Osha 2007-0032


PDA






shooter1
July 3, 2007, 10:26 PM
Here is some legislation of interest. A thinly veiled attempt at making amminution and compotents unavailable to the people. check it out. There is also a sample letter that can be sent if you so desire------or ---------write your own

http://www.regulati ons.gov/fdmspubl ic/component/ main

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3145

Once at this site in option 2 drop the menu down to:

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION *

then click submit

At this time it should be the second listing of the search. The Document title is " Explosives" Docket ID= OSHA-2007-0032

Click on the Docket ID and it should take you to a page where you can ADD Comments. You can use the following form letter from the NRA or add your own.



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.
Sincerely,



__._,_.___

str1

If you enjoyed reading about "Osha 2007-0032" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jacka L Ope
July 4, 2007, 04:34 PM
Submitted my comments against this "rule".

hso
July 4, 2007, 05:22 PM
The proposed rule change is made at the request of SAAMI (http://www.saami.org/), the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute. You might want to ask them why they've requested the existing regulation be changed.

scout26
July 4, 2007, 06:44 PM
hso, can you provide a source ?? I got this from the NRAILA www.nraila.org.

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.

Why would SAAMI be fighting against the the rule changes they proposed ??

Regolith
July 4, 2007, 07:13 PM
Why would SAAMI be fighting against the the rule changes they proposed ??

Maybe they thought that the changes would be positive, until they started looking at what OSHA was coming up with. Classic example of "Be careful what you wish for."

obxned
July 5, 2007, 02:48 AM
This is the worst assault on the 2nd Amendment ever.

dshimm
July 5, 2007, 09:20 AM
Make sure to contact your congressman and senators.

cgraham
July 5, 2007, 10:29 AM
There is some additional useful information on the effects this would have on small arms users at http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?PRloc=common/PR/&PR=BP070207.cfm
BP070207.cfm

How to respond to OSHA: we need to request for extension of the comment period which currently expires 12 July.

We need to:

a) Request to extend comment period by two months (Important to ensure everyone with an interest in the matter is informed about it and have time to comment). I don't think this request should be limited to coming from retailers, as implied - we ALL have an interest in this rule (Deadline 12th July). It would not hurt to establish STANDING to comment: "As an end user of explosive products (ammunition) I would be affected by the rule, as written.)

b) Comments on the proposed rule, (Deadline 12th July, unless extended - better assume it won't be).

Direct link to OSHA comment page follows (click on comment: icon)
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=OSHA-2007-0032 (click on Add Comment icon).
Be sure to add the Federal Agency info in the last two lines of the blank form (Occupational Safety and Health Administration).

IMPORTANT: Comments must be SUBSTANTIVE: meaning they must explicitly address one or more of the problems in the Proposed Rule.

Comments like "why are you trying to shut down mom & pop gun stores?" or "the rule will affect my 2nd amendment rights" are not substantive.

You have to write in the style of: "clause X will have such-and-such undesirable effect(s) because .......". (Essentially a logical argument). IMO one should not object solely on the basis of the 2nd Amendment, because it might be deemed too hypothetical an outcome of the proposed rule.

Do EVERYTHING right: agencies love an excuse to reject a comment.


The template letter at

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

is very good for showing the required format for a response, suggesting objections, whether a comment, or request for extension of the comment period. The FAX number for a letter is (202) 693-1648. It is not clear if a letter AND an internet message are required (probably not), but it can't hurt. It is also not clear whether comments should be in a separate communication (suitably captioned) from the request for extension. Separate communications would more likely be noticed, because the header must be different , i.e. Request for Extension vs Comments on Proposed Rule.

Hope this helps.

baz
July 5, 2007, 02:19 PM
cgraham, thanks for the info. I will use it in putting my comments together. I've gone completely through what was published in the FR now. It is not as bad as some make it out to be, but is bad enough that we need to be involved. The principle defect is that while OSHA claims, on one had, that the rules "primarily affects explosive manufacturing that is not covered under PSM" several of the rules explicitly mention commercial establishments that sell small arms ammunition, primers, and powder. But OSHA has done no economic analysis of the impact on the later. It has only performed an analysis of the economic impact of the regs on the manufacturing aspect of it all. I think we can trust IME and SAAMI to watch out for the impact on manufacturers. But without an economic analysis of the impact on commercial sale of ammo, primers, and powders to end users, OSHA has no business saying that the regs will not have a significant regulatory impact. And I think they know it. This is how to go after them.

I've already drafted up some pretty substantial comments, drawing in part on my expertise as an economist (though I don't have much to go on, I have done more than OSHA's done). I'm going to polish them up over the next day or two, and then file them. I'm sure my approach will be similar to NSSF's and NRA-ILA's. We need to make sure the regs are made explicit enough that they only apply to manufacture, not retail sales (or transportation, which OSHA claims to be leaving up to DOT, but I've got some things to say about that, too).

Scout26, while IME and SAAMI originally proposed rule changes, OSHA is going further than what IME and SAAMI asked for. They represent manufacturers, and probably approve of many of the proposed rule changes as they affect manufacturing. The problem is that OSHA has decided on some additional changes that could affect commercial establishments that sell ammo, primers, and powder to end users. That's more than IME and SAAMI asked for, and not really their concern. But as end users, it is our concern, and that's why we need NSSF and NRA-ILA in on this.

cgraham
July 5, 2007, 03:06 PM
Baz, I hope you will have time to post a summary of your conclusions regarding the Proposed Rule here soon for those of us who are unlikely to plow through the whole thing. That could help us draft meaningful comments and a request for extension.

We are fortunate to have your expertise as an economist - thanks for your efforts.

C

esq_stu
July 5, 2007, 04:05 PM
I do not believe OSHA is out to get anyone.

Substantive comments, including extension requests, will be helpful. Whining will not be helpful.

We're talking about worker safety, not gun control. So keep the focus of comments on worker safety, the impact on small business, and realistic alternatives, and we'll get through this.

I consult for a manufacturer where similar rules (prevention of sparks, special explosives storage requirements, etc.) have probably kept many people from getting hurt. And even with the rules, accidents happen. Bad rules are bad for business, but so are accidents. In the arms industry there have been fatalities that HAVE ALSO PUT MANUFACTURERS OUT OF BUSINESS. One such site: poor housekeeping + sparks = kaboom + dead people + 1000 unemployed manufacturing workers, is being demolished as we speak. Would anyone want to work in a place where matches, sparks, or lightning strikes pose an unreasonable risk?

The key is to make OSHA understand that there are alternatives that would permit businesses to sell and handle small arms powder/primers/ammo without unreasonable risks to the employees.

baz
July 5, 2007, 04:29 PM
I agree with esq_stu -- welcome, BTW. What brings you to THR, and to this thread for a first posting, of all things?

cgraham, I'm not at home, where my draft comments are. I'll post some relevant bits tomorrow. It is all pretty rough right now, but it will be what I think you are looking for.

cgraham
July 5, 2007, 07:24 PM
Esq_stu, I agree with you:

"I do not believe OSHA is out to get anyone." However, they ARE overreaching, as they have a history of doing.

The precautions for truckload shipments are not appropriate to UPS deliveries, and manufacturer's precautions are not appropriate to retailers.

We have to make sure OSHA is responsive to these different situations, and does not take a hammer to areas where there is no problem.

Thanks, Baz, we will all look forward to your notes.

C

MacEntyre
July 5, 2007, 10:43 PM
...especially under a republican POTUS?

I have a hard time believing someone at OSHA came up with Sarah Brady's dream-come-true executive order, simply while trying to do his job and make the workplace safer for everyone.

Mr. Bush wants to tighten up supplies of ammunition, and thereby mitigate the ability of the people to keep and bear arms.

...or Senators Clinton, Obama and Kennedy are responsible, as members of the OSHA oversight committee, while Bush is asleep at the wheel.

xsquidgator
July 6, 2007, 10:06 AM
Feels good to be able to do something, however small. Despite the occasional conspiracy theory discussions about the NRA that come up from time to time, I am very glad to be a member and to have the NRA's resources available to work against this proposed rule change.

Follow the links from the first post in this thread, locate the appropriate document, and post a comment. Then email write or call your representatives. Took me 10 minutes but I'm glad to be able to do something.

MacEntyre
July 6, 2007, 10:35 AM
The first thing I did yesterday morning, when I learned about this, was to write Mr. Chao at OSHA, both of my Senators, my Representative, and the President. I also submitted a comment on the proposed rules via Regulations.gov.

Now I'm just trying to figure out why such Draconian measures have been proposed!

baz
July 6, 2007, 10:38 AM
Here's what I've written so far. It is relatively long, at least for a post. I'm going to break it up into "quotes" with brief commentary. If it turns out to come up against a post size limit, I'll do it in multiple posts.

First, some preliminaries. I do plan to go back and conform this to various suggestions about how to style the comment, and make clear up front that this is a "significant regulatory action" in which OSHA has not done the required economic analysis of the impact of the rules if extended to the commercial sale of small arms ammunition, primers, and powder.

To begin:Preliminary Matters

Contrary to a claim made twice in the notice of proposed rules, all exhibits are not online at the two indicated URL's; only 4 of 24 exhibits are actually available for download.

I. Background

The evidence presented in I. Background, A. Update the Standard does not indicate that current standards are inadequate to protect worker safety. Citing significant explosures that occured 60 or more years ago does not explain why the current standard needs to be updated. The original moving petition from the Institute of Makers of Exploses (IME) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) claimed that current rules do not reflect significant technological and safety advances made by the explosives industry. If the only evidence of record is that the industry has become safer since the current standard was adopted, the OSHA should proceed under the explicit premise that its proposed update to the standard will preserve the status quo ante insofar as the impact of the changes are concerned on industry practices. Any proposed rule change which impairs the ability of the industry to continue to do business as usual is obviously contrary to the original intent of IME and SAAMI, and is supported by no evidence whatsoever that there is a need at this time for "improved safety" in the workplace in this matter. Clearly, the original intent of IME and SAAMI was to reduce the burden of regulation by updating the standard to reflect current industry practices and reconcile OSHA standards with other applicable industry regulations (such as DOT's). There is no evidence of a need to go any further, and to the extent that the proposed regulations do that, they impose an onerous burden that is unwarranted or unsupported by evidence. Examples of how the proposed standards would change industry practice in a burdensome and onerous fashion are presented below.I may want to make stronger emphasis up front about how the regs might be reasonable when applied to the manufacture of small arms, primers, and smokeless powder, but not when applied to businesses involved in the commercial retail sale of such.

Next:II. Legal Considerations

Near the end of the discussion of OSHA's perception of its authority in these matters, it concludes:

"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."

Where is this explicitly acknowledged in the proposed rules? Without explicit language in 1910.109(a)(iii) that this section does not apply to the applicable sections of 49 CFR, the proposed rules are potentially duplicative and conflicting with DOT's rules. That OSHA is not expanding its regulation of working conditions during the transportation of hazardous materials should be made explicit by reference to the exempted part of the CFR that OSHA is alluding to in the statement quoted above.A lot of posters have alleged that the proposed rules would cause FedEx, UPS, DHL, and others to stop transporting ammo, primer, and powders. I don't think that is OSHA's intent, if they mean what they say about not replacing DOT as the primary regulator here. But I think they have to do more than just state an intent. I think they have to actually codify the exception in the regs, and they haven't done that, that I can see.

OSHA has set out 20 "issues" for discussion. Commenters are not limited to those issues, but I found it convenient to simply go through the issues one by one. Here's what I wrote, broken up into some obvious sections.Issue #1 No comment.

Issue #2 My only comment here is to repeat that OSHA's adoption of DOT classifications must not be construed as preempting DOT regulation of transportation of hazardous materials and that OSHA should make explicit that it will not regulate anything already regulated under 49 CFR.

Issue #3 Throughout the discussion of the proposed rules, there is a frequent failure to distinguish whether the rules apply only to the manufacture of explosives, or whether the rules would extend to the commercial sale of consumer products at retail. This is one such section. Is OSHA proposing to extend these requirements to Wal-Mart or Gander Mountain? If not, and the provisions apply only to the manufacture of applicable items, then I have no comment. But the fact that I have to qualify my no comment suggests a failure of OSHA to make itself clear.
Issue #4 Here I have substantial and signficant comments. Small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants should be excluded from the requirements of proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii). Both employee safety, as well as the safety of the consumers on the premises of retail merchants who store and sell such items are already effectively protected by existing fire codes. There is no evidence that such establishments are inherently unsafe and in need to stricter safety rules. When is the last time such an establishment blew up because someone approached a display counter with cigarette lighter in their pocket? Whereas this rule may well enhance employee safety in the production of small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants, its extension to retail establishments that sell the finished products goes to far.

Whereas here OSHA seems to recognize that there may be good reason to exclude small arms ammunition, primers, and powder from the proposed regulation, there is elsewhere a frequent failure to distinguish the impact of a proposed rule on the manufacture of such commodities from their sale in retail establishments. An example of this is proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(C). If this is limited to manufacture of explosives and small arms ammunition and components, then the proposal is not without some sense to it. But if applied to a commercial establishment that sells at retail small arms ammunition, primers, or powder, then the proposal makes no sense, or is nonsense. Is OSHA intending to preempt state law with respect to open carry or concealed carry of firearms in a commercial establishment? For a nonsensical reading of this, as applied to a commercial establishment, it would prevent retail establishments from simultaneously selling firearms and ammunition, as it is unlikely that someone could buy a firearm and carry it out of the store without coming within 50 feet of ammunition or reloading components (if the store carries them). If OSHA agrees that this is nonsense, then OSHA needs to make it clear that the proposed regulation does not apply to commercial establishments involved in retail sale of small arms ammunition, primer, and powders, but only to businesses involved in the manufacture of such items.

OSHA has not calculated the cost of applying this provision to retail establishments. The cost analysis presented in IV. Preliminary Economic and Regulatory Screening Analysis looks only at the cost in manufacturing of explosives and small arms ammunition. In this section, OSHA states "the proposed standard primarily affects explosive manufacturing that is not covered under PSM." If that is so, then why is OSHA asking about the impact of the standard on commercial retail establishments? If part IV. is the only evidence OSHA intends to present regarding the economic impact of the proposed regulations, then the regulations should be explicit in applying only to the manufacturing of explosives and small arms ammunition, and explicitly exempt the commercial sale of such items to end users, where workplace safety is already adequately effected through existing fire codes or DOT regulations. If the regulations can even plausibly be extended to commercial retail sale of small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and commercial establishments, then OSHA has failed to present the requisite analysis that would determine that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, and until it does so, it should suspend consideration of the new standard pending development of the required economic analysis.

In determining the economic impact of the proposed regulations, we must factor in not only the retail value of primers and smokless powder used by reloaders, but all related components and equipment -- cartridges, bullets, reloading presses, etc. -- that would be effective if extension of these regulations to commercial sale of primers and smokeless powder were to curtail availability or cost of these components. Without primers and smokeless powder, I am not going to be buying bullets from Hornady or Sierra, once fired cartrdiges from consumers on Ebay, etc. In other words, there is an economic multipler effect here that OSHA has not even begun to consider, and if the regulations are extended to commercial sale of these items then we are talking about a billion industry that OSHA has not even begun to look at in its Preliminary Economic and Regulatory Screening Analysis.

According to the 2002 Economic Census, the total value of production of small arms ammunition, including primers and other components, was $1.1 billion, while the total value of retail trade in firearms, hunting equipment, and supplies was $2.6 billion. It is not clear whether this latter figure includes the value of small arms ammunition, ammo, and primers, or not, but whether or not, it is clear that the sale of ammunition and reloading components is not just a significant, but a substantial, portion of the total retail trade associated with firearms, hunting, and other shooting sports. Since the $1.1 billion value of production will have significant value added as it moves through the economy into retail sales to end users, the ultimate value of this industry, in retail terms, may well approach $1.5 to $2.0 billion dollars.

Moreover, the elasticity of demand for these products at retail is likely greater than one. (This is true of most retail commodities.) Thus an increase in 10 percent in the cost of these items at retail will cause greater than a 10 percent reduction in sales. This doesn't even begin to consider the "aggravation factor" that would cause many retail establishments simply to close down this part of their operations, thereby reducing competition and driving costs up further. In my professional opinion as an economist, this is sufficient prima facie evidence that extending these rules to commercial venues that sell small arms ammunition, primer, and smokeless powders to end users will easily exceed the $100 million dollar threshold impact on the economy so as to conclude that the proposed regulations constitute "significant regulatory action."
Issue #5 No comment.

Issue #6 No comment.

Issue #7 Here we come again to as to a lack of clarity in the extent of coverage. Will "storage building" and applicable requirements be extended to the storage facilities of commercial retail outlets that sell ammunition, primers, and smokeless powders? If so, OSHA has not performed the requisite economic analysis to show that the proposed rules are cost effective.

Issues #8-16 Generally, no comment except to express a similar concern here as in Issue #7.

Issue #17 This one is troublesome because (h)(3)(B) explicitly applied to items displayed in a commecial establishment. If this refers to an establishment like our local Gander Mountain, or some of the local gun shops, then OSHA has not performed the requisite economic analysis of the impact of the proposed rules. OSHA needs to decide whether or not it is proposing to regulate commercial establishments involved in the sale of small arms ammunition, primers, and powder to end users in retail establishments. This provision would radically alter what I see now at my local Gander Mountain, and would probably cause them to scale back on the quantifies and kinds of such items they offer for sale, leading less competition and higher prices. Smaller retail establishments would likely stop selling these items entirely. Existing fire codes already cover what is displayed in a commercial establishment. There is no evidence that these codes create an unsafe environment that OSHA needs to remedy, and OSHA has not calculated the economic impact of extending its regulations to such establishments.

Issue #18 Same as with #17. Why is OSHA proposing to regulate what is displayed in a commercial establishment when it claims that the provisions "primarily affects explosive manufacturing that is not covered under PSM" and has performed no economic analysis other than the impact upon manufacturing?

Issues #19-20. All states have fire codes. Not all states follow NFPA. Forcing local commercial establishments to follow a single national standard raises concerns about Federalism which OSHA has not addressed. To the extent that a commercial establishment meets its existing state fire code, but would have to change its business practices if these standards were imposed, OSHA has failed to show why the NFPA code is superior, other codes inadequate, and has presented no economic analysis of the impact of this attempt to impose a single standard on every state.That's it. Comments welcome.

baz
July 6, 2007, 10:43 AM
Now that it's posted, I see a few typo or grammatical errors. No need to point those out to me. :) I did the draft in Wordpad. I'll do the final in Word.

Regolith
July 6, 2007, 07:08 PM
baz: it might be a good idea to break that one massive paragraph into two or three smaller ones. It makes for easier reading, which will help to get your point across.

hso
July 7, 2007, 11:24 AM
Here's the pdf of the proposed rule change.

baz
July 7, 2007, 04:18 PM
Regolith, did you mean one of the paragraphs under Issue 4? The second and third are about equally large. Which one did you mean, in particular (not that it might not be a bad idea to break them both in half)?

Matt King
July 7, 2007, 04:38 PM
Here is a sample letter from: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3145

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.

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.

Sincerely,

Zundfolge
July 7, 2007, 04:42 PM
The proposed rule change is made at the request of SAAMI...

Huh? http://www.saami.org/OSHA/index.cfm

Proposed Changes to OSHA Regulation 29 CFR 1910.109

The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) has a decades-long history of working with government agencies to ensure the safe and responsible design, manufacture, use, transportation and storage of SAAMI member-companies' products. These efforts have included a positive working relationship with OSHA. In the past, SAAMI has recommended changes to OSHA regulations that have ultimately been accepted and adopted. We have also been able to show--through sound science--when proposed regulations are unwarranted and needlessly restrict the smooth flow of firearms, ammunition and components.

Recently, OSHA has proposed new changes to 29 CFR 1910.109. These proposed new regulations may include requirements that are unduly restrictive and not supported by science. SAAMI has requested a 60 day extension to fully review, evaluate and comment on these proposed changes. Once we complete this review and evaluation, we will post our comments on this web site. At that time, we will also ask the National Shooting Sports Foundation to include a notice of this posting in their "Bullet Points" e-newsletter.

Richard Patterson
Managing Director
Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute

hso
July 7, 2007, 05:03 PM
SAAMI and EMI got the ball rolling on this when they petitioned OSHA for revisions to be made to the Explosives standard. They even provided draft language for the revisions to bring the old OSHA regulation more in line with their standards and other regs they were subject to. That doesn't mean that the proposed revision that OSHA has open for comment doesn't have elements that SAAMI may not agree with at this stage. That's what the comment period is for.

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


I agree that there are other provisions of the proposed revision that retailers will have trouble with. A blanket exclusion for retailers from the standard isn't going to take place. I do think that excluding retailers from much of this is possible and, more importantly, reasonable.

Retailers have no need for the 50 ft. no open flame/smoking provision, the no firearms provision, or the electrical safety provisions requiring external power shutoffs, evacuation of employees during the approach of electrical storms and static electricity protection systems. These are important and helpful for manufacturers and blasting agent storage use sites, but they make no sense for gunshops/gun departments nor do they really make sense for powder actuated tools that use cartridges.

OSHA should be asked to exclude retailers from these proposed revisions of the standard. I expect that every large retailer with a sporting goods department that sells shotguns and shells will be having their lawyers draft comments (along with FedEx and UPS). What we should do is bombard our congress critters and the OSHA administrator with emails and calls and faxes asking what in the world were they thinking lumping the hunting department of Wal Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods and Sports Authority in with manufacturers like Olin and DuPont.

baz,

That's a nice piece of work.

alsaqr
July 7, 2007, 08:14 PM
"The proposed rule change is made at the request of SAAMI, the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute. You might want to ask them why they've requested the existing regulation be changed."

Tried to do just that the other day. The SAAMI guy, one Rich Patterson, refused to talk with me.

Eightball
July 7, 2007, 09:48 PM
Just as a thought to add to some of the comments:

If they institute this, the cost of ammunition for the military will skyrocket; since most of the commercial businesses that would otherwise eat the cost of making the required changes will just stop selling product, the companies (being part of the wonderful free market of capitalism) will "pass the buck" on to the military and law enforcement, seeing howas they'll be the only people properly equipped to handle ammunition; in other words, this will raise taxes as well, because when prices for the military go up, they aren't just going to let it slide and have it eat into their budget, they'll pass a BIGGER budget (which due to the new "pay as you go" style legislation) forcing instantly higher taxes.

I already submitted my comments, but maybe someone would like to feed them quantifiable analysis of the above comments; I would do so, but since I WORK at an FFL, I'm already worried about my job....

hso
July 8, 2007, 01:47 AM
Oh, if they don't retain the old language exempting business with less than 750,000 rounds or primers or 750 lb of powder from the requirements they'll have a huge problem on their hands beyond our concerns. All construction companies and supply businesses that have powder actuated (cartridge) nail drivers will have to apply all these rules. I bet they'd just love to "evacuate the site) every time thunder is heard. Armed security companies would have to do the same and they couldn't keep ammunition on site if firearms were present. Even police departments would have to follow the rules.

This has all the earmarks of ivory tower professionals (yes, I'm a safety pro too) who got caught up in the process safety thinking for explosives manufacturers and the blasting/demolition industry and had no familiarity with the shooting and firearms using industries. Their stovepipe thinking led them down the merry path of treating all explosives the exact same way and now they're going to horribly embarrassed by their sloppy thinking.

We can probably toss SAAMI into the brier patch with OSHA on this also for the same reason. I'd just love to see what they're draft proposed changes in their petition looked like. Odds are the language in the OSHA comment copy is strikingly close to SAAMI's suggestions. Just no one remembered about retailers and distributors of small arms ammo. No wonder he wouldn't talk with you alsaqr.

Hammer your elected officials and the OSHA administrator. Make fun of them for having forgotten about the largest part of the explosives industry, the shooting sports. Point out the existing OSHA standard has an exemption intended for retailers and wholesalers and that it should be retained in the new revision under consideration.

Alexfubar
July 8, 2007, 07:55 AM
I thought gunpowder was classified as an "accelerant" , not "explosive."

hso
July 8, 2007, 12:07 PM
Yes, but then again, no. OSHA added smokeless powder, primers and ammunition to the regulatory definition (that term "regulatory definition" is an important distinction) of explosives in 29 CFR 1910.109 back in 1972. It was done much like we'd add laser guns or particle beam rifles to our definition of "gun" instead of calling it something else all together. They've been regulating them for the past 30+ years, but up until SAAMI and EMI petitioned OSHA to update the standard they were pretty much treated as being almost no hazard when in small enough quantities. OSHA or SAAMI forgot that distinction in the proposed revision (we may never know until we see SAAMI's petition to OSHA to revise the standard).

The simplest action we could take would be to insist that OSHA retain the language from the existing standard exempting establishments with less than 750,000 rounds of ammunition, 750,000 small arms primers, or 750 lbs of smokeless powder from the proposed requirements under this revision. That would keep things as they are for ammo dealers.

Eightball
July 9, 2007, 01:22 AM
Well, we need to get more members here to do just that--petition them/point out that that language is lacking, and would have severe backlash, or something to that effect written politely in legalese.

xsquidgator
July 11, 2007, 09:47 AM
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3151

OHSA Grants 60 day extension on Proposed "Safety" Rule That Would Address Ammunition Sales

hso
July 11, 2007, 12:01 PM
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main

We need to continue to email/call/write our elected officials and push them to ensure language exempting retailers, security companies, construction companies, commercial ranges, etc from those requirements beneficial to workers at explosives manufacturers is put back into the revision of 1910.109.

We also need to contact everyone we know that owns a business that would be affected by this revision (security, construction, ammo dealers, ranges, etc.) and help them understand that this is their opportunity to comment and have OSHA treat them differently than the explosives manufacturers and blasting/demolition companies. The should request that the language exempting any business with less than 750,000 rounds of small arms ammunition or primers or 750lbs of powder be restored to the proposed revision.

cgraham
July 12, 2007, 09:33 AM
Hso: how do we get the attention of THR members who do not read this sub-forum?

We need an announcement that briefly states the issue and the recommended action, included the links to the Proposed Rule and the comments page, and a draft letter. (Reference to this discussion would be appropriate, but would be confusing on its own.

This would be good to print out and distribute too (preferably formatted in Word or PDF for display).

Edit: 750,000 rounds of ammo AND 750,000 primers AND 750,000lb of smokeless powder.

C

hso
July 12, 2007, 11:30 PM
If they're not reading Activism then they're not interested.:rolleyes:

I consider it inevitable that changes to the revision will be made to not treat small arms ammunition businesses the same as manufacturers. That will include powder-actuated tools cartridges as well as ammunition. OSHA has gotten comments resulting in an extension of the comment period and now will receive detailed comments from SAAMI, NSSF, NRA, etc. pointing out the nonsensical nature of applying the same rules to their member businesses as manufacturers (gotta love the irony of SAAMI's involvement). The end result will be a revised 1910.190 that will apply regulatory controls where they need to be applied and not using a one-size-fits-all approach for manufacturers and small gun shops alike.

If you want to do anything constructive continue to inform your chamber of commerces about this and it's implications. Tell every small gun shop/gas station selling ammo/construction company about it so they can point out the nonsense of imposing the same requirements on small businesses as on large manufacturers. Poke your congress critters in the ribs over OSHA having made such a bone-headed error. Be sure to include the docket number so they know what we're upset about.

If you enjoyed reading about "Osha 2007-0032" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!