Suppose certain legislators have influence with OSHA?
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; Suppose certain legislators have influence with OSHA? http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?...R=BP070207.cfm...
Suppose certain legislators have influence with OSHA?
I'm a child of the 60's, but I got over it.
Link doesn't work.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein
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.
I'm a child of the 60's, but I got over it.
Seriously, do you guys even read this stuff? You sure do jump to a lot of conclusions.
No where in any of this did I see anything about stopping the shipments. In fact, they defer all shipping concers to the DOT.
As for storage... lets get something cleared up.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
Storage of complete ammunition:
Storage of smokeless powder (read it all if you want or don't believe me):Paragraph (h) Small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and
smokeless propellants. The requirements of proposed paragraph (h) are
very similar to the requirements in existing paragraph (j). Most of the
revisions have been made to make proposed paragraph (h) consistent with
the 2001 edition of NFPA 495.
Small arms ammunitions are finished consumer products that pose
lesser hazards to employees when compared with most other forms of
explosives. There are very small quantities of explosive matter sealed
in the ammunition shells which, when inadvertently detonated (except
when confined as in the firing chamber of a weapon), do not constitute
a substantial projection or mass explosion hazard. Therefore, the safe
storage and transportation requirements for small arms ammunition are
different from other explosives.
Proposed paragraph (h)(1) states that proposed paragraph (h) does
not apply to in-process temporary storage during the manufacture of
small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants.
This is similar to and replaces existing paragraph (j)(1) except that
the proposed language uses the phrase ``temporary in-process storage''
whereas the existing language only uses the phrase ``in-process
storage.'' The term ``temporary'' has been added to emphasize that in-
process storage is limited to storage which is temporary in nature and
is an integral and indispensable part of the manufacturing process.
However, proposed paragraph (h) does apply to the non-temporary storage
of small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless
propellants. In addition, existing paragraph (j)(1) states that
existing paragraph (j) does not apply to the intraplant transportation
during the manufacture of small arms ammunition, small arms primers,
and smokeless propellants. This provision has not been retained in the
proposed paragraph because none of the requirements in proposed
paragraph (h) apply to such intraplant transportation.
Existing paragraph (j)(2)(i) contains a requirement that states:
``No quantity limitations are imposed on the storage of small arms
ammunition in warehouses, retail stores, and other general occupancy
facilities, except those imposed by limitations of storage
facilities.'' This statement has not been included in proposed
paragraph (h) because it is not mandatory in the existing paragraph and
does not improve employee safety.
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. The
proposed requirement replaces the existing paragraph (j)(2)(ii). The
existing provision defines ``flammable solid'' in terms of the
classification used by DOT. The proposed rule has dropped the reference
to DOT's classification because ``flammable solid'' is defined in
OSHA's Hazard Communication standard at Sec. 1910.1200.
Let me sum it up for you:
You can't "Display" more than 20 pounds in 1 pound containers in a storefront.
20-100 pounds in portable or permananet container made from 1" wood.
100-750 pounds Permanent container with 1" walls, no more than 400# per container. Containers 25ft araprt OR seperated by a 1 hour fire wall (1 hour drywall, you could theoretically add this to your storage container and stack them close together.
750-5000 pounds, same as 100-750, but adds Sprinkler system, limited access, 1/4" steel or 2" wood/brick/or concrete block seperators, -OR- (in lieu of all the stuff before) a type 4 ATF magazine.
Storage of small arms primers:
Display no more than 10,000 primers
750,000 or less primers must be stored in lots of not more than 100,000 and in containers 15ft apart (no mention of fireproof seperators)
750,000 or more primers must be stored more or less like 750-5000 pounds of smokless powder, not more than 200,000 primers per cabinet.
Basically all they are doing is taking the OSHA standards and making them the same as the already existing, and in most cases more restrictive, standards from other agencies. This allows them to enforce the already existing policies better.
"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
They may not stop the shipments but what if your you local ammo place, be it WalMart or a gun shop has to search you for lighters?
How much lost production time would it cost manufacturers if they have to shut down and evacuate every time a thunderstorm approaches?
(When was the last time you heard about an ammo or powder factory exploding because of a lightning strike?)
Call me paranoid but it sounds like one more underhanded ploy by the antis to get what they're after.
If the NSSF is concerned, so am I.
I'm a child of the 60's, but I got over it.
It has nothing to do with OSHA. They know darn good and well that the sole purpose is to cut down on firearms and manufacturers of such. When was the last time you heard about an ammo factory going up smoke in the USA?
-The Mist (2007)"My God David, We're a Civilized society."
"Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
Again a clear demonstration of trying to fix a problem that DOES NOT EXIST. Its feel better, fluffy legislstion.
“Are you a thermometer or a thermostat, do you reflect or become what is happening in the room or do you change the atmosphere, reset the temperature when you come into the room”?--Chuck Swindoll
Its not about guns...Its about Freedom!
"Seriously, do you guys even read this stuff? You sure do jump to a lot of conclusions."
"No where in any of this did I see anything about stopping the shipments. In fact, they defer all shipping concers to the DOT."
Exactly. Most of this stuff is being stirred up by dealers. Two close friends have called me in a total panic over this stuff. Dealers told then that they could no longer handle re-loading stuff if this went through. It is my personal belief that a lot of guns shops do not want to be bothered with black powder, so they do not order it."
First, the pro-gun organizations (NRA, GOA, RKBA,etc.) care so much that they had not even bothered to comment as of four days ago. This is not a big deal for ammunition manufacturers.
"Explosives" is a very broad category that encompasses nearly everything from small arms primers to big bombs.
Several guys on other sites have made a big deal out of black powder being classed in 1.1D as a high explosive. Federal agencies have classified it that way for at least 15 years. Yes, we all know BP is not a high explosive. But because of it's sensitivity to heat, sparks, friction, static electricity, etc. it is classed as such.
i can tell you this, OSHA is not the lead agency or regulatory authority for explosives and black powder. i'm a federally licensed user of high explosives. The ATFE is the lead agency for all licensing of manufacturers, licensing of users, storage, and inventory compliance of explosives used by civilians. In many respects ATF explosive storage rules are more stringent than military explosive storage rules. If something gets lost in shipment or stolen from storage it is the ATFE who is coming to town.
There are several federal agencies who get in explosive shipping, storage and use. First there is the military, for military only. Then there is the US Army Corps of Engineers for COE stuff only. DOT rules on shipment. OSHA has its own regulations that apply only where nothing else applies. In 25 years i've never seen a situation where OSHA rules applied.
Scanned the proposed rules. Me thinks it is not a big deal. There were very few comments on this proposed rule until a few days ago. Most of those were by private individuals who use black powder recreationally.
i remember the primer panic about 12-14 years ago. Supposedly Slick Willie was going to force ammunition companies to stop selling primers. There was a total buying binge.
So I got an interesting email today. I'm not really loving the price of ammo and seems like this could not only make ammo/powder prices rise but also a lot harder to get. Not to mention the impact on suppliers/stores small and large. Below is the email with links you decide...
ALERT - Protect Your Firearm Rights
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?PRloc=common/PR/&PR=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.
President, TGSCOM, Inc
TopGlock.com TheGunSource.com XDPistols.com
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed new rules that would have a dramatic effect on the storage and transportation of ammunition and handloading components such as primers or black and smokeless powder. The proposed rule indiscriminately treats ammunition, powder and primers as “explosives.” Among many other provisions, the proposed rule would:
Prohibit possession of firearms in commercial “facilities containing explosives”—an obvious problem for your local gun store.
Prohibit delivery drivers from leaving explosives unattended—which would make it impossible for delivery services such as UPS to deliver ammunition or gun powder.
Require evacuation of all “facilities containing explosives”—even your local Wal-Mart—during any electrical storm.
Prohibit smoking within 50 feet of “facilities containing explosives.”
It’s important to remember this is only a proposed rule right now, so there’s still time for concerned citizens to speak out before OSHA issues its final rule. The National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Association will all be commenting on these proposed regulations, based on the severe effect these regulations (if finalized) would have on the availability of ammunition and reloading supplies to safe and responsible shooters.
The public comment period ends July 12. To file your own comment, or to learn more about the OSHA proposal, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket Number OSHA-2007-0032”; you can read OSHA’s proposal and learn how to submit comments electronically, or by fax or mail.
OSHA Docket Office Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625 200 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20210 Re.: Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 (Explosives—Proposed Rule)
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing in strong opposition to OSHA’s proposed rules on “explosives,” which go far beyond regulating true explosives. These proposed rules would impose severe restrictions on the transportation and storage of small arms ammunition—both complete cartridges and handloading components such as black and smokeless powder, primers, and percussion caps. These restrictions go far beyond existing transportation and fire protection regulations.
As a person who uses ammunition and components, I am very concerned that these regulations will have a serious effect on my ability to obtain these products. OSHA’s proposed rules would impose restrictions that very few gun stores, sporting goods stores, or ammunition dealers could comply with. (Prohibiting firearms in stores that sell ammunition, for example, is absurd—but would be required under the proposed rule.)
The proposed transportation regulations would also affect shooters’ ability to buy these components by mail or online, because shipping companies would also have great difficulty complying with the proposed rules. For instance, the rules against leaving any vehicle containing “explosives” unattended would make it impossible for companies such as United Parcel Service to deliver ammunition to businesses or consumers without massive changes in their operations (such as putting a second driver on any truck that might happen to deliver a case of shotgun shells).
There is absolutely no evidence of any new safety hazard from storage or transportation of small arms ammunition or components that would justify these new rules. I also understand that organizations with expertise in this field, such as the National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Association, will be submitting detailed comments on this issue. I hope OSHA will listen to these organizations’ comments as the agency develops a final rule on this issue.
"The proposed rule indiscriminately treats ammunition, powder and primers as “explosives.”"
Ammunition, powder and primers have always been treated as "explosives."
All explosives are classed into one of six Hazard Classes/Divisions" Small arms ammunition under .50 caliber falls into 1.4 S. Black Powder falls into 1.1D.
1.1 Mass Explosion
1.2 Non-Mass Explosion, Fragment Producing
1.3 Mass Fire, Minor Blast or Fragments
1.4 Moderate Fire, No Blast or Fragments
1.5 Explosive Substance Very Insensitive, Fragment Producing With Mass Explosion Hazard
1.6 Explosive Substance, Extremely Insensitive
IMO this is not a big deal. This proposed rule change has been posted since 13 April without comment from industry or the pro gun groups. Now it is suddenly a big issue. i don't think so. BTW, OSHA regulations do not even apply to businesses with fewer than ten employees.
If these rules are applied the way NRA/NSSA/GOA believe, they could be used to cripple the industry. Under a H Clinto Presidency, they WOULD be used in such a way. Of course, wouldn't this also cripple the military ammo supply?
I see fireworks plants exploding at least once every two years...they are still around.
If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?
It gets worse. SAAMI petitioned OSHA for the change. See page 18793.
"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
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;
• 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."
I've done my part through OSHA's site, will be emailing and faxing tomorrow.
Signed yours truly.Dear Sir or Ma'am,
I cannot support these changes.
As per the design of prosecution in this country, the burden of proof rests on
OSHA to prove that existing storage and transportation practices are unsafe;
that the proposed changes in OSHA-2007-0032 would improve safety practices; and
that proposed changes in OSHA-2007-0032 are not an unconstitutional infringement
upon civil rights.
What evidence exists that existing practices are so unsafe that they must be
What evidence exists that such proposed changes are, or would be, safer?
Can you provide, for public scrutiny, any sources for such obtained evidence?
Until OSHA can explain the questions I have posed, I cannot, as a responsible
citizen and an avid shooter, support OSHA-2007-0032 proposed changes. They would
create immense and unnecessary problems for existing businesses relating to the
manufacture and selling of firearms and their ammunition, and unless such
practices can be positively linked to a decline in public safety such proposed
changes are purely whimsical.
A concerned citizen,