[Insert Date]
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,
---------------------
