1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Osha 2007-0032

Discussion in 'Activism' started by shooter1, Jul 3, 2007.

  1. shooter1

    shooter1 Well-Known Member

    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


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


    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.


  2. Jacka L Ope

    Jacka L Ope Well-Known Member

    Submitted my comments against this "rule".
  3. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    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.
  4. scout26

    scout26 Well-Known Member

    hso, can you provide a source ?? I got this from the NRAILA www.nraila.org.

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

    Regolith Well-Known Member

    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."
  6. obxned

    obxned Well-Known Member

    This is the worst assault on the 2nd Amendment ever.
  7. dshimm

    dshimm Well-Known Member

    Make sure to contact your congressman and senators.
  8. cgraham

    cgraham Well-Known Member

    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

    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


    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.
  9. baz

    baz Well-Known Member

    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.
  10. cgraham

    cgraham Well-Known Member

    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.

  11. esq_stu

    esq_stu Well-Known Member

    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.
  12. baz

    baz Well-Known Member

    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.
  13. cgraham

    cgraham Well-Known Member

    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.

  14. MacEntyre

    MacEntyre Well-Known Member

    Why would OSHA over-reach?

    ...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.
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2007
  15. xsquidgator

    xsquidgator Well-Known Member

    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.
  16. MacEntyre

    MacEntyre Well-Known Member

    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!
  17. baz

    baz Well-Known Member

    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:
    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.

    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.
    That's it. Comments welcome.
  18. baz

    baz Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. Regolith

    Regolith Well-Known Member

    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.
  20. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Here's the pdf of the proposed rule change.

    Attached Files:

Share This Page