day extension of the public comment period (currently scheduled to expire July 12).

NSSF is urging all retailers to contact OSHA directly and request a 60-day extension of the public comment period. Retailers should inform OSHA that the proposed rule constitutes a "significant regulatory action" as defined in Executive Order 12866 (1993) Section 3(f)(1) in that it will clearly "adversely affect in a material way" the retail sector of the firearms and ammunition industry, productivity, competition and jobs and that the annual compliance cost for all retailers of ammunition will far exceed $100 million dollars.

Click here for a template letter. If you choose to draft your own letter, the reference line must read as follows:

RE: Docket No. OSHA–2007–0032
Request to Extend Public Comment Period and Request for Hearing on
"Significant Regulatory Action" as Defined in Executive Order 12866

Please fax the letter to: 202-693-1648 (include the docket number and Department of Labor/OSHA on the cover sheet and in the reference section of your letter).

Please e-mail the letter by visiting: http://www.regulations.gov and following the submission instructions.

They can not outright ban firearms without a back lash "today" but they can regulate them or price them into being un affordable to own or use.

[rev214]

thanks whitefeather for the heads-up on this...

i emailed my congressional rep with the NSSF info; my 2 senators are useless...

[WhiteFeather]

I know what you mean about the senators,

I am all for repealing the 17th amendment and have them appointed by the statesl egislators, while we at it should repeal the other 1913 amendment that was allegedly ratified back then also. Lots of other bad thing got passed into law in that year.

[rev214]

Originally Posted by WhiteFeather

Lots of other bad thing got passed into law in that year.

like the 16th amendment...


the peoples republic of NJ is currently playing around with black and smokeless powder regulations as well:

The New Jersey State Assembly is considering A3943, ... which would increase the permit fees to manufacture, store, sell, transport, or use explosive material by 100%. A3943 would also increase the penalties associated with violations of this law to as much as $25,000 for a first offense and up to $100,000 for any subsequent offenses. A3943 includes smokeless and black powder used by many hunters and shooters. From the manufacturer on down, these onerous fee increases will be pressed down to the consumers of smokeless and black powder.

IMHO the PRNJ is a lost cause; the OSHA regulations are a larger and much more serious matter...

[jkp1187]

Originally Posted by rev214

thanks whitefeather for the heads-up on this...

i emailed my congressional rep with the NSSF info; my 2 senators are useless...

Contact 'em anyway. Can't hurt to remind them how many of us are out there.

As for the 'alleged' ratification...just because something is constitutional doesn't make it wise. But unwise laws can be constitutional. No sense in undermining your credibility by pretending otherwise.

[Brick]

I spent some time yesterday trying to read the proposed regs and wrap my head around them.

Does anyone have a handle on the current regulations so we can see what the proposed changes really are?

For what it's worth, I also went to the NSSF website (Thanks White Feather) printed their template letter and it will be in the mail on Thursday. It's only going to cost $0.41 to get your digs in so do it to it!

[T Durdin]

I got the following alert from TGSCOM, Inc who run the following
http://TopGlock.com http://TheGunSource.com http://XDPistols.com

*******************************************
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has issued a press release that details a proposed regulatory change by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that could adversely affect small arms ammunition supplies, artificially drive the ever-rising cost of small arms ammunition and impose undue hardships on both retailers and consumers. For instance, one of the proposed changes states a customer could not be within 50 feet of ammunition unless he/she is searched for matches or lighters. See the release here: http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?...R=BP070207.cfm

TGSCOM, Inc, a family owned and operated firearms retailer, strongly opposes any regulation on the firearms industry, and its supporting industries, that threatens an American citizen's 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We believe such ill-advised regulation of ammunition manufacturers and retailers will result in price spikes in ammunition that will make pre-ban magazine prices look affordable. We encourage you all to add comments to this proposed regulation here: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...OSHA-2007-0032

Remember, this is a proposed regulatory change. We have the right and responsibility as United States citizens to make comments and point out the shortcomings and potential consequences of these changes. It is important that we make our voices heard.

Sincerely,

Eric Thompson
President, TGSCOM, Inc
TopGlock.com TheGunSource.com XDPistols.com
************************************************** ******

To add public comment to the proposed rule changes do the following-

Go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...OSHA-2007-0032

On this page the proposed rule and comments are listed, anywhere on the page click on a yellow bubble, to add comments

You will have to go thru a web form and input your info to which I added the following:
**************************************
In Regaurd to the following:

Occupational Safety and Health Administration/OSHA
Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032, Proposed rule changes for Occupational safety and health standards: Hazardous materials; explosives and

blasting agents.

Dear agency representatives,

Please note the fact that I am against these rule changes. Further I would like to quote some of my fellow citizens responses as highly

appropriate to the proposed changes.

"I am opposed to the above mentioned regulation change, unless it is modified to
exempt black powder.

My understanding of the proposed changes is that it will exceed current DOT
standards for flammable solids, namely black powder. As I interpret the changes,
the ultimate effect will be the elimination of shipping of black powder by carriers
such as UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc. (the primary carriers used for transporting black
powder), because implementation and compliance will be too costly.

The result of this regulation will be to cripple the Black Powder Shooting Sports
and have a severe, adverse effect on the economic impact of the sport.

The Black Powder Shooting Sports are one of the safest family sports in the
country. Likewise, the transportation of black powder also has one of the best
safety records in the shipping industry.

I am asking you to delay acceptance of the above mentioned standards until
exceptions can be written into the regulations for black powder."

"General Comment:I am an avid collector and shooter of muzzle loading firearms which require black
powder to shoot. My sport is a healthy one and of benefit to the country as a
whole from a historical standpoint. The proposed regulations on shipment of black
powder would effectively shut down this beneficial activity, and are unnecessarily
restrictive. Please consider amending the regulations to allow reasonable
amounts of powder to be shipped so our sport can continue. Sincerely William
A. Paton, M.D. Commander, US Public Health Service, Ret".

"General Comment:I am opposed to the provisions of this regulation relating to black powder, small
arms ammunition, and small arms primers. If implemented, this regulation would
impose storage and handling requirements and costs so severe as to effectively
ban the sale of black powder and reloading supplies. The safety record of the
shooting sports does not justify such measures."

Finally I would like to add I have never heard of any incidence where black powder or small arms components accidently misfired in a maner

dangerous to persons engaged in shipping these components. I recall a reports of accidents occuring at firework production facillities, but I

believe these were due to maner of handling by the end user and unrelated to shipping. If your agency has record of such things, I would like

to see them.

I feel these proposed changes effectively constitute an effort to ban small arms components by artificially raising the price of handling them. I

am therefore opposed.

Sincerley,

Private citizen
Shooting sports participant, Second Amendment supporter
Member GOA, NRA
Supporter SAF, JFPO, PAFOA
*********************************
If you want to copy it's just fine, the time limit for comments is only until July 12 so hurry.