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

[Car Knocker]

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.

[never_retreat]

Oh this can't be good. Nothing good ever comes from OSHA.

[bumm]

We hear of so MANY work place accidents involving these materials that OSHA just HAD to do something.
Government does little except make rules and "govern" even if there's no need for it. It's just what govenment does. Government will keep on doing it, and things will keep getting worse, for as long as the people quietly accept it.
Marty

[obxned]

So I guess now OSHA is just a branch of BATF. Fed-Ex and UPS and other carriers are screwed, many small shops will not be legal anymore, and the big box stores may be required to drug test each and every employee repeatedly. And what will happen with the small manufacturers of ammo?

If all this serves any purpose other than to make doing business more costly, more difficult or even impossible, I sure don't see it. I haven't seen anything in the news to indicate there has ever been a problem.

This has nothing to do with employee health or safety, and everything to do with destroying the 2nd Amendment.

[alan]

One wonders as to who or what it is that winds OSHA up?

Any and all powers granted to bureaucratic agencies will, sooner or later, quite often sooner, be abused or via the exercise thereof, being party to something really dumb.

[Optical Serenity]

The type of people who work at OSHA, they were the same kids in school with the socks rolled up to their knees and the lunch bags with their full names written on them. Sigh.

[trapperjohn]

i doubt it will affect the transportation of it. transportation of such stuff is handled by the DOT. Looks to me that they are just proposing that powder be considered an explosive rather than a flammable substance and that facilities that handle it have safeguards in place appropriate for handling explosives.

[Beagle-zebub]

Pray tell, how many people die every year from smokeless-powder-related explosions in gunshops? Thousands, I'm sure.

What is the likelihood of this passing, and how can I stop it?

[ranger335v]

alan: "One wonders as to who or what it is that winds OSHA up?"

ALL gov. agencies want to grow larger, more people more chances of promotion and better retirements for themselves! Thus, it doesn't take much to wind them up.

One of the "intellectual" concepts is that such agencies should be "pro-active", meaning they should dream up things that could happen instead of things likely happen or have happened, and make provisions to prevent them before they happen. That mindset opens some small doors very wide!

[jselvy]

What is the likelihood of this passing, and how can I stop it?

It is my understanding that because this is a regulation and not law per se there is no passing involved. Regulations have the weight of law without the representative process.
I could be wrong.

Jefferson

[Owens]

This appears to be (based on the OP) a proposal for a change of rules. there should be time for comment, as most regulatory agencies solicit commentary before making a rule effective.
OSHA may at times seem overbearing, but if you knew some of the things they did get corrected, it would all be a bit more sensible to someone looking in. No, I don't work for them, but I do deal with some of their General Industry regulations.

EDIT: Further info - This is open to public comment until 7-12-07. Refer to OP on locating this document. You will have a link for submitting comments.

[jselvy]

Public comment does not equal representation. I find it highly unconstitutional that any regulation with the force of law can be foisted off on the American People without so much as a by your leave from our soi disant representatives.

Jefferson

[Owens]

Quoted from the 55 page document:

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)?

You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. OSHA–2007–
0032, by any of the following methods:
Electronically: You may submit
comments and attachments
electronically at http://
www.regulations.gov, which is the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the
instructions on-line for making
electronic submissions.
Fax: If your comments, including
attachments, do not exceed 10 pages,
you may fax them to the OSHA Docket
Office at (202) 693–1648.
Mail, hand delivery, express mail,
messenger or courier service: You must
submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket
Office, Docket No. OSHA–2007–0032,
U.S. Department of Labor, Room
N–2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries
(hand, express mail, messenger and
courier service) are accepted during the
Department of Labor’s and Docket
Office’s normal business hours, 8:15
a.m.–4:45 p.m., e.t.

[Dave P]

If OSHA is trying to get small arms ammunition and components (read smokeless powder) to be classified as EXPLOSIVES, we are in deep do-do.

I imagine us reloaders would then need many more permissions to store powder at home, not to mention the shipping hassles and costs.

[Car Knocker]

i doubt it will affect the transportation of it. transportation of such stuff is handled by the DOT.

OSHA has jurisdiction over the safety of the people transporting explosives and thus can make rules affecting their safety. Read the justification that OSHA included in the rulemaking to justify their position re: BATF, DOT, etc.

[Selfdfenz]

Reading this is causng me to have a What Ronald Said Moment: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

S-

[MD_Willington]

I always figured that they would ban the use of firearms by banning ammo or ammo components first...

[obxned]

"I always figured that they would ban the use of firearms by banning ammo or ammo components first..."

Yup, and it sure seems possible now.

[benEzra]

OK, I found the docket, but how do I submit a comment?

[Art Eatman]

I followed the link. The proposed rules are on Page 20. (Use the double arrow, first, and then back up three pages.) I clicked on the right end of the segment and submitted my comment.

I suggest others here do the same...

Art

[MD_Willington]

Anything eloquent to send other than I think the proposed portion is a steaming pile?

I'm not too eloquent at times...

[RustyFN]

I don't know about where you live but in my state if it is classified as an explosive then you would need a license to buy it.
Rusty

[ServiceSoon]

I work in the paint industry and have a decent knowledge about hazardous classes 3(Flammable Liquid), 8(Corrosive), 5(Oxidizer) & 9(ORMD).

Products that can be dangerous are classified to communicate a possible danger and naturally rules about storage and transportation are made to protect people from themselves. Aren’t boxes containing small arms primers already classified as Class 1.C? What about this proposal don't you like?

I haven't heard anything about primers exploding. So I guess I dont see why a rule needs to be changed.

[FlaXD]

Remember the "E" added to BATF not so long ago?

Right now BATFE doesn't consider smokeless powder and gunpowder (less than 50lbs) as explosives. This could change that. And then the following from BATFE:

Intrastate users of explosives must first obtain an ATF “limited permit” prior to receiving explosive materials.

and

By contrast, interstate users of explosives must obtain ATF user permits

and finally

Generally, ATF will have to physically inspect all ATF licensees
and permittees at least once every three calendar years for compliance with Federal explosives storage regulations.

Yep, things just keep getting better and better.

[Art Eatman]

ServiceSoon, read the text. It puts costly requirements onto store owners.

A legitimate question would be whether there has been any increase in accidental fires or explosions? And, are these attributed to open flames from daily-work sources? Or, from static electricity?

If not, then there seems to be no justification for the added expenses to store owners.

Art