New OSHA Rulemaking-Black & Smokeless Powder, Primers, Ammo

[baz]

Scout26, I'm in enough of a panic already without misinformation being spread around. Is it not correct that black powder, smokeless powder, and primers, are already considered DOT Class 1 "explosives"? If so, how is it I buy this stuff, both online, and at local retail, without the permit you say is necessary before one can by "explosives?"

I just got a shipment this week from Powder Valley, all marked up with the DOT "Flammable Solid." This confuses me further, since "Flammable Solid" and "Explosive" are two quite different things as far as hazmat is concerned. So how do powder and primers get classified as "Flammable Solids" (Class 4) when they are listed here and here as Class 1 explosives. Is it possible that the "smokeless powder" of Class 1 is not the same thing once it is packaged for retail? I sure wish someone could clear this up.

I agree that OSHA needs to be stopped, but I believe that they will respond better to informed comments, than uninformed ones.

 

[EOD Guy]

Senior Member




49 CFR http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...9cfrv2_01.html
Covers the handling and transportation of Hazmat. DOT writes 49 CFR. Anyone here beleive that if one part of the government (say OHSA) says that ammo is an "Explosive" the other part (say the DOT) won't say "Yep, you right it is an 'Explosive'."

Right now ammunition is considered ORM-D (Consumer Commidity), basically the same as any HAZMAT you have under the kitchen/bathroom sink, or out in the garage like bleach, ammonia, laundry detergent, scrubbing bubbles, motor oil, and other cleaning/automotive products. No real special rules for Shipping, Handling or Storage, other then "Don't spill it, and if you do call the pro's to clean it up."

Sorry, but you're wrong. The Department of Transportation has always considered small arms ammunition and ammunition components as explosive materials.

There are exceptions in the DOT regulations that allow smokeless powder in packages less than 100 pounds to be reclassed as a Division 4.1 Flammable Solid or small arms ammunition in packages less than 66 pounds to be reclassed as ORM-D. Small arms ammunition can't be reclassed as a Consumer Commodity.

OSHA has conceded that DOT has the sole authority to regulate hazardous materials in transportation.

3. Transport:
I work in the Logistics field. I've worked for Trucking and Air Freight companies. You want to ship 40,000 lbs of ORM-D ??? Heck yeah, we'll take it.

There is no such thing as a 40,000 pound shipment of ORM-D materials unless they are in packages of 66 pounds or less.

3. You think ammo/reloading supplies are expensive now. Just wait. Oh, and be prepared to put "EXPLOSIVES" placards on you car/truck (Front, back and both sides) everytime you go to the range or go buy ammo or even have one lonely .22LR rolling around on the floor boards. Keep the Hazmat paperwork on the Right front seat of the vehicle also. Oh, and don't get pulled over with "Explosives" in the car with out the right placards and paperwork with you.

DOT regulations do not apply to personal transportation of hazardous materials. DOT does not consider those to be "in commerce".

I work in the Logistics field. I've worked for Trucking and Air Freight companies.

When were you last recertified? If it wasn't in the last three years, you need more training.

 

[baz]

Following up...as I continue to research this, and learn more. Looking at a typical msds for smokeless powder, it is already classified as a OSHA 1901.1200 "explosive." So the critical question is how does the rulemaking change things?

And I still don't understand why my powder and primers ship as a Class 4 hazard and not a Class 1 hazard. Can somebody explain that?

Edit: EOD guy just answered my question (above). Thanks!

 

[dshimm]

Make sure to contact your congressman and senators. Be sure to point out that if these regs were good faith "safety" regs, they would be applied equally to gasoline, kerosene, & propane etc. sales, storage, and transport.

 

[mec]

to gasoline, kerosene, & propane etc. sales, storage, and transport

I did mention that to Congressman Chicken Chet Edwards. He votes Democrat party line but will vote pro gun when it seems politically expedient.

No need to paint a picture for Senator Kay B. Hutchinson. She's a good American

Is it not correct that black powder, smokeless powder, and primers, are already considered DOT Class 1 "explosives"

The only way you can get black powder here is by ordering it from Grafs, Clarksville Rod and Gun and a few other sources. The local stores won't even order it in the 5 pound lots you can get without having a separate powder magazine. It's occasionally available In Austin, a hundred miles away but more often, its sold out or the guy with the key to the powder magazine is on vacation.
One of the stores here fails to keep a reliable stock of components and the other store has scaled way back and keeps almost no handgun reloading supplies. They already consider themselves overburdoned with hazmat fees, insurance and on and on and on and it would not take much for them to stop keeping reloading supplies altogether.

 

[jacobhh]

They're just trying to keep us safe. Imagine if a marijuana chain smoking
terrorist got hold of a truckload of magnum large rifle primers and tried to
drive through th Lincoln tunnel !!!! At least now he'll need a permit.

Joe c. O'Brien. South Jersey

 

[fletcher]

Just noticed this

Fax will go out this evening when I get home.

It would figure that this kind of thing would happen through some backdoor means, such as OSHA.

 

[alan]

I don't recall the closing date for public comments. It can be discovered, just follow the link in post # 1, it takes one to some interesting places.

Looking at the rnunmber of posts in this discussion, the same thing might be on other sites too, I would expect a fair number of public commets opposed to this newly proposed rule making headed in the direction of OSHA, though one can never tell about that sort of thing.

Personally, I would think that, given the serious potential for mischief inherent in this type of thing, that every shooter in the country would be sitting at their computer or using those at their local libraries, commenting in opposition to this rubbish. Am I expecting to much of my fellow men, that they might be pro-active, taking action to PREVENT damage BEFORE it is done, rather than crying after the fact. I hope not, but then who knows.

 

[Caimlas]

From my reading of this, this will effectively make the transport of ammunition and (re)loading equipment and supplies all but illegal - allowing only for special, exclusive carriers (and, ideally, in point-to-point transfers). The way I'm reading this, it would (does?) prevent any common carrier from transporting ammo and/or primers, because they'd not reasonably know if they're also transporting (say) a combustible/explosive liquid (say, someone ordered a specialty lacquer to refinish a boat or such).

No common carrier would mess with that hassle, so I imagine they'd simply cease to transport such materials. Same goes for stores like Walmart, which likely get solvents and cleaners in the same shipments with ammo - it'd be easier to just stop carrying ammo. In short, I can see this resulting in an almost complete destruction of commercial ammunition, powder, and primer sales, to the exception of several large retailers, maybe.

Seems to me that it would be more headache for the manufacturers than it's worth, too - meaning they'd just sell to military and large security companies like Blackwater. Prices for ammunition in small quantities would likely go through the roof, and require special transport. Want some plinking ammo? You'll have to drive to one of just a handful of distribution centers yourself, and likely pay drastically inflated prices ($1 a round for 'cheap stuff' and $0.25 a round for .22lr bulk?).

At the very least, wouldn't it at least require the commercial ammunition industry to completely restructure?

What this boils down to is a near-complete prohibition on ammunition and its parts for us mere non-corporation civilians. Yes, they'll likely revise it maybe half way, making it slightly odious - to make it look like they're trying to make something work - but in the end they'll still get their partial prohibition and increased cost of operation slammed down onto ammunition transport, and therefore possession.

I have a bad feeling about this.

 

[mec]

Closeing on July 14 but theyre asking for extensions.

 

[Caimlas]

Oh yeah, another thing: this would appear to ban the sale or pressence of ammunition or ammunition components in a facility that has a gas water heater or a gas furnace (for heating) within 50 feet of the ammunition. That's pretty much every small-town gun store. After reading through it twice and skimming other parts again, I can't seem to find a single stature that makes any sense unless your intent is to limit availability and supply while increasing cost - there's nothing which even makes the remotest amount of sense from a safety perspective.

Make sure to contact your congressman and senators. Be sure to point out that if these regs were good faith "safety" regs, they would be applied equally to gasoline, kerosene, & propane etc. sales, storage, and transport.

Damn straight.

 

[alsaqr]

Been working in Explosive Ordnance Disposal since 1959. Have shipped and received hundreds of tons of explosives over the years. i am also licensed by ATFE and many states to use explosives. Something just did not sound right to me about all the talk over the proposed OSHA rule. Finally printed out the entire document and studied it carefully. For example, OSHA does not intend to get into explosive transportation. They specifically defer to DOT and they say so in the document. It gets much worse. Believe it or not, SAAMI asked for the changes to the reg. Look at page 18793 of the proposed OSHA reg. Look the lower left corner of the page.

Today i talked with the NRA-ILA. The representative there was not aware that SAAMI had requested the changes to the OSHA rules. Then he read the part of the OSHA document where SAAMI had petitioned OSHA to change the rules. Then he said that he would "call the NRA lawyers."

This morning i tried to talk with Mr. Rich Patterson of NSSF. Patterson is the SAAMI man at NSSF. Told the receptionist that SAAMI had petitioned OSHA to change the rules in 2002. There was a very long pause and i was told that Mr. Patterson "was not at his desk." Left a message on Patterson's voice mail. He has not returned my call and i do not expect him to.

To set the record straight:
1. In 2002 SAAMI petitioned OSHA to change the rules.

2. OSHA changed the rules as requested by SAAMI.

3. NSSF and SAAMI are now crying that the sky is falling. What happened to the SAAMI guy who asked for the rule change?

4. Three weeks before the comment period is due to expire, The NRA, NSSF and other groups want everyone to get up in arms at OSHA for doing what SAAMI asked them to do.

There is a lesson here: When any government agency exercises minimal authority over your industry leave well enough alone, even of their regulations are 30 years out of date.

Yes, OSHA can put you out of business. Just ask the US Army. OSHA and the EPA ganged up on the US Army in about 1986 and stopped all TNT production in the USA. TNT production just resumed at Radford Army Depot last year.

 

[baz]

From my reading of this, this will effectively make the transport of ammunition and (re)loading equipment and supplies all but illegal - allowing only for special, exclusive carriers (and, ideally, in point-to-point transfers). The way I'm reading this, it would (does?) prevent any common carrier from transporting ammo and/or primers, because they'd not reasonably know if they're also transporting (say) a combustible/explosive liquid (say, someone ordered a specialty lacquer to refinish a boat or such).

Where are you reading this? OSHA says that it isn't planning to regulate transportation, that it will let the DOT continue to regulate it under 49 CFR. The only problem there is that while they say this in discussing the proposed changes, they do not actually make an exemption in the proposed regs. I think they should, of course, because regs that are not explicit lead to unintended consequences. But I don't think transportation is the main problem here.

The main problem is whether the regs will cover not just manufacturers -- which are the primary intent -- but will be extended to cover any retail merchants involved in the sale of ammunition, powder, and primers. That's where the danger lies.

Oh yeah, another thing: this would appear to ban the sale or pressence of ammunition or ammunition components in a facility that has a gas water heater or a gas furnace (for heating) within 50 feet of the ammunition. That's pretty much every small-town gun store. After reading through it twice and skimming other parts again, I can't seem to find a single stature that makes any sense unless your intent is to limit availability and supply while increasing cost - there's nothing which even makes the remotest amount of sense from a safety perspective.

Well, that's where regs that make some sense when limited to manufacturing of explosives become nonsense when applied to commercial retail establishments selling ammunition, powder, and primers. If you've read "Issue #4" then you'll realize that OSHA has some sense that the regs should perhaps not apply to retail sales of ammo, primer, and powder. They just need to be told that.

4. Three weeks before the comment period is due to expire, The NRA, NSSF and other groups want everyone to get up in arms at OSHA for doing what SAAMI asked them to do.

SAAMI only represents manufacturers, not retail merchants selling ammo, primer, and powders. I doubt that SAAMI proposed extending the regs to cover commercial retail sales of ammo, primer and powder.

There is a lesson here: When any government agency exercises minimal authority over your industry leave well enough alone, even of their regulations are 30 years out of date.

Exactly right. OSHA has taken the IME/SAAMI proposal and used it as an excuse for an overhaul that goes well beyond what they asked for. A classic example of "Be careful what you wish for."

 

[benEzra]

But I'm confused, because the NRA, and others, are saying that the regs would affect transportation, despite the language I cite and highlight above where OSHA says otherwise. I'm going to nail this down, and if the proposed regs will indeed affect the shipping of ammo, powder, and primers, play this against the OSHA quote as evidence that the regs are internally inconsistent and ill conceived, in my comments on the proposed regs.

What about in shipping hubs, where packages are stored/sorted/routed for shipment? Would those buildings fall under OSHA, or DOT, regs?

A DOT exception for shipping ammunition as ORM-D instead of "explosives" wouldn't mean much if the exception applied only to point-to-point delivery and the OSHA regs applied to UPS buildings.

 

[Futuristic]

benEzra wrote:

What about in shipping hubs, where packages are stored/sorted/routed for shipment? Would those buildings fall under OSHA, or DOT, regs?

A DOT exception for shipping ammunition as ORM-D instead of "explosives" wouldn't mean much if the exception applied only to point-to-point delivery and the OSHA regs applied to UPS buildings.

Good Catch, but it is not a problem.

The DOT covers the WHOLE transit through a Common Carrier. That means, from the time it is handed off to the first UPS guy, until the UPS guy dumps it on your porch. UPS (etc.) have specific procedures for handling ORM-D stuff at the depots, etc. so that they, for instance, don't pile up 10 tons of the stuff in one corner next to the furnace.

These sorts of obvious issues are usually caught immediately, it is the less apparent ones that should concern us. Those sometimes slip by unnoticed until it is too late.

Futuristic

 

[Phaetos]

I made the attempt to post a comment on the website given. It won't let me go to the "next step" where it actually registers the comment. I think they broke it on purpose.

 

[alsaqr]

First the proposed OSHA reg updates and brings OSHA regulations in line with what the rest of the federal government is doing. If you want to really understand what OSHA proposes then print off the document and study it. Do not take anyone elses word for it: Not NSSF, NRA, Rush Limbaugh and especially not SAAMI.

"The proposed rule indiscriminately treats ammunition, powder and primers as “explosives.”"

Ammunition, powder and primers have always been treated as "explosives."

i will attempt to show the way that the various explosive categories are broken down. 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.

This is exactly how the US military, and BATFE do it. As a matter of fact, it is how the UNO does it. Yep, that is UNO as in United Nations Organization. Over 200 countries have signed off on a uniform system.

1.1 Mass Explosion This includes black powder in 1.1D

1.2 Non-Mass Explosion, Fragment Producing

1.3 Mass Fire, Minor Blast or Fragments

1.4 Moderate Fire, No Blast or Fragments Small Arms ammo under .50 claiber falls into 1.4S

1.5 Explosive Substance Very Insensitive, Fragment Producing With Mass Explosion Hazard

1.6 Explosive Substance, Extremely Insensitive

Sorry that this post looks like the Dead Sea Scrolls but this is how i know to explain it all. 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.

It gets worse. SAAMI petitioned OSHA for the change. See page 18793 of the proposed regulations. This quote is verbatim from the proposed OSHA regulation.

"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.
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."

SAAMI asked that the reg be updated and changed. Now they are whining that the sky is falling.

 

[Waitone]

Few observations in no particular order

--Powder and primer display. Big concern over Wally World. What is the effect on gunshows since gunshows are a substantial component of powder and primer sales.

--The fact that the discussion on this particular subject has taken on the flavor of "angels dancing on the head of a pin" indicates to me the language and intent is up for grabs.

--Since those who opposed the right to bear arms have been blocked legislatively, it is entirely reasonable to expect a regulatory offensive. While OSHA may well be innocuous this time around the potential for substantial damage is profound. We'd better get this one right because it will be difficult to unscrew it.

--Hey NRA, since you guys are kicking this particular can, how 'bout poking around through the bowels of OSHA and find the management responsible for directing and sponsoring the work on rewriting the rules. Once you have a name or names I would suggest running a pedigree check and find out if there aren't any private anti-gun agendae to be found. Nameless and faceless bureaucrats are positioned to do profound damage to life, liberty and property. While it remains to be determined that we have a problem right here and now, it is prudent to act as if we have a problem.

--I fully expect a regulatory offensive. OSHA is a natural, and so is the EPA.

--It would be a good idea to alert elected officials to potential mischief as well as lodge complaints with OSHA.

--SAAMI needs to come clean. Maybe, just maybe we can get sufficient background to explain what we're seen now.

--I can't think of a better way to shut down the second amendment movement that to saddle it with expensive regulations for which there is on need as has been demonstrated by history. Anyone know how many people have been killed or injured by displays of powder and primers erupting? How many retail establishments have been damaged by explosions due to powder or primers being ignited by lightening strikes?

--My guts tell me that if we can find out who is sponsoring the rules rewrite we will find an anti-second amendment operative.

 

[SgtRage]

Looks like SAAMI has issued a statement on this.

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

 

[cpileri]

as seen on other popular forums...

dont think folks realize that this is the beginnning of banning storage of ammunition at home.

This is much more important than people are acting like it is.
C-

Here is one particularly informative comment that someone has posted to the osha site. It gives specifics on the dangerous sections of the proposed rules. Unfortunately, no author is named, so i dont know who to give credit to.

" General Commentlease consider the adverse impact several of the proposed paragraphs would
have on small gun shops that also sell ammunition and reloading componenets.

Para © (3)(iii)© would effectively disallow any gun shop or retailer from selling
ammunition or reloading components, destroying half their business. Gunsmiths
would be unable to do there job since their facility requires test firing firearms but
yet would be unable to have the ammunition in the same facility.

Para (e)(1)(iii) if in effect, would a customer who bought reloading components or
ammunition have to inform the local fire and police departments to transfer their
stuff home? How does UPS and other carriers ever ship reloading components or
ammunition?

Para (h)(3)(i)( 20 pounds limit on displayed smokeless propellents is
completely unreasonable. There are many dozens of variations and brands of
powder available on the market. Severely curtailing what product could be
displayed is a huge detriment to sales, much less in such small quantities that
only one of a few types could be displayed. Futhermore, eight pound containers
are necessary and reasonable to competetive rifle shooters.

Para (h)(4)(i)© 10,000 small primers is a VERY SMALL amount, considering
there are nine basic flavors alone (large/small pistol and rifle, magnum and regular
and shotgun, sold in quantities of 1000 typically). That means a retailer could
only display one box of each type? What if a customer wanted to buy two boxes
of small pistol (which is not an excessive amount for competetive shooters)? "

The OSHA regulation proposed is open to public comment only untill the 12th of this month. SAAMI and the NSSF are seeking a 60-day extension. You can read about it at the NSSF website. The were even nice enough to create a form letter to fill out or use as a template for us. If you don't mind taking a few minutes. Open it up, fill it in and fax it to (202) 693-1648 and include the docket number OSHA–2007–0032 on the cover sheet.

Go here to find a list of others comments:
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=OSHA-2007-0032

Click on the little brownish-yellow thought circle icon to the right of each comment (far right) and it will ask you to fill out the usual personal info which they warn is publicly viewable, then send your comment (free text) and you will be given a tracking number to see your comment posted.

I usually don't do any polls online or anything if it asks for all that info, but this one i did. Since I know what is involved in the regs for storing explosives, if they apply it to ammo almost NO ONE will be able to comply within their private home.

Hope this helps.

C-

Here is a pdf of the proposed law itself.
C-

 

[Troutman]

The public comment period ends July 12. (just reminding)

 

[alsaqr]

"Para (e)(1)(iii) if in effect, would a customer who bought reloading components or
ammunition have to inform the local fire and police departments to transfer their
stuff home? How does UPS and other carriers ever ship reloading components or
ammunition?"

This section does not even pertain to ammunition sales. It talks about disabled transport vehicles and transfer of the stuff between trucks.

 

[Art Eatman]

Lemme use the word "Apparently" here:

SAAMI requested updating to current technology and practices, in manufacturing. So, no effect on retail stores.

OSHA has come up with rules which--as written--apparently DO affect retail stores. Or, CAN affect, if interpreted to apply.

The arguments here seem to me to be problems with interpreting "bureaucratese". I admit to having had problems with bureaucratic language even back when I was a bureaucrat.

Art

 

[alsaqr]

"OSHA has come up with rules which--as written--apparently DO affect retail stores. Or, CAN affect, if interpreted to apply.'

Exactly!!!!!!!

 

[longeyes]

If federal bureaucracies can de facto abrogate the protection of individual rights supposedly ensured by the BOR for "the public good" we are inches from the tiger pit.