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

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Car Knocker, Jun 27, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,828
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    "So who are the OSHA managers and admins who wrote this up and approved this current version of the proposed changes?"

    Read the part where the ammunition manufacturers wrote the proposed changes to the reg. SAAMI and IME wrote a 47 page document (petition) to OSHA containing the changes that they wanted: SAAMI and IME wrote most of the reg. Look at the bullet comments. This is what IME and SAAMI wanted addressed.

    OSHA really left ammunitioin and explosive makers pretty much to regulate themselves. Ths only time OSHA ever came to a site was after a serious explosive accident. Then IME and SAAMI rocked the boat. It had nothing to do with Shumer, Ted Kennedy or any of the other putrid politicians in congress. OSHA is an executive agency under the George Bush Department of Labor.



    "The Petition"
    "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). IMEis 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    the standard contains outdated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    • Replace references to outdated DOT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."
     
  2. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "OSHA is an executive agency under the George Bush Department of Labor."

    I've never heard of the George Bush Department of Labor. When did they rename it?

    John
     
  3. alucard0822

    alucard0822 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,229
    Location:
    Westminster, MD
    less than 1000 comments so far? This is a big deal that would affect all of us, fudd and mall ninja alike. SAAMI really put us in a corner over this one, and we have to get the word out and all the facts that we can.
     
  4. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    62,969
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Yes, SAAMI shot us in the foot (negligent discharge). OSHA is obviously uncomfortable with some of the language affecting small arms ammo/component language because they themselves identified an issue (Issue #4) with it in the proposed revision and have specifically invited comments.

    The comments that OSHA needs are from affected businesses and not necessarily from shooters since businesses are the regulated community. All businesses fall under OSHA's regulatory authority, manufacturers to retailers to even those who use ammunition as part of their business. If you want to help OSHA put reasonable provisions into the proposed revision get this information to every dealer in ammunition and ammunition components you know, every armed security company, every construction contractor, every PD (often they adopt OSHA standards whole cloth). Tell them that they are the ones who need to comment that the proposed revisions treat the distributor/retailer and businesses that use ammunition the same way the large manufacturers are treated and that language equivalent to the current language at 29 CFR 1910.109(c)(1)(ix), (a) and (b) exempting establishments with less than 750,000 rounds of ammunition, 750,000 primers or 750 lbs of primer and explosive actuated power devices (nail guns) need to be retained unless they want to force WalMart and every roofing company in the area to evacuate every time a thunder storm blows in. Provide them the links needed to submit a comment.

    If you want to send letters as a concerned citizen send them to your elected federal representatives and the OSHA Administrator. Don't rant about 2A rights. Instead point out the obvious nonsense of requiring a construction company that uses nail guns to have the same requirements imposed upon it that Olin or DuPont require. Point out the foolishness of having every store that sells shotguns to quit selling ammunition for them. Hammer them on the idiocy of requiring Gander Mountain, Dick's Sporting Goods and Bass Pro Shop to evacuate the entire store every time a thunder storm blows in. This is an example of large industry influencing regulation to meet their requirements and completely ignoring all the other down-stream industries impacted by it and Inside-The-Beltway stovepipe thinking on the part of the regulator. Tell them to keep the provision in the current standard that would exempt retailers, distributors, construction companies and security/law enforcement from the controls required for manufacturers. Focus on those points with your congress critters and OSHA will very likely insert the small arms ammo exemptions back into the proposed revision.

     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2007
  5. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    Communications needs to be initiated in several directions.

    --OSHA needs to be addressed factually.
    --SAAMI needs to be offered a heartfelt thanks for their helpfulness. SAAMI also needs to be exhorted to 'fess up and let us know what and why. SAAMI also needs to draw a distinction between what it wanted and what was created by some faceless bureaucrat who saw an opening to further the anti-gun agenda.
    --Congressional reps, especially those who sit on OSHA oversight committees, need to be alerted and warned.
    --Gun rights supporters need to come to a clear understanding as to what the proposed OSHA changes actually mean. The fact that there is considerable debate within the gun rights community as to the effect of the regulations ought to serve as a great big red flashing light of danger ahead. In my opinion that alone is justification for demanding the changes be dropped.
     
  6. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    Where did you get this information ("less than 1000 comments so far")? This may not be as insignificant as you think. It all depends on what OSHA was expecting, or might normally get for a rulemaking like this. And the extension undoubtedly made many people hold off filing their comments. Like me. Have the "big guns" -- industry trade groups, end user groups like NSSF and NRA -- filed substantive comments yet? I'm doubting they have; if I'm wrong, someone please let me know, as I'd like to review what they've said before I file my comments.

    If the 1000 or so are like a few of the 17 that I've seen at the link someone posted in one of these threads (has this been updated, or is there a better way to get access to the 1000 or so that have supposedly been filed so far), e.g. individuals saying things like "I oppose this because it will stop the sales of ammo..." but without substantive elaboration, I don't think these kinds of comments are as pointless or as useless as hso implies. Sure, OSHA is not going to respond to these kinds of comments directly, but I think they lend support to the argument that the proposed regs are poorly conceived, precisely because they are so easily misconstrued, and that this justifies closer scrutiny for real problems in the regs.

    But, I think hso is right for anyone who wants to be taken seriously, and I hope a lot of people take his advice. I certainly plan to work through my legislators, to get them to go after OSHA on this, and I agree that the most effective comments to OSHA will be the ones coming from the businesses potentially affected by the regs, and that what we ought to aim for is the kind of exemption that exists in the current regs.

    Still, I intend to file comments as an interested individual. But as an economist, and one who just so happens to have 30+ years of experience in regulation (though not previously with respect to OSHA and workplace safety), I can offer an "expert" perspective on how the regs would adversely effect commercial and retail segments of the economy. In particular, I will be pointing out how OSHA has completely ignored this effect in the economic analysis performed in part IV. of section published in the FR ("Preliminary Economic and Regulatory Screening Analysis"), and that the economic implact is likely to be substantially and significantly higher. I'm sure that NSSF and others will be attacking this aspect as well, hopefully with substantive analysis that complements, or exceeds, what I'll be filing.

    If anyone is aware of comments already filed, or of published commentary on the proposed regs that substantively analyzes the economic impact of the regs on commercial and retail business if the exemption noted by hso is not granted, I'd appreciate being informed about them. The more information I have, the more informed I can be in making my comments. While I think I can make substantive comments based on what I've already gleaned from public economic data, industry insiders likely have access to data that would allow for a much stronger economic statement about the probably effect on commercial and retail sales of small arms ammunition, primers, and powder. The more I know, the better.
     
  7. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    62,969
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    OSHA has extended the comment period to 9/10/2007 (http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main)

    I expect that the proposed revision was submitted for comment without any change by OSHA after receiving the petition and draft of the language for the revision from SAAMI/EMI after checking with ATF and DOT to make sure that SAAMI's claims were accurate and that they didn't conflict with DOT or ATF. OSHA is very underfunded and isn't interested in doing any more work than required and if SAAMI provided the new language they wouldn't waste any more resources than necessary rewriting it knowing that when it went out for public comment any problems would be identified and that would save them time and trouble on the final version.

    Keep pushing your politicians on this so that they understand that there are far reaching, and crippling, implications for security, construction, hunting, shooting sports and retail businesses if they are treated the same as explosives manufacturers.
     
  8. ghschirtz

    ghschirtz Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    71
    If I read th proposal correctly, finished small arms ammo is excluded from the transportation and storage requirements as it is specifically recognized as being a nominal hazard.

    However, it appears that smokeless powder and primers are lumped into the same class of explosive as RDX, TNT and C4. This is ludicrous and should be pointed out that comparatively, SP burns at a much slower rate, producing much less blast effect, and it is also comparatively insensitive to stimuli.

    The requirement to evacuate in the face of an oncoming electrical storm does not seem logical if the facility has lightning rods and grounding protections to dissipate electrical energy, static or otherwise. Indeed, pushing people outside may increase their risk due to heavy rain, wind and lightning. Dorothy is the perfect example of failing to outrun a tornado.

    That said, as for the immigration bill, the more comments the better to everyone you can comment to, including SAAMI. JUst ordered some 5.56 from Cabela's and they do not expect to fill the order until mid-September(!).
    Things are bad enough without more interference from the minders.

    I suggest also you contact EVERY member on the subcommittee, not just Republicans. The entire political class needs to be taken to the woodshed and reminded who really is the boss. Even those Congress Critters not on the committee need a thrashing. This kind of campaign is what it takes to get the mule's attention. Left to their own devices, the political class will let us eat cake.
     
  9. EOD Guy

    EOD Guy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    982
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    DOT has always considered small arms ammunition, smokeless powders, and primers as explosive materials. This will not change.

    There are, however, different divisions in the explosives hazard class. For example, TNT would be in Division 1.1, which consists of materials that have a mass explosion hazard. Primers and smokeless powder would be in Division 1.4, which consists of materials that have a minor explosion hazard.

    In addition, smokeless powder in packages less than 100 pounds can be reclassed as Division 4.1 flammable solids. Small arms ammunition in packages less than 66 pounds can be reclassed as ORM-D. This is for individual packages. You can have as many packages as you want on a truck without affecting the classification.
     
  10. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    Can you point me to the page of the FR that leads you to this conclusion? I'm not challenging your reading, I just want to read it for myself.
    Alas, my Congress Critters are Dem's, and I don't know if any are on the appropriate committees, but I will still hammer them about this. It is all about, as you say, letting them know who is boss!
     
  11. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    EODguy, these are DOT rules, right? Without the exemption mentioned by hso, this stuff is likely to never make it into the retail distribution chain where these rules would matter.
     
  12. EOD Guy

    EOD Guy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    982
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    OSHA recognized that DOT has the sole authority to regulate hazardous materials during transportation. This would not change.
     
  13. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    62,969
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    I think both of you are correct. DOT shipments as ORM-D would continue just as they have (OSHA's already said they won't get into the DOT realm), but the distributor that is shipping the ammunition to the retailer or to you or me will be subject to the same rules as DuPont. Since they can't meet those requirements reasonably they would have problems having the ammunition in their facility to ship. Of course, they could put the ammunition in a warehouse that has all the safety features then they would only have to evacuate the warehouse (Run Bubba!), but the retailer won't be able to meet the provisions. Neither will the roofing contractor, nor the Homeland Security training contractor, nor any business that has these types of explosives in their establishment.

    Not even OSHA thinks the language in the proposed revision will stay as proposed. When they invite specific comment by including "Issues" they already know that there will be a lot of discussion of those sections and that they will probably not stay as presented.

    I still don't think that the approach is to take this as a 2A issue. At least not with OSHA. Approach it on it's nonsensical technical merits and the economic impact to businesses and we'll have complete success. Attack it as a "rights" issue and you're wasting your time.
     
  14. drinkoj

    drinkoj Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    26
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Someone in another forum asked about a form or template letter so that they could send in to OSHA on this matter and thought I'd post it here also, since I haven't seen it posted.

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

    You can electronically submit one by clicking here, http://www.regulations.gov/

    Then in field two: OSHA
    Field three: Proposed Rules
    Field four: Docket ID and typing in OSHA-2007- 0032

    Hit "Submit"

    Next, the page will update and you'll have four search results, you are looking for:
    OSHA-2007-0032 OSHA-2007-0032-0018 Explosives; Extension of Comment Period 07/09/2007 PROPOSED RULES You then follow this row out to the "Views" column and click on the ballon image [​IMG] at the end of the row.

    Finally, you're taken to the comments section, where you give your personal information. The one required field that needs to be filed out but didn't seem to apply to the common person was "Company/Organization Name", so you'll have to figure out something for that.

    Then copy and paste the NRA's legal action Template as posted below.

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


    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.

    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,
     
  15. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    Corrrectamundo. As far as OSHA is concerned. OSHA argumentation is best limited to technical and economic. Dealing with congress is a different matter. Congressional communication should emphasize constitutional and legal issues. Congress needs to be thumped if for no other reason than to let the body know there is a third rail out there that should be heeded. "Don't tread on me" is an appropriate warning to congress because what OSHA is approaching is a regulatory ban on ammo which will effectively erase the second amendment. . . . . . which is the exact announced objective of domestic and international advocacy groups.

    I may be paranoid but I am also right.
     
  16. Langenator

    Langenator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,688
    Location:
    Ft Belvoir, VA
    I tried to send a message to Congressman Ike Skelton of Missouri (D-4) on this issue, but since my ZIP is out of his district, his system wouldn't let me.

    In addition to being the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, I think the Lake City plant is located in his district. (It's apparently near the edge, and the district lines moved a bit when they redistricted in 2002. Even the staffers aren't totally sure.)

    Either way, I figure Congressman Skelton should have an interest in this proposed rule.

    Guess I'll have to phone his offices tomorrow. Need to write myself up a cue card.
     
  17. BBA

    BBA Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    55
    Location:
    michigan's thumb
    Hi:

    This is the wife of BBA My wonderful husband, Loverboy...
    Any way, I was driving today in the car and listening to Sean Hannity, and a guy came on and started talking about this OSHA thing. I told my DH when I got home, and so he is on this forum, and now I have to tell you that the idiots behind this are none other than Hitlery Clinton - Pig in a pansuit....Ted pass me another drink Kennedy and Doh-*....Also the deadline is tomorrow July 12-2007 according top the caller on Hannity's program.

    Pdslease call 1-202-224-3121 - that is the Capitol Building. They are opend 24 / 7. Tell them you do not want this.
    Thank you.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2007
  18. EdLaver

    EdLaver Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,243
    Location:
    Texas
    "magic Negro"

    Was this part necessary in your comment? Why does a person's race always have to be interjected into things. Its ok to say that he's an ass for backing something like this but why do you have to add his race? That has nothing to do with it. Since I have joined the high road I have never seen any slurs, this is the 1st.
     
  19. xsquidgator

    xsquidgator Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Messages:
    835
    It's not a racial slur, simply an observation that anyone else with as few qualifications as Barrack Hussein Obama would get no press time or attention. Make him a good-looking 40-something black guy though and poof! By magic a guy who would be stretching his limits in the Illinois state senate is being seriously talked about as a contender for POTUS. That's the origin of the "magic" comment.
     
  20. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    62,969
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    BBA,

    I can't agree with you on your assessment, or anyone's, that thinks a bunch of anti politicians had a hand in this. If they had there would be a single tiny provision in the proposed revision that would have slipped in under the radar and would have passed into law. That would have been the enforcible regulation and retailers and dealers would have suddenly found themselves hamstrung and ammo would have dried up for while. But this is a huge glaring blind spot that was guaranteed to have gotten the attention of industry groups and the folks you listed are much to slick for that. In addition to that, OSHA itself pointed out problems with the proposed language and invited comment on several issues in the proposed language. One of these was the small arms ammunition storage provision. Not very like with a big hitter politician behind the omissions. Thirdly, that's not how OSHA works.
     
  21. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,828
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    Read the part where SAAMI and IME wrote the regulatory language used in the proposed OSHA regulation. Neither Hillary, Obama or any other politician had anything to do with it.
     
  22. madmike

    madmike Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    In a well-equipped suburban bunker
    hso: you are probably correct, however, anti politicians have overreached again and again from greed and stupidity.

    The accusation, though, does sound inciteful more than anything else.
     
  23. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,601
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    A couple of points:

    1. I believe, not certain, that the end date for public comments has been extended.

    2. I submit that, re comments, the following should be stressed, re "safety" aspects. What is the frequency of gun powder and or primer mishaps, spelled explosions? Given that it is vitrually never, outside of an actual powder making facility, what is all the fuss over transport,storage and sale of the above items, other than possibly, perhaps likely another aspect of antigun bureaucrats at work
     
  24. Langenator

    Langenator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,688
    Location:
    Ft Belvoir, VA
    End date for comments has been extended, to 10 SEP 07.
     
  25. kd7nqb

    kd7nqb Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,207
    Location:
    Puyallup Washington
    added a comment also will forward email to my reps. I agree the 2nd Ammend issue is not the way to attack this one.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice