Posted on 07/02/2007 11:11:44 PM PDT by Revtwo
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nssf.org ...
This would effect home reloaders, too.
Alternative Proposal: shut down OSHA
Be Ever Vigilant!!
I think Henry's busy elsewhere. Probably checking zero or something like that.
How?
OSHA regulates employers, not recreational or competitive shooters.
These agencies have taken on a life of their own and they believe they are autonomous.
Try reading the OSHA proposal instead of the bs article.
This actually seems a smart and good thing.
Almost every phase of explosive industry is already regulated by someone somewhere; here OSHA simply tries to eliminate redundancy, achieve consistency, and update obsolete regs.
Did you read the OSHA proposal before stating your opinion?
Did you read ANY of the OSHA proposal?
Or did you rely on the linked article?
You may have a point or is this just the Feds stepping in to grab total control?
(No, I don’t think the Feds should be expanding.)
In other news, Afghanistan has banned smoking in “church.”
In other news, Afghanistan has banned smoking in “church.”
No, this is a clearly misleading article.
When you see that INDUSTRY asked for this in order to make enforcement easier with less complications such as conflicting and contradictory standards, multiple classifications for the same item depending on which agency promulgates the rules, obsolete rules based on 40-50 year old technologies, and some changes that avoid duplications.
Actually, I saw almost nothing that wasn’t already regulated by some agency anyway.
The publishing source should be made to explain its outrageous charges because they clearly didn’t read the government source document.
And admittedly, I only read half to two thirds before I gave up my search for non existent gun grabbing.
Paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) would require the employer to ensure that when a fire is in imminent danger of contact with explosives, employees do not fight the fire. In addition, paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(B) and (C) would require that all employees be moved to a safe area and the fire be guarded against intruders. These are new requirements based on a recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1) and are consistent with the language in paragraph 9.1.6 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). OSHA considers these to be widely accepted practices within the industry when dealing with fires near explosive materials. If the fire is past the point where it can be prevented from reaching explosive materials, the requirements in proposed paragraph (c)(3)(ii) would help to ensure that employees are safely away from the explosives in the event that the fire causes them to detonate.
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. This requirement is a consolidation of four requirements in the existing standard that have been combined into one general requirement and clarified in the proposed rule. Existing paragraphs (c)(5)(vii), (e)(1)(i), (g)(2)(vi)(d), and (g)(5)(iii) deal with open flames, matches, or spark producing devices around magazines, near explosives, near buildings or facilities used to mix blasting agents, and near blasting agent storage warehouses. The term ``facilities containing explosives'' used in proposed paragraph (c)(1)(vii) covers all these situations. The 50-foot prohibition is consistent throughout this proposed rule and, in general, is considered to be an acceptable safe distance.
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)?
The comments page is linked at the fourth item in the header on the regulation page. There is no direct link.
Talking points: (please paraphrase)
Yes OSHA should exclude these items from the regulations.
Small arms ammunition is no more dangerous than paint, hair spray, or aerosol cleaners. In order to ignite cartridges, you have to heat the primer to several hundred degrees. Deliberate exposure to the flame of a lighter for around ten seconds will do this but it has to be deliberate, and the flame has to be steady.
A fire burning a case of ammunition could ignite the primers, but the individual packages themselves do not have enough fuel to cause ignition. A larger fire in a store would fire the ammunition, but the store likely contains many other flammable articles, such as clothing and paper products, which are just as serious a concern to firefighters. The presence of these items precludes the possibility that prohibiting ignition sources within 50 feet of small arms ammuntion and its components will increase safety. A fire could be ignited in any other part of the store or warehouse and spread to the ammunition area.
Primers are packeaged for retail in trays that separate each primer in order to prevent the accumulation of explosive dust. Primers are not to be repackaged and the trays are designed to blow apart if a primer detonates, thus removing the other primers from the source without exposing them to enough force to detonate them. If a person held a lighter to a brick (1,000) of primers, some of them would fire, spraying the rest of them away from the ignition source and mangling the hand of the person who did it. The shock wave will also extinguish any flame from a lighter or matches. Even a person stupid enough to play with lighters and primers is not so stupid as to repackage primers, especially in a retail environment.
A person who would place primers in a container that defeats the inherent safety features of the manufacturers' packaging has neither common sense nor instinct for self preservation, so rules about storage will not be heeded. Smokeless powder for reloading is already required to be stored in approved, fireproof containers above quantities specified by BATFE, NFPA, state regulations, and municipal fire codes.
Many gun stores have a retail sales floor that is much less than fifty feet deep. Therefore, in order to implement the regulation, these stores would have to secure the front doors and only allow the entrance of customers after they were searched by a guard posted at the door during all operating hours. The regulation would be impossible to implement due to cost. It would also discourage customers from patronizing small establishments, potentially destroying their businesses.
Believe it or not, the military already has similar standards...go check the Army’s DA 385 series.
Lighters not allowed in magazine areas.
Transport of ammo not allowed with personnel and no mixing of different classes of ammo and the vehicles have to meet safety standards.
Don’t ask me how I know about the stuff with the lighters and the primers. I just do.
I didn’t see anything in the proposal that mentioned a 25’ or 50’ rule for retail or individuals.
Anything along those lines was directed at either explosive storage facilities or explosive transport activities.
Not retail. Not individual use.
But is someone sees it in there where there would be a 50’ search line before customers could approach the display case at Walmart, please show me cuz I missed it!
I didn’t see it, either, but OSHA raised the issue itself in the third italicized paragraph. The reg itself is dozens of pages long, so I’m sure they put it in there somewhere. The stuff I did read was about explosives, and they included a seperate definition for ‘smokeless propellants,’ but they did include it as an issue.
I’ll look again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.