OSHA part deux---Warning gun nut and I read a bunch of the proposal

TimJ

TimJ

Well-known member
I was starting to believe that there was nothing to the OSHA scare but this proposal is full of BS. They sure make a lot of new proposals for just changing jurisdiction.



When you read these few excerpts remember that ammunition will be considered an explosive after this.





"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 or blast sites except as required
for work duties. This proposed requirement is different from the
existing requirements which prohibit firearms within 50 feet of storage
magazines and blasting agent mixing plants. The proposed requirement
would prohibit firearms at facilities containing explosives and at
blast sites. In addition, as recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2-1), the
proposed requirement would prohibit ammunition and similar articles
along with firearms. The requirement would allow firearms, ammunition,
or similar articles to be carried by guards as needed to perform their
work duties.





(iii) Explosives are not transferred from one vehicle to another
without informing local fire and police departments.


C) Except under emergency conditions, no vehicle containing
explosives is parked before reaching its destination on any public
street adjacent to or in close proximity to any place of employment"




Yep, I'm pretty sure this is going to stop all of the major shipping companies from touching anything ammo related. And just how do gun shops and shooting ranges continue to operate?
Even if UPS still wants to ship ammo and powder they will have to completely cover the insides of their truck to make them comply to all the non spark proposals I didn't post above. You really think they are going to do that?



I'm sure I'm just a gun whacko who sees threats in everything. Must be all those years of listening to talk radio and Fox News. Well if you can tell me how anyone is going to get a common carrier shipment of powder or ammo with those last two paragraphs I copied I'd like to know. There are even more restrictions on gun shops and what they can display and how far apart each item needs to be from each other that I didn't copy. I'm sending a few emails in the morning.


Tim
 
Tim,

Where do you read that ammo will be considered an explosive in the info you provided? All that I read is that firearms and ammo will not be permitted in[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] facilities containing explosives or blast sites.

It also says, [/font][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]except as required for work duties. I would read this to mean that if I was handling a box which contained ammo or gun as a part of my job duties,,, then thats ok. BUT it's not ok to carry a firearm or ammo on your person if your not required to do so by your employer.

Example would be the UPS guy delivering a legal case of ammo to your house is fine but he needs to Not be carrying a loose .45 cartridge in his pocket left over from shooting at the range on the weekend. Make sense?


Also this really only expands the former regs prohibiting firearms, to also include ammo and similar articles. This proposal also only expands the prohibited areas from [/font][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]"[/font][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]existing requirements which prohibit firearms within 50 feet of storage
magazines and blasting agent mixing plants[/font][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]" to include "[/font][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]facilities containing explosives or blast sites"


So in closing I don't really see where this would affect the UPS driver at all in my above example.

If you have more info please provide it for further discussion.
[/font]
 
Here is what I received in an email from the National Shooting Sports Foundation . . .

Proposed OSHA Regulation Threatens
Firearm and Ammunition Industry​

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the government agency charged with assuring the safety and health of America's workers, is proposing a regulatory rule affecting the manufacturing, transportation and storage of small arms ammunition, primers and smokeless propellants.

As written, the proposed rule would force the closure of nearly all ammunition manufacturers and force the cost of small arms ammunition to skyrocket beyond what the market could bear—essentially collapsing our industry. This is not an exaggeration. The cost to comply with the proposed rule for the ammunition industry, including manufacturer, wholesale distributors and retailers, will be massive and easily exceed $100 million. For example, ammunition and smokeless propellant manufacturers would have to shut down and evacuate a factory when a thunderstorm approached and customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition (displayed or otherwise stored) without first being searched for matches or lighters.

NSSF and SAAMI have already had a preliminary meeting with OSHA officials to begin the process of explaining to them the major problems this proposed rule presents for all levels of the firearms and ammunition industry. Furthermore, NSSF and SAAMI are each seeking a 60 day extension of the public comment period (currently scheduled to expire July 12).

NSSF is urging all retailers to contact OSHA directly and request a 60-day extension of the public comment period. Retailers should inform OSHA that the proposed rule constitutes a "significant regulatory action" as defined in Executive Order 12866 (1993) Section 3(f)(1) in that it will clearly "adversely affect in a material way" the retail sector of the firearms and ammunition industry, productivity, competition and jobs and that the annual compliance cost for all retailers of ammunition will far exceed $100 million dollars.

Click here for a template letter. If you choose to draft your own letter, the reference line must read as follows:

RE: Docket No. OSHA–2007–0032
Request to Extend Public Comment Period and Request for Hearing on
"Significant Regulatory Action" as Defined in Executive Order 12866

Please fax the letter to: 202-693-1648 (include the docket number and Department of Labor/OSHA on the cover sheet and in the reference section of your letter).

Please e-mail the letter by visiting: http://www.regulations.gov and following the submission instructions.
 
I didn't copy everything just to save time. Here is the OSHA definition.

"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."

The second two paragraphs are what stops UPS. UPS is not going to want to call the fire department every time they move a box of ammo they are shipping. The only way they could deliver it to you is by not stopping anywhere else on their route. I see them stopping and getting out in front of businesses all the time, that would be illegal under this.

The first paragraph makes it so a gun shop can not allow it's employees to carry concealed unless they were hired as the guard. I doubt they will like if you add that as part of everyones job description. At the end the only work duty allowed is a guard not a shooting instructor or other such things.

If you just read the first 1/4 it sounds like OSHA is just taking over jurisdiction but about 1/3 down they start with new proposals.
There is a lot more in there, the regulations for what vehicles you may ship in and the storage demands could put under a pot of small gun shops. Wal-Mart is finally starting to pull firearms from many of it's stores giving a chance for mom and pop shops to survive and now this comes along.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=19509

Tim
 
The following section is in the preamble to the proposed rule. OSHA makes it very clear that they will not regulate explosives being transported in commerce even though the laws will allow them to thanks to all the goofiness of them.

Tim, do you read this differently?

"Thus, DOT recognizes that, through the reverse preemption language of the Hazmat Law, OSHA has the statutory authority to regulate working conditions at facilities where pre-transportation and transportation
functions are performed. In its final rule, DOT did not directly address whether OSHA has statutory authority to regulate working conditions during the actual movement of hazardous materials in commerce. However, it stated that DOT "has developed a special expertise that makes the Department uniquely qualified to play the primary Federal regulatory role in the protection of employees who operate motor vehicles, trains, aircraft,
and vessels used to transport hazardous materials." Id. at 61927. OSHA agrees that DOT has the unique expertise to play a lead role in the protection of employees during the transportation of hazardous
materials. However, OSHA also recognizes that, through the reverse preemption language of Sec. 5107(f)(2) in the 1994 amendments to the Hazmat Act, Congress has granted OSHA statutory authority to regulate
working conditions during the handling and transportation of hazardous materials. The Agency views this statutory authority to include working conditions during the actual movement of hazardous material in
commerce, as well as during the preparation of hazardous materials prior to movement, and the loading, unloading, and temporary storage of hazardous material incidental to movement. Although OSHA has the statutory authority to regulate working conditions at each stage in the transportation of hazardous materials, the Agency is not required to exercise that authority. OSHA recognizes DOT and the United States Coast Guard's extensive regulatory expertise and coverage in the area of the safe transportation of hazardous materials. The Agency also believes it is important to avoid duplicative or conflicting regulatory requirements between federal
agencies. As a result, OSHA has no current plans to expand its regulation of working conditions during the transportation of hazardous materials."

DOT classifies "Cartridiges, small arms" as ORM-D hazard class and not as an explosive Hazard class 1.4, which means that it is a consumer commodity while being transported and there are no restrictions unless you are putting it on a plane - Then the maximum is 30 kg in the package. What this means is that your boxes of ammo that are marked ORM-D while they are being shipped by UPS are not an explosive and thus not under the perview of OSHA in the proposed rule. If you make small arms ammo, or transport it in non retail packaging (class 1.4 explosive), or if you store small arms ammo then the OSHA proposed rule may effect you. But if you are transporting ORM-D classified small arms ammo then fill the truck up and go since OSHA can't regulate you for carrying explosives since under DOT rules you are not doing that. And when those same boxes of small arms ammo are going through the UPS sorting facility they are still ORM-D so OSHA still does not "see" them.

That does not apply to smokeless power or primers. Those vary in hazard class from 1.1 to 1.4. So there could be some issues with the shippment of those items on UPS. I don't have my good DOT book here at home so I can't look up any of the footnotes on those shipping names, but it may not matter since they are classified in hazard class 1.

"Black powder for small arms" is hazard class 4.1 and not an explosive in class 1, and in the same realm as the ORM-D ammo when it comes to the proposed rule.

The vehicle transportation stuff in the proposed rule identifies class 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 explosives as needing extra care with all the attending the vehicle and other restrictive stuff. What is missing from those hazard classes? Class 1.4 which are all manner of cartridges including bulk shippments of small arms ammo that is not packaged for retail sale as ORM-D. So if you have a bunch of class 1.4 explosive then the requirements for all the special vehicle care don't apply since that class was excluded at the start of the paragraph.

Also from the preamble. It is clear that OSHA needs to have comments on the retail sale of small ammo and they are directly asking for it. The retail industry needs to comment as requested by OSHA.

"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)?"

And clearly the idea that retail outlets have firearms and explosives right next to each other didn't occur to the writers of this next paragraph. OR (insert evil grin smiley) this is the one little clause that the gun grabbers built into the scheme. Hmm...conspiracy folks but on your tinfoil hats and hit the bunkers!

"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 or blast sites except as required for work duties. This proposed requirement is different from the existing requirements which prohibit firearms within 50 feet of storage magazines and blasting agent mixing plants. The proposed requirement would prohibit firearms at facilities containing explosives and at blast sites. In addition, as recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2-1), the
proposed requirement would prohibit ammunition and similar articles along with firearms. The requirement would allow firearms, ammunition, or similar articles to be carried by guards as needed to perform their work duties."

If the small arms ammo makers really want to be scared of this proposed rule they need look no further than the requirement to lable the explosive containers in accordance with the Haz Comm Standard. But wait a minute Haz Comm only applies to the work place and items for retail sale are excluded from the standard. Oh thank you Jesus.


The one thing that is bothering me about this is all the consultation with the explosives makers and now the small arms ammo makers are just starting to react. I would have thought that the companies that were making the powders would have asked the small arms ammo makers that use their powders to tag along to the meetings. Maybe that is another gun grabber tinfoil hat item right there.

Unlike other federal agencies OSHA has always tried to deal with broad terms and not break things down into little pieces since they always get surprised by how many little pieces make up broad terms. Cleary what they need to do is breakout small arms ammo makers into their own group like the pyrotec and ammonium nitrate folks. That is only fair.
 
I understand that they say they aren't going to change anything but then go on to make all these new proposals. I know they say they had input from the industries involved but the the NRA and SAAMI hadn't heard of this until a few days ago, and SAAMI is the industry and they share info like this with the NRA. I know they say "As a result, OSHA has no current plans to expand its regulation of working conditions during the transportation of hazardous materials" the phrase "no current plans" doesn't make me comfortable at all. If all they are going to do is the same as DOT already does why the new proposals? No where does it say they are not going to expand their regulations on explosives, just no plans right now. If they have unenforced regulations on the books how long will it be until they are enforced? How long will it take someone to file a lawsuit to make OSHA enforce it's rules? I'm not saying they shouldn't be in control or have input into the safe handling of explosives in the work place.


My gun nut comments on the first post were a little tongue in cheek. I don't believe that OSHA as a bureaucracy is trying to get rid of guns or ammo. I'm just saying that for them to have these proposed rules on the books would suck, maybe not next month or next year but at some time. I hope that isn't crazy gun guy still eating canned goods stored since Y2K and living in a fenced in compound talk. They want input from the public and the industries effected by this and I see no reasons why this is good for shooters and I will say so. I looked for key words and didn't read all the proposals so there may be great ones for transporting and storing explosives around mines and such. Never said they shouldn't do that. Even a couple of the smokeless powder on display and storage rules may not be bad ideas. But there are those other troubling ones that could come back to haunt us. No way could, or I should say would, UPS ship ammo or powder under those term.

I hope I don't sound like a nut, I just don't trust them to not enforce something. You no doubt have closer workings with OSHA and DOT with these types of things, I'm just reading this as a layman. I'm looking at what they could do not what they say they will do with this. Might be two completely different things but what I see alarms me.

Tim
 
Although Ray's post gives me a glimmer of hope, I can not help thinking and feeling that something really stinks in this regulation.

" Hello, we are from the government and are here to help you"
 
I will concede to both Tim and Lee that there will always be the "other shoe" waiting to drop since our government is managed by scores of unethical people that are entrenched and feel the need to control things no matter how much their control messes things up for everyone else.

It is clear that OSHA missed the boat on the effect this will have on retail sales of "explosives". But I am still puzzled as to why the ammo makers weren't invited to the table from the start.
 
What gets me is...the comment period started in what??? April or May? and the people we support to watch over stuff like this just found out.
 
I read this morning that the parent company of Federal along with Olin are working very hard to educate OSHA, and they are fairly confident they will be able to. Those two companies are wealthy, large and have a lot of pull in the government. Hodgdon powder refers to these two companies as the "big boys" in an email about this. They just think it is a matter of OSHA having no clue how these items are sold and handled already. They are not saying the proposals had an evil intent but just shows the ignorance of OSHA when it comes to transporting and storing reloading supplies and ammo.

Also according to what I read it was not a huge surprise to some of the industry. Makes you wonder why the NRA, NSSF or SAAMI didn't know or let the shooting public know if they did.


I felt better after reading some of that but I'm still going to keep an eye on it and there is no harm in letting gun friendly senators and representatives know about it.
Just dont confuse me with the other Tim J from the past. No tin foil hat or floating ash trays here. [crazy]

Tim
 
That's funny.
If I remember right the old Tim J's wife even came on the board and pleaded for us to try and understand him. He sure could get worked up over things and it was probally just as well for his healths sake that he left the board.

Joe Lane
 
Joe Lane! I think that is how Travis pronounces Jolene. hehehehe

I hope he did get the help he needed.

Tim
 
Jolene--- Joe Lane

Jolene--- Joe Lane

Jolene--- Joe Lane

Humm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, makes a guy wonder, did the other Tim J really go away or is he masquerading as "Jolene--- Joe Lane"

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top