http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main Go to the Option 4 drop down menu and select "Document ID" Key this ID in to the action box ... OSHA-2007-0032 Click on the SUBMIT button OSHA has proposed rules that may adversely affect the transportation of black and smokeless powder, primers and small arms ammunition, and may affect prices and availability. Below are some sections of the proposed rule (55 PDF pages) that I felt had a direct impact on shooters. Comments in italics are mine. Bolding is also mine. Explosive. This term would be defined to mean any device, or liquid or solid chemical compound or mixture, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion. The term ``explosive'' would be defined to include all material included as a Class 1 explosive by DOT in accordance with 49 CFR chapter I. The term would include, but would not be limited to, dynamite, black powder, pellet powders, detonators, blasting agents, initiating explosives, blasting caps, safety fuse, fuse lighters, fuse igniters, squibs, cordeau detonant fuse, instantaneous fuse, igniter cord, igniters, pyrotechnics, special industrial explosive materials, small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, smokeless propellant, cartridges for propellant- actuated power devices, and cartridges for industrial guns. Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) would require the employer to ensure that only persons trained in accordance with paragraph (j) of this section handle or use explosives. Loading and unloading of explosives are examples of handling, and blasting of slag pockets is an example of the use of explosives. This is a new requirement that reinforces the importance of training for all employees engaged in the handling and use of explosives. Paragraph (c)(1)(vii) would require the employer to ensure that no person is allowed to enter facilities containing explosives, or to transport, handle, or use explosives while under the influence of intoxicating liquors, narcotics, or other drugs that may cause the person to act in an unsafe manner in the workplace. Due to safety considerations, OSHA is proposing that such persons be completely restricted from access to a facility where explosives are manufactured or stored as well as restricting them from the handling and transportation of explosives. This would appear to require some sort of drug testing to be in compliance. Paragraph (c)(1)(ix) would require the employer to ensure that no flammable cleaning solvents are present in facilities containing explosives except where authorized by the employer and where their presence does not endanger the safety of employees. This is a new requirement and is based on a recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1). Due to their potential to create a fire and thus cause an explosion, it is generally not safe to have flammable cleaning solvents in facilities containing explosives. Paragraph (c)(2)(i) would require the employer to ensure that the primary electrical supply to any part of the facility (e.g., building, loading dock, etc.) containing explosives can be disconnected at a safe remote location away from that part of the facility. A safe remote location from a part of the facility containing explosives is a location far enough away to ensure that, if all the explosives in that part of the facility detonated, a person at the remote location would not be injured by the explosion. In determining what a safe remote location is, the employer will need to consider factors such as the type and amount of explosives present. This is a new requirement Would this even be possible in a small gunshop? Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) deals with safety hazards caused by electrical storms. During the approach and progress of an electrical storm, paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) would require the employer to ensure that all explosive manufacturing and blasting operations are suspended, and paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) would require the employer to ensure that employees located in or near facilities containing explosives, or in blast sites, are withdrawn immediately to a safe remote location. A safe remote location in this case would be a location far enough away from all the explosives in the facility or blast site so that a person would not be injured if there were an explosion. These proposed requirements are based on therequirements in existing paragraph (e)(1)(vii)(a) which requires employers to remove employees from the blasting area during the approach and progress of an electrical storm. However, proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) has been expanded to require the suspension of explosive manufacturing operations and proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) also requires the immediate withdrawal of employees located near explosives. This reduces the time the employees are exposed to a potential hazard. The expansion of the existing requirement is in recognition that an electrical storm may be hazardous to employees at facilities and blast sites containing explosives and that employees need to be kept a safe distance away from a potential explosion. This is standard practice in the industry and is consistent with a recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1). Static electricity as a potential source of ignition is probably the single greatest concern for facilities and blast sites containing explosives. The Petition (Ex. 2-1) recommends new requirements for static electricity protection that would require any new static electricity protection system to comply with NFPA 77, Static Electricity (Ex. 2-7). However, it recommended limiting the application of the requirements only to systems installed after the effective date of the new standard and would not require an existing manufacturing facility to install a new system or modify an existing system to meet the requirements of NFPA 77. IME informed OSHA that certain explosives are not static-sensitive and do not require protection. IME further argues that, since explosives manufacturing is subject to the requirements of OSHA's PSM standard at Sec. 1910.119, areas in an explosives manufacturing facility where static electricity protection systems may be needed should already have been identified through the process hazard analysis requirements of the PSM standard, and adequate safeguards should have been instituted in accordance with the PSM standard. OSHA believes that static electricity protection systems can be important safety features for facilities containing explosives. The Agency considered proposing a requirement in paragraph (c) that would require the employer to ensure that all facilities containing explosives have appropriate and effective static electricity protection systems, with suggested methods of compliance found in NFPA 77. The Agency decided not to propose such language because it lacked sufficient data and information on the types and effectiveness of static electricity protection systems. OSHA is seeking additional information on these issues through public comments. The hazards of flame, matches, and spark producing devices are dealt with in proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(A) by requiring the employer to ensure that no open flames, matches, or spark producing devices are located within 50 feet of explosives or facilities containing explosives. As mentioned earlier, ``facilities containing explosives'' refers to any building on a site where explosives are manufactured, handled or stored. Stripsearch customers? Issue #4: OSHA seeks specific comments on the impact proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii) would have on the storage and retail sale of small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants. Do open flames, matches, or spark producing devices create a hazard when located within 50 feet of small arms ammunition, small arms primers, or smokeless propellants, or facilities containing these products? Can employers involved in the storage or retail sale of small arms ammunition, small arms primers, or smokeless propellants prevent all open flames, matches, or spark producing devices from coming within 50 feet of these products or facilities containing these products? If not, why not? Should proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii) use a protective distance other than 50 feet and, if so, what distance should it be and why? Should OSHA exclude small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants from the requirements of proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii)? Proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(C) would require the employer to ensure that no person carries firearms, ammunition, or similar articles in facilities containing explosives No armed employees in gunshops? No legally-armed customers? How about cops? Issue #9: Should OSHA require lightning protection systems for any facility that contains ammonium nitrate or explosives? What would these systems cost? Proposed paragraph (e)(1) addresses general provisions associated with the transportation of explosives. Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i) would require the employer to ensure that no employee smokes, carries matches or any other flame-producing device, or carries any firearms or cartridges (except firearms and cartridges required to be carried by guards) while in, or within 25 feet (7.63m) of, a vehicle containing explosives. Paragraph (e)(1)(iii) would require the employer to ensure that explosives are not transferred from one vehicle to another without informing local fire and police departments. This will help to ensure that the transfer is performed in a safe manner. In addition, a competent person must supervise the transfer of explosives. This is applicable to all transfer work whether it is done within private facilities or on public highways. UPS, Fed-ex & DHL will just love this. Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would require the employer to ensure that small arms ammunition is separated from flammable liquids, flammable solids, and oxidizing materials by a fire barrier wall with at least a 1-hour fire resistance rating or by a distance of at least 25 feet. Small gunshops better get bigger. Paragraph (h)(3)(i)(B) would require the employer to ensure that no more than 20 pounds of smokeless propellants, in containers not to exceed 1 pound, are displayed in a commercial establishment. Paragraph (h)(4)(i)(B) would require the employer to ensure that small arms ammunition primers be separated from flammable liquids, flammable solids, and oxidizing materials by a fire barrier wall with at least a 1-hour fire resistance rating or by a distance of at least 25 feet. Paragraph (h)(4)(i)(C) would require the employer to ensure that no more than 10,000 small arms primers be displayed in a commercial establishment. Issue #21: Proposed paragraphs (h)(3)(i)(B) and (h)(4)(i)(C) place restrictions on the quantity of smokeless propellants and small arms primers, respectively, that can be displayed in commercial establishments. Should OSHA further clarify the quantity limitations for smokeless propellants and small arms primers to allow multiple displays in commercial establishments? If so, what quantities should be allowed and should the quantities be based on the size of the commercial establishment? Should there be a minimum distance between displays to ensure employee safety? Should the same limitations placed on commercial establishments also apply to gun shows? Paragraph (j) Training. Proposed paragraph (j) is new and contains proposed training requirements for employees in the explosives industry. This proposes training and re-training commensurate with each employee's duties and the requisite record-keeping.