OSHA Going After the Firearms Industry? Labor Dept Will Revise OSHA Explosives Rule

This is a discussion on OSHA Going After the Firearms Industry? Labor Dept Will Revise OSHA Explosives Rule within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; "Am I missing something here? Can someone point out in the document the part that would require WalMart to evacuate should a thunderstorm pop up?" ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 59

Thread: OSHA Going After the Firearms Industry? Labor Dept Will Revise OSHA Explosives Rule

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    "Am I missing something here? Can someone point out in the document the part that would require WalMart to evacuate should a thunderstorm pop up?"

    It is not in the document. It pertains only to ammunition manufacture, blasting and storage. BTW, this is one of the things that SAAMI specifically asked for in their petition. Please note the part where IME and SAAMI provided draft regulatory language.

    The Petition
    "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 § 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    the standard contains outdated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.
    The Petition requested OSHA to make
    a number of changes to the standard,
    including the following, and provided
    draft regulatory language:"

    ad Nauseum, ad nauseum

    "• Update provisions for guarding
    against accidental initiation by sources
    of extraneous electricity;"

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    "Am I missing something here? Can someone point out in the document the part that would require WalMart to evacuate should a thunderstorm pop up?"

    It is not in the document. It pertains only to ammunition manufacture, blasting and storage. BTW, this is one of the things that SAAMI specifically asked for in their petition. Please note the part where IME and SAAMI provided draft regulatory language.

    The Petition
    "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 § 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.
    The Petition requested OSHA to make
    a number of changes to the standard,
    including the following, and provided
    draft regulatory language:"

    ad Nauseum, ad nauseum

    "• Update provisions for guarding
    against accidental initiation by sources
    of extraneous electricity;
    "
    A friend and myself did a experiment a few years back to see how long and sensitive smokeless powder was to a electrical discharge. Long story short after extensive testing we never did get any brand of smokeless powder to ignite by an electric spark.
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

  4. #33
    Member Array BigArn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    U.S. of A.
    Posts
    37

    OSHA Gun Control

    Proposed OSHA Regulations Could Shut Down Ammunition and Firearms Industry

    Note: As of 7/9/2007, the comment period has been extended to 9/10/2007 --
    meaning we have time to motivate shooters and freedom advocates nationwide.

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the government
    agency that enforces it's arcane and often ridiculous workplace safety
    rules, is proposing new regulations that will affect the manufacturing,
    transportation and storage of small arms ammunition, primers and smokeless
    propellants.

    As it currently stands the proposed regulations would force the closure of
    nearly all ammunition manufacturers, effectively collapsing the industry by
    forcing the cost of small arms ammunition to skyrocket beyond what the free
    market will bear.

    Adding these new regulations to the already skyrocketing price of ammunition
    -- due to the rapid increase in prices in the metals markets, the demand on
    ammunition for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and South Africa ceasing to
    sell surplus ammunition (due to pressure from the gun-grabbers in the United
    Nations) -- will undoubtedly destroy the small arms ammunition market.

    This is a gun control in a very insidious wrapping, and must be stopped.

    I wish that I could say this was hyperbole or exaggeration. The cost to
    comply with the proposed regulations for the ammunition industry, including
    manufacturer, wholesale distributors and retailers, will be massive. The
    cost of compliance with these new anti-gun regulations could easily exceed
    $100 million.

    These ridiculous regulations would make doing business in the ammunition
    industry practically impossible. One of the new regulations would require
    ammunition and smokeless propellant manufacturers 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.

    Make no mistake, this is an attempt to ban gun ownership. By forcing
    ammunition manufactures out business, and artificially inflating the price
    of ammunition to prohibitive levels through outrageous regulation changes,
    OSHA will affectively prevent the use of firearms.

    Nation Association for Gun Rights is urging all gun owners - that's you --
    to contact OSHA directly to inform them that the proposed regulations
    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.

    E-mail or fax your concerns (at 202-693-1648) to OSHA today.

    Your letter must include the following: Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 (Formerly
    Docket No. OSHA-S031-2006-0665 and OSHA Docket No. S-031)

    Please fax your concerns 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 www.Regulations.gov and following the
    submission instructions. (www.regulations.gov)

    Read the full proposed regulations here:
    http://www.nationalgunrights.org/FedReg041307.pdf

    To make a donation to help stop gun control go to:
    https://gunrights.ejoinme.org/MyPage...0/Default.aspx



    Luke O'Dell
    Operations Director
    National Association for Gun Rights

  5. #34
    Senior Member Array Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    568
    God what next.

    In the history of ammunition manufacturing, has lightening ever blew a factory up before?
    Primary Carry Gun: Sig Sauer 229~R (.40cal w/ Golden Saber JHP's)

  6. #35
    Senior Member Array ElMonoDelMar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    635
    Has anyone actually read this regulation? We need to stop posting "the sky is falling" stories. They don't help our cause any and they make the rest of the supposed sheep think we're just a bunch of crazies.

  7. #36
    Member Array Protect's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by ElMonoDelMar View Post
    Has anyone actually read this regulation? We need to stop posting "the sky is falling" stories. They don't help our cause any and they make the rest of the supposed sheep think we're just a bunch of crazies.
    +1
    By all means reply to their questions (too late now, deadline was last Friday), its not going to hurt anything, but don't freak out about it.
    "When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him—by force.
    "... No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own." -John Galt, Atlas Shrugged

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    "Has anyone actually read this regulation? We need to stop posting "the sky is falling" stories. They don't help our cause any and they make the rest of the supposed sheep think we're just a bunch of crazies."

    Looks like just a few folks on this site have read the proposed regulation. Most others just react in a knee jerk way to false claims by others who have not read the proposed regulation.

    FACTS!!!!

    1. SAAMI and IME petitioned OSHA for changes to the regulation in a 47 page document. SAAMI and IME wrote the proposed regulatory language.

    2. As of 3 July, 07; the NRA-ILA guy who was driving the train had not even read the document. i told him that his claims about transportation were false. But it is still in their form letter.

    3. Read the bulleted comments, especially the part where SAAMI wanted OSHA to address "extraneous electricity." This is how the lightning and thunderstorm thing go into the reg.

    We do not like it when Ted Kennedy, Hillary, Sarah Brady and Shumer lie. i, for one, do not like it when the NRA; to whom i have belonged for 50 years, lies. Now i wonder if i can ever trust the NRA-ILA again. We are looking like a bunch of uninformed redneck hicks on this issue.

    i've worked with ammunition and explosives since 1959 and i can tell you that everyone is required to shut down ammunition manufacturing, storage and blasting operations during thunderstorms. The US military is especially concerned about this.


    "The Petition
    "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 § 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.
    The Petition requested OSHA to make
    a number of changes to the standard,
    including the following, and provided
    draft regulatory language:
    • Exclude the manufacture of
    explosives from the PSM requirements
    of § 1910.119 and incorporate revised
    PSM requirements for the manufacture
    of explosives into § 1910.109;
    • Replace references to outdated DOT
    explosives classifications with the
    current DOT classification system;
    • Eliminate the provisions in
    § 1910.109 covering the storage of
    explosives and the construction of
    magazines because they are regulated by
    the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
    Firearms, and Explosives (ATF);
    • Eliminate provisions in § 1910.109
    applicable to the transportation of
    explosives on public highways because
    such transportation is regulated by DOT;
    • Update provisions for guarding
    against accidental initiation by sources
    of extraneous electricity;
    • Include provisions governing the
    intra-plant transportation of explosives;
    • Include provisions for the use of
    nonelectric detonation systems;
    • Revise provisions regarding the
    crimping of detonators to safety fuse;
    • Update provisions for clearing the
    blasting area of unauthorized personnel;
    and
    • Update the provisions for the
    design of bulk delivery and mixing
    vehicles and of mixing equipment."
    Last edited by Sig 210; July 11th, 2007 at 09:41 AM.

  9. #38
    VIP Member
    Array dr_cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    10,811
    I am glad that there are people here who do read and comprehend OSHA's version of English. When I first saw one of these threads I decided to read the document. When I finished my first question was: Has anyone else actually read this document? By all means post a comment for OSHA, but please read and understand the proposed regulations and make comments on the specific areas that they want comments on.

    By all means don't start commenting on so called regs like:
    customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition (displayed or otherwise stored) without first being searched for matches or lighters.
    From the National Shooting Sports Foundation. There is nothing in the proposed regs that even come close to proposing anything like that. You don't have to be a lawyer or even play one on television to read the regs well enough to know that the above statement has no relation to reality.

    We wonder why members of Congress keep trying to figure out a way to control to some extent grassroots lobbying and communication. Well it might be because for every one sensible comment they get there are twenty expressing outrage at something that doesn't exist.
    George

    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein

  10. #39
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    "We wonder why members of Congress keep trying to figure out a way to control to some extent grassroots lobbying and communication. Well it might be because for every one sensible comment they get there are twenty expressing outrage at something that doesn't exist."

    Thank you dr_cmg. When pro-gun folks write uninformed letters to our pro-gun politicians we are crying wolf in the very worst way. Just maybe the pro-gun politician will call OSHA and find out the real truth. Just maybe the pro-gun politician will then look at all our subsequent letters with a jaundiced eye.

  11. #40
    Senior Member Array David III's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Sturgeon, MO
    Posts
    810
    I have a question. If these new regs do not really change much regarding ammunition and components thereof, then why does OSHA specifically ask in Issue #4 whether paragraph (c)(3)(iii) would have an impact on retail sales? That paragraph refers to explosives (which OSHA has defined to include small arms ammunition. IF ammo is included in paragraph (c)(3) regs, then why wouldn't it be applicable in all regs that relate to explosives (excluding ammonium nitrate, which they address separately?
    IF so, then ammo would appear to have to be moved in wood-lined trucks, areas storing ammo would need evacuated during a lightning storm, no guns around ammo, etc.
    IF not, if ammo is not considered the same as other explosives (which OSHA seems to say later in paragraph (j), then why would OSHA refer to ammo specifically in their Issue #4?
    I spent all day yesterday trying to find the "small arms" exemption to ammo as explosives and keep coming back to what is their intent when asking about it specifically (Issue #4)?
    I understand SAAMI wanted changes. It just appears to me that OSHA may not have made the changes SAAMI wanted.
    I just don't know ---

  12. #41
    New Member Array saltwater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    "Am I missing something here? Can someone point out in the document the part that would require WalMart to evacuate should a thunderstorm pop up?
    You are right is not in the petition from SAAMI, which you have quoted. Please note what you have quote in your post is the SAAMI petition, submitted in 2002. This is not the same as what OSHA wants. I believe that the regulations that OSHA has proposed go beyond what SAAMI asked for. SAAMI is against what the OSHA wants.

    It is the OSHA regulations that have the limitations that will affect the availability of ammo. OSHA took SAAMI's proposed regulations and took them to the next level. OSHA regulations will be applied to the transportation and sale of ammo and related products. SAAMI's petition was a request for OSHA to look at current regulations with suggestions of change. OSHA did look and went far beyond what SAAMI suggested.

    Please look at the OSHA regulations, not the SAAMI proposal. http://www.nationalgunrights.org/FedReg041307.pdf

    http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?...R=BP070207.cfm
    The site listed above explains the effect of the new regulations. quoted from the site:
    NSSF and SAAMI have met with OSHA officials to explain the major problems the proposed rule presents for all levels of the firearms and ammunition industry. Furthermore, industry members requested a 60-day extension of the public comment period to conduct a more thorough review and analysis of OSHA's proposal. OSHA recently honored industry's request by extending the comment submission deadline to Sept. 10.

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Quote Originally Posted by saltwater View Post
    You are right is not in the petition from SAAMI, which you have quoted. Please note what you have quote in your post is the SAAMI petition, submitted in 2002. This is not the same as what OSHA wants. I believe that the regulations that OSHA has proposed go beyond what SAAMI asked for. SAAMI is against what the OSHA wants.

    Does anyone ever read anything in this country? When i talked with the NRA-ILA rep on 5 July he had not even read the proposed regulation. OSHA does not propose to shut down Wal-Mart during a thunderstorm. That applies only to ammunition manufacture, and storage facilities. The US military shuts down or evacuates all ammunition manufacturing and storage operations upon the approach of a thunderstorm, this is nothing new.

    i will say again, SAAMI wrote the proposed regulatory language. That quote came directly from the proposed OSHA regulation. The entire petition from IME and SAAMI is 47 pages long: It contains the proposed regulatory language. i have it from friends in the ammunition industry that SAAMI did this crap without contacting their member companies.

    What is unknown at this time is whether or not SAAMI also requested regulation of retailers.

    LOOK at the part where SAAMI wanted regulatory language addressing "extraneous electricity." I write publications and work plans on ammunition storage and explosive ordnance disposal. Static electricity is included in the term "extraneous electricity."

    "OSHA regulations will be applied to the transportation and sale of ammo and related products."

    Read the darn document. OSHA specifically states that they will not get into the regulation of transportation. This is the realm of DOT. i have done this stuff for a living since 1959. On the sites that i manage we have to abide by ATFE, DOT, OSHA, NFPA, local and state regulations on explosive storage, explosive use, shipment of explosive waste and a whole host of other stuff. We know how to read and interpret government regulations.

    Print off and study the whole document, all 55 pages of it and you will see that OSHA carefully adresses all the things that IME and SAAMI asked for.

    All the stuff from the NSSF and the gun rights organizations contain exaggerations and down right lies. SAAMI got their member industries into a bind and now want gun rights folks to get their butts out of the fire. We are making ourselves look like uninformed redneck hicks when we go off half-cocked and parrot crap from other folks who have not read the proposed regulation.

    See page 18793 of the proposed OSHA regulations. This is what SAAMI and IME requested in their joint petition.

    "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 § 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. The Petition requested OSHA to make a number of changes to the standard, including the following, and provided
    draft regulatory language:

    • Exclude the manufacture of explosives from the PSM requirements
    of § 1910.119 and incorporate revised PSM requirements for the manufacture of explosives into § 1910.109;

    • Replace references to outdated DOT explosives classifications with the current DOT classification system;

    • Eliminate the provisions in § 1910.109 covering the storage of explosives and the construction of magazines because they are regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF);

    • Eliminate provisions in § 1910.109applicable to the transportation of
    explosives on public highways because such transportation is regulated by DOT;

    • Update provisions for guarding against accidental initiation by sources of extraneous electricity;

    • Include provisions governing the intra-plant transportation of explosives;

    • Include provisions for the use of nonelectric detonation systems;

    • Revise provisions regarding the crimping of detonators to safety fuse;

    • Update provisions for clearing the blasting area of unauthorized personnel;

    and
    • Update the provisions for the design of bulk delivery and mixing vehicles and of mixing equipment. In response to the Petition, OSHA carefully reviewed the requirements of the current standard and other related OSHA standards. It analyzed the recommendations as well as the draft regulatory language provided in the Petition. OSHA also examined the regulations of other federal agencies relating to explosives and consulted with interested parties about the need to revise the standard. Apart from IME and SAAMI, these interested parties included the International Society of Explosives Engineers (ISEE), the American Pyrotechnics Association (APA), the United Steel Workers of America (USWA), and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International (PACE). In addition, OSHA consulted with other Federal agencies about their explosives regulations and procedures. These Federal agencies included the DOT, ATF, the Interagency Committee on Explosives (ICE), the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Based upon its review of the Petition and the standard, OSHA has concluded that the following actions are
    appropriate. These actions are discussed in greater detail in the summary and explanation section of the proposed rule:

    (see section III).
    A. Update the Standard Workplace hazards associated with explosives activities pose significant risks to employees. OSHA has determined that the existing standard needs to be updated to adequately protect employees from these risks."

    "........"
    Last edited by JD; July 20th, 2007 at 03:23 PM. Reason: Edited text format to properly fit screen dimensions.

  14. #43
    Member Array SCGunGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    173

    Exclamation

    Despite what some here have said, these proposed regulations are a big deal, and we need to speak loudly and firmly. These regs, if applied, would indeed have dire consequences for all gun owners. Read the excerpts and my analysis, below, and see if you agree with me or with those who say this is no big deal.

    I downloaded and read the 55 page document from www.regulations.gov (document id is OSHA–2007–0032). Below are some excerpts and my interpretation of those excerpts.

    Pages 18796-9 contain a discussion by OSHA that explains why OSHA believes it has authority to regulate the storage of small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants, and to regulate the transportation of those and other explosives. I won’t go into it here, but lets just say they have every intent to regulate retail stores and also transport , not just the manufacture and use of explosives.

    From pg. 18804

    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. This requirement is a consolidation of four requirements in the existing standard that have been combined into one general requirement and clarified in the proposed rule. Existing paragraphs (c)(5)(vii), (e)(1)(i), (g)(2)(vi)(d), and (g)(5)(iii) deal with open flames, matches, or spark producing devices around magazines, near explosives, near buildings or facilities used to mix blasting agents, and near blasting agent storage warehouses. The term ‘‘facilities containing explosives’’ used in proposed paragraph (c)(1)(vii) covers all these situations. The 50-foot prohibition is consistent throughout this proposed rule and, in general, is considered to be an acceptable safe distance. 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)?
    Issue #4 in the above-quoted section clearly indicates OSHA is intending to apply this regulation to retailers, such as Wal-Mart and gun shops (“storage and retail sale of small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants”).

    From pg. 18805

    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 or blast sites except as required for work duties. This proposed requirement is different from the existing requirements which prohibit firearms within 50 feet of storage magazines and blasting agent mixing plants. The proposed requirement would prohibit firearms at facilities containing explosives and at blast sites. In addition, as recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2–1), the proposed requirement would prohibit ammunition and similar articles along with firearms. The requirement would allow firearms, ammunition, or similar articles to be carried by guards as needed to perform their work duties.
    Again, retail stores would be included in the above regulation, using OSHA’s definition of “’facilities containing explosives’ refers to any building on a site where explosives are manufactured, handled or stored.” So, concealed or open carry, whether by permit or state law, would be forbidden by OSHA within any building containing explosives, including retail stores that sell ammunition, primers, or powder. Since the only exception given is “guards as needed to perform their work duties” one would have to say the prohibition would extend to LE in addition to non-LE citizens.

    Proposed regulations:
    From pg. 18837

    (2) Electrical hazards. (i) The employer shall ensure that the primary electrical supply to a facility containing explosives can be disconnected at a safe remote location away from the facility. (ii) During the approach and progress of an electrical storm, the employer shall ensure that: (A) All explosive manufacturing and blasting operations are suspended; and (B) Employees located in or near facilities containing explosives or in blast sites are withdrawn immediately to a safe remote location.
    Again, since OSHA includes retail stores selling ammunition in its definition of a “facility containing explosives”, the above regulation would apply to retail stores as well. So, retailers would have to evacuate employees (and thereby also customers) from all buildings whenever a storm is approaching until after the storm has passed.

    Wal-Mart and other stores will stop selling ammo long before they close down and evacuate everyone anytime there’s an electrical storm approaching. In the south and Midwest, that could be several times a day during the summer.

    Also from pg. 18837
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that: (A) No open flames, matches, or spark-producing devices are located within 50 feet (15.2 m) of explosives or facilities containing explosives; (B) Smoking is only permitted in authorized smoking areas located a safe distance from explosives; (C) No person carries firearms, ammunition, or similar articles in facilities containing explosives or blast sites except as required for work duties;
    The one above is what kills concealed and open carry by anyone but guards within any building that houses any ammo, primers, or powder.

    From pg. 18840
    (iii) Explosives are not transferred from one vehicle to another without informing local fire and police departments. A competent person shall supervise the transfer of explosives. In the event of breakdown or collision, the local fire and police departments shall be promptly notified;

    (C) Except under emergency conditions, no vehicle containing explosives is parked before reaching its destination on any public street adjacent to or in close proximity to any place of employment;
    The above regulation will kill deliveries of small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants by UPS, FedEx, etc., as the carrier’s vehicles often make stops along the way. And, will UPS be willing to notify the local PD and FD numerous times a day?
    (Above excerpts from pages 18804 and 18805 are from the part of the document that explains the proposed regs. Citations from pages 18837 and 18840 are the regs themselves.)
    Last edited by SCGunGuy; July 12th, 2007 at 06:01 PM. Reason: Correct a typo in last paragraph

  15. #44
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    "Below are some excerpts and my interpretation of those excerpts."

    Do you have an ammunition and explosives background? If you do not have then you may not be able to correctly intrepret the regulation.

    "The above regulation will kill deliveries of small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants by UPS, FedEx, etc., as the carrier’s vehicles often make stops along the way. And, will UPS be willing to notify the local PD and FD numerous times a day?"

    This is absolutely not true. Read the damn part where OSHA says that they will not get involved in the transportation of explosives on highways. This is DOT territory. You quoted a portion of the reg that pertains to transportation within a manufacturing facility. i give up. This is my last post on this thread.

    "Although OSHA has the statutory
    authority to regulate working conditions
    at each stage in the transportation of
    hazardous materials, the Agency is not
    required to exercise that authority.
    OSHA recognizes DOT and the United
    States Coast Guard’s extensive
    regulatory expertise and coverage in the
    area of the safe transportation of
    hazardous materials. The Agency also
    believes it is important to avoid
    duplicative or conflicting regulatory
    requirements between federal agencies.
    As a result, OSHA has no current plans
    to expand its regulation of working
    conditions during the transportation of
    hazardous materials."

  16. #45
    Member Array SCGunGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    173
    I don't know how much "background" is needed to interpret statements such as
    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)?
    (emphasis mine)

    So, since you claim background in the industry, please explain to me how I have misinterpreted the above, as to me it's very clear that OSHA is including in the scope retailers of the named items.

    As to the transportation point you make, I'll yield to you that I did miss the disclaimer; however, I would add that OSHA only says they have no current plans. Nothing precludes them from doing so in the future, since they claim full authority to do so. I would also dispute that they are talking only transport within a manufacturing facility. Some sections clearly are referring to locations outside of a manufacturing facility (airport terminal, truck terminal, or harbor facility, for example), and nowhere does the document limit itself to transport with a manufacturing facility. Please point out where it does if you still believe it does.

    I also note you failed to rebut any other point I made. Do you agree with my assessments, or are you able to provide any contrary evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    "Below are some excerpts and my interpretation of those excerpts."

    Do you have an ammunition and explosives background? If you do not have then you may not be able to correctly intrepret the regulation.

    "The above regulation will kill deliveries of small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants by UPS, FedEx, etc., as the carrier’s vehicles often make stops along the way. And, will UPS be willing to notify the local PD and FD numerous times a day?"

    This is absolutely not true. Read the damn part where OSHA says that they will not get involved in the transportation of explosives on highways. This is DOT territory. You quoted a portion of the reg that pertains to transportation within a manufacturing facility. i give up. This is my last post on this thread.

    "Although OSHA has the statutory authority to regulate working conditions at each stage in the transportation of hazardous materials, the Agency is not required to exercise that authority. OSHA recognizes DOT and the United States Coast Guard’s extensive
    regulatory expertise and coverage in the area of the safe transportation of hazardous materials. The Agency also believes it is important to avoid duplicative or conflicting regulatory requirements between federal agencies. As a result, OSHA has no current plans
    to expand its regulation of working conditions during the transportation of
    hazardous materials."

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. 'Anti-gunner' OSHA nominee advances without questions 'By fiat could outlaw firearms
    By cbp210 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 21st, 2009, 08:41 AM
  2. H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009
    By Patti in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 12th, 2009, 10:18 PM
  3. VENT - Colorado Dept O' Labor
    By Sticks in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 17th, 2008, 10:08 AM
  4. OSHA wants to regulate small arms ammo
    By sniper58 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 7th, 2007, 12:21 AM
  5. OSHA approved gun lock
    By sisco in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 28th, 2007, 01:37 PM

Search tags for this page

interagency committee on explosives

,

interagency committee on explosives (ice)

,

is ammunition for small arms covered by osha 1910.1200

,

national reloading manufacturers association website

,

osha conspiracy

,

osha stupidity

,

were there standards in the firearms industry before saami?

Click on a term to search for related topics.