1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

OSHA, reloading components and you.......

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by cmh, Jul 4, 2007.

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

    cmh Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    37
    Hello, I just saw this on another forum and thought I should post it here. Seems the libs cannot get anything thru so here is their backdoor. Better get on this or start shoting trap with a paintball gun...............

    http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?PRloc=common/PR/&PR=BP070207.cfm


    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.

    --- Dan Gifford <somford@keyway.net> wrote:

    > Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:42:02 -0700
    > From: Dan Gifford <somford@keyway.net>
    > To: SECOND AMENDMENT GROUP <dangifford@keyway.net>
    > Subject: OSHA AND AMMUNITION
    >
    > The NSSF reports that proposed OSHA regulation would
    > severely damage
    > ammunition production. A Copy of the below NSSF
    > template letter is attached.
    >
    > -Howard Nemerov
    >
    >
    >
    > July 3, 2007
    >
    > OSHA Docket Office
    > Docket No. OSHA–2007–0032
    > U.S. Department of Labor
    > Room N–2625 200
    > Constitution Avenue, NW
    > Washington, DC 20210
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    > Dear Secretary Chao:
    >
    > I am writing to request an extension for public
    > comment set to expire on
    > July 12, 2007 for Preliminary & Initial General
    > Observations on OSHA
    > Explosives Proposed Rule (29 CFR Part 1910) -
    > Published at Federal
    > Register Vo. 72, No. 71, at P. 18792 (April 13,
    > 2007).
    >
    > After reviewing the proposed regulations it is my
    > belief that the
    > proposed rule is a "significant regulatory action"
    > as defined in
    > Executive Order 12866 (1993) Sec. 1(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.
    >
    > Below is a bulleted list of what I am most concerned
    > about:
    >
    > · Massive Costs: 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. The
    > proposal mistakenly states that this is an industry
    > standard practice.
    > A retailer would have to do likewise. Thus
    > retailers, such as Wal-Mart,
    > selling ammunition would have to close down and
    > evacuate customers.
    > This is simply not realistic.
    >
    > · Exacerbate Ammunition Shortage to DoD and Law
    > Enforcement: The
    > proposed rule has major National security and
    > homeland defense
    > implications. There is already a shortage of
    > ammunition for our troops
    > and law enforcement. The Department of Defense has
    > contracted to
    > purchase ammunition from the commercial market
    > because the Department's
    > arsenal cannot meet demand. The rule will delay
    > production and
    > massively increase prices, making the ammunition
    > shortage even more
    > severe. In addition, the rule applies to the DoD
    > arsenal, which is run
    > by a commercial manufacturer under DoD contract.
    >
    > · Unrealistic Assumptions: Portions of the
    > proposed rule are not
    > feasible and cannot realistically be complied with.
    > The concept of
    > evacuation to "a safe remote location" in case of
    > thunderstorms or
    > accident is untenable to manufacturers and retailers
    > and is in
    > disagreement with the DoD Safety Manual for
    > Ammunition and Explosives.
    >
    > · One Size Fits All Approach: The provisions in
    > this proposal treat all
    > explosives as if they have the same degree of hazard
    > to employees.
    > Retail outlets for small arms ammunition, primers
    > and smokeless
    > propellants, including massive facilities such as
    > Wal-Mart, must
    > maintain a fifty-foot barrier and specifically
    > authorize all customers
    > to enter only after searching them for matches or
    > lighters (c.3.iii.A)
    > and determining that they are not under the
    > influence of drugs or
    > alcohol (c.1.vii). This is despite the fact that
    > small arms ammunition
    > is extremely safe even when subjected to open flame,
    > heat and shock. A
    > customer still wouldn’t be able to purchase the
    > ammunition because under
    > this rule they are not allowed to carry it from the
    > counter to the exit
    > (c.3.iii.C). Even more damaging, the many “mom
    > and pop� firearm outlets
    > located in strip malls would be forced to shutdown
    > as they have neighbor
    > stores fewer than 50-feet away.
    >
    > · Shipping is Halted: Proposed restrictions on
    > transportation exceed
    > current DOT Regulations. Mandating wood-covered,
    > non-spark-producing
    > material in trailers for small arms ammunition
    > shipments would bring the
    > transportation of ammunition to a near halt. There
    > are simply not
    > enough trailers in existence today that would be
    > able to substitute for
    > traditional, metal covered surfaces. Small package
    > carriers such as UPS
    > and Fed-Ex would be prohibited from carrying
    > ammunition and components
    > which would shut down mail order houses such as
    > Cabalas and Bass Pro
    > shops and many business to business transactions.
    > This section alone,
    > with all it would entail (such as two drivers at all
    > times), is capable
    > of paralyzing our industry.
    >
    > · National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) Rules
    > Exceeded: Proposed
    > restrictions exceed NFPA regulations and would, for
    > example, reduce
    > commercial establishment displays of smokeless
    > propellant from 50 to 20
    > lbs with no commensurate increase in safety. This
    > will only add to
    > dramatically increasing the cost to manufacturers
    > and consumers.
    >
    > It bears noting that scientific testing and safety
    > records clearly
    > illustrate that small arms ammunition is inherently
    > an extremely safe
    > product. I cannot recall a single instance where
    > fire, shock, heat or
    > lightening has resulted in injury from the
    > accidental detonation of
    > small-caliber ammunition. Billions of rounds of
    > ammunition are sold
    > each year in the U.S. and records demonstrate that
    > current production
    > and safety requirements are working.
    >
    >
    > I urge OSHA to grant an extension to this critical
    > regulatory process.
    >
    > Sincerely,
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Howard Nemerov
    > 310 Cedar Street
    > Bastrop, Texas 78602
     
  2. cmh

    cmh Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    37
    http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?PRloc=common/PR/&PR=BP070207.cfm
     
  3. Lkn4rocks

    Lkn4rocks TS Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    259
  4. Lkn4rocks

    Lkn4rocks TS Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    259
  5. lumper

    lumper TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,586
    There is something about all 3 OSHA threads that makes me feel as if the bait has been thrown upon the water looking for fish to bite ... especially since all three were began by different people but are being topped by the same person.

    Something smells fishy about this ...
     
  6. Lkn4rocks

    Lkn4rocks TS Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    259
    *

    Lumper,

    If anyone is interested, when I posted a thread similar to this one on the 3rd of this month I had tried to find anything that looked like what I intended to post but did not see it at that time but I can assure you that nothing fishy was intended by my attempt for these three to be seen together and get all the posting going together. Sorry if my intentions were misunderstood. This is the same answer I gave on the other two. If there is a threat I personally do not see a cause for alarm with multi postings, some minds think alike.


    .
     
  7. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,643
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    It's on the NSSF website. Seems real enough. I already sent my letter, and bitched to our 2 liberal puke senators.

    HM
     
  8. Tailbuster

    Tailbuster TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    254
    Lumper and all interested,

    This is real. Go to the link above to get you all the info you need. Everybody, please take a minute and respond to it. It looks like some of the major organizations are a bit late to the party on this one and need our help.

    all the best,
    john
     
  9. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,643
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    ATF is not OSHA. They are exceeding their jurisdiction here, and if there is no huge public outcry they might succeed.

    Youcan have your gun, but try shooting it without ammo.

    HM
     
  10. 870

    870 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,390
    24str8:

    You are not understanding what the document says. Yes, it says those issues are not subject to ATF's storage regulations, but you seem to think that means it's ok. To the contrary, since it is not covered by ATF, this documenst says it will be covered under the new OSHA regs - which is what this fuss is all about.

    IF this goes through, hardly anyone, especially gun clubs, will be selling shells, primers etc. at retail.
     
  11. TheGentleman

    TheGentleman TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    45
    OSHA can and probably will promulgate regulations to protect workers from exposure to hazards when handling primers and powder. How long will that take? Well we have been waiting for an Ergonomics standard for 15 years and there isn't anything other than a draft. If they eventially do it will in no way be anything near as bad as people have been assuming. The document is 88 pages long. Has anyone read it or just the paragraph from the NSSF? No where does it state that people will be searched for matches before getting near primers of powder. Nor does it say you will have to have the clerk bring your ammo to the checkout or your car etc. It talks about ensuring matches are not present around explosives. It also states that it may specifically exempt small arms ammunition as well as sporting primers and propellants. Please keep sending the letters to the Secretary of Labor, he needs to know we are here, but please read the document so we look like we are at least paying attention.
     
  12. recurvyarcher

    recurvyarcher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,450
    Sent in my letter a couple of days ago.
     
  13. skeet100

    skeet100 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    410
    I contacted my "gettin rich while in office" congressmen.

    It may be over reacting but I have learned not to trust a Government big as ours........
     
  14. shaner

    shaner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    197
    hey skeet100 what do you mean gettin rich ,just ask them they are barely makin it in there have to take the kickbacks and bribes just to make ends meet, ggggezzzzzzzzz , and hire illegals to clean their big house on the hill
     
  15. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    It's very real and the subject of a recent NSSF press release and an NRA-ILA alert.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.