Tuesday, July 03, 2007


Default Osha to regulate ammo and components

Below is pasted the proposed Osha regulations. These are regulations and have the force of law but it doesn't go through congress. Basically, they want to define ammunition, powder and primers as explosives and them regulate any business that deals with them in the name of worker safety. This, I suppose, is because of all the accidents, explosions and worker deaths due to exploding ammo. This could make it quite expensive to deal in any of these items.

Comments and bold are by someone else.

New OSHA Rulemaking-Black & Smokeless Powder, Primers, Ammo

Go to the Option 4 drop down menu and select "Document ID"
Key this ID in to the action box ... OSHA-2007-0032
Click on the SUBMIT button

OSHA has proposed rules that may adversely affect the transportation of black and smokeless powder, primers and small arms ammunition, and may affect prices and availability. Below are some sections of the proposed rule (55 PDF pages) that I felt had a direct impact on shooters.

Comments in italics are mine. Bolding is also mine.

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.

Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) would require the employer to ensure that only
persons trained in accordance with paragraph (j) of this section handle
or use explosives. Loading and unloading of explosives are examples of
handling, and blasting of slag pockets is an example of the use of
explosives. This is a new requirement that reinforces the importance of
training for all employees engaged in the handling and use of

Paragraph (c)(1)(vii) would require the employer to ensure that no
person is allowed to enter facilities containing explosives, or to
transport, handle, or use explosives while under the influence of
intoxicating liquors, narcotics, or other drugs that may cause the
person to act in an unsafe manner in the workplace. Due to safety
considerations, OSHA is proposing that such persons be completely
restricted from access to a facility where explosives are manufactured
or stored as well as restricting them from the handling and
transportation of explosives.
This would appear to require some sort of drug testing to be in compliance.

Paragraph (c)(1)(ix) would require the employer to ensure that no
flammable cleaning solvents are present in facilities containing
explosives except where authorized by the employer and where their
presence does not endanger the safety of employees. This is a new
requirement and is based on a recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1).
Due to their potential to create a fire and thus cause an explosion, it
is generally not safe to have flammable cleaning solvents in facilities
containing explosives.

Paragraph (c)(2)(i) would require the employer to ensure that the
primary electrical supply to any part of the facility (e.g., building,
loading dock, etc.) containing explosives can be disconnected at a safe
remote location away from that part of the facility. A safe remote
location from a part of the facility containing explosives is a
location far enough away to ensure that, if all the explosives in that
part of the facility detonated, a person at the remote location would
not be injured by the explosion. In determining what a safe remote
location is, the employer will need to consider factors such as the
type and amount of explosives present.
This is a new requirement
Would this even be possible in a small gunshop?

Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) deals with safety hazards caused by
electrical storms. During the approach and progress of an electrical
storm, paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) would require the employer to ensure
that all explosive manufacturing and blasting operations are suspended,
and paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) would require the employer to ensure that
employees located in or near facilities containing explosives, or in
blast sites, are withdrawn immediately to a safe remote location.
safe remote location in this case would be a location far enough away
from all the explosives in the facility or blast site so that a person
would not be injured if there were an explosion. These proposed
requirements are based on therequirements in existing paragraph (e)(1)(vii)(a) which requires
employers to remove employees from the blasting area during the
approach and progress of an electrical storm. However, proposed
paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) has been expanded to require the suspension of
explosive manufacturing operations and proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B)
also requires the immediate withdrawal of employees located near
explosives. This reduces the time the employees are exposed to a
potential hazard. The expansion of the existing requirement is in
recognition that an electrical storm may be hazardous to employees at
facilities and blast sites containing explosives and that employees
need to be kept a safe distance away from a potential explosion. This
is standard practice in the industry and is consistent with a
recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1).

Static electricity as a potential source of ignition is probably
the single greatest concern for facilities and blast sites containing
explosives. The Petition (Ex. 2-1) recommends new requirements for
static electricity protection that would require any new static
electricity protection system to comply with NFPA 77, Static
Electricity (Ex. 2-7). However, it recommended limiting the application
of the requirements only to systems installed after the effective date
of the new standard and would not require an existing manufacturing
facility to install a new system or modify an existing system to meet
the requirements of NFPA 77. IME informed OSHA that certain explosives
are not static-sensitive and do not require protection. IME further
argues that, since explosives manufacturing is subject to the
requirements of OSHA's PSM standard at Sec. 1910.119, areas in an
explosives manufacturing facility where static electricity protection
systems may be needed should already have been identified through the
process hazard analysis requirements of the PSM standard, and adequate
safeguards should have been instituted in accordance with the PSM
OSHA believes that static electricity protection systems can be
important safety features for facilities containing explosives. The
Agency considered proposing a requirement in paragraph (c) that would
require the employer to ensure that all facilities containing
explosives have appropriate and effective static electricity protection
systems, with suggested methods of compliance found in NFPA 77. The
Agency decided not to propose such language because it lacked
sufficient data and information on the types and effectiveness of
static electricity protection systems. OSHA is seeking additional
information on these issues through public comments.

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.
Stripsearch customers?

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

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
No armed employees in gunshops? No legally-armed customers? How about cops?

Issue #9: Should OSHA require lightning protection systems for any
facility that contains ammonium nitrate or explosives? What would these
systems cost?

Proposed paragraph (e)(1) addresses general provisions associated
with the transportation of explosives. Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i)
would require the employer to ensure that no employee smokes, carries
matches or any other flame-producing device, or carries any firearms or
cartridges (except firearms and cartridges required to be carried by
guards) while in, or within 25 feet (7.63m) of, a vehicle containing

Paragraph (e)(1)(iii) would require the employer to ensure that
explosives are not transferred from one vehicle to another without
informing local fire and police departments. This will help to ensure
that the transfer is performed in a safe manner. In addition, a
competent person must supervise the transfer of explosives. This is
applicable to all transfer work whether it is done within private
facilities or on public highways.
UPS, Fed-ex & DHL will just love this.

Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would require the employer to ensure that
small arms ammunition is separated from flammable liquids, flammable
solids, and oxidizing materials by a fire barrier wall with at least a
1-hour fire resistance rating or by a distance of at least 25 feet.
Small gunshops better get bigger.

Paragraph (h)(3)(i)(B) would require the employer to ensure that no
more than 20 pounds of smokeless propellants, in containers not to
exceed 1 pound, are displayed in a commercial establishment.

Paragraph (h)(4)(i)(B) would require the employer to ensure that
small arms ammunition primers be separated from flammable liquids,
flammable solids, and oxidizing materials by a fire barrier wall with
at least a 1-hour fire resistance rating or by a distance of at least
25 feet.

Paragraph (h)(4)(i)(C) would require the employer to ensure that no
more than 10,000 small arms primers be displayed in a commercial

Issue #21: Proposed paragraphs (h)(3)(i)(B) and (h)(4)(i)(C) place
restrictions on the quantity of smokeless propellants and small arms
primers, respectively, that can be displayed in commercial
establishments. Should OSHA further clarify the quantity limitations
for smokeless propellants and small arms primers to allow multiple
displays in commercial establishments? If so, what quantities should be
allowed and should the quantities be based on the size of the
commercial establishment? Should there be a minimum distance between
displays to ensure employee safety? Should the same limitations placed
on commercial establishments also apply to gun shows?

Paragraph (j) Training. Proposed paragraph (j) is new and contains
proposed training requirements for employees in the explosives
This proposes training and re-training commensurate with each employee's duties and the requisite record-keeping.


Secret Document: U.S. Fears Terror 'Spectacular' Planned
Official Cites Resemblance to Warnings and Intelligence Before 9/11

ABC | July 2, 2007

A secret U.S. law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror "spectacular" this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document.

"This is reminiscent of the warnings and intelligence we were getting in the summer of 2001," the official told ABCNews.com.

U.S. officials have kept the information secret, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said today on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that the United States did not have "have any specific credible evidence that there's an attack focused on the United States at this point.


Colin Powell leaks real reason for SSN

The American Public

I was watching Fox News Sunday this morning, 06/17/01, being hosted in the first segment by Tony Snow. The lead off guest was Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State. Mr. Powell gave an excellent recitation relevant to foreign affair matters.

Mr. Powell during the entire interview was very confident, and spoke without hesitation throughout the entire interview excluding for a one second period, after one specific statement made by him as he was talking about the Russian peoples. When he realized the consequences of making this disclosure indirectly to the American public, he froze for a second, his eyes rolled back as he realized what he had said, and then he continued without further pause for the rest of the interview.

In my lifetime, I have never sent out to others a post relevant to a quote I heard while watching a news program. In this case, the significance of what was said in the flow of truth coming from Mr. Powell, is a statement that establishes the primary reality of intent per the politics and operative structure coming from government in this country. I had to immediately share what I had heard with others.

Mr. Powell was discussing Mr. Bush's trip to Europe, and was at a point in his recitation covering certain concerns regarding Russia, and Russia being requested to cooperate with the United States to track down lost Nuclear materials and scientists who were unaccounted for after the break up of Russia, that now may be in the hands of, or in the case of the missing scientists, working for adversaries of the USA.

The quote from Mr. Powell, per the Russian Scientists that every American "NEEDS" to hear immediately is as follows:

[Colin Powell] - "Finding the Russian scientists may be a problem being that Russia does not have a Social Security System, as here in America, that allows us to MONITOR, TRACK DOWN and CAPTURE an American citizen."

Please pass this on to every one that you know. The significance of Mr. Powell's statement is profound, and essential to be heard by all in this country. I thank Mr. Powell for inadvertently being honest towards the underlying intent of the US Government, reaffirmed by his admission.

Yours Truly, Walter J. Burien, Jr.

go to www.commentsbyt.blogspot.com

go to

go to www.actionsbyt.wordpress.com


go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UpJnQ_NPlU

go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBmFrYWPoG8

go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kjsy2Z3kdI

go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdxI0zClV_Y

go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98

go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkfzRR1Zzj8

go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0DjPMHzdpQ

go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dY4WlxO6i0

go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a30rJQbDDno


go to www.survivalblog.com

My first novel was titled Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse. This is the expanded edition of my novel Triple Ought (re-titled TEOTWAWKI in an interim edition). Huntington House published a paperback edition of my novel from November of 1998 to January of 2005. Sadly, Huntington House went out of business in early 2005. The good news is that the book recently went back into print with a new publisher, XLibris.

Patriots is a novel about a socioeconomic collapse in the near future. It was described by one reviewer as a "survival manual fairly neatly dressed as fiction." There are so many useful details included that most people find themselves taking notes as they read it.

There was some confusion about the various editions of the novel. Some people have written asking if Patriots is a sequel to Triple Ought or TEOTWAWKI. It isn't. Rather, it is a thoroughly fleshed-out edition of the same story line. There is a wealth of new technical detail in Patriots, and even some new characters. Much of the material was suggested by readers from all around the globe who had read one the draft shareware editions. I greatly appreciate their input!




Drought Is Sapping the Southeast, and Its Farmers

Erik S. Lesser for The New York Times