Post by: Ray on July 05, 2007, 05:23:34 PM
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 (http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/FedReg041307.pdf) 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 (http://www.nssf.org/share/docs/BP070207-OSHAletter.rtf) for a template letter in rich text format (Word). 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.
Even consider contacting our Senators
Cantwell, Maria- (D - WA) Class I
511 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3441
Web Form: http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html
Murray, Patty- (D - WA) Class III
173 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2621
Web Form: http://murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm
House
http://www.house.gov/
Upper left side of this page fill out the zip code form.....
Post by: jackelope on July 06, 2007, 08:34:23 AM
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3145
Post by: Ray on July 06, 2007, 08:56:54 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=852.msg7527#new
Post by: jackelope on July 06, 2007, 10:25:56 AM
nevermind
Post by: Ray on July 06, 2007, 11:03:20 AM
Post by: Curly on July 06, 2007, 11:23:34 AM
Post by: jackelope on July 06, 2007, 11:32:46 AM
Post by: Choclab on July 06, 2007, 02:41:14 PM
The Institue of Makers of Explosives and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute were the ones that called for the reform in the first palce.
I've read most of the document...(if you want the gists of it you can start on page 47 for a summary) Almost ALL of the proposals are not new regulations... they are only rewording of current regulations to make them more understandable.
The reference to evacuating the building in a lightening storm is also hogwash...It has been OSHA requirements since 1972 to require employers to remove employees from the blasting area duing the approach and progress of an electrical store.... They are only revising the definition to add "to require the suspension of explosive manufacturing operations" ... "requires the immediate withdrawl of employees located near explosives" The only thing this proposal is doing is redefining the rules that are already in place.
I'm guess that the author of this was in kahutz with an explosives manufacturer that was somehow affected by one of the VERY FEW new rules... maybe they were storing all of their ammonium sulfate in a wooden barn with a straw roof??? And not they will have to build a new warehouse...
Either way there is ABSOLUTLY nothing that I could find in the proposal that would lead me to beleive that there will be even a minimal effect on the consumer of firearms. If someone could find something that says otherwise... I'd be glad to listen.
Back to top
Post by: Choclab on July 06, 2007, 02:44:15 PM
Post by: Ray on July 06, 2007, 02:50:25 PM
Post by: Boomn4x4 on July 07, 2007, 07:23:35 AM
Page 47 is an overhead view of the proposal. To get an understand you really need to read the doc.
Quickly, if you read the Summary on page 2 you will see what the intent of the proposed rule is.
"The proposal updates and clarifies the regulatory language, addresses regulatory inconsistencies between OSHA and other Federal agencies, incorporates updated consensus standards, and provides the regulated community with greater compliance flexibility"
This proposal simply updates current regulation, furter defines regulation, and gives the authority more fleixbility in regards to compliance.
The proposal that is being evlauated has been in effect since 1971. It was the firearms industry themselves, that requested the review of 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." - page 3
The request made by the IME and the SAAMI is as follows:
"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."
The whole point is that this is nothing new... Its just being redefined.... I'm sure after reading the document you will feel the same.
Post by: Boomn4x4 on July 07, 2007, 08:04:03 AM
The author also says that these regulations would cause $100 million... How many millions boxes of ammo are sold each year? Even if it did cost $100 million to update facilites and make regulatory changes... that cost spread across the millions (if not billions) of boxes of ammo that are sold, would be no more than a few pennies.
I shouldn't have said this is a "Scam" those were harsh words... And I'm also not saying that you would be wrong to sign it. I'm simply saying that this whole this has been blown out of proportion.
My whole point is:
1. It was the ammunition industry that requested the review to update standards to make for a safer workplace.
2. These regualations are already in effect... they are just updating them to include new standars and technology.
Post by: Michelle_Nelson on July 10, 2007, 06:55:08 PM
This was E-mailed to me and I thought I would share!
Post by: Choclab on July 10, 2007, 09:49:27 PM
lol
Post by: Ray on July 10, 2007, 10:15:36 PM
Post by: pacyew on July 10, 2007, 10:27:22 PM
Post by: jackelope on July 11, 2007, 08:46:59 AM
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-13198.htm
there's the full text of the extension
wierd...apparently it's not just WDFW that extends deadlines...
Post by: jackelope on July 18, 2007, 10:18:45 AM
good job to all gun owners who sent in their input.
Labor Department Announces It Will Revise Overreaching OSHA Explosives Rule
Monday, July 16, 2007
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it will significantly revise a recent proposal for new “explosives safety” regulations that caused serious concern among gun owners. OSHA had originally set out to update workplace safety regulations, but the proposed rules included restrictions that very few gun shops, sporting goods stores, shippers, or ammunition dealers could comply with.
Gun owners had filed a blizzard of negative comments urged by the NRA, and just a week ago, OSHA had already issued one extension for its public comment period at the request of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. After continued publicity through NRA alerts and the outdoor media, and after dozens of Members of Congress expressed concern about its impact, OSHA has wisely decided to go back to the drawing board.
Working with the NRA, Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) planned to offer a floor amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill this Wednesday when the House considers this legislation. His amendment would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce this OSHA regulation.
Such an amendment is no longer necessary since Kristine A. Iverson, the Labor Department’s Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, sent Rep. Rehberg a letter, dated July 16, stating that it “was never the intention of OSHA to block the sale, transportation, or storage of small arms ammunition, and OSHA is taking prompt action to revise” this proposed rule to clarify the purpose of the regulation.
Also, working with the NRA, Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) gathered signatures from 25 House colleagues for a letter, dated July 11, expressing concerns about this proposed OSHA rule. The letter called the proposal “an undue burden on a single industry where facts do not support the need outlined by this proposed rule” and “not feasible, making it realistically impossible for companies to comply with its tenets.”
The OSHA proposal would have defined “explosives” to include “black powder, … small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, [and] smokeless propellant,” and treated these items the same as the most volatile high explosives.
Under the proposed rule, a workplace that contained even a handful of small arms cartridges, for any reason, would have been considered a “facility containing explosives” and therefore subject to many impractical restrictions. For example, no one could carry “firearms, ammunition, or similar articles in facilities containing explosives … except as required for work duties.” Obviously, this rule would make it impossible to operate any kind of gun store, firing range, or gunsmith shop.
The public comment website for the proposed rule is no longer accessible. The Labor Department will publish a notice in the July 17 Federal Register announcing that a new rule proposal will soon be drafted for public comment. Needless to say, the NRA monitors proposed federal regulations to head off this kind of overreach, and will be alert for OSHA’s next draft.
Read the letter to Cong. Rehberg from the Labor Dept.
Read OSHA's notice
Post by: Ray on July 19, 2007, 07:58:17 AM