18792 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1910 

[Docket No. OSHA–2007–0032 (formerly 

Docket No. OSHA–S031–2006–0665] 

RIN 1218–AC09 

Explosives 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Department of 

Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: OSHA proposes to revise the 

explosives and blasting agents standard 

in subpart H of part 1910. This revision 

of § 1910.109 is intended to enhance the 

protections provided to employees 

engaged in the manufacture, storage, 

sale, transportation, handling, and use 

of explosives. 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. 

DATES: Written comments and hearing 

requests must be submitted by the 

following dates: 

Hard copy: Comments and hearing 

requests must be submitted (postmarked 

or sent) by July 12, 2007. 

Facsimile and electronic 

transmissions: Comments and hearing 

requests must be sent by July 12, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. OSHA–2007– 

0032, by any of the following methods: 

Electronically: You may submit 

comments and attachments 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, which is the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the 

instructions on-line for making 

electronic submissions. 

Fax: If your comments, including 

attachments, do not exceed 10 pages, 

you may fax them to the OSHA Docket 

Office at (202) 693–1648. 

Mail, hand delivery, express mail, 

messenger or courier service: You must 

submit three copies of your comments 

and attachments to the OSHA Docket 

Office, Docket No. OSHA–2007–0032, 

U.S. Department of Labor, Room 

N–2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries 

(hand, express mail, messenger and 

courier service) are accepted during the 

Department of Labor’s and Docket 

Office’s normal business hours, 8:15 

a.m.–4:45 p.m., e.t. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the Agency name and the 

docket number for this rulemaking 

(Docket No. OSHA–2007–0032). All 

comments, including any personal 

information you provide, are placed in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA 

cautions you about submitting personal 

information such as social security 

numbers and birthdates. For further 

information on submitting comments, 

plus additional information on the 

rulemaking process, see the ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: To read or download 

comments and materials submitted in 

response to this Federal Register notice, 

go to Docket No. OSHA–2007–0032 at 

http://www.regulations.gov or at the 

OSHA Docket Office at the address 

above. All comments and submissions 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index, however, 

some information (e.g., copyrighted 

material) is not publicly available to 

read or download through that Web 

page. All comments and submissions, 

including copyrighted material, are 

available for inspection and copying at 

the OSHA Docket Office. 

For information on accessing exhibits 

referenced in this Federal Register 

notice, see the ‘‘References and 

Exhibits’’ and ‘‘Public Participation’’ 

headings in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Electronic copies of this Federal 

Register document are available at 

http://regulations.gov. Copies also are 

available from the OSHA Office of 

Publications, Room N–3101, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20210; 

telephone (202) 693–1888. This 

document, as well as news releases and 

other relevant information, also are 

available at OSHA’s Web page at 

http://www.osha.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information and press inquiries, 

contact Mr. Kevin Ropp, Office of 

Communications, Room N–3647, OSHA, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–1999. 

For technical inquiries, contact Donald 

Pittenger, Directorate of Standards and 

Guidance, Room N–3609, OSHA, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone (202) 693–2255 or fax (202) 

693–1663. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

References and Exhibits 

In this Federal Register notice, OSHA 

references a number of supporting 

materials. References to these materials 

are given as ‘‘Ex.’’ followed by the 

number of the document. The 

referenced materials are posted in both 

Docket No. OSHA-S031–2006–0665 

(which is available at http:// 

www.regulations.osha.gov) and OSHA 

Docket No. S–031 (which is available at 

http://dockets.osha.gov). The 

documents are also available at the 

OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES

section). For further information about 

accessing exhibits referenced in this 

Federal Register notice, see the ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Legal Considerations 

III. Summary and Explanation of the 

Proposed Rule 

IV. Preliminary Economic and Regulatory 

Screening Analysis 

V. Environmental Impact Analysis 

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act 

VII. Federalism 

VIII. State Plan Standards 

IX. Unfunded Mandates 

X. Public Participation 

XI. List of Subjects in 29 CFR part 1910 

XII. Authority and Signature 

XIII. Amendments to Standards 

I. Background 

History of the Standard 

In 1970, Congress enacted the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 

U.S.C. 651 et seq.) (the Act or the OSH 

Act) directing OSHA to promulgate 

safety and health standards to assure, as 

far as possible, safe and healthful 

working conditions for every employee 

in the Nation. To expedite OSHA’s 

mission, Congress directed the Secretary 

of Labor through section 6(a) of the Act 

(29 U.S.C. 655(a)) to promulgate safety 

and health standards within the first 

two years of the Act’s enactment by 

summarily adopting existing national 

consensus and established Federal 

standards, without requiring the Agency 

to go through the rulemaking 

procedures detailed in section 6 of the 

Act. 

On May 29, 1971, pursuant to section 

6(a) of the Act, OSHA promulgated its 

explosives and blasting agents standard 

at 29 CFR 1910.109 (36 FR 10553– 

10562). The standard was based on two 

national consensus standards—the 

National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA) 495–1970 Code for the 

Manufacture, Transportation, Storage, 

and Use of Explosives and Blasting 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18793 

Agents, and NFPA 490–1970 Code for 

the Storage of Ammonium Nitrate. 

The explosives and blasting agents 

standard promulgated in 1971 was 

similar to the current standard found at 

§ 1910.109 and included provisions on 

the storage of explosives, blasting 

agents, and ammonium nitrate; the 

transportation of explosives; and the use 

of explosives and blasting agents. Few 

significant changes have been made to 

the standard since its promulgation. On 

March 31, 1972, OSHA amended the 

standard by adding paragraph (j) ‘‘Small 

arms ammunition, small arms primers, 

and small arms propellants’’ (37 FR 

6577). It also added paragraph (k) 

‘‘Scope,’’ which stated in part that: 

‘‘This section applies to the 

manufacture, keeping, having, storage, 

sale, transportation, and use of 

explosives, blasting agents, and 

pyrotechnics’’ 37 FR 6577. 

On February 24, 1992, OSHA issued 

a new standard at § 1910.119 ‘‘Process 

Safety Management’’ (PSM) covering 

working conditions during the 

manufacture of highly hazardous 

chemicals (57 FR 6356). Both the 

manufacture of explosives (excluding 

blasting agents) and the manufacture of 

pyrotechnics must meet the 

requirements contained in the PSM 

standard. 57 FR 6356. The PSM final 

rule revised the scope provision in the 

explosives and blasting agents standard 

by adding § 1910.109(k)(2) which states 

that the manufacture of explosives must 

meet the requirements contained in 

§ 1910.119 and by adding 

§ 1910.109(k)(3) which states that the 

manufacture of pyrotechnics must meet 

the requirements in § 1910.119. 57 FR 

6356. 

The most recent revisions made to 

§ 1910.109 were on June 18, 1998 (63 FR 

33450) in which OSHA amended two 

provisions to make them consistent with 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

regulations. The revisions now allow 

blasting caps to be transported on the 

same vehicle with other explosives 

(§ 1910.109(d)(1)(iv)) and allow the reuse of containers and packaging 

materials that have previously 

contained explosives provided that such 

re-use is performed in accordance with 

DOT regulations at 49 CFR 173.28 

(§ 1910.109(e)(2)(i)). 

The Petition 

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. A copy of the 

Petition can be found at Docket No. 

OSHA–S031–2006–0665 (Ex. 2–1). IME 

is an association of manufacturers of 

high explosives and other companies 

that distribute explosives or provide 

other related services and the SAAMI is 

an association of manufacturers of 

sporting firearms, ammunition, and 

related components. The Petition 

claimed that § 1910.109 does not reflect 

significant technological and safety 

advances made by the explosives 

industry since the standard was 

promulgated. It further contended that 

the standard contains outdated 

references, classifications, and 

jurisdiction-related provisions that do 

not accurately represent the current 

regulatory environment. 

The Petition requested OSHA to make 

a number of changes to the standard, 

including the following, and provided 

draft regulatory language: 

• 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. 

In response to the Petition, OSHA 

carefully reviewed the requirements of 

the current standard and other related 

OSHA standards. It analyzed the 

recommendations as well as the draft 

regulatory language provided in the 

Petition. OSHA also examined the 

regulations of other federal agencies 

relating to explosives and consulted 

with interested parties about the need to 

revise the standard. Apart from IME and 

SAAMI, these interested parties 

included the International Society of 

Explosives Engineers (ISEE), the 

American Pyrotechnics Association 

(APA), the United Steel Workers of 

America (USWA), and the Paper, AlliedIndustrial, Chemical and Energy 

Workers International (PACE). In 

addition, OSHA consulted with other 

Federal agencies about their explosives 

regulations and procedures. These 

Federal agencies included the DOT, 

ATF, the Interagency Committee on 

Explosives (ICE), the Department of 

Defense Explosives Safety Board 

(DDESB), the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC), and the Mine 

Safety and Health Administration. 

Based upon its review of the Petition 

and the standard, OSHA has concluded 

that the following actions are 

appropriate. These actions are discussed 

in greater detail in the summary and 

explanation section of the proposed rule 

(see section III). 

A. Update the Standard 

Workplace hazards associated with 

explosives activities pose significant 

risks to employees. OSHA has 

determined that the existing standard 

needs to be updated to adequately 

protect employees from these risks. 

Each year, over 5 billion pounds of 

explosives are manufactured or 

imported into the U.S.A. These 

explosives are used on a daily basis in 

many different ways. The manufacture, 

storage, transportation, sale, and use of 

explosives present significant risks not 

only to the employees who work 

directly with them but to the many 

other employees who may work in the 

immediate vicinity of the explosives. 

Explosives are, by their nature and 

design, inherently dangerous and their 

safe handling, storage, and use are 

critical to the safety of those working 

with or near them. There have been 

many incidents in the past of injuries 

and deaths resulting from the accidental 

detonation of explosives. One of the 

most famous examples, the Texas City 

Disaster, did not actually involve 

explosives but ammonium nitrate, one 

of the ingredients used to make a type 

of explosive called blasting agents. On 

April 16, 1947, a ship named the SS 

Grandcamp was docked at the port of 

Texas City, Texas. Its cargo hold was 

full of ammonium nitrate. Shortly after 

a small fire was detected in the hold, the 

ammonium nitrate detonated. The 

explosion killed at least 581 people, 

injured over 5,000 others, destroyed the 

port, and severely damaged the town. 

The shockwave from the explosion 

shattered windows in Houston, over 40 

miles away. Only three years earlier, 

another ship docked at Port Chicago, 

California, exploded when its cargo of 

explosives detonated. The explosion 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18794 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

killed 320 sailors and civilians and 

injured over 400 others. 

A review of accidents involving 

explosives indicates that such incidents 

are most often caused by unsafe work 

practices or faulty equipment. These 

factors are frequently exacerbated by the 

failure to properly train not only the 

employees handling and using the 

explosives but also the employees in the 

vicinity of the explosives in question. In 

many cases, the initial incident, while 

serious, triggers even greater loss of life 

and property by spreading to nearby 

facilities or causing serious injury to 

employees trying to fight the resulting 

fire. 

The existing standard has undergone 

few significant revisions since it was 

promulgated over 35 years ago and 

many of its requirements do not 

accurately reflect current working 

conditions in the explosives industry. 

Over the last 35 years, the explosives 

industry has changed significantly. New 

forms of explosives have been 

developed (e.g., emulsions), new kinds 

of detonators have been introduced (e.g., 

electronic detonators), and substantial 

changes have been made in the 

processes and equipment employed to 

create, handle and use explosives (e.g., 

new kinds of bulk delivery vehicles). 

OSHA has concluded that the existing 

standard must be updated to reflect 

these changes and to adequately protect 

employees from the significant risks 

involved in working with or near 

explosives. To update the standard, 

OSHA has consulted with other federal 

agencies and with interested parties 

about new technologies, products, and 

procedures used by the explosives 

industry and has incorporated these 

developments into the proposed rule. It 

has also updated all references in the 

standard to current national consensus 

standards. 

B. Increase the Clarity and Focus of the 

Standard 

Many of the existing requirements in 

§ 1910.109 are difficult to understand, 

repetitive, and internally inconsistent. 

In addition, some of these existing 

requirements address issues, such as 

general public safety, that go beyond 

OSHA’s authority to regulate. When the 

standard was promulgated in 1971 

through section 6(a) of the Act, OSHA 

adopted much of the language contained 

in the national consensus standards 

upon which it was based (i.e., NFPA 

495 and NFPA 490). These national 

consensus standards were not written in 

language well suited for a Federal 

regulation and had broader coverage 

(e.g., public safety) than needed by 

OSHA to cover working conditions in 

the explosives industry. 

To make the standard more ‘‘userfriendly,’’ the proposal has been 

rewritten in plain language. Internal 

inconsistencies and duplicative 

requirements have been eliminated. In 

addition, it has been rewritten to 

eliminate references to public safety that 

are beyond OSHA’s authority to 

regulate. 

C. Increase the Regulatory Consistency 

of the Standard 

There are inconsistencies between the 

explosives regulations of different 

Federal agencies. For example, OSHA 

classifies explosives in its current 

standard as Class A, Class B, and Class 

C explosives. ATF classifies explosives 

in terms of high explosives, low 

explosives, and blasting agents (27 CFR 

555.202). DOT has adopted the United 

Nations Globally Harmonized System of 

Classification and Labelling of 

Chemicals (GHS) (Ex. 2–2). The GHS is 

intended to harmonize existing 

communication systems on chemicals in 

order to develop a single, worldwide 

harmonized system to address 

classification of chemicals according to 

their hazards, and communicate the 

related information through labels and 

safety data sheets. Based on the GHS, 

DOT classifies all explosives as Class 1 

chemicals and further subdivides them 

into Division 1.1 through 1.6 explosives 

(49 CFR 173.50). 

Magazines (structures used for the 

storage of explosives) are also classified 

differently by different Federal agencies. 

For example, OSHA classifies 

magazines as Class I and Class II 

(§ 1910.109(c)(1)) but ATF classifies 

them as Type 1 through Type 5 (27 CFR 

555.203). 

One of OSHA’s major goals in this 

proposed rulemaking is to increase 

regulatory consistency with other 

Federal agencies involved in regulating 

the explosives industry and to eliminate 

confusion within the regulated 

community. To achieve this goal, OSHA 

proposes to adopt the GHS definitional 

classification system for ‘‘explosives.’’

This will make OSHA’s classification 

system consistent with the one used by 

DOT, which is also based on the GHS. 

D. Increase the Regulatory Flexibility of 

the Standard 

To provide the regulated community 

with greater regulatory flexibility, 

OSHA has endeavored to use general 

performance-oriented language in the 

proposed standard. This allows OSHA 

to draft a requirement in terms of a goal 

and it allows the employer greater 

choice on how to achieve that goal. 

E. Resolve Authority Issues in the 

Standard 

There is some confusion in the 

regulated community over the 

boundaries of OSHA’s authority to 

regulate working conditions in the 

explosives industry. One of OSHA’s 

goals in this rulemaking is to clarify the 

extent of its authority to regulate 

working conditions in the explosives 

industry. In particular, OSHA discusses 

the boundaries of its authority to 

regulate working conditions during the 

storage of explosives and during the 

transportation of explosives. 

II. Legal Considerations 

The purpose of the OSH Act is ‘‘to 

assure so far as possible every working 

man and woman in the Nation safe and 

healthful working conditions and to 

preserve our human resources.’’ 29 

U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal, 

Congress authorized the Secretary of 

Labor to promulgate and enforce 

occupational safety and health 

standards (see 29 U.S.C. 655(a) 

authorizing summary adoption of 

existing consensus and federal 

standards within two years of Act’s 

enactment, 655(b) authorizing 

promulgation of standards pursuant to 

notice and comment, and 654(b) 

requiring employers to comply with 

OSHA standards). 

A safety or health standard is a 

standard ‘‘which requires conditions, or 

the adoption or use of one or more 

practices, means, methods, operations, 

or processes, reasonably necessary or 

appropriate to provide safe or healthful 

employment’’ (29 U.S.C. 652(8)). 

A standard is reasonably necessary or 

appropriate within the meaning of 

Section 652(8) if it substantially reduces 

or eliminates significant risk, and is 

economically feasible, technologically 

feasible, and cost effective, and is 

consistent with prior Agency action or 

is a justified departure, is supported by 

substantial evidence, and is better able 

to effectuate the Act’s purposes than any 

national consensus standard it 

supersedes. See 58 FR 16612–16616 

(March 30, 1993). 

A standard is technologically feasible 

if the protective measures it requires 

already exist, can be brought into 

existence with available technology, or 

can be created with technology that can 

reasonably be expected to be developed. 

American Textile Mfrs. Institute v. 

OSHA, 452 U.S. 490, 513 (1981) (ATMI); 

American Iron and Steel Institute v. 

OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 

1991) (AISI). 

A standard is economically feasible if 

industry can absorb or pass on the costs 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18795 

of compliance without threatening its 

long-term profitability or competitive 

structure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n. 

55; AISI, 939 F.2d at 980. A standard is 

cost effective if the protective measures 

it requires are the least costly of the 

available alternatives that achieve the 

same level of protection. ATMI, 452 U.S. 

at 514 n. 32; International Union, UAW 

v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 

1994) (LOTO II). 

Section 6(b)(7) authorizes OSHA to 

include among a standard’s 

requirements labeling, monitoring, 

medical testing and other information 

gathering and transmittal provisions. 29 

U.S.C. 655(b)(7). 

All standards must be highly 

protective. See 58 FR at 16614–16615; 

LOTO II, 37 F.3d at 668–669. Finally, 

whenever practical, standards shall ‘‘be 

expressed in terms of objective criteria 

and of the performance desired.’’ 29 

U.S.C. 655(b)(5). 

III. Summary and Explanation of the 

Proposed Rule 

OSHA’s Authority To Regulate 

The purpose of the following 

discussion is to clarify the degree to 

which OSHA has authority to regulate 

working conditions relating to 

explosives. A number of Federal 

agencies have authority to regulate 

explosives. For example, the OSH Act 

grants OSHA authority to create and 

enforce standards covering workplace 

safety and health. As part of its mission, 

OSHA currently regulates working 

conditions in the storage, sale, 

transportation, manufacture, and use of 

explosives (29 CFR 1910.109 and 

1910.119 and part 1926 subpart U). The 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

is responsible for regulating the 

transportation, storage, and use of 

explosives at mining facilities subject to 

the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act 

of 1977. Its relevant regulations can be 

found at 30 CFR 56.6000 to 56.6905, 

57.6000 to 57.6960, 75.1300 to 75.1328, 

and 77.1300 to 77.1304. The United 

States Department of Transportation 

(DOT), under the Hazardous Materials 

Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 5101 et 

seq.), is responsible for regulating the 

safe transportation of explosives in 

intrastate, interstate, and foreign 

commerce. Its regulations cover not only 

the movement of explosives in 

commerce but also the loading, 

unloading, and storage of explosives 

incidental to that movement (49 CFR 

parts 171 to 180 and 397). 

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives (ATF) 

regulations cover the import, 

manufacture, distribution, and storage 

of explosives (27 CFR part 555). Its 

regulations require all manufacturers, 

importers, and dealers in explosives to 

obtain a Federal license from ATF and 

require certain users of explosives to 

obtain a Federal permit from ATF. The 

Agency also regulates the safe and 

secure storage of explosives at approved 

facilities. The United States Coast Guard 

has regulations covering the loading, 

transportation, unloading, and stowage 

of explosives on vessels and at related 

land-side facilities (33 CFR part 126, 46 

CFR part 194, 49 CFR parts 171 to 173 

and 176). 

The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission regulates consumer 

fireworks as part of its mission to 

protect the public from unreasonable 

risks of serious injury or death from 

consumer products (16 CFR parts 1500 

and 1507). Its regulations contain 

construction, performance, and labeling 

requirements for consumer fireworks. 

The Environmental Protection Agency, 

under such statutes as the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (42 

U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the Clean Water Act 

(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and the Clean 

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), 

regulates releases and wastes involved 

in the manufacture, use, and disposal of 

explosives. The United States 

Department of the Interior’s Office of 

Surface Mining is responsible for 

regulating blast effects, such as flyrock 

and ground vibration, near surface 

mines (30 CFR 816, 817, and 850). 

Given that there are multiple federal 

agencies that have authority to regulate 

explosives and that there are several 

different aspects to the regulation of 

explosives, areas can develop where 

federal agency authorities overlap. 

OSHA recognizes that there is the 

potential for overlap between provisions 

of this NPRM and a recent Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed 

regulation. Pursuant to the DHS 

Appropriations Act of 2007, Public Law 

109–295 (October 4, 2006), DHS has 

authority to regulate the security of 

chemical facilities. DHS published an 

Advance Notice of Rulemaking titled 

Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism 

Standards (71 FR 78276) (December 28, 

2006) and will publish an implementing 

interim final rule on the matter. The 

DHS Advance Notice proposes to 

require high-risk chemical facilities to 

develop and implement ‘‘Site Security 

Plans’’ with measures that address their 

security vulnerabilities (as determined 

through a ‘‘Vulnerability Assessment’’) 

and that address the DHS risk-based 

performance standards for security at 

chemical facilities. To the extent that 

any overlapping issues develop, OSHA 

and DHS will work to resolve those 

issues. 

The above description is not a 

complete listing of all the Federal 

agencies that regulate explosives. With 

so many agencies involved, confusion 

has occurred in the regulated 

community over the regulatory 

boundaries between some agencies. One 

issue that has arisen concerns the degree 

of overlap in OSHA and ATF 

regulations covering the storage of 

explosives. Another issue involves 

whether OSHA has the authority to 

regulate working conditions during the 

transportation of explosives when DOT 

and the United States Coast Guard also 

regulates such transportation. The 

following is a discussion of these two 

issues. 

OSHA’s Authority to Regulate the 

Storage of Explosives. The OSH Act 

gives OSHA broad authority to 

promulgate and enforce standards to 

promote workplace safety and health. 29 

U.S.C. 651. The courts have supported 

this broad interpretation of OSHA’s 

authority. Southern Railway Co. v. 

OSHRC, 539 F.2d 335, 338 (4th Cir. 

1976) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 999 (1976) 

(‘‘OSHA was enacted in response to an 

appalling record of death and disability 

in our industrial environment, and it 

was the clear intent of Congress to meet 

the problem with broad and, hopefully, 

effective legislation.’’). However, 

OSHA’s authority to regulate working 

conditions is restricted by section 

4(b)(1) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 

653(b)(1)), which states that: 

Nothing in this Act shall apply to working 

conditions of employees with respect to 

which other Federal agencies * * * exercise 

statutory authority to prescribe or enforce 

standards or regulations affecting 

occupational safety or health. 

Congress enacted this provision, 

called the ‘‘preemption provision,’’ to 

avoid duplicative regulatory coverage 

between OSHA and other Federal 

agencies in the area of workplace safety 

and health. Organized Migrants in 

Community Action v. Brennan, 520 F.2d 

1161, 1161 (D.C. Cir. 1975). The 

preemption provision prevents OSHA 

from regulating working conditions 

when another Federal agency exercises 

its statutory authority to prescribe or 

enforce standards or regulations 

covering those working conditions. 

Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 524 

U.S. 235, 241 (2002). OSHA is not 

preempted if another Federal agency has 

statutory authority but has not exercised 

that authority. 524 U.S. at 241. 

Is OSHA preempted by ATF under the 

preemption provision of the OSH Act 

from regulating working conditions 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18796 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

relating to the storage of explosives? To 

answer this question, the following 

questions must be answered. Does ATF 

have statutory authority to regulate the 

storage of explosives? If so, is ATF 

exercising that authority? If so, to what 

extent do ATF’s requirements cover the 

same working conditions as OSHA’s 

requirements? 

Title XI of the Organized Crime 

Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91–452, 

84 Stat. 922, gives ATF, through the 

Secretary of the Treasury, the statutory 

authority to regulate the storage of 

explosives. Section 1101 of Title XI 

states that ‘‘[t]he Congress hereby 

declares that the purpose of this title is 

to protect interstate and foreign 

commerce against interference and 

interruption by reducing the hazard to 

persons and property arising from 

misuse and unsafe or insecure storage of 

explosive materials.’’ 84 Stat. 952. Thus, 

Congress gave ATF the statutory 

authority to issue and enforce 

regulations to protect persons (including 

employees) from the unsafe storage of 

explosives. ATF has exercised this 

authority by promulgating and enforcing 

regulations covering the storage of 

explosives (see 27 CFR part 555). 

ATF’s explosive storage regulations 

are very similar to OSHA’s requirements 

for working conditions involved in the 

storage of explosives. Many of ATF’s 

requirements affect the same types of 

working conditions as OSHA’s 

requirements. The following table 

shows the overlap between ATF’s 

regulations and OSHA’s requirements 

for the storage of explosives. 

ATF’s requirements OSHA’s requirements 

27 CFR 555.203 

Types of magazines.

29 CFR 

1910.109(c)(1)(iv) 

and (v). 

27 CFR 555.206 Location of magazines.29 CFR 

1910.109(c)(1)(vi), 

(vii) and (viii). 

27 CFR 555.207 to 

.211 Construction 

of magazines.

29 CFR 

1910.109(c)(2), (3) 

and (4). 

27 CFR 555.212 

Smoking and open 

flames.

29 CFR 

1910.109(c)(5)(vii). 

27 CFR 555.213 

Quantity and storage restrictions.

29 CFR 

1910.109(c)(1)(ii). 

27 CFR 555.214 Storage within magazines.29 CFR 

1910.109(c)(5). 

27 CFR 555.215 

Housekeeping.

29 CFR 

1910.109(c)(5)(iv) 

and (v). 

27 CFR 555.216 Repair of magazines.29 CFR 

1910.109(c)(5)(vi). 

27 CFR 555.217 

Lighting.

29 CFR 

1910.109(c)(2)(vi). 

ATF’s requirements OSHA’s requirements 

27 CFR 555.218 to 

.220 Tables of distances for storage 

of explosive materials.

29 CFR 

1910.109(c)(1) 

Table H–21. 

29 CFR 

1910.109(g)(4) 

Table H–22. 

ATF’s regulations for the storage of 

explosives apply to the same kinds of 

working conditions as OSHA’s 

requirements for the storage of 

explosives. Although ATF’s regulations 

do not always contain the same or 

similar requirements as OSHA’s 

requirements, they cover the same 

general working conditions. In some 

cases, ATF’s regulations include 

working conditions not covered as 

extensively by OSHA’s requirements. 

For example, unlike OSHA’s 

requirements, ATF’s regulations contain 

separate requirements for the storage of 

display fireworks, pyrotechnic 

compositions, and explosive materials 

used in assembling fireworks (see 27 

CFR 555.221 to .224). 

In summary, ATF has statutory 

authority to regulate the storage of 

explosives and it exercises this statutory 

authority through its promulgation and 

enforcement of regulations covering 

explosives storage. Its storage 

regulations affect the same kinds of 

working conditions as those covered by 

OSHA’s requirements in § 1910.109. 

Therefore, OSHA has concluded that its 

storage requirements for explosives in 

§ 1910.109(c) are preempted under 

section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act by ATF’s 

regulations at 27 CFR part 555 subpart 

K. As a consequence, OSHA is 

proposing in this rulemaking to 

eliminate the provisions in § 1910.109 

that deal with the storage of explosives. 

OSHA is proposing to retain the 

provisions in § 1910.109(i) that cover 

the storage of ammonium nitrate. These 

provisions are not pre-empted by ATF’s 

explosive storage regulations in 27 CFR 

part 555 subpart K because, although 

ammonium nitrate is a component of 

certain explosives such as ANFO, by 

itself, it is not an explosive. Therefore, 

it is not regulated by these ATF 

regulations. In addition, OSHA is also 

proposing to retain the provisions in 

§ 1910.109(j) that cover the storage of 

small arms ammunition and 

components of small arms ammunition. 

Although small arms ammunition and 

components of small arms ammunition, 

such as small arms primers and 

smokeless propellants, are explosives, 

ATF’s explosives storage regulations do 

not apply to the storage of ammunition 

as defined in 27 CFR 555.11 (see 27 CFR 

555.141(a)(4)). Thus, OSHA’s existing 

§ 1910.109(j) covering the storage of 

small arms ammunition and 

components of small arms ammunition 

are not preempted by ATF’s regulations. 

Furthermore, ATF’s explosives 

regulations (see 27 CFR 555.141(a)(7)) 

do not apply to consumer fireworks as 

defined in 27 CFR 555.11. These items 

are generally classified as UN0336, 

UN0337, UN0431, and UN0432 by DOT 

at 49 CFR 172.101, and generally known 

as consumer fireworks or articles 

pyrotechnic. These fireworks are 

classified as Class 1 Division 1.4 

explosives by DOT at 40 CFR 172.101. 

Because ATF does not regulate the 

storage of these types of fireworks, 

OSHA retains authority to regulate their 

storage. At this time, however, OSHA is 

not proposing to regulate the storage of 

these types of fireworks in the proposed 

standard but plans to deal with them in 

a future rulemaking on pyrotechnics. 

Issue #1: As discussed above, OSHA 

is proposing to withdraw its 

requirements in § 1910.109 covering the 

storage of explosives. OSHA is seeking 

comments on the following issue. Apart 

from small arms ammunition and 

related components, are there any 

explosives that are currently covered by 

the storage requirements in § 1910.109 

that are not covered by ATF’s storage 

regulations? 

OSHA’s Authority to Regulate the 

Transportation of Explosives. Do DOT 

and the United States Coast Guard 

preempt OSHA from regulating working 

conditions during the transportation of 

explosives? DOT regulates the 

transportation of hazardous materials, 

including explosives, by statutory 

authority granted to it by the Hazardous 

Materials Transportation Act (the 

Hazmat Act) enacted in 1975 (49 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq.). DOT has exercised this 

statutory authority by promulgating and 

enforcing regulations covering the 

transportation of hazardous materials 

(49 CFR parts 171 to 180). The United 

States Coast Guard is called to enforce 

these authorities during the 

transportation of hazardous materials on 

vessels upon the navigable waters of the 

United States. In addition, the United 

States Coast Guard is authorized to 

regulate the handling of dangerous 

cargo, including explosives, at 

waterfront facilities under 33 CFR part 

126. 

In 1990, Congress amended the 

Hazmat Act (Pub. L. 101–615, § 2936, 

Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3244) and 

added the following reverse preemption 

language in § 1805(b)(3): 

For purposes of section 4(b)(1) of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

(29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1)), no action taken by the 

[DOT] Secretary pursuant to this section shall 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18797 

be deemed to be an exercise of statutory 

authority to prescribe or enforce standards or 

regulations affecting occupational safety or 

health. 

The section in the Hazmat Act 

referred to in the reverse preemption 

language was § 1805 ‘‘Handling of 

hazardous materials.’’ Section 1805(a) 

covered the number, training, and 

qualifications of personnel involved in 

handling hazardous materials; the type 

and frequency of inspections; the 

equipment used to detect, warn, and 

control the risks posed by hazardous 

materials; the use of equipment and 

facilities employed in the handling and 

transportation of hazardous materials; 

and systems for monitoring the safety 

assurance procedures for transporting 

hazardous materials. Section 1805(b) 

included training criteria for the safe 

handling and transportation of 

hazardous materials. The remaining 

provisions in § 1805 covered the 

registration, filing, and permit 

requirements for transporters of 

hazardous materials. 

The reverse preemption language in 

§ 1805(b)(3) of the Hazmat Act nullified 

any effect of the OSH Act’s 4(b)(1) 

preemption provision over matters 

covered by § 1805 of the Hazmat Act. 

Because § 1805 covered such things as 

the training, equipment and facilities 

used during the handling and 

transportation of hazardous materials, 

OSHA could regulate working 

conditions associated with these aspects 

of the handling and transportation of 

hazardous materials. 

In 1994, Congress amended and 

recodified the Hazmat Act to its current 

form as 49 U.S.C. chapter 51—

Transportation of Hazardous Material, 

§ 5101 et seq. (Pub. L. 103–272, July 5, 

1994, 108 Stat. 745). Although the 

reverse preemption language was 

altered and recodified at § 5107(f)(2), its 

meaning and coverage remained the 

same. Section 5107(f)(2) states: 

§ 5107 Hazmat employee training 

requirements and grants 

* * * * * 

(f) Relationship to other laws. 

* * * * * 

(2) An action of the Secretary of 

Transportation under subsections (a)–(d) of 

this section and sections 5106, 5108(a)–(g)(1) 

and (h), and 5109 of this title is not an 

exercise, under section 4(b)(1) of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

(29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1)), of statutory authority to 

prescribe or enforce standards or regulations 

affecting occupational safety and health. 

Section 5106 involves criteria for the 

handling of hazardous materials and 

includes the following: 

The Secretary of Transportation may 

prescribe criteria for handling hazardous 

material, including: 

(1) a minimum number of personnel; 

(2) minimum levels of training and 

qualifications for personnel; 

(3) the kind and frequency of inspections; 

(4) equipment for detecting, warning of, 

and controlling risks posed by the hazardous 

material; 

(5) specifications for the use of equipment 

and facilities used in handling and 

transporting the hazardous material; and 

(6) a system of monitoring safety 

procedures for transporting the hazardous 

material. 

Section 5107(a) to (d) covers training 

requirements for employees working 

with hazardous materials. Section 

5108(a) to (g)(1) and (h) involves 

registration requirements for 

transporting hazardous materials and 

§ 5109 covers safety permits for motor 

carriers transporting hazardous 

materials. 

Similar to the reverse preemption 

language in the 1990 amendments to the 

Hazmat Act, § 5107(f)(2) of the 1994 

amendments to the Hazmat Act nullifies 

any effect of the OSH Act’s 4(b)(1) 

preemption provision over matters 

covered by §§ 5106, 5107(a) to (d), 

5108(a) to (g)(1) and (h), and 5109. This 

allows OSHA to regulate working 

conditions relating to these matters, 

which include ‘‘the use of equipment 

and facilities used in handling and 

transporting the hazardous material’’ (49 

U.S.C. 5106(5)). Accordingly, OSHA has 

the authority to not only regulate 

working conditions at facilities involved 

in the transportation of hazardous 

materials but also when equipment is 

used during the transportation of 

hazardous materials. It is noteworthy 

that the reverse preemption language in 

the 1994 amendments to the Hazmat Act 

does not exclude DOT from also 

regulating the areas covered by §§ 5106, 

5107(a) to (d), 5108(a) to (g)(1) and (h), 

and 5109. 

The Occupational Safety and Health 

Review Commission examined the 

reverse preemption language in Yellow 

Freight Systems, Inc., 17 BNA OSHC 

1699, 1995–97 CCH OSHD ¶ 31,105 (No. 

93–3292, 1996). In that case, the 

operator of a freight terminal argued that 

OSHA’s citations against it were invalid 

because OSHA was preempted from 

regulating working conditions at the 

terminal by DOT under the 4(b)(1) 

preemption provision of the OSH Act. 

The Commission disagreed with the 

operator and concluded that when 

Congress amended § 1805(b)(3) in the 

1990 amendments to the Hazmat Act, it 

‘‘intended to nullify the preemptive 

effect of DOT actions taken under 

section 1805.’’ Id. at 1701. It also made 

the equivalent finding about the reverse 

preemption language in the 1994 

amendments to the Hazmat Act. Id. At 

the invitation of the Commission, DOT 

submitted its interpretation of 

§ 1805(b)(3) in the Yellow Freight case. 

DOT stated that the reverse preemption 

language ‘‘found in § 1805(b)(3) * * * 

referred to the entirety of § 1805.’’ Id. 

Thus, DOT agreed that OSHA was not 

preempted from regulating working 

conditions in those aspects of the 

transportation of hazardous materials 

covered by § 1805. 

On October 30, 2003, DOT issued a 

final rule clarifying the application of its 

hazardous materials regulations to the 

loading, unloading, and storage of 

hazardous materials incidental to 

movement in commerce (68 FR 61906). 

DOT’s hazardous materials regulations 

cover pre-transportation functions 

involving the preparation of hazardous 

materials for transportation in 

commerce. Id. at 61906, 61908. They 

also cover transportation functions 

involving the actual movement of 

hazardous materials in commerce, 

including the loading, unloading, and 

storage of hazardous materials that is 

incidental to that movement. Id. at 

61906, 61914. 

In the preamble to the final rule, DOT 

noted the reverse preemption language 

at § 5107(f)(2) in the 1994 amendments 

to the Hazmat Act and stated that: 

‘‘Such ‘reverse preemption language’

functions to nullify any effect the OSH 

Act’s 4(b)(1) provision might otherwise 

have and thus ensures that OSHA’s 

standards remain applicable (68 FR 

61926).’’ DOT further stated that it 

‘‘neither affirmatively regulate[s] the 

working conditions at facilities where 

pre-transportation and transportation 

functions are performed, nor assert[s] 

comprehensive regulatory jurisdiction 

over the working conditions at these 

facilities. * * * This final rule makes 

clear that [DOT does] not intend to 

exercise [its] statutory authority in a 

manner that precludes OSHA from 

regulating at facilities where pretransportation and transportation 

functions are performed.’’ Id. Thus, 

DOT recognizes that, through the 

reverse preemption language of the 

Hazmat Law, OSHA has the statutory 

authority to regulate working conditions 

at facilities where pre-transportation 

and transportation functions are 

performed. 

In its final rule, DOT did not directly 

address whether OSHA has statutory 

authority to regulate working conditions 

during the actual movement of 

hazardous materials in commerce. 

However, it stated that DOT ‘‘has 

developed a special expertise that 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18798 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

makes the Department uniquely 

qualified to play the primary Federal 

regulatory role in the protection of 

employees who operate motor vehicles, 

trains, aircraft, and vessels used to 

transport hazardous materials.’’ Id. at 

61927. 

OSHA agrees that DOT has the unique 

expertise to play a lead role in the 

protection of employees during the 

transportation of hazardous materials. 

However, OSHA also recognizes that, 

through the reverse preemption 

language of § 5107(f)(2) in the 1994 

amendments to the Hazmat Act, 

Congress has granted OSHA statutory 

authority to regulate working conditions 

during the handling and transportation 

of hazardous materials. The Agency 

views this statutory authority to include 

working conditions during the actual 

movement of hazardous material in 

commerce, as well as during the 

preparation of hazardous materials prior 

to movement, and the loading, 

unloading, and temporary storage of 

hazardous material incidental to 

movement. 

Although OSHA has the statutory 

authority to regulate working conditions 

at each stage in the transportation of 

hazardous materials, the Agency is not 

required to exercise that authority. 

OSHA recognizes DOT and the United 

States Coast Guard’s extensive 

regulatory expertise and coverage in the 

area of the safe transportation of 

hazardous materials. The Agency also 

believes it is important to avoid 

duplicative or conflicting regulatory 

requirements between federal agencies. 

As a result, OSHA has no current plans 

to expand its regulation of working 

conditions during the transportation of 

hazardous materials. 

The following preamble discussion 

explains significant changes made in the 

proposal to the existing standard. The 

proposed standard changes the title of 

29 CFR 1910.109 from ‘‘Explosives and 

Blasting Agents’’ to ‘‘Explosives.’’ Since 

the proposal includes blasting agents in 

the definition of explosives (discussed 

below), it is no longer appropriate for 

the title of the section to include both 

terms. 

This proposed rule contains a 

complete revision and re-organization of 

existing § 1910.109. In addition to 

requesting comments on any of the 

requirements in the proposed standard, 

OSHA has identified issues throughout 

the preamble and has requested 

comments on these issues. 

OSHA’s development of the proposed 

rule was based in part on the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495—Explosive 

Materials Code. NFPA has recently 

issued a 2006 edition of this code. 

OSHA has compared the differences 

between the 2001 and 2006 editions. 

Any significant changes relevant to the 

proposed rule in the 2006 edition 

compared to the 2001 edition are 

discussed at the appropriate location in 

the preamble. OSHA is interested in 

comments on whether there are any 

requirements in the 2006 edition of 

NFPA 495 that should be in the 

proposed rule but have not been 

included. 

The proposed rule references DOT 

regulations in several provisions. OSHA 

has included these references to DOT 

regulations to ensure that the proposed 

rule is consistent with DOT’s 

regulations. However, OSHA is 

interested in comments on whether 

such DOT references should be retained, 

excluded, or replaced with an 

alternative in the final rule. If you think 

some or all of the references to DOT 

regulations should be replaced with an 

alternative, please provide the 

alternative language for the affected 

provisions in the proposed rule. 

As an aid to understanding the 

changes in the proposed rule, a table, 

‘‘Proposed Reorganization of Existing 

Requirements,’’ has been placed in the 

docket (Ex. 2–22) listing the 

requirements in the existing standard 

and identifying where they are located 

in the proposed rule. In addition, a 

second table, ‘‘New Requirements in 

Proposed Rule,’’ has been placed in the 

docket (Ex. 2–23) listing all the new 

provisions in the proposed rule that are 

not in the existing standard. 

Paragraph (a) Scope. Proposed 

paragraph (a) defines the applicability of 

§ 1910.109, and has been moved from 

existing paragraph (k), at the end of the 

standard, to the beginning of the 

proposed standard. This change enables 

a reader to quickly determine the 

applicability of the standard. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would 

apply this section to the manufacture, 

storage, sale, transportation, handling, 

and use of explosives, including 

blasting agents and pyrotechnics. The 

proposed paragraph is similar to 

existing paragraph (k)(1) except in three 

ways. First, for ease of compliance, each 

of the multiple requirements in existing 

paragraph (k)(1) has been moved to a 

separate proposed paragraph. As a 

result, the requirement in existing 

paragraph (k)(1) on the applicability of 

the standard to the use of explosives in 

medicines and medicinal agents has 

been moved to proposed paragraph 

(a)(3)(ii). The requirement in existing 

paragraph (k)(1) on the applicability of 

the standard to the sale and use of 

pyrotechnics has been moved to 

proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iii). 

Second, proposed paragraph (a)(1) has 

been rewritten for clarity. For example, 

ambiguous terms such as ‘‘keeping’’ and 

‘‘having’’ in existing paragraph (k)(1) 

have been removed in proposed 

paragraph (a)(1). OSHA believes the 

proposed language is clearer and more 

concise than the existing language, and 

will enhance compliance. 

Third, the application of this section 

to storage has been removed. The reason 

for this is explained in the OSHA’s 

Authority to Regulate discussion above. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) requires the 

employer to comply with § 1910.119, 

Process Safety Management (PSM), for 

operations involving the manufacture of 

explosives, as defined in proposed 

paragraph (b). The proposed paragraph 

revises the requirements in existing 

paragraph (k)(2), which requires the 

manufacture of explosives, as defined in 

existing paragraph (a)(3), to comply 

with the requirements of § 1910.119. 

The proposal deletes existing 

paragraph (k)(3) which requires the 

manufacture of pyrotechnics, as defined 

in existing paragraph (a)(10), to comply 

with the requirements of § 1910.119. 

Paragraph (b) of the proposed standard 

defines pyrotechnics as explosives (see 

discussion below on proposed 

paragraph (b)). Thus, it is no longer 

necessary to have one provision 

requiring that the manufacture of 

explosives comply with § 1910.119 and 

another provision requiring that the 

manufacture of pyrotechnics comply 

with § 1910.119. Proposed paragraph 

(a)(2) requiring that the manufacture of 

explosives comply with § 1910.119 

covers all explosives as defined in 

proposed paragraph (b), including 

pyrotechnics. 

Under both the existing standard 

(existing paragraph (k)) and the 

proposed standard (proposed paragraph 

(a)(2)), the manufacture of blasting 

agents does not have to comply with the 

PSM standard at § 1910.119. The 

existing standard does not define 

blasting agents as explosives but the 

proposed standard classifies them as 

Class 1 Division 1.5 explosives (see 

discussion below on proposed 

paragraph (b)). Even though the 

proposed standard includes blasting 

agents as explosives and requires that 

the manufacture of explosives comply 

with § 1910.119, OSHA in proposed 

paragraph (a)(2) is specifically 

excluding blasting agents from the 

requirements of § 1910.119. This 

exclusion includes water gels, slurries, 

and emulsions classified as Class 1 

Division 1.5 explosives. 

The PSM standard was developed to 

safeguard employees from catastrophic 

releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18799 

explosive chemicals (see § 1910.119 

Purpose). Blasting agents, as Class 1 

Division 1.5 explosives, are very 

insensitive and have a very low 

probability of causing an unintended 

mass explosion. For this reason, OSHA 

has concluded that blasting agents, 

unlike Division 1.1 to 1.4 explosives, do 

not pose the potential catastrophic 

consequences to employees required of 

chemicals subject to § 1910.119 and 

should be excluded from the PSM 

standard. However, if one or more 

ingredients of a blasting agent is 

otherwise classified as an explosive (i.e., 

as a Division 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, or 1.4 

explosive), then the manufacturing 

process for that blasting agent would be 

required to comply with § 1910.119. 

Although the manufacture of blasting 

agents is not subject to the PSM 

standard, both the existing standard at 

§ 1910.109(g) and (h) and the proposed 

standard at § 1910.109(c) and (g) have 

requirements covering the safe 

manufacture of blasting agents. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i) clarifies 

that § 1910.109, as a general industry 

standard, does not apply to construction 

work covered by 29 CFR part 1926. This 

paragraph is new but does not change 

the scope of the existing standard 

because the existing standard also does 

not apply to construction work. Subpart 

U of 29 CFR part 1926 specifically 

addresses blasting and the use of 

explosives in the construction industry. 

OSHA believes the proposed language 

clarifies the scope of the proposed 

standard and addresses some confusion 

on the issue that was revealed during 

discussions with stakeholders. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii) states 

that this section does not apply to the 

use of explosives in medicines and 

medicinal agents in the forms 

prescribed by the official United States 

Pharmacopeia and the National 

Formulary (USP–NF). The USP–NF is 

available from the United States 

Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc., 12601 

Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, MD, 

20852. The proposal continues the 

existing standard’s exclusion of 

medicines and medical agents 

containing explosives from the 

standard’s requirements. For ease of 

compliance, this exclusion was 

separated from other requirements 

within existing paragraph (k)(1) and 

made into a separate proposed 

paragraph (a)(3)(ii). The proposed 

language is similar to the existing 

exclusion, and was modified to be 

consistent with paragraph 1.1.7 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iii) states 

that the section does not apply to the 

use or sale of both public display and 

consumer pyrotechnics. For ease of 

compliance, this requirement was 

separated from other requirements 

within existing paragraph (k)(1) and is 

proposed as paragraph (a)(3)(iii). The 

application of the proposed paragraph 

has not changed from that of existing 

(k)(1). However, OSHA has revised the 

paragraph to clarify that the proposed 

standard does not apply to the use or 

sale of both public display and 

consumer fireworks. Note that, although 

they are not covered by the existing or 

proposed § 1910.109 standard, OSHA 

has the authority to regulate the use of 

public display fireworks and the sale of 

public display and consumer fireworks. 

However, the use of consumer fireworks 

by the public does not fall within 

OSHA’s authority to regulate workplace 

safety and health. OSHA believes the 

proposed language is clearer than the 

existing language in paragraph (k)(1). 

Since the initial publication of 

§ 1910.109, NFPA has published three 

codes for the use and sale of 

pyrotechnics: (1) NFPA 1123–2000—

Code for Fireworks Display; (2) NFPA 

1124–2003—Code for the Manufacture, 

Storage, and Retail Sales of Fireworks 

and Pyrotechnic Articles; and (3) NFPA 

1126–2001—Standard for the use of 

Pyrotechnics before a Proximate 

Audience. In the future, OSHA intends 

to conduct further rulemaking based 

upon these NFPA codes and at that time 

will modify the scope of § 1910.109 to 

include the sale of both public display 

pyrotechnics and consumer fireworks 

and the use of pyrotechnics at public 

displays. Unless otherwise stated, the 

provisions of the proposed rule, like 

those in the current rule, apply to 

pyrotechnics as well as to other types of 

explosives. In addition, the proposal 

continues to apply OSHA’s PSM 

regulations to the manufacture of 

pyrotechnics as discussed in proposed 

paragraph (a)(2) above. However, OSHA 

has decided, because of time and 

resource constraints, to address 

additional issues regarding pyrotechnics 

in a separate rulemaking. OSHA 

believes that trying to expand 

pyrotechnics coverage in the current 

rulemaking would result in significant 

delay in providing needed protection 

from explosives hazards. Proposed 

paragraph (i) is being reserved for this 

future pyrotechnics rulemaking. 

Paragraph (b) Definitions applicable 

to this section. Paragraph (b) lists and 

defines all major terms used in the 

proposed standard. Some of the 

proposed definitions are the same as 

those in the existing standard, while 

others have been reworded. Some 

definitions are new and some have not 

been retained from the existing 

standard. 

New Definitions 

Upon consideration of technological 

developments in the explosives field, 

the plain language initiative, 

inconsistencies in definitions among 

Federal agencies, and definitions used 

in relation to public safety versus 

employee safety, OSHA proposes the 

following new definitions: 

Blast area. OSHA is proposing to 

define this term to mean the area of a 

blast within the influence of flying rock 

or other debris, gases, and concussion. 

This term is commonly used in the 

explosives industry and is being added 

to the proposal to clarify its safety 

requirements for blasting operations. 

The use of the term in the proposal is 

consistent with its use in the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Blast site. This term would be defined 

to mean the area where explosives are 

handled during the preparation and 

loading of drill holes, including 50 feet 

(15.2 m) in all directions from the 

perimeter formed by loaded holes. The 

50-foot distance requirement, applies in 

all directions along the full depth of the 

drill hole and the blast site exists until 

the explosives are detonated. This term 

is commonly used in the explosives 

industry and is being added to the 

proposal to clarify its safety 

requirements for blasting operations. 

The use of the term in the proposal is 

consistent with its use in the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Issue #2: In subsequent discussions 

with the Institute of Makers of 

Explosives (IME) following their 

submission of the Petition, they 

recommended that OSHA revise the 

definition of blast site to decrease the 

50-foot requirement to 30 feet if ‘‘the 

perimeter of loaded holes is marked and 

separated from non-blast site areas by a 

barrier.’’ IME would define a barrier as 

a ‘‘material object or objects that 

separates, keeps apart, or demarcates in 

a conspicuous manner such as cones or 

a warning sign or tape.’’ OSHA, 

however, is concerned that simply 

installing a barrier, as defined by IME, 

at a blast site may not provide the 

degree of safety needed to allow 

employees to be as close as 30 feet to 

explosion hazards. OSHA requests 

specific comments on the IME 

recommendation. 

Blaster-in-charge. OSHA would 

define this term to mean the person in 

charge of the handling, loading, and 

firing of explosives within the blast site 

and blast area. This term is intended to 

identify a person designated by the 

employer to be in charge of the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18800 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

handling, loading, and firing of 

explosives. 

The 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–

5) does not use the term ‘‘blaster-incharge’’ but uses the term ‘‘blaster’’ as 

a person ‘‘qualified to be in charge of 

and responsible for the loading and 

firing of a blast.’’ While NFPA 495 does 

not specifically require one person to be 

in charge of the blast area, the definition 

of blaster-in-charge in the proposed 

standard requires that one person is in 

charge of the blast area and the blast 

site. This is being done to enhance 

safety by centralizing control in one 

person. The proposed term ‘‘blaster-incharge’’ is based upon a 

recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2–

1). 

Bulk delivery vehicle. This term 

would be defined to mean any vehicle 

that transports blasting agents or their 

ingredients, in bulk form. Bulk delivery 

vehicles may also be capable of mixing 

ingredients to form blasting agents and 

loading blasting agents directly into 

drill holes. For example, bulk delivery 

vehicles may contain ammonium nitrate 

and a fuel oil in separate compartments 

and mix the two to form a blasting agent 

just before the blasting agent is 

transferred into the drill hole. The bulk 

delivery vehicle may also be capable of 

adding an emulsion to the mixture. The 

bulk delivery vehicle will either auger 

or pump the blasting agent into the drill 

hole. This definition is intended to 

provide clarity and reflects 

technological advancements in bulk 

blasting agent delivery methods. 

Competent person. This term would 

be defined by OSHA to mean an 

employee designated by the employer 

who, by way of training and/or 

experience, is knowledgeable of 

applicable standards, is capable of 

identifying workplace hazards relating 

to explosives, and has authority to take 

appropriate corrective actions to control 

such hazards. Although not defined, 

this term is used in the existing 

standard at (c)(5)(viii), (c)(5)(ix), 

(d)(2)(iii)(b), and (g)(5)(vii). Defining the 

term in the proposed standard enhances 

safety by clearly stating the required 

qualifications of the competent person. 

Detonator. OSHA is proposing to 

define this term to mean any device 

containing an initiating or primary 

explosive that is used for initiating 

detonation in another explosive 

material. A detonator may not contain 

more than .35 ounces (10 grams) of total 

explosives by weight, excluding ignition 

or delay charges. The term includes, but 

is not limited to, electric blasting caps 

of instantaneous and delay types, 

electronic detonators, blasting caps for 

use with safety fuse, detonating cord 

delay connectors, and nonelectric 

instantaneous and delay blasting caps 

which use detonating cord, shock tube, 

or any other replacement for electric leg 

wires. Although the term is used in the 

existing standard in paragraph (e)(1)(ii), 

it is not defined. The proposed standard 

defines the term to enhance regulatory 

clarity and to reflect recent 

technological advances in detonation 

methods. 

Electric detonator. OSHA is proposing 

that this term be defined as a detonator 

designed for, and capable of, initiation 

by means of an electric current. This 

term is reflective of recent technological 

advancements in detonation methods. 

Electronic detonator. OSHA would 

define this term to mean a detonator 

that utilizes stored electrical energy as 

a means of powering an electronic 

timing delay element/module and that 

provides initiation energy for firing the 

base charge. This term is reflective of 

recent technological advancements in 

detonation methods. 

Emulsion. This term would be defined 

to mean an explosive that either 

contains substantial amounts of oxidizer 

dissolved in water droplets that are 

surrounded by an immiscible fuel, or 

contains droplets of an immiscible fuel 

that are surrounded by water containing 

substantial amounts of oxidizer. 

Emulsions, depending on their 

properties, are classified as Division 1.1 

explosives or Division 1.5 blasting 

agents. This term has been added due to 

the development and routine use of 

emulsions by the industry, and is based 

upon a recommendation in the Petition 

(Ex. 2–1). 

Hot work. OSHA is proposing to 

define this term to mean any work 

involving electric or gas welding, 

cutting, brazing, or similar flame or 

spark-producing operations. This term 

is consistent with the definition in the 

PSM standard (§ 1910.119(b)). 

Vehicle. This term would be defined 

by OSHA to mean any motor vehicle, 

machine, tractor, trailer, or semi-trailer 

propelled or drawn by mechanical 

power and used in the transportation of 

explosives. This replaces the existing 

definition of ‘‘motor vehicle.’’ Unlike 

the existing definition of ‘‘motor 

vehicle,’’ the proposed definition does 

not contain the word ‘‘highway’’

because the proposed standard covers 

vehicles that are used both on and off 

the highway. The term ‘‘self-propelled’’

in the existing definition would be 

replaced by the phrase ‘‘propelled or 

drawn by mechanical power’’ to be 

consistent with the DOT definition of 

motor vehicle at 49 CFR 171.8 and 

recommendations of the Petition (Ex. 2–

1). 

Revised Definitions 

OSHA is proposing the following 

revisions to existing definitions in 

§ 1910.109: 

Blasting agent. OSHA is proposing 

that this term be defined as any material 

or mixture intended for blasting that is 

classified as a Division 1.5 explosive. 

This is different from the definition in 

existing paragraph (a)(1) that reads: 

Blasting agent—any material or mixture, 

consisting of a fuel and oxidizer, intended for 

blasting, not otherwise classified as an 

explosive and in which none of the 

ingredients are classified as an explosive, 

provided that the finished product, as mixed 

and packaged for use or shipment, cannot be 

detonated by means of a No. 8 test blasting 

cap when unconfined. 

OSHA has changed the definition of 

‘‘blasting agent’’ in the proposed 

standard to update it and make it 

consistent with the definition used by 

the DOT and the United Nations’

Globally Harmonized System of 

Classification and Labeling of Chemicals 

(see discussion below) explosives 

classification system. The changes were 

also recommended by the Petition (Ex. 

2–1). 

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. 

In the proposed standard, OSHA 

would classify explosives using the 

same classification system as DOT (see 

49 CFR 173.50). Explosives would be 

classified using the following divisions: 

(i) Division 1.1 consists of explosives 

that have a mass explosion hazard. A 

mass explosion is one which affects 

almost the entire load instantaneously. 

(ii) Division 1.2 consists of explosives 

that have a projection hazard but not a 

mass explosion hazard. 

(iii) Division 1.3 consists of 

explosives that have a fire hazard and 

either a minor blast hazard or a minor 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18801 

projection hazard or both, but not a 

mass explosion hazard. 

(iv) Division 1.4 consists of explosives 

that present a minor explosion hazard. 

The explosive effects are largely 

confined to the package and no 

projection of fragments of appreciable 

size or range is to be expected. An 

external fire must not cause virtually 

instantaneous explosion of almost the 

entire contents of the package. 

(v) Division 1.5 consists of very 

insensitive explosives. This division is 

comprised of substances which have a 

mass explosion hazard but are so 

insensitive that there is very little 

probability of initiation or of transition 

from burning to detonation under 

normal conditions. (The probability of 

transition from burning to detonation is 

greater when large quantities are 

involved.) 

(vi) Division 1.6 consists of extremely 

insensitive articles which do not have a 

mass explosive hazard. This division is 

comprised of articles which contain 

only extremely insensitive detonating 

substances and which demonstrate a 

negligible probability of accidental 

initiation or propagation. (The risk from 

articles of Division 1.6 is limited to the 

explosion of a single article.) 

These definitions are different from 

the existing paragraph (a)(3) that reads: 

Explosive—any chemical compound, 

mixture, or device, the primary or common 

purpose of which is to function by explosion, 

i.e., with substantially instantaneous release 

of gas and heat, unless such compound, 

mixture, or device is otherwise specifically 

classified by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation; see 49 CFR chapter I. The 

term ‘‘explosives’’ shall include all material 

which is classified as Class A, Class B, and 

Class C explosives by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, and includes, but is not 

limited to dynamite, black powder, pellet 

powders, initiating explosives, blasting caps, 

electric blasting caps, safety fuse, fuse 

lighters, fuse igniters, squibs, cordeau 

detonant fuse, instantaneous fuse, igniter 

cord, igniters, small arms ammunition, small 

arms ammunition primers, smokeless 

propellant, cartridges for propellant-actuated 

power devices, and cartridges for industrial 

guns. Commercial explosives are those 

explosives which are intended to be used in 

commercial or industrial operations. 

Note 1: Classification of explosives is 

described by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation as follows (see 49 CFR 

chapter I): 

(i) Class A explosives. Possessing, 

detonating, or otherwise maximum hazard; 

such as dynamite, nitroglycerin, picric acid, 

lead azide, fulminate of mercury, black 

powder, blasting caps, and detonating 

primers. 

(ii) Class B explosives. Possessing 

flammable hazard, such as propellant 

explosives (including some smokeless 

propellants), photographic flash powders, 

and some special fireworks. 

(iii) Class C explosives. Includes certain 

types of manufactured articles which contain 

Class A or Class B explosives, or both, as 

components but in restricted quantities. 

(iv) Forbidden or not acceptable 

explosives. Explosives which are forbidden 

or not acceptable for transportation by 

common carriers by rail freight, rail express, 

highway, or water in accordance with the 

regulations of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 49 CFR chapter I. 

The term ‘‘explosive’’ in the proposed 

standard has been modified to be more 

consistent with the definition currently 

used by DOT. When § 1910.109 was 

originally promulgated in 1971, OSHA 

defined explosives in terms of Class A, 

Class B, and Class C explosives. Blasting 

agents were considered separately from 

explosives. At that time, DOT classified 

explosives in the same way. While 

OSHA continues to use this 

classification system in the existing 

standard, DOT has revised its explosive 

classification system. 

On December 21, 1990, DOT issued a 

final rule that revised the ‘‘Hazardous 

Materials Regulations’’ contained in 49 

CFR chapter I that cover the 

classification, packaging and shipping 

of explosives (including blasting 

agents), oxidizers, and flammable 

liquids and solids. Essentially, the 

revisions adopted the United Nations 

(UN) Recommendations on the 

Transport of Dangerous Goods (Ex. 2–

18), standardizing the testing, 

classification, packaging, labeling, 

placarding, and handling of explosives, 

thereby reducing regulatory 

inconsistencies that existed between the 

United States and other countries for 

purposes of transport of dangerous 

goods. 

The revision of DOT’s classification 

system eliminated Classes A, B, C, and 

blasting agents, and adopted the UN 

classification system that assigns all 

explosives to Class 1. This UN 

classification system is called the 

Globally Harmonized System of 

Classification and Labeling of Chemicals 

(GHS) (Ex. 2–2). The system further 

categorizes Class 1 explosives into 

Divisions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6. 

This classification system includes 

blasting agents defined as explosives, 

and assigns them to Division 1.5. 

ATF’s classification of explosive 

materials at 27 CFR 555.202 is different 

from both the former and current DOT 

classification systems and places 

explosive materials in three categories: 

high, low, and blasting agents. In 

addition, a list of explosive materials is 

to be published at least annually by ATF 

(see 27 CFR 555.23). 

The use of different explosives 

classification systems by DOT, ATF, and 

OSHA is confusing and burdensome for 

the regulated community. Therefore, 

OSHA is proposing to adopt the DOT 

UN-based classification system as part 

of the definition of explosives as 

applied in § 1910.109(b). The use of this 

globally-harmonized system enhances 

clarity and reduces confusion, thereby 

resulting in greater understanding and 

increased safety in the use of explosives. 

Stakeholders have indicated the desire 

that other departments and agencies 

should also consider adoption of the 

DOT UN-based classification system to 

reduce the burden for and 

misunderstanding within the industry. 

Another change in the definition of 

explosives in the proposed standard is 

the specific inclusion of blasting agents 

and pyrotechnics. Since blasting agents 

and pyrotechnics are considered 

explosives by DOT and are listed in the 

ATF list of explosive materials, they 

should be included in the OSHA 

definition of explosives. There is no 

significant impact expected from this 

change since, in both the existing and 

proposed standards, the manufacture of 

blasting agents is excluded and the 

manufacture of pyrotechnics is covered 

by the PSM requirements (see existing 

standard §§ 1910.109(k)(2) and (3) and 

proposed standard §§ 1910.109(a)(2) and 

(b)). 

The following conversion table has 

been developed to illustrate the 

differences between the existing 

(labeled ‘‘Current OSHA Classification’’) 

and the proposed (labeled ‘‘Proposed 

OSHA/Current DOT Classification’’) 

classification systems and a similar 

table would be inserted at the end of the 

proposed definition of ‘‘explosives’’. 

CLASSIFICATION CONVERSION TABLE

Proposed OSHA/ 

current DOT classification 

Current OSHA 

classification 

Division 1.1 ............... Class A explosives. 

Division 1.2 ............... Class A or Class B 

explosives. 

Division 1.3 ............... Class B explosives. 

Division 1.4 ............... Class C explosives. 

Division 1.5 ............... Blasting agents. 

Division 1.6 ............... No applicable hazard 

class. 

Pyrotechnics. OSHA would define 

this term to mean any combustible or 

explosive compositions or 

manufactured articles designed and 

prepared for the purpose of producing 

audible or visible effects by combustion, 

deflagration, or detonation, which are 

commonly referred to as fireworks. This 

proposed definition is the same as the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18802 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

existing definition in (a)(10) except that 

it includes the additional words ‘‘by 

combustion, deflagration, or 

detonation.’’ These words have been 

added to the proposed definition to 

make it consistent with the definitions 

used by ATF and NFPA for fireworks. 

ATF defines fireworks in 27 CFR 

555.11 (Ex. 2–4) as ‘‘any composition or 

device designed to produce a visible or 

an audible effect by combustion, 

deflagration, or detonation, and which 

meets the definition of ‘consumer 

fireworks’ or ‘display fireworks’ as 

defined by this section.’’ NFPA 

similarly defines fireworks in paragraph 

3.3.30 in the 2003 edition of NFPA 1124 

(Ex. 2–19) as ‘‘any composition or 

device for the purpose of producing a 

visible or an audible effect by 

combustion, deflagration, or detonation, 

and that meets the definition of 

consumer fireworks or display fireworks 

as set forth in this code.’’

The DOT regulations do not explicitly 

define fireworks. However, like the 

proposed standard, fireworks may be 

classified under the DOT regulations (49 

CFR 172.101) as Division 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 

or 1.4 explosives, depending on the 

properties of the composition. 

Semiconductive hose. OSHA is 

proposing to define this term to mean a 

hose with an electrical resistance high 

enough to limit flow of stray electric 

currents to safe levels, yet not so high 

as to prevent drainage of static electric 

charges to ground; or a hose of not more 

than two megohms resistance over its 

entire length and of not less than 1,000 

ohms per foot. This definition has been 

modified from the existing requirement 

in paragraph (a)(12) which states: 

‘‘Semiconductive hose—a hose with an 

electrical resistance high enough to 

limit flow of stray electric currents to 

safe levels, yet not so high as to prevent 

drainage of static electric charges to 

ground; hose of not more than 2 

megohms resistance over its entire 

length and of not less than 5,000 ohms 

per foot meets the requirement.’’ The 

modification of the existing text 

requirement of ‘‘not less than 5,000 

ohms per foot resistance’’ to the 

proposed text of ‘‘not less than 1,000 

ohms per foot resistance’’ is 

recommended in the Petition (Ex. 2–1) 

and is also in accordance with the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) 

definition. In addition, after further 

discussion on this issue, IME 

maintained that the use of 1,000 ohms 

has become the accepted practice in the 

industry and it is a better balance in 

terms of safety to ensure the hose does 

not become electrically charged and 

create a source of static electricity. A 

resistance that is too high can cause the 

hose to become electrically charged and 

become a dangerous source of static 

electricity. The proposed reduction in 

resistance to 1,000 ohms creates a safer 

work environment by eliminating the 

possibility of a static charge that can 

create a spark at the blast hole. At the 

same time, anything less than 1,000 

ohms may be conductive, which could 

create a current path from the vehicle 

directly to the drill hole. 

Smokeless propellants. This term 

would be defined by OSHA to mean 

solid propellants, commonly called 

smokeless powders, used in small arms 

ammunition, cannon, rockets, and 

propellant-actuated power devices. This 

proposed definition is essentially the 

same as the existing definition in 

paragraph (a)(15). However, the phrase 

‘‘in the trade’’ immediately after the 

phrase ‘‘commonly called smokeless 

propellants’’ in the existing definition 

has been eliminated in the proposed 

definition because it is unnecessary. 

Water gels or slurries. OSHA is 

proposing that this term be defined as 

explosives that contain substantial 

proportions of water, oxidizers, and fuel 

with a cross-linking agent, a gelling, or 

a thickening agent added. Water gels or 

slurries, depending on their properties, 

are classified as Division 1.1 explosives 

or Division 1.5 blasting agents. This 

definition is a plain language rewrite of 

the existing definition in (a)(18) with no 

substantive change. The proposed 

change is consistent with the definition 

of water gel in paragraph 3.3.58 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5), and 

is based upon a recommendation in the 

Petition (Ex. 2–1). 

The definitions in the existing 

standard for the following terms have 

not been included in the proposed 

standard because the terms are not used 

in the proposed standard: Explosiveactuated power devices, highway, 

special industrial explosive devices, and 

DOT specifications. 

Existing paragraph (a)(7), which 

reads: ‘‘Motor vehicle—any selfpropelled vehicle, truck, tractor, 

semitrailer, or truck-full trailers used for 

the transportation of freight over public 

highways,’’ has not been retained in the 

proposal and has been replaced with the 

term ‘‘vehicle’’ as part of the plain 

language rewrite to eliminate the 

confusion created in the existing 

standard which uses several different 

terms to describe a vehicle. 

The definitions of the following terms 

have remained the same in the proposed 

standard as in the existing standard: 

Magazine, propellant-actuated power 

device, small arms ammunition, small 

arms ammunition primers, and special 

industrial explosive materials. 

Paragraph (c) General provisions. As 

OSHA reviewed the existing standard, it 

appeared that many of the provisions 

contained in other paragraphs of 

existing § 1910.109 were more suitably 

placed under the general provisions in 

proposed paragraph (c) since they have 

broad applicability. As a result, 

proposed paragraph (c) contains general 

provisions that apply to all explosives 

activities, including a number of 

provisions that were previously located 

in other paragraphs in the existing rule. 

Paragraph (c)(1) of the proposal 

addresses explosive hazards. Paragraph 

(c)(1)(i) would require the employer to 

ensure that explosives are 

manufactured, transported, sold, 

handled, and used in a safe manner. 

This requirement is essentially the same 

as and replaces existing paragraph (b)(1) 

except that, unlike the existing 

paragraph, the requirements for safe 

manufacture and sale of explosives are 

included in the proposed paragraph to 

be consistent with the scope of the 

standard in proposed paragraph (a), as 

described earlier. In addition, the 

proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) will not 

apply to storage of explosives. The 

reason for this is explained in the 

OSHA’s Authority to Regulate 

discussion above. 

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 explosives. This 

proposed paragraph is based on a 

recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2–

1). 

Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) would require the 

employer to ensure that blasting 

equipment or explosives that are unsafe 

due to deterioration, damage, or other 

causes are not used, and are disposed of 

by a person experienced in the safe 

disposal of such materials as soon as 

possible in accordance with 

manufacturers’ recommendations. This 

paragraph is derived from and replaces 

existing paragraph (c)(5)(v) which deals 

with disposal of deteriorated explosives 

in storage and (e)(2)(iii) which prohibits 

the use of deteriorated or damaged 

explosives or blasting equipment. The 

two existing requirements were 

combined into one requirement in the 

proposal covering explosives that may 

have deteriorated or been damaged to 

the point where they have become 

unstable and may be unsafe. This 

requirement is also consistent with 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18803 

paragraph 9.6.3 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) for the disposal of 

explosive materials. 

Paragraph (c)(1)(iv) addresses 

housekeeping and would require the 

employer to ensure that proper 

housekeeping is performed to prevent 

hazardous accumulations of explosives, 

oxidizers, or fuels and other sensitizers 

in, on, or in close proximity to facilities 

and equipment containing explosives. 

This would include any amount of 

accumulation that could potentially 

create a hazardous situation resulting in 

a fire or explosion. This is a new 

requirement and was recommended by 

the Petition (Ex. 2–1) to ensure that 

proper housekeeping is maintained to 

prevent an explosion. 

Paragraph (c)(1)(v) would require the 

employer to ensure that all equipment is 

maintained in good working condition. 

In addition, paragraph (c)(1)(vi) would 

require a program of systematic 

maintenance of equipment be 

conducted on a regular schedule. 

Proposed paragraphs (c)(1)(v) and (vi) 

contain similar requirements as existing 

paragraph (h)(3)(v)(b). However, while 

the requirements in existing paragraph 

(h)(3)(v)(b) only apply to water gels, the 

requirements in proposed paragraphs 

(c)(1)(v) and (vi) would apply to all 

explosives covered by the proposed 

standard. OSHA believes it is important 

for employee safety that equipment 

involved with any explosives, not just 

water gels, is maintained in good 

working condition. The proposed 

paragraphs have also been re-written in 

clearer and more concise language. In 

addition, the proposed requirements are 

generally consistent with the 

requirements in paragraph 6.3.5(2) of 

the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) 

for explosives mixing facilities. 

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 requirement is a result 

of combining and replacing 

requirements in existing paragraphs 

(e)(1)(i) and (g)(6)(iv) that deal with 

hazards associated with intoxicating 

liquors, narcotics, or other dangerous 

drugs. This is another example of where 

OSHA is proposing to combine two 

similar requirements into one clearer, 

more concise requirement. Since this 

proposed requirement applies to all 

explosives activities, OSHA is 

proposing to relocate it in the general 

requirements paragraph. Existing 

paragraph (e)(1)(i) also addresses the 

hazards of smoking, matches, and flame 

near explosives but these issues are 

dealt with in proposed paragraph (c)(3). 

Paragraph (c)(1)(viii) would require 

the employer to ensure that no person 

enters a facility containing explosives or 

a blast site unless authorized by the 

employer to enter the facility. This is a 

new requirement that was 

recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2–1) 

and is intended to prevent unnecessary 

entrance of employees into areas where 

explosives are present. Due to the nature 

of explosives, it is imperative that only 

employees necessary to perform 

required work are allowed to enter the 

facility or area containing explosives. In 

addition, in the event of an accidental 

explosion, this requirement would limit 

the number of persons exposed to the 

hazard. The proposal recognizes the fact 

that there may be occasions where other 

persons have a legitimate need to be in 

these areas and the proposed wording 

gives the employer sufficient flexibility 

to allow others to enter when necessary. 

Such situations may occur when an 

employer needs to conduct an 

environmental site tour, a customer or 

regulator site tour, an internal contractor 

audit, a senior management safety 

inspection, or other similar 

circumstances. 

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. There are a number of 

situations, however, where the use of 

such substances may be appropriate. For 

example, isopropyl alcohol is used in 

some instances to clean articles. For 

storage magazines, ATF requirements in 

27 CFR 555.215 (Ex. 2–4) require 

volatile materials be kept at least 50 feet 

from outdoor magazines. 

The requirements in paragraph (c)(2) 

of the proposed standard address the 

electrical hazards associated with 

explosives. Requirements for electrical 

protection are scattered throughout the 

existing § 1910.109 standard. Those 

requirements have been consolidated 

into one set of requirements in 

paragraph (c)(2) of the proposed 

standard. This will more clearly identify 

to employers the requirements that must 

be followed to prevent fires or 

explosions due to electrical hazards. 

OSHA notes that the requirements in 

proposed paragraph (c)(2) supplement 

the general electrical requirements of 29 

CFR part 1910 Subpart S. Employers 

must, therefore, follow both the Subpart 

S requirements for all explosives 

facilities and the additional 

requirements proposed in paragraph 

(c)(2). 

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 that was 

recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2–1). 

It is consistent with the requirements in 

§ 1910.308(c) for special electrical 

systems and would require a remote, 

electrical power shut-off switch to each 

part of a facility containing explosives. 

It is important that, in the event of an 

evacuation due to a fire or explosion in 

part of a facility, the electrical power to 

that part of the facility can be turned off 

remotely to prevent any further 

problems caused by energized circuits 

such as an electrical short circuit. A 

‘‘part of a facility containing explosives’’

would include any building on a site 

where explosives are manufactured, 

handled or stored. 

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. A 

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 the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18804 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

requirements 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 staticsensitive and do not require protection. 

IME further argues that, since explosives 

manufacturing is subject to the 

requirements of OSHA’s PSM standard 

at § 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 standard. 

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. 

Issue #3: Do some or all types of 

facilities containing explosives require 

static electricity protection systems? If 

you think such protection systems are 

necessary, please explain when and 

why they are necessary. Should 

different kinds of protection systems be 

used in different circumstances, such as 

in different kinds of facilities, 

explosives, or geographic locations? 

What would be the costs associated with 

requiring static electricity protection 

systems? To what extent are such 

protection systems currently being 

used? What benefit in employee safety, 

if any, would be gained from using such 

protection systems? Are there any 

disadvantages to requiring facilities 

covered by this standard to install static 

electricity protection systems? 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3) contains 

requirements that address fire and 

explosion hazards. Some of the 

requirements in paragraph (c)(3) are 

new and others are requirements from 

existing § 1910.109 that have been 

consolidated, clarified, and moved to 

this general fire and explosion 

prevention paragraph. The purpose of 

this consolidation is to make it easier for 

users of the standard to know what fire 

and explosion prevention regulations 

are required by combining them into 

one paragraph. 

Paragraph (c)(3)(i) would require the 

employer to ensure that explosives are 

handled in a manner that minimizes the 

spillage and jarring, the generation of 

explosive dust, and the creation of 

friction in or in close proximity to 

explosives. This is a new requirement 

that is based on a recommendation in 

the Petition (Ex. 2–1) and OSHA 

believes it is an important precaution 

for handling and moving shock and 

friction sensitive explosive materials. 

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)? 

Existing paragraphs (c)(5)(vii), 

(g)(2)(vi)(d), and (g)(5)(iii) also deal with 

smoking and the hazards of firearms 

near storage magazines and blasting 

agent mixing plants. The proposed 

standard separates these two concepts 

and deals with them as individual 

requirements in proposed paragraphs 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18805 

(c)(3)(iii)(B) and (C). Proposed 

paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(B) would require 

the employer to ensure that smoking is 

only permitted in authorized smoking 

areas. This requirement is a change from 

the existing requirements that allow 

smoking as long as it is done more than 

50 feet away from particular activities or 

operations. Under the proposed 

requirement, the employer would have 

to ensure that smoking areas are a safe 

distance from explosives. 

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 or blast 

sites except as required for work duties. 

This proposed requirement is different 

from the existing requirements which 

prohibit firearms within 50 feet of 

storage magazines and blasting agent 

mixing plants. The proposed 

requirement would prohibit firearms at 

facilities containing explosives and at 

blast sites. In addition, as recommended 

by the Petition (Ex. 2–1), the proposed 

requirement would prohibit 

ammunition and similar articles along 

with firearms. The requirement would 

allow firearms, ammunition, or similar 

articles to be carried by guards as 

needed to perform their work duties. 

Paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(D) would require 

the employer to ensure that vehicles are 

not refueled within 50 feet of a facility 

containing explosives or a blast site. 

This is a new requirement based on a 

recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2–

1). A fire or explosion caused by 

refueling a vehicle could in turn cause 

explosives to explode if they are too 

near to the refueling vehicle. Proposed 

paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(D) addresses this 

hazard by requiring a safe 50-foot 

distance between explosives and 

refueling vehicles. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(4) covers 

general maintenance and repairs. These 

requirements deal with the possibility of 

maintenance or repair work being a 

potential cause of an explosion. 

Paragraph (c)(4)(i) would require the 

employer to ensure that, before any 

maintenance or repairs are started in or 

in close proximity to any facility 

containing explosives or a blast site, the 

immediate area surrounding the 

maintenance or repair work is free of 

explosives, including residues and dusts 

containing explosives. The removal of 

explosives and the cleaning of the 

surrounding area is a basic precaution 

necessary to prevent an explosion. 

Maintenance and repair work may 

create sparking and may require the use 

of welding equipment. Such activities 

could be a source of ignition for 

explosives and their remnants, 

including residues and dusts. This 

proposed safety requirement is based on 

a recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 

2–1). OSHA also believes such cleaning 

around maintenance or repair work to 

be standard industry practice. 

The proposal does not specify a 

distance around the maintenance or 

repair work that must be cleaned. The 

employer must make the determination 

of what distance is safe based on the 

situation. For hot work operations, 

whether done for maintenance, repair, 

or for any other reason, the employer 

must also comply with proposed 

paragraph (c)(4)(ii), which requires the 

employer to ensure that the fire 

prevention and protection requirements 

in § 1910.252(a) and proposed 

paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section are 

implemented prior to beginning hot 

work operations. The requirements in 

§ 1910.252(a) provide general rules for 

welding operations. In addition, 

proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii) would 

require that any hot work operations, 

since they are fire hazards, be performed 

50 feet or more away from explosives or 

facilities containing explosives. 

Therefore, hot work operations may not 

be performed inside or within 50 feet of 

facilities containing explosives. 

One area that continues to create 

confusion in the explosives industry is 

labeling requirements. The existing 

§ 1910.109 standard does not contain 

labeling requirements. However, labels 

are required by the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) for the 

transportation of packages or 

containment devices that contain 

hazardous materials meeting one or 

more of DOT’s hazard class definitions 

(see 49 CFR part 172, subpart E) (Ex. 2–

8). In addition, OSHA’s Hazard 

Communication Standard, 29 CFR 

1910.1200, requires labels for hazardous 

chemicals. Specifically, 

§ 1910.1200(f)(1) requires the chemical 

manufacturer, importer, or distributor to 

ensure that each container of hazardous 

chemicals is labeled, tagged, or marked 

prior to leaving the workplace. The 

information must contain the identity of 

the hazardous chemical(s), appropriate 

hazard warnings, and the name and 

address of the chemical manufacturer, 

importer, or other responsible party. In 

addition, § 1910.1200(f)(5) requires the 

employer to ensure that each container 

of hazardous chemicals in the 

workplace is labeled, tagged, or marked 

with information about the identity and 

hazards of the chemicals in the 

containers. In both cases, the 

requirements are performance-oriented 

and do not specify the design or 

appearance of the label. 

In an effort to clarify the labeling 

requirements for explosives, OSHA is 

clarifying in proposed paragraph 

(c)(5)(i) that the employer must 

communicate hazards associated with 

explosives in accordance with the 

requirements of the Hazard 

Communication Standard, § 1910.1200. 

This simply clarifies that packages of 

explosives are required to be labeled in 

accordance with § 1901.1200. In 

addition, the proposed requirement 

specifies that, where labeling of 

explosives is required under 

§ 1910.1200, Globally Harmonized 

System of Classification and Labeling of 

Chemicals (GHS) (Ex. 2–2) labels must 

be used for the different divisions of 

explosives. This makes the labeling 

requirements in the proposed standard 

more consistent with the DOT labeling 

requirements. To make it easier to 

comply with the proposed label 

requirements, in addition to describing 

the contents of the labels, OSHA has 

proposed to include pictures of the 

required GHS labels. The labels would 

have a signal word, a hazard statement, 

and either a division designation or a 

pictogram. The pictogram would be 

black on a white background with a red 

frame sufficiently large to be clearly 

visible. 

In practical terms, the label required 

by the proposed standard depends on 

the status of the container, package, box, 

or bag. For transport containers, a GHS 

label would not be required where a 

DOT label is used (see GHS document 

paragraph 1.4.10.5.1) (Ex. 2–2). Thus, a 

truck containing explosives would be 

placarded on the outside according to 

DOT requirements, and all transport 

containers inside the truck would need 

to be provided with a DOT label. Any 

packages, boxes, or bags within the 

transport containers in the truck would 

require labels in accordance with 

OSHA’s Hazard Communication 

standard (§ 1910.1200) and proposed 

paragraph (c)(5)(i) would require the 

labels to be GHS. In addition, all inplant containers, packages, boxes, or 

bags would be required to follow 

§ 1910.1200 requirements and thus 

would be required to have the GHS 

labels required by proposed paragraph 

(c)(5)(i). 

In effect, proposed paragraph (c)(5)(i) 

is not adding a label requirement, but 

merely specifying the type of label that 

must be present for compliance with 

§ 1910.1200. Labels required for 

compliance with § 1910.1200 and those 

required by DOT will still be necessary. 

Issue #5: This proposed paragraph 

does not contain a phase-in period of 

time for compliance with the GHS label 

requirements. The Agency seeks input 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18806 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

on whether employers need a phase-in 

period to comply with the new 

requirement of proposed paragraph 

(c)(5)(i) that requires labels be GHS 

labels? If so, how long should the phasein period be to allow employers 

sufficient time to become familiar with 

and have the capability to provide these 

labels on containers? 

In addition, OSHA is aware that a 

United Nations Sub-Committee is 

considering adding unstable explosives 

to the GHS on the classification of 

explosives. They claim that even though 

unstable explosives are precluded from 

transport, they may occur in the 

workplace and need to be classified so 

that they can be regulated. The Agency 

seeks information on unstable 

explosives in the commercial explosives 

industry, where these unstable 

explosives occur, and what the hazards 

are? Are there hazards from unstable 

explosives that OSHA should regulate? 

Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(ii) 

incorporates the already existing 

requirement that the employer ensure 

that DOT markings, placards, and labels 

are retained in accordance with 

§ 1910.1201. The purpose of proposed 

paragraph (c)(5)(ii) is to clarify employer 

requirements concerning the use of DOT 

markings, placards and labels on 

packages, vehicles, and freight cars or 

containers containing explosives. Under 

§ 1910.1201, any employer who receives 

a package of explosives which is 

required to be marked, labeled, or 

placarded in accordance with DOT’s 

hazardous materials regulations (49 CFR 

parts 171 through 180) must retain those 

markings, labels, and placards on the 

package until the packaging is 

sufficiently cleaned of residue and 

purged of vapors to remove any 

potential hazards. Section 1910.1201 

also requires that any employer who 

receives a vehicle, freight car, or 

container that is required to be marked 

or placarded in accordance with DOT’s 

hazardous materials regulations must 

retain those markings and placards on 

the vehicle, freight car, or container 

until the explosives that require the 

marking or placarding are sufficiently 

removed to prevent any potential 

hazards. However, note that under 

§ 1910.1201(d), for non-bulk packages 

containing explosives that will not be 

reshipped, the requirements of 

§ 1910.1201 are met if a label or other 

acceptable marking is affixed in 

accordance with the Hazard 

Communication standard (see 

§ 1910.1201(d)). Under § 1910.1201(e), 

non-bulk packaging is defined at 49 CFR 

171.8 as packaging which has: (1) a 

maximum capacity of 119 gallons (450 

L) or less as a receptacle for a liquid; (2) 

a maximum net mass of 882 pounds 

(400 kg) or less and a maximum 

capacity of 119 gallons (450 L) or less 

as a receptacle for a solid; or (3) a water 

capacity of 1000 pounds (454 kg) or less 

as a receptacle for a gas as defined in 49 

CFR 173.115. 

Paragraph (d) Storage of ammonium 

nitrate. As discussed in the preamble 

above, ‘‘OSHA’s Authority to Regulate,’’

OSHA is proposing to withdraw the 

provisions in existing paragraph (c) for 

the storage of explosives because they 

are preempted by ATF’s regulations 

covering the storage of explosives (see 

27 CFR part 555). In the proposed 

standard, OSHA proposes to continue to 

regulate the storage of ammonium 

nitrate (which is not an explosive) and 

the storage of small arms ammunition, 

primers, and smokeless propellants 

(which are not preempted by ATF’s 

regulations). 

Proposed paragraph (d) sets forth 

requirements for the storage of 

ammonium nitrate. The existing 

requirements for ammonium nitrate 

storage in § 1910.109(i) are based on the 

1970 edition of NFPA 490. The 

proposed requirements are based on the 

2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6). The 

Petition (Ex. 2–1) did not recommend 

any changes to the existing 

requirements for the storage of 

ammonium nitrate. 

OSHA is proposing to remove 

requirements from existing paragraph 

(i)(1) that are either unnecessary or 

outdated. Specifically, the requirements 

in existing paragraphs (i)(1)(i)(b) and (c) 

would be removed. Existing paragraph 

(i)(1)(i)(b) states that the regulations 

addressing the storage of ammonium 

nitrate do not apply to the 

transportation of ammonium nitrate. 

OSHA has concluded that this 

requirement is inappropriate because 

provisions covering the storage of 

ammonium nitrate are clearly different 

from provisions covering the 

transportation of ammonium nitrate. 

Existing paragraph (i)(1)(c) states that 

paragraph (i) covering the storage of 

ammonium nitrate does not apply to the 

storage of ammonium nitrate under the 

jurisdiction of and in compliance with 

the regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard 

at 46 CFR parts 146 to 149. OSHA 

proposes to eliminate this requirement 

from the proposed standard because it is 

inaccurate and not related to the storage 

of ammonium nitrate. Parts 146 and 149 

of the U.S. Coast Guard regulations are 

reserved parts that do not contain any 

regulations. Parts 147 and 148 contain 

regulations covering the transportation 

of hazardous materials on ships. In 

particular, 46 CFR 148.03–11 and 33 

CFR 126.28 describes stowage 

requirements for Ammonium Nitrate 

onboard vessels and facilities 

respectively. Stowage is the general 

term used for ‘‘storage’’ onboard ships 

and waterfront facilities under the 

regulations found in 46 CFR part 148 

and 33 CFR part 126. 

Existing paragraph (i)(1)(ii)(b) states 

that the standards for ammonium nitrate 

(nitrous oxide grade) are those found in 

the ‘‘Specifications, Properties, and 

Recommendations for Packaging, 

Transportation, Storage, and Use of 

Ammonium Nitrate,’’ available from the 

Compressed Gas Association, Inc., 

which is incorporated by reference as 

specified in § 1910.6. The purpose and 

intent of the requirement is not clear. 

First, this existing paragraph merely 

references a document containing 

standards for nitrous oxide grade 

ammonium nitrate. It does not explain 

how such standards should be applied. 

Second, nitrous oxide grade ammonium 

nitrate is not used in the manufacture of 

explosives. It is not necessary to provide 

references in § 1910.109 for grades of 

ammonium nitrate that are not used in 

the explosives industry. Since this 

requirement is both unnecessary and 

confusing, OSHA proposes to eliminate 

it and its associated incorporation by 

reference in the proposed standard. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1) sets out the 

applicability of the requirements for the 

storage of ammonium nitrate. Proposed 

paragraph (d)(1)(i) states that proposed 

paragraph (d) applies to the storage of 

ammonium nitrate in quantities of 1,000 

pounds (454 kg) or more to be used in 

the manufacture of explosives. Proposed 

paragraph (d)(1)(i) replaces existing 

paragraph (i)(2)(i) with a plain-language 

re-write to clarify that OSHA intends 

the requirements to apply to ammonium 

nitrate that will be used in the 

manufacture of explosives and that the 

requirements apply specifically to the 

storage of ammonium nitrate. OSHA is 

retaining the 1,000 pounds or more 

quantity for inclusion in proposed 

paragraph (d)(1)(i). Ammonium nitrate 

in quantities of 1,000 pounds or more 

must be stored according to proposed 

paragraph (d). This designated limit is 

consistent with paragraph 1.3 of the 

2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6) and 

is considered an acceptable threshold in 

the explosives industry. 

Issue #6: OSHA seeks specific 

comments on whether the storage 

requirements for ammonium nitrate 

should be triggered by specific 

quantities. If so, please explain what 

those quantities should be and why. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) revises 

existing paragraph (i)(1)(i)(a) to clarify 

that paragraph (d) does not apply to 

ammonium nitrate that can be classified 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18807 

1Existing paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(c) references NFPA 

203M–1970 (Ex. 2–14) to determine whether the 

roof meets a rating of Class C or better. This is an 

incorrect reference since NFPA 203M–1970 does 

not define a Class C roof covering. NFPA 256 

actually provides the test methods to determine the 

rating of a roof. The 2000 edition of NFPA 203 

(NFPA 203M was re-designated as NFPA 203) (Ex. 

2–15) references paragraphs 3.1.1 and 3.1.5 in 

NFPA 256 for the test methods to determine the 

classification of roof coverings. 

as an explosive. As discussed earlier, 

the storage of ammonium nitrate that 

can be classified as an explosive would 

be covered by the storage requirements 

for explosives in ATF’s regulations (27 

CFR part 555). 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2) addresses 

ammonium nitrate stored in buildings. 

Most of the requirements in the 

paragraph are consistent with 

paragraphs in the existing standard and 

are also consistent with the 2002 edition 

of NFPA 490. Any proposed 

requirements that differ from the 

existing requirements are discussed 

below. 

Paragraph (d)(2)(i) states that 

buildings or structures constructed and 

used to store ammonium nitrate since 

before August 27, 1971, and that do not 

meet the requirements of proposed 

paragraph (d)(2), are deemed to be 

acceptable for the continued storage of 

ammonium nitrate, provided such use 

does not endanger the safety of 

employees. To fall within this 

exception, the building or structure 

must have been used to store 

ammonium nitrate from before August 

27, 1971, until the effective date of this 

proposed standard. This proposed 

paragraph is consistent with and would 

replace existing paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(e) 

which allows continued use of 

buildings or structures built and used to 

store ammonium nitrate prior to the 

August 27, 1971 effective date of the 

existing standard (36 FR 10466), 

provided that such use does not 

endanger the safety of employees. 

Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) would require 

the employer to ensure that ammonium 

nitrate is stored in a manner that 

minimizes as far as possible fire and 

explosion hazards, including exposure 

to toxic vapors from burning or 

decomposing ammonium nitrate. This 

proposed requirement is similar to 

existing paragraph (i)(2)(ii) except that it 

covers all quantities of ammonium 

nitrate of 1,000 pounds or more stored 

in a building, whereas existing (i)(2)(ii) 

and paragraph 4.1.4 of the 2002 edition 

of NFPA 490 limit the requirement to 

‘‘large quantity storage’’ of ammonium 

nitrate. 

It is not clear what amount of 

ammonium nitrate would be considered 

a large quantity. Since ‘‘large quantity’’

is undefined in NFPA 490, OSHA 

believes it is necessary and appropriate 

to propose a more finite quantity to 

assure adequate employee protection. 

As a result, OSHA is proposing to apply 

this requirement to all quantities of 

ammonium nitrate covered by proposed 

paragraph (d). Other minor revisions 

have been added that are consistent 

with the plain language re-write and do 

not change the intent of the existing 

standard. 

Paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(B) and 

(d)(2)(ii)(C) would require the employer 

to ensure that storage buildings are not 

over one story in height above ground 

level and storage buildings do not have 

basements unless the basements are 

open on at least one side. These 

proposed requirements are the same as 

and replace the requirements in existing 

paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(a). To be consistent 

with maintaining one requirement per 

paragraph, the proposal replaces the 

requirements in existing paragraph 

(i)(2)(iii)(a) with two separate 

paragraphs. Both of these proposed 

requirements are similar to paragraph 

4.2.1 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 

(Ex. 2–6). 

Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(D) would require 

the employer to ensure that storage 

buildings are adequately ventilated to 

prevent unsafe heat or fume 

accumulations. This is essentially the 

same as existing paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(b), 

and paragraph 4.2.2 of the 2002 edition 

of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6) except that it 

does not contain the option that the 

building be constructed to be selfventilating in the event of a fire. The 

purpose of the self-ventilation 

requirement in existing paragraph 

(i)(2)(iii)(b) is unclear. OSHA 

understands ‘‘self-ventilating’’ to mean 

the building is equipped with automatic 

(smoke or heat operated) roof vents, 

presumably to operate prior to fire 

department arrival. Use of these types of 

vents, however, has been somewhat 

controversial over the years for general 

commodity storage. Existing paragraph 

(i)(4)(i)(a) also deals with ventilation for 

warehouses that store bulk ammonium 

nitrate. In OSHA’s continued effort in 

this proposed rule to combine duplicate 

requirements in the existing standard, 

OSHA is combining existing paragraphs 

(i)(2)(iii)(b) and (i)(4)(i)(a) in proposed 

paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(D). 

Issue #7: In proposed paragraph 

(d)(2), OSHA is requiring that the 

ventilation in storage buildings should 

prevent the accumulation of heat or 

fumes that could cause a fire rather than 

be designed to ventilate the storage 

building once a fire has started. OSHA 

requests specific comments on this 

issue, including the proposed approach 

emphasizing pre-fire safety rather than 

safety during a fire, and whether selfventilation should be required for 

buildings or structures that store 

ammonium nitrate. 

Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(E) would require 

the employer to ensure that storage 

building walls are constructed to meet 

a four-hour fire resistant rating 

whenever they face and are within 50 

feet of a combustible building, forest, 

pile of combustible materials, or other 

similar hazards. This proposed 

paragraph also would allow that, in lieu 

of a four-hour fire resistant wall, other 

equivalent means of exposure protection 

may be used. This proposed 

requirement is essentially the same as 

and replaces requirements in existing 

paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(c) except that ‘‘fireresistive construction’’ was changed to 

‘‘four-hour fire resistant rating’’ to be 

consistent with the 2002 edition of 

NFPA 490. The term ‘‘four-hour fire 

resistant rating’’ is derived from 

paragraph 4.2.3 in NFPA 490–2002, 

which requires a Type I wall for the 

exposed storage wall, and references 

NFPA 220, Standard on Types of 

Building Construction (Ex. 2–20), for a 

description of the wall to be used. Based 

on Table 3–1 of NFPA 220, OSHA has 

determined that the appropriate and 

most protective wall to be used is a fourhour fire resistant wall for protection 

against combustible materials. 

Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(F) would require 

the employer to ensure that roof 

coverings of buildings or structures used 

to store ammonium nitrate, at a 

minimum, afford a light degree of fire 

protection to the roof deck, do not slip 

from position, and do not present a 

flying brand hazard. This proposed 

requirement is equivalent to and 

replaces the similar requirement in 

existing paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(c) except 

that OSHA proposes to delete the 

reference to the NFPA standard 

contained in existing paragraph 

(i)(2)(iii)(c) and include a more 

performance based requirement 

instead.1 Circumstances may differ from 

facility to facility. OSHA has considered 

the relevant NFPA standards and has 

determined that a Class C (as defined in 

NFPA 256–2003) or better roof would 

meet the requirements of this proposed 

provision. 

Issue #8: Does paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(F) 

as proposed provide adequate guidance 

for employers to follow in providing a 

safe roof for buildings or structures used 

to store ammonium nitrate? 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(G) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that storage buildings do not exceed a 

height of 40 feet unless constructed of 

noncombustible material or adequate 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18808 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

facilities for fighting a roof fire are 

available. This proposed requirement is 

the same as and replaces existing 

paragraph (i)(4)(i)(b) except that the 

proposed requirement covers the storage 

of bulk ammonium nitrate and the 

storage of ammonium nitrate in bags, 

drums or other containers whereas the 

existing requirement only covers the 

storage of bulk ammonium nitrate. The 

proposed paragraph has also been rewritten in clearer language. In addition, 

it is consistent with paragraph 6.1.2 of 

the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6). 

Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(H) would require 

the employer to ensure that all flooring 

is of noncombustible material. 

Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(I) would require the 

employer to ensure that all flooring is 

protected against impregnation by 

ammonium nitrate. Paragraph 

(d)(2)(ii)(J) would require the employer 

to ensure that no flooring has drains or 

piping into which any molten 

ammonium nitrate could flow and be 

confined in the event of fire. These 

proposed requirements are the same as 

and replace existing paragraph 

(i)(2)(iii)(d) except that they have been 

separated into individual provisions 

and re-written in clearer and more 

concise language. The proposed 

requirements are also consistent with 

paragraph 4.2.4 of the 2002 edition of 

NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6). 

Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(K) would require 

the employer to ensure that storage 

buildings are dry and free from water 

seepage. This proposed requirement has 

been re-written in clearer and more 

concise language and replaces existing 

paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(f). Proposed 

paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(K) is also consistent 

with paragraph 4.2.6 of the 2002 edition 

of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6). 

Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(L) would require 

the employer to ensure that 

unauthorized persons do not enter an 

ammonium nitrate storage area. This 

proposed requirement is the same as 

and replaces existing paragraph 

(i)(6)(iii) except that it has been rewritten in more succinct and 

understandable language. 

Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(M) would require 

the employer to ensure that ammonium 

nitrate and storage buildings containing 

ammonium nitrate are located at a safe 

distance from readily combustible fuels. 

This proposed requirement is the same 

as and replaces existing paragraph 

(g)(5)(v) except that it has been rewritten in clearer language. The 

proposed paragraph is also consistent 

with paragraph 5.5.2 of the 2001 edition 

of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). OSHA believes 

that it is important for employee safety 

to keep combustible fuels away from all 

ammonium nitrate, not just piles of 

ammonium nitrate (as in the existing 

requirement). 

Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(N) would require 

the employer to ensure that in areas 

where lightning storms are prevalent, 

lightning protection systems are 

provided. Lightning protection systems 

meeting the safety requirements found 

in Appendix K of National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) 780–

2004, Standard for the Installation of 

Lightning Protection Systems), or other 

equally protective criteria would meet 

the requirements of this provision. 

This proposed requirement is similar 

to and replaces existing paragraph 

(i)(6)(ii) except that the reference to 

NFPA has been updated, as discussed 

below, and compliance options 

broadened. 

OSHA found the requirement in 

existing paragraph (i)(6)(ii) may be 

confusing and difficult for employers to 

comply with for two reasons. First, the 

phrase ‘‘in areas where lightning storms 

are prevalent’’ is somewhat vague. 

Without clarification of where these 

areas are, the Agency believes this 

requirement may be difficult to comply 

with and difficult for OSHA to enforce. 

Second, the existing requirement also 

refers to NFPA 78–1968, Lightning 

Protection Code (Ex. 2–11), which 

appears to be problematic as well as 

outdated. When reviewing this NFPA 

document, OSHA found it difficult to 

determine how lightning protection for 

explosives is covered by NFPA 78–1968. 

In the NFPA 78–1968 document, 

Section 20, paragraph 2001 states that 

the code does not apply to ‘‘explosives 

manufacturing buildings and 

magazines.’’

The current Lightning Protection 

Code, NFPA 780–2004 (Ex. 2–10) (in 

1992 the numerical designation of the 

code was changed from NFPA 78 to 

NFPA 780), is similarly confusing in its 

application to explosives. The scope of 

NFPA 780–2004 states in paragraph 

1.1.2(1) that the document does not 

cover lightning protection system 

installation requirements for explosives 

manufacturing buildings and magazines. 

However, in an explanatory note, the 

reason given for the exclusion is that 

these structures need special 

consideration because the contents of 

the structures are sensitive to arc or 

spark ignition. The note goes on to 

direct the reader to Appendix K of 

NFPA 780–2004 for guidance on 

protection of such structures. Based on 

this, it appears that NFPA made a 

determination to add guidance for 

lightning protection for explosives 

facilities after 1968 and those guidelines 

were placed in an Appendix K to NFPA 

780–2004. It also appears that even 

though the scope of NFPA 780–2004 

excludes explosives facilities, the 

standard does contain requirements for 

lightning protection at explosives 

facilities in its Appendix K. 

Therefore, proposed paragraph 

(d)(2)(ii)(N) specifically indicates that 

Appendix K of NFPA 780–2004 or other 

equally protective criteria can be used 

for guidance on installing a lightning 

protection system. OSHA believes this 

will clarify the applicability of NFPA 

780–2004. However, the systems 

identified in NFPA 780–2004 Appendix 

K are not the only systems that can be 

used. They are identified for purposes of 

providing guidance to employers on 

possible systems that meet the 

requirements of the proposed standard 

and employers are free to employ any 

protective systems that would afford 

equivalent protection. 

OSHA did not change the requirement 

that lightning protection be provided 

only in areas where lightning storms are 

prevalent and did not change the 

applicability to storage of ammonium 

nitrate. To make the proposed lightning 

protection requirement easier to 

understand and comply with, OSHA 

considered revising the language to 

eliminate the restriction to ‘‘areas where 

lightning storms are prevalent.’’ In 

addition, OSHA considered expanding 

the requirement’s application to all 

facilities containing explosives. This 

would mean that any existing facility 

without a lightning protection system 

would need to be retrofitted with a 

system. 

These changes have not been 

included in this proposed rule because 

OSHA believes that additional 

information is needed in order to fully 

evaluate the potential impact of such 

changes on affected facilities. The 

Agency is seeking specific comments as 

described below. 

Issue #9: Should OSHA require 

lightning protection systems for any 

facility that contains ammonium nitrate 

or explosives? What would these 

systems cost? What would it cost to 

install lightning protection systems at 

facilities that currently do not have 

them? Is the meaning of the words ‘‘in 

areas where lightning storms are 

prevalent’’ in proposed paragraph 

(d)(2)(ii)(N) clear? If not, is there any 

language OSHA should consider using 

to clarify the meaning of the proposed 

provision? Should OSHA require 

lightning protection systems in all areas 

since lightning storms can occur 

anywhere? Is it appropriate for OSHA to 

refer in proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(N) 

to NFPA 780–2004 Appendix K for 

recommended methods of compliance 

for buildings storing ammonium nitrate? 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18809 

Proposed paragraph (d)(3) addresses 

the storage of ammonium nitrate in bags 

and containers and is similar to existing 

paragraph (i)(3). In proposed paragraph 

(d)(3), OSHA uses the term ‘‘containers’’

to mean any container used for the 

storage of ammonium nitrate (including 

drums). Although existing paragraph 

(i)(3) includes the term ‘‘drums,’’ the 

term is not used in any of the 

requirements that follow existing 

paragraph (i)(3). OSHA believes this 

could lead to confusion and has 

proposed, for clarity purposes, that 

drums be treated the same as other 

containers used to store ammonium 

nitrate. OSHA believes this is the intent 

of both existing paragraph (i)(3) and 

Chapter 5 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 

490. 

Paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) would require 

the employer to ensure that bags and 

containers used for ammonium nitrate 

storage are constructed in accordance 

with DOT regulations (49 CFR chapter 

I). Paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B) would require 

the employer to ensure that bags and 

containers used for ammonium nitrate 

storage are labeled in accordance with 

DOT regulations (49 CFR chapter I) or 

§ 1910.1200 regulations, as applicable. 

The proposed requirements in (d)(3)(i) 

(A) and (B) are similar to and replace 

existing paragraph (i)(3)(i)(a) except that 

they have been re-written in clearer 

language using the terms and references 

consistent with those used throughout 

this proposed rule. They are also 

consistent with paragraph 5.1 of the 

2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6). In 

addition, for ease of compliance, the 

proposed requirements were revised 

into two separate subparagraphs, one 

covering the construction of the bags 

and containers used for ammonium 

nitrate storage and the other for the 

labeling of the bags and containers. This 

clarifies that the referenced DOT 

regulations include both construction 

and labeling criteria and, to be 

consistent with proposed paragraph 

(c)(5)(i), the labeling requirements in 

proposed paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B) include 

compliance with § 1910.1200, as 

applicable. 

Proposed paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(A) and 

(d)(3)(i)(B) are not intended to cover 

bags or containers used for the 

temporary holding of ammonium nitrate 

during the manufacture of explosives. If 

a bag or container is used to temporarily 

hold ammonium nitrate during the 

manufacturing of explosives, it is not 

considered storage. Since the temporary 

holding of material during the 

manufacturing process is not considered 

storage, OSHA is proposing not to retain 

existing paragraph (i)(3)(i)(b) which 

excludes containers used in the actual 

manufacturing of explosives from 

compliance with existing paragraph 

(i)(3)(i)(a). 

Paragraph (d)(3)(ii) would require the 

employer to ensure that bags and 

containers of ammonium nitrate are not 

placed into storage when the 

temperature of the ammonium nitrate 

exceeds 130 °F. This proposed 

requirement is essentially the same as 

and replaces existing paragraph 

(i)(3)(ii)(a) except that it has been 

rewritten in clearer language using 

terms consistent with the proposed rule. 

In addition, unlike the existing 

requirement that only applies to 

containers, the proposed requirement 

applies to both bags and containers 

since they are treated the same in the 

proposed standard. Proposed paragraph 

(d)(3)(ii) is also consistent with 

paragraph 5.2.1 of the 2002 edition of 

NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6). 

Paragraph (d)(3)(iii) would require the 

employer to ensure that bags and 

containers of ammonium nitrate are not 

stored within 30 inches of storage 

building walls and partitions. This 

proposed requirement is the same as 

and replaces existing paragraph 

(i)(3)(ii)(b) except that it also includes 

containers to be consistent with other 

requirements in proposed paragraph 

(d)(3). Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(iii) is 

also slightly different than paragraph 

5.2.2 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 

(Ex. 2–6) which only addresses bags. 

However, as stated earlier, OSHA is 

treating bags and containers in the same 

way in this proposed standard. 

Paragraph (d)(3)(iv) would require the 

employer to ensure that stacks of bags 

or containers of ammonium nitrate do 

not exceed 20 feet in height or 20 feet 

in width. Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(v) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that stacks of bags or containers of 

ammonium nitrate are limited to 50 feet 

in length unless located in a building of 

non-combustible construction or 

protected by an automatic sprinkler 

system. Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(vi) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that bags or containers of ammonium 

nitrate are not stacked within 36 inches 

of the roof or overhead supporting 

structure of the storage building. These 

three requirements are the same as and 

replace those in existing paragraph 

(i)(3)(ii)(c) except that the proposed 

requirements use the terms ‘‘stacks of 

bags or containers’’ whereas existing 

paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(c) uses the term 

‘‘piles.’’ Proposed paragraphs (d)(3)(iv), 

(v), and (vi) are also consistent with 

paragraphs 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 of the 2002 

edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6). 

Paragraph (d)(3)(vii) would require 

the employer to ensure that aisles at 

least 3-feet wide are provided to 

separate stacks of bags or containers of 

ammonium nitrate and paragraph 

(d)(3)(viii) would require the employer 

to ensure that at least one main aisle 

separating stacks of bags or containers of 

ammonium nitrate in the storage area is 

at least 4-feet wide. The purpose of this 

wider aisle requirement is to facilitate 

egress in case of an emergency. These 

proposed requirements are the same as 

and replace the requirements in existing 

paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(d) except that they 

have been rewritten in clearer language. 

In addition, the term ‘‘piles’’ in existing 

paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(d) has been replaced 

in proposed paragraph (d)(3)(vii) and 

(viii) with the phrase ‘‘stacks of bags or 

containers.’’ The proposed requirements 

are also consistent with those in 

paragraph 5.2.5 of the 2002 edition of 

NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6). 

Proposed paragraph (d)(4) addresses 

storage of bulk ammonium nitrate. 

Paragraph (d)(4)(i) would require the 

employer to ensure that bulk storage 

bins used to store ammonium nitrate are 

clean and free of materials which may 

contaminate the ammonium nitrate. The 

proposed requirement is essentially the 

same as and replaces existing paragraph 

(i)(4)(ii)(a) except that the proposed 

language uses the term ‘‘bulk storage 

bins’’ instead of just ‘‘bins.’’ OSHA 

believes the term ‘‘bulk storage bins’’

better describes the bins that are 

regulated. Proposed paragraph (d)(4)(i) 

is also consistent with paragraph 6.2.1 

of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–

6). 

Paragraph (d)(4)(ii) would require the 

employer to ensure that, to avoid 

contamination of the ammonium nitrate, 

galvanized iron, copper, lead, and zinc 

are not used in the construction of 

ammonium nitrate bulk storage bins 

unless suitably protected against the 

corrosive and reactive properties of the 

ammonium nitrate. Proposed paragraph 

(d)(4)(iii) would require the employer to 

ensure that aluminum and wooden bulk 

storage bins used to store ammonium 

nitrate are protected against ammonium 

nitrate impregnation. Proposed 

paragraph (d)(4)(iv) would require the 

employer to ensure that the partitions 

dividing stored ammonium nitrate from 

other products are constructed to 

prevent contamination of the 

ammonium nitrate with these other 

products. All three of these proposed 

requirements are essentially the same as 

and replace the requirements in existing 

paragraph (i)(4)(ii)(b). They are also 

consistent with paragraphs 6.2.2 and 

6.2.3 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 

(Ex. 2–6). To be consistent with the goal 

of specifying one requirement per 

paragraph, the proposal simply splits 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18810 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

2Existing paragraph 1910.109(i)(5)(i)(a) states 

that: ‘‘Ammonium nitrate shall be in a separate 

building or shall be separated by approved type 

firewalls of not less than 1 hour fire-resistance 

rating from storage of organic chemicals, acids, or 

other corrosive materials, materials that may require 

blasting during processing or handling, compressed 

flammable gases, flammable and combustible 

materials or other contaminating substances, 

including but not limited to animal fats, baled 

cotton, baled rags, baled scrap paper, bleaching 

powder, burlap or cotton bags, caustic soda, coal, 

coke, charcoal, cork, camphor, excelsior, fibers of 

any kind, fish oils, fish meal, foam rubber, hay, 

lubricating oil, linseed oil, or other oxidizable or 

drying oils, naphthalene, oakum, oiled clothing, 

oiled paper, oiled textiles, paint, straw, sawdust, 

wood shavings, or vegetable oils. Walls referred to 

in this subdivision need extend only to the 

underside of the roof.’’

the requirements in existing paragraph 

(i)(4)(ii)(b) into three separate 

paragraphs. Each of the three proposed 

requirements has been re-written in 

clearer language without changing the 

intent of the existing requirements. 

Paragraph (d)(4)(v) would require the 

employer to ensure that ammonium 

nitrate bulk storage bins or piles are 

clearly identified by signs reading 

‘‘Ammonium Nitrate’’ with letters at 

least 2-inches high. This proposed 

requirement is the same as existing 

paragraph (i)(4)(ii)(c) except that the 

proposed requirement uses the term 

‘‘bulk storage bins,’’ as discussed earlier. 

It is also consistent with paragraph 6.2.4 

of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–

6). 

Paragraph (d)(4)(vi) would require the 

employer to ensure that bulk 

ammonium nitrate in piles or in bulk 

storage bins is loosened or moved 

periodically to minimize caking. This 

proposed requirement is the same as 

and replaces existing paragraph 

(i)(4)(iii)(a) except that it has been 

rewritten in clearer, more concise 

language. The word ‘‘loosened’’ was 

added to provide a better description of 

what OSHA intends the standard to 

require to prevent caking. The proposed 

paragraph is also consistent with 

paragraph 6.3.1 of the 2002 edition of 

NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6). 

Paragraph (d)(4)(vii) would require 

the employer to ensure that explosives 

are not used to break up or loosen caked 

ammonium nitrate. This proposed 

requirement is essentially the same as 

and replaces existing paragraph 

(i)(4)(iii)(d) except that it has been 

rewritten in clearer language using 

terms consistent with those defined in 

this proposed standard. The proposed 

requirement is also consistent with 

paragraph 6.3.4 of the 2002 edition of 

NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6). 

Paragraph (d)(4)(viii) would require 

the employer to ensure that the top of 

a bulk ammonium nitrate pile is no 

closer than 36 inches below the roof or 

supporting structure of the storage 

building. This proposed requirement is 

a change from existing paragraph 

(i)(4)(iii)(b) and paragraph 6.3.2 of the 

2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6). The 

existing requirement states that: ‘‘Height 

or depth of piles shall be limited by the 

pressure-setting tendency of the 

product.’’ Because this sentence is more 

of an informative statement and is not 

a safety requirement, OSHA is not 

retaining it in proposed paragraph 

(d)(4)(viii). Aside from the elimination 

of this sentence, the proposed paragraph 

has been rewritten in clearer language. 

Paragraph (d)(4)(ix) would require the 

employer to ensure that bulk 

ammonium nitrate is not placed into 

storage when its temperature exceeds 

130 °F. This proposed requirement is 

the same as and replaces existing 

paragraph (i)(4)(iii)(c) except that it has 

been re-written to be consistent with the 

similar requirement for storage of bags 

and containers in proposed paragraph 

(d)(3)(ii). Proposed paragraph (d)(4)(ix) 

is also consistent with paragraph 6.3.3 

of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–

6). 

Proposed paragraph (d)(5) contains 

requirements that address ammonium 

nitrate contaminants. Paragraph (d)(5)(i) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that ammonium nitrate is kept in its 

own building, or is separated from 

flammable, combustible, corrosive, 

explosive, or contaminating materials or 

processes by a wall with at least a 1- 

hour fire-resistant rating. The separation 

wall would have to extend at least to the 

underside of the roof. In lieu of 

separation walls, ammonium nitrate 

may be separated from these materials 

or processes by a space of at least 30 feet 

with means to prevent mixing, such as 

sills or curbs. This proposed 

requirement is a combination of 

requirements in existing paragraphs 

(i)(5)(i)(a) and (i)(5)(i)(b). For purposes 

of clarity and ease of compliance, OSHA 

proposes to replace the list of items 2 in 

existing paragraph (i)(5)(i)(a) that 

ammonium nitrate should be separated 

from with a description of the types of 

materials from which ammonium nitrate 

should be separated. OSHA believes 

flammable, combustible, corrosive, 

explosive, or contaminating materials or 

processes covers all items in the list in 

existing paragraph (i)(5)(i)(a) and would 

allow for any other materials or newly 

developed materials to be covered 

where the existing list might not include 

them due to its more restrictive scope. 

OSHA is concerned that a hazardous 

material not contained in the existing 

list could be misconstrued as being safe 

to store with ammonium nitrate. Also 

the alternate means to prevent mixing of 

materials (a 30-foot or more separation) 

contained in existing paragraph 

(i)(5)(i)(b) was included in proposed 

paragraph (d)(5)(i) to make the 

requirement self-contained for ease of 

compliance. The addition of a means to 

prevent mixing by use of sills or curbs 

was added to proposed paragraph 

(d)(5)(i) to be consistent with paragraph 

7.1.3 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 

(Ex. 2–6). 

Paragraph (d)(5)(ii) would require the 

employer to ensure that flammable 

liquids are not placed or stored in 

buildings used for the storage of 

ammonium nitrate except where 

permitted by § 1910.106 and proposed 

paragraph (d)(5)(i) of § 1910.109. 

Section 1910.106 contains OSHA’s 

general requirements for flammable and 

combustible liquids. Proposed 

paragraph (d)(5)(ii) is essentially the 

same as and replaces existing paragraph 

(i)(5)(i)(c) except that it has been 

rewritten in clearer language with 

redundancies and extraneous words 

removed. The proposed paragraph is 

also consistent with paragraph 7.1.4 of 

the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6). 

In addition, proposed paragraph 

(d)(5)(ii) applies to the placement as 

well as the storage of flammable liquids 

in buildings used to store ammonium 

nitrate. OSHA is convinced that even 

short term placement of flammable 

liquids in such buildings can be 

hazardous unless adequate precautions 

are taken. 

Paragraph (d)(5)(iii) would require the 

employer to ensure that no liquefied 

petroleum gas is placed or stored in a 

building used to store ammonium 

nitrate except in accordance with 

§ 1910.110. Section 1910.110 contains 

OSHA’s general requirements for storage 

and handling of liquefied petroleum 

gases. The proposed requirement is 

essentially the same as and replaces 

existing paragraph (i)(5)(i)(d). Proposed 

paragraph (d)(5)(iii) is also consistent 

with paragraph 7.1.5 of the 2002 edition 

of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6). 

Paragraph (d)(5)(iv) would require the 

employer to ensure that sulfur and 

finely divided metals are not stored in 

the same building with ammonium 

nitrate. This proposed requirement is 

the same as and replaces existing 

paragraph (i)(5)(ii)(a) except that it has 

been rewritten in clearer language. 

Sulfur and finely divided metals can 

create a fire hazard and should be kept 

in a separate building from the 

ammonium nitrate building. The 

proposed paragraph is also consistent 

with paragraph 7.2.1 of the 2002 edition 

of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6). 

OSHA is not retaining paragraphs 

(i)(5)(ii)(b) through (i)(5)(ii)(d) in the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18811 

existing standard because they focus on 

the storage of explosives (including 

blasting agents) rather than the storage 

of ammonium nitrate. As discussed 

earlier, the storage of explosives 

(including blasting agents) is covered by 

ATF regulations. 

The final topic addressing the storage 

of ammonium nitrate deals with fire 

protection. Proposed paragraph (d)(6)(i) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that buildings in which greater than 

2500 tons of ammonium nitrate is stored 

are equipped with an automatic 

sprinkler system that complies with 

§ 1910.159. The proposed requirement 

is similar to and replaces existing 

paragraph (i)(7)(i). It is also consistent 

with paragraph 9.1.1 of the 2002 edition 

of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2–6). 

Issue #10: OSHA requests comments 

on the issue of automatic sprinkler 

systems for the storage of ammonium 

nitrate. In terms of employee safety, is 

it appropriate to only require an 

automatic sprinkler system for the 

storage of ammonium nitrate in 

quantities exceeding 2,500 tons? Should 

the storage of ammonium nitrate in 

quantities less than 2,500 tons, e.g. 

1,000 tons, require an automatic 

sprinkler system? Should the storage of 

ammonium nitrate, regardless of 

quantity, always require an automatic 

sprinkler system? Alternatively, should 

OSHA consider eliminating the 

requirement for automatic sprinkler 

systems for ammonium nitrate storage? 

What evidence would support the 

elimination of this requirement? 

Paragraph (d)(6)(ii) would require the 

employer to ensure that all fire 

protection equipment and systems in 

ammonium nitrate storage buildings 

meet the requirements of Subpart L, Fire 

Protection, of this part. This proposed 

requirement replaces existing 

paragraphs (i)(7)(ii)(a) and (i)(7)(ii)(b) 

and requires the use of the more 

updated and specific OSHA regulations 

for fire protection equipment and 

systems contained in subpart L. 

Paragraph (e) Transportation of 

explosives. As discussed earlier in the 

Authority to Regulate section of the 

preamble, OSHA has authority to 

regulate working conditions during the 

transportation of explosives. Unless 

otherwise specified, all the 

requirements in proposed paragraph (e) 

apply to the transportation of explosives 

both within and outside private 

facilities and worksites. 

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 

explosives. This proposed requirement 

replaces a comparable requirement in 

existing paragraph (d)(1)(i) except this 

proposed paragraph includes an 

exception for firearms and cartridges 

required to be carried by guards. It is 

also consistent with paragraph 7.1.4 of 

the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Existing paragraph (d)(1)(i) states that: 

‘‘No employee shall be allowed to 

smoke, carry matches or any other 

flame-producing device, or carry any 

firearms or loaded cartridges while in or 

near a motor vehicle transporting 

explosives’’ (emphasis added). To 

eliminate confusion over the meaning of 

the term ‘‘near’’ as used in existing 

paragraph (d)(1)(i), OSHA specifies in 

proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i) that such 

items and activities must remain at least 

25 feet away from the vehicle. The 

proposed 25-foot requirement is also 

consistent with the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration 

requirements in 49 CFR 397.13. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i), along 

with many others in this proposed 

transportation paragraph, uses the term 

‘‘vehicle.’’ As discussed in the 

definitions section of this preamble, 

OSHA has defined the term ‘‘vehicle’’ in 

this proposal, as described in the 

preamble above when discussing 

definitions. The reason for defining and 

using the term ‘‘vehicle’’ is to eliminate 

any confusion created in the existing 

standard which uses several different 

terms, such as a motor vehicle, 

semitrailer, truck, and van, to describe 

a vehicle. 

Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) would require the 

employer to ensure that no employee 

drives, loads, or unloads a vehicle 

containing explosives in an unsafe 

manner. This proposed requirement is 

essentially the same as and replaces a 

requirement in existing paragraph 

(d)(1)(i) except that it has been rewritten in clearer language. It is also 

consistent with paragraph 7.1.5 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). To 

achieve the goal of specifying one 

requirement per paragraph, OSHA has 

split the requirements in existing 

paragraph (d)(1)(i) into two separate 

proposed paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and 

(e)(1)(ii). 

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. 

A competent person is defined in 

proposed paragraph (b) as an employee 

designated by the employer who, by 

way of training and/or experience, is 

knowledgeable about applicable 

standards, is capable of identifying 

workplace hazards relating to 

explosives, and has authority to take 

appropriate corrective actions to control 

such hazards. Proposed paragraph 

(e)(1)(iii) would also require the 

employer to ensure that in the event of 

breakdown or collision, the local fire 

and police departments are promptly 

notified. Informing such local 

authorities will help to ensure that the 

breakdown or collision is handled in a 

safe manner. Proposed paragraph 

(e)(1)(iii) differs from existing paragraph 

(d)(1)(iii), but is compatible with 

paragraph 7.1.7 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). The existing 

requirement only requires a competent 

person when the transfer involves a 

disabled vehicle, whereas the proposal 

would require the supervision of a 

competent person whenever a transfer 

of explosives occurs between two 

vehicles, whether or not the transfer is 

caused by the breakdown of one of the 

vehicles. OSHA recognizes the risks 

involved in the transfer of explosives 

and proposes to ensure that this activity 

is always done under the supervision of 

a competent person as defined in 

paragraph (b). 

Paragraph (e)(1)(iv) would require the 

employer to ensure that no repair work, 

other than emergency repairs that do not 

present a source of ignition, is 

performed on a vehicle containing 

explosives. This is a new requirement 

based on a recommendation in the 

Petition (Ex. 2–1). OSHA agrees with the 

Petition that there are risks involved in 

making vehicle repairs near explosives 

since certain repair work could be a 

source of ignition for the explosives in 

the vehicle. As a result, OSHA is only 

permitting such repair work in 

emergency situations when the work 

can be performed safely. The proposed 

paragraph is consistent with 

requirements in proposed paragraph 

(c)(4) discussed above. 

Paragraph (e)(1)(v) would require the 

employer to ensure that detonators are 

not transported with other explosives in 

the same vehicle, unless packaged, 

segregated, and transported in 

accordance with the regulations of DOT 

(49 CFR chapter I) (Ex. 2–8). This 

proposed requirement replaces existing 

paragraph (d)(1)(iv) except that, instead 

of using the terms ‘‘blasting caps’’ and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18812 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘electric blasting caps’’ as in the 

existing paragraph, OSHA is proposing 

to use the term ‘‘detonators’’ (which 

includes blasting caps and electric 

blasting caps) to be consistent with the 

industry use of this term. The proposed 

paragraph is also consistent with 

paragraph 7.1.8 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Paragraph (e)(1)(vi) would require the 

employer to ensure that when 

explosives are transported on a railway 

car utilizing private railroad tracks, the 

car, its contents, and method of loading 

are in accordance with the regulations 

of DOT (49 CFR chapter I) (Ex. 2–8). 

This proposed requirement replaces 

existing paragraph (f)(1). While DOT 

regulations cover railway cars on public 

railroad tracks, the proposed 

requirement covers such cars on private 

railroad tracks. OSHA’s intent here is to 

ensure that employees are provided the 

same level of safety when the railway 

car is on private tracks as compared to 

public railway tracks. The proposed 

language is also consistent with 

paragraph 11.1.1 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Paragraph (e)(1)(vii) would require the 

employer to ensure that explosives at a 

railway facility, truck terminal, pier, 

harbor facility, or airport terminal, 

whether for delivery to a consignee or 

forwarded to some other destination, are 

kept in a manner that minimizes risk to 

employees. This proposed requirement 

is changed somewhat from existing 

paragraph (f)(4) and paragraph 11.1.4 of 

the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Compared to the existing requirement 

and the NFPA standard, the proposed 

paragraph places more emphasis on 

employee safety to ensure that risk to 

employees is minimized. 

Paragraph (e)(1)(viii) would require 

the driver or other employee attending 

the vehicle be knowledgeable about the 

nature and hazards of the explosives 

contained in the vehicle and the 

procedures for handling emergency 

situations. This proposed requirement 

replaces a requirement in existing 

paragraph (d)(3)(iii) except that it has 

been updated and rewritten in clearer 

and more concise language. OSHA has 

eliminated the language in existing 

paragraph (d)(3)(iii) that refers to public 

safety because such issues are outside of 

OSHA’s authority to regulate. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2) addresses 

vehicles used in the transportation of 

explosives. Paragraphs (e)(2)(i)(A) 

through (C) would require the employer 

to ensure that any vehicle used to carry 

explosives is able to safely carry the 

designated load, has close-fitting floors, 

and has wood or other non-sparking 

materials covering any exposed sparkproducing metal on the inside of the 

vehicle body. Proposed paragraph 

(e)(2)(i) rewrites and simplifies the 

requirements in existing paragraph 

(d)(2)(i), putting the revised 

requirements into three separate 

proposed paragraphs, (e)(2)(i)(A) 

through (C). The proposed requirements 

are also consistent with paragraphs 

7.2.1, 7.2.3, and 7.2.4 of the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Issue #11: Existing paragraph (d)(2)(i) 

and proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i)(C) 

require the employer to ensure that any 

vehicle used to carry explosives has 

wood or other non-sparking materials 

covering any exposed spark-producing 

metal on the inside of the vehicle body. 

This is not consistent with paragraph 

8.2.3 of the 2006 edition of NFPA 495 

(Ex. 2–21) which requires: ‘‘Vehicles 

used for transporting frictional sparksensitive explosive materials such as 

Black Powder and primary explosives 

shall have no exposed spark-producing 

surface inside of the cargo body.’’

Should the requirements in proposed 

paragraph (e)(2)(i)(C) only apply to 

frictional spark-sensitive explosives? 

Would such a limitation in proposed 

paragraph (e)(2)(i)(C) reduce the cost of 

transporting non-frictional sparksensitive explosives? 

Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) would require the 

employer to ensure that any vehicle 

containing explosives or oxidizers 

located at a private facility or blast site 

has exterior markings or placards 

designed and displayed in accordance 

with the regulations of DOT (49 CFR 

chapter I) (Ex. 2–8). This proposed 

requirement is a change from and 

replaces existing paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(a) 

which contains a table of required 

OSHA markings and placards. Since 

DOT already addresses vehicle markings 

and placards, and compliance with DOT 

regulations during the transportation of 

explosives outside of private facilities is 

required throughout the explosives 

industry, OSHA proposes to adopt DOT 

regulations and apply them to vehicles 

containing explosives or oxidizers in 

private facilities rather than continue to 

require a separate set of placards and 

markings. OSHA believes this proposed 

language will make it easier for 

employers to comply with placarding 

and marking requirements and will 

increase safety by eliminating any 

possible confusion created by different 

OSHA and DOT requirements for the 

similar activities. Since DOT placarding 

and marking regulations already cover 

transportation outside of private 

facilities, this proposed paragraph 

applies the same requirements to 

vehicles on private facilities. 

Because OSHA proposes to reference 

DOT regulations for placarding and 

marking of vehicles, the placarding and 

marking requirements in existing 

paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(c), (d), and (e) are 

no longer necessary and are not 

included in the proposed standard. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iii) 

addresses open-bodied vehicles. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(A) would 

require the employer to ensure that any 

explosives on an open-bodied vehicle 

are protected with a flameproof and 

moisture-proof tarpaulin or other 

effective means of protection from fire, 

sparks, and moisture. This proposed 

requirement is essentially the same as 

and replaces a requirement in existing 

paragraph (d)(2)(i) except that it has 

been re-written in clearer language and 

the proposed paragraph includes 

protection from fire as well as sparks 

and moisture. A similar requirement 

was contained in paragraph 421 of the 

1970 version of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–13). It 

is not, however, in the current 2001 

edition of NFPA 495. While OSHA is 

not sure why this requirement was 

eliminated from the 2001 edition, it 

believes that this type of protection is 

still important for employee protection 

and proposes to retain this requirement 

in the proposed standard. 

Paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(B) would require 

the employer to ensure that the 

explosives in open-bodied vehicles are 

not loaded above the sides of the 

vehicle. This proposed requirement is 

the same as and replaces a requirement 

in existing paragraph (d)(2)(i). This 

requirement was also in paragraph 421 

of the 1970 version of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–

13) but is not in the 2001 edition. 

However, OSHA believes this to be an 

important requirement for employee 

protection and is proposing to retain it 

in this proposed standard. As discussed 

earlier, existing paragraph (d)(2)(i) is a 

very long requirement containing many 

separate requirements. To encourage 

better understanding, OSHA is 

proposing to split existing paragraph 

(d)(2)(i) into several paragraphs, each 

containing an individual requirement. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iv) 

addresses the necessity for fire 

extinguishers in vehicles used to carry 

explosives. Paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(A) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that each vehicle used to carry 

explosives is equipped with at least two 

fire extinguishers filled and in good 

working order, each having a rating of 

at least 4–A:40–B:C. This proposed 

requirement is essentially the same as 

existing paragraph (d)(2)(iii) except that 

the required fire extinguishers have 

been upgraded to meet the standards in 

paragraph 8.2.6 of the 2006 edition of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18813 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–21). In addition, the 

changes in the proposed requirement 

were recommended by the Petition (Ex. 

2–1). 

Paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(B) would require 

the employer to ensure that each vehicle 

used to carry explosives has one fire 

extinguisher located in close proximity 

to the driver’s seat. This proposed 

requirement is derived from existing 

paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(b) and paragraph 

7.2.6 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 

(Ex. 2–5). The extinguisher filling and 

examination requirements contained in 

existing paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(b) are 

addressed in proposed paragraph 

(e)(2)(v)(A), as discussed below. The 

multiple requirements contained in 

existing paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(b) have 

been split up in the proposed standard. 

OSHA believes this will make the 

proposed requirements easier to comply 

with and more understandable. In 

addition, the proposed requirement 

substitutes the term ‘‘in close 

proximity’’ for ‘‘near’’ which is used in 

the existing standard to describe the 

required location of the extinguisher in 

relation to the driver’s seat. OSHA 

believes ‘‘in close proximity’’ is a more 

definitive term than ‘‘near’’ the driver’s 

seat and is intended to convey the 

requirement that the vehicle driver have 

quick access to a fire extinguisher in the 

event of an emergency. 

Paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(C) would require 

the employer to ensure that each vehicle 

used to carry explosives is equipped 

only with fire extinguishers listed or 

approved by a nationally recognized 

testing laboratory. The proposed 

requirement also refers to 

§ 1910.155(c)(3)(iv)(A) for a definition of 

listed fire extinguishers and § 1910.7 for 

nationally recognized testing 

laboratories. This proposed requirement 

is essentially the same as and replaces 

existing paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(a). It is also 

consistent with paragraph 7.2.6.1 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(v) contains 

additional requirements for vehicles 

used for carrying explosives. Paragraph 

(e)(2)(v)(A) would require the employer 

to ensure that the fire extinguishers 

required in proposed paragraph 

(e)(2)(iv)(C) above are used, maintained, 

and tested in accordance with 

§ 1910.157. This proposed requirement 

is changed from existing paragraph 

(d)(2)(iv)(a) in that the existing 

provision simply requires that 

extinguishers be filled and in working 

order without specifying how this 

should be done. Since OSHA has 

standards for portable fire extinguishers 

in § 1910.157, the Agency wants to 

emphasize in the proposed requirement 

that portable fire extinguishers in 

vehicles used for carrying explosives 

must comply with § 1910.157 

requirements in addition to the 

requirements in this proposed standard. 

Paragraph (e)(2)(v)(B) would require 

the employer to ensure that the use of 

fire extinguishers is restricted to fighting 

non-explosive fires involving tires, 

batteries, engines, cabs, etc., where the 

fire is not in imminent danger of 

reaching the explosive cargo. OSHA 

believes it is important to clarify that 

the fire extinguishers should not be 

used to fight explosives fires or fires that 

have the potential to rapidly reach the 

explosives. Portable extinguishers are 

not effective enough to sufficiently 

protect the safety of employees fighting 

such dangerous fires. The proposed 

language was recommended by the 

Petition (Ex. 2–1). This is a new 

requirement which is consistent with 

proposed paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) which 

requires employers to ensure that 

employees do not fight fires if they are 

in imminent danger of contact with 

explosives. 

Paragraph (e)(2)(v)(C) would require 

the employer to ensure that the 

explosive cargo cannot shift, spill, or 

become damaged during transit. This is 

a new requirement based on a 

recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2–

1). OSHA believes that spillage and 

damage to containers can create a 

potential explosion hazard and should 

be eliminated. This requirement would 

simply require that the explosive cargo 

be secured to ensure that no spillage or 

damage occurs to the containers. 

Paragraph (e)(2)(vi) would require the 

employer to ensure that any vehicle 

containing explosives is maintained in 

good and safe working condition. This 

is a change from existing paragraph 

(d)(2)(iv) which contains a detailed list 

of items to be inspected on the vehicle 

and paragraph 7.2.7 of the 2001 edition 

of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) which contains 

the same list of inspection items. OSHA 

is adopting a more performance oriented 

approach and is proposing to simplify 

and replace the existing detailed, but 

not necessarily all inclusive, 

requirements by requiring the employer 

to ensure that the vehicle is in proper 

working order. OSHA does not want to 

limit the inspection to a specific set of 

items to ensure the vehicle is in safe 

working condition. Some common items 

that should be checked during an 

inspection include but are not limited to 

fire extinguishers; electrical wiring; fuel 

tank and feedline; brakes; lights; horn; 

windshield wipers; steering apparatus; 

and tires. While the proposal does not 

require an inspection prior to each use 

of the vehicle, it does require the 

employer to ensure that the vehicle is 

kept properly maintained at all times. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(3) addresses 

the operation of vehicles containing 

explosives. Paragraph (e)(3)(i)(A) would 

require the employer to ensure that only 

employees designated by the employer 

are permitted to ride in or drive a 

vehicle containing explosives. This is a 

new requirement proposed by the 

Petition (Ex. 2–1). OSHA agrees that it 

is important to workplace safety that 

only employees given permission to do 

so by the employer should operate or 

ride in vehicles containing explosives. 

Paragraph (e)(3)(i)(B) would require the 

employer to ensure that vehicles 

containing explosives are only driven by 

and are in the charge of a driver who is 

familiar with relevant traffic regulations 

and the provisions of this section, and 

possesses a valid driver’s license 

appropriate for the vehicle being driven. 

This proposed requirement is similar to 

and replaces existing paragraphs 

(d)(3)(i) and (g)(6)(ii) which address 

general explosive transportation and 

specific transportation for blasting 

agents, respectively. Since blasting 

agents are defined as explosives in this 

proposed standard, OSHA is combining 

these two existing requirements into one 

general proposed requirement for 

driving a vehicle containing explosives. 

OSHA believes the proposed language is 

a simpler, more concise way to describe 

the responsibilities of the driver. 

Issue #12: OSHA requests comments 

on the appropriateness of proposed 

paragraph (e)(3)(i)(B) for the on-site 

transportation of explosives at private 

facilities. The proposal would require 

that employees have a valid driver’s 

license appropriate for the vehicle being 

driven. In certain situations, employees 

who transport explosives or blasting 

agents on the employer’s premises may 

be required to obtain a commercial 

driver’s license (CDL) and hazardous 

materials endorsement. Even drivers 

whose activities are limited to tasks 

such as moving a loaded vehicle from 

the loading dock to an onsite 

transportation staging area, or backing a 

vehicle up to a loading dock would 

need a valid driver’s license appropriate 

for the vehicle being driven and, 

depending on the vehicle type, that may 

require a CDL. OSHA is seeking specific 

comments on whether it is appropriate 

for safety reasons to require a valid 

driver’s license for on-site 

transportation. 

Paragraph (e)(3)(i)(C) would require 

the employer to ensure that, except 

under emergency conditions, no vehicle 

containing explosives is parked before 

reaching its destination on any public 

street adjacent to or in close proximity 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18814 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

to any place of employment. The 

proposed requirement is similar to 

existing paragraph (d)(3)(ii). It is also 

consistent with paragraph 7.3.3 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Paragraph (e)(3)(i)(D) would require 

the employer to ensure that no sparkproducing metal, spark-producing tools, 

oils, matches, firearms, electric storage 

batteries, flammable substances, acids, 

oxidizers, or corrosive compounds are 

carried in the body of any vehicle 

containing explosives, unless the 

carrying of such dangerous articles and 

the explosives comply with DOT 

regulations (49 CFR chapter I) (Ex. 2–8). 

The body of the vehicle is intended to 

mean the cargo-carrying body that 

contains the explosives and not the cab 

portion or engine compartment of the 

vehicle. The proposed requirement is a 

combination of existing paragraphs 

(d)(3)(iv) and (g)(6)(iii), which address 

general explosives transportation and 

specific transportation for blasting 

agents, respectively. Since blasting 

agents are defined as explosives in the 

proposed rule, OSHA is combining 

these two existing requirements into one 

general proposed requirement for 

driving a vehicle containing explosives. 

Paragraph (e)(3)(i)(E) would require 

the employer to ensure that deliveries of 

explosives are only received by 

employees authorized by the employer 

to receive such explosives. This 

proposed requirement is based on 

existing paragraph (d)(3)(vi) which 

addresses both the delivery of 

explosives and the storage of the 

delivered explosives. The proposed 

paragraph is also consistent with 

paragraph 7.3.8 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). Because the storage 

of delivered explosives is already 

covered by ATF’s regulations at 27 CFR 

part 555, the proposed paragraph 

(e)(3)(i)(E) only covers the delivery of 

explosives to authorized employees. 

Paragraph (e)(3)(ii) would require the 

employer to ensure that every vehicle 

containing Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 

explosives at the employer’s worksite or 

facility is attended at all times by the 

driver or other responsible person 

authorized by the employer. This 

proposed requirement is similar to a 

requirement contained in existing 

paragraph (d)(3)(iii) except that it has 

been rewritten in clearer language and 

revised to be consistent with the 

proposed explosives classification 

system discussed earlier. The proposed 

paragraph is also consistent with 

paragraph 7.3.4 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) except that the 

proposed paragraph only applies to 

vehicles at an employer’s worksite or 

facility. The term ‘‘transporting’’ in 

existing paragraph (d)(3)(iii) has been 

replaced with the term ‘‘containing’’ in 

the proposed paragraph to clarify that 

the provision applies to stationary as 

well as moving vehicles. OSHA is 

restricting proposed paragraph (e)(3)(ii) 

to employers’ worksites and facilities 

because DOT already has attendant 

requirements for vehicles containing 

explosives on public highways at 49 

CFR 397.5. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(A) 

clarifies that the vehicle containing 

explosives is considered ‘‘attended’’

only when the driver or another 

responsible person authorized by the 

employer is physically on or in the 

vehicle, or can see and reach the vehicle 

quickly without any interference. In 

addition, this proposed paragraph states 

that ‘‘attended’’ also means that the 

driver or other responsible authorized 

person is awake, alert, and not engaged 

in other duties or activities which may 

divert his or her attention from the 

vehicle. If the driver needs to leave the 

vehicle to obtain food or drink or to use 

a restroom, a second authorized 

responsible employee should remain 

with the vehicle. Proposed paragraph 

(e)(3)(ii)(A) replaces existing paragraph 

(d)(3)(iii)(a) except that the exception in 

the existing paragraph for 

communication or to obtain food or 

physical comfort has not been retained 

in the proposed paragraph. The Agency 

believes that vehicles containing 

explosives should not be left unattended 

for any period of time. Any exception to 

this would directly conflict with the 

requirements in proposed paragraph 

(e)(3)(ii), discussed above, which 

requires that vehicles be attended at all 

times. Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(A) 

is similar to paragraph 7.3.5 of the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) but the 

NFPA standard has an exception for 

communication and to obtain food or 

physical comfort. 

Paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(B) would require 

the driver or other employee attending 

the vehicle to be authorized, capable, 

and have the necessary means to safely 

drive the assigned vehicle. This 

proposed requirement replaces a 

requirement in existing paragraph 

(d)(3)(iii) except that it has been 

rewritten in clearer and more concise 

language. 

Two requirements in existing 

paragraph (d)(3) covering the 

transportation of explosives have not 

been retained in the proposed standard. 

Existing paragraph (d)(3)(iii)(b) allows 

the unattended parking of a vehicle 

containing Class A or B explosives if it 

is parked within a securely fenced or 

walled area with all gates or entrances 

locked or if it is at a magazine site 

established solely for the purpose of 

storing explosives. OSHA has not 

included these requirements in the 

proposed standard because similar 

provisions are already required by the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations 

at 49 CFR 397.5. OSHA does not want 

to unnecessarily duplicate the 

regulations of other federal agencies. 

Existing paragraph (d)(3)(v) requires 

that vehicles transporting explosives 

avoid congested areas and heavy traffic. 

Since equivalent requirements are 

already contained in the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration 

regulations at 49 CFR 397.67, OSHA is 

not retaining this requirement in the 

proposed rule to avoid duplicating the 

requirements of other Federal agencies. 

Paragraph (f) Use of explosives for 

blasting. Proposed paragraph (f) 

addresses the use of explosives for 

blasting. Most explosives in the United 

States are used for blasting purposes in 

the construction and mining industries. 

These blasting operations are not 

covered by § 1910.109 but are covered 

by OSHA’s construction regulations (29 

CFR part 1926 subpart U) and MSHA’s 

blasting regulations (30 CFR part 56 

subpart E, 30 CFR part 57 subpart E, 30 

CFR part 75 subpart N, and 30 CFR part 

77 subpart N). However, § 1910.109 

does cover the use of explosives by 

general industry. These general industry 

uses, when not part of construction or 

mining activities, include the blasting of 

rocks, slag pockets, and beaver dams, as 

well as blasting associated with metal 

hardening, stump removal, pond 

creation, and avalanche control, and 

various types of blasting used to create 

art sculptures. Compared to the use of 

explosives by the mining and 

construction industries, these general 

industry uses do not require large 

amounts of explosives and are 

performed relatively infrequently. 

Paragraph (f)(1) of the proposed 

standard sets out the general 

requirements for blasting. Proposed 

paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) through (f)(1)(i)(E) 

are new requirements that prescribe the 

duties and responsibilities of the 

blaster-in-charge to ensure the blast site 

and blast area are safe at all times. 

Paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A) would require the 

employer to ensure that the blaster-incharge is trained, knowledgeable, and 

experienced in the storage, 

transportation, handling, and use of 

explosives. This new requirement is 

intended to ensure that the blaster-incharge has the necessary training and 

experience in all relevant aspects of 

explosives. Throughout this proposed 

paragraph, the blaster-in-charge is given 

the authority by the employer to control 

the blast site and the blast area. In 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18815 

addition to training and experience, 

proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i)(B) requires 

the employer to ensure that the blasterin-charge is knowledgeable about 

relevant federal, state, and local 

regulations pertaining to explosives. 

These include all applicable OSHA 

regulations and any other Federal 

regulations that apply, including ATF 

and DOT requirements. In addition, the 

blaster-in-charge must be aware of any 

state and local regulations that may 

impact the blast site and blast area. 

OSHA believes that without the 

prescribed training, knowledge, and 

experience, the blaster-in-charge will be 

unable to satisfactorily do his or her job 

and that the employer will be unable to 

ensure employee safety during 

workplace blasting operations. 

Paragraph (f)(1)(i)(C) would require 

the employer to ensure that the blasterin-charge is trained, knowledgeable, and 

experienced in the use of each type of 

blasting method being used. Since every 

blast site is unique and the methods 

used may vary from one blast site to 

another, it is important that the blasterin-charge have the training, knowledge, 

and experience in the particular method 

to be used to ensure a safe blast site. 

Paragraph (f)(1)(i)(D) would require 

the employer to ensure that the blasterin-charge is in control of the blasting 

operations, blast site, and blast area. 

This new proposed requirement ensures 

that the blaster-in-charge has overall 

control of the blast site and blasting 

operations, including control over the 

employees entering the blast site, as 

well as all the safety and security 

requirements before, during, and after 

the blast is fired. This is a general 

requirement that includes all aspects of 

the blasting operations from setting the 

blast site and blast area dimensions to 

giving the all-clear signal after the blast 

has been completed. 

Paragraph (f)(1)(i)(E) would require 

the employer to ensure that the blasterin-charge evaluates each blast site and 

blast area and implements the measures 

that will ensure the safety of employees 

and the security of each blast site and 

blast area. This requires the blaster-incharge to evaluate each unique blast site 

and blast area, using his or her 

knowledge, training, and experience to 

determine proper procedures during the 

set-up and firing of the blast and during 

the post-blast operations to ensure that 

the blast site and blast area are safe and 

secure for all employees. 

Although proposed paragraphs 

(f)(1)(i)(A) through (E) require the 

employer to place significant duties on 

the blaster-in-charge, it is ultimately the 

responsibility of the employer to 

designate a blaster-in-charge and to 

ensure that he or she has the proper 

knowledge, training, and experience to 

be qualified as a blaster-in-charge and 

that all requirements in proposed 

paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) through (E) are 

met. 

The requirements in proposed 

paragraph (f)(1)(i) were recommended 

by the Petition (Ex. 2–1). It 

recommended that only one person at 

the blast site should control all the 

activities of the site and be in charge of 

the safety and security of the blast site 

and blast area. OSHA agrees that these 

duties should be handled by one person, 

the blaster-in-charge, who is highly 

trained, knowledgeable, and 

experienced in blasting operations. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i) replaces 

existing paragraph (e)(1)(iv) with a 

much more complete set of 

responsibilities for the newly defined 

blaster-in-charge. OSHA believes the 

requirements in proposed paragraph 

(f)(1)(i) are clearer and more precise 

than the existing requirements and will 

allow for easier compliance with the 

proposed requirement. The concept of a 

‘‘blaster-in-charge’’ is evident in existing 

paragraph (e) and in Chapter 9 of NFPA 

495–2001 which contain descriptions of 

the duties of the person in charge of 

blasting operations. Since the term 

‘‘blaster-in-charge’’ is commonly used in 

the explosives industry to describe the 

duties of this person, OSHA believes the 

use of this term is appropriate in the 

proposed standard. 

Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A) would require 

the employer to ensure that explosives 

are used in accordance with 

manufacturers’ recommendations. This 

is a new requirement recommended by 

the Petition (Ex. 2–1). OSHA agrees with 

the Petition that it is important for 

employee safety during blasting 

operations to follow manufacturers’

recommendations and proposes to 

include this requirement in the 

proposed standard. 

Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) would require 

the employer to ensure that all 

employees involved in blasting 

operations work only under the 

supervision of the blaster-in-charge. 

This is a new requirement which OSHA 

believes is essential for employee safety 

during blasting operations. It ensures 

that the blaster-in-charge has the overall 

control of the blasting operations. 

Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(C) would require 

the employer to ensure that only Type 

3 magazines or the original containers 

are used to transport detonators and 

other explosives from magazines to the 

blast site. ‘‘Original container’’ here 

means the containers in which the 

detonators were originally transported 

from the detonator manufacturer. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(C) is 

similar to existing paragraph (e)(1)(ii) 

except that it has been modified by 

updating the type of magazine that can 

be used for the transportation of the 

explosives. Existing paragraph (e)(1)(ii) 

requires a Class II magazine whereas 

proposed paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(c) requires 

a Type 3 magazine. A Type 3 magazine, 

as defined by ATF at 27 CFR 555.203(c) 

(Ex. 2–4), is a portable outdoor 

magazine for the temporary storage of 

high explosives. To be consistent with 

the newer ATF magazine types, the 

proposed paragraph references a Type 3 

magazine which is classified as a class 

II magazine under the existing standard. 

Type 3 magazines containing explosives 

must never be left unattended (27 CFR 

555.209). A Type 3 magazine is 

commonly called a ‘‘day box’’. 

Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(D) would require 

the employer to ensure that employees 

are protected from flying fragments 

produced during blasting operations by 

removing employees to a safe distance, 

using protective barricades, or utilizing 

other equivalent means to protect 

employees. This proposed requirement 

is loosely based on existing paragraph 

(e)(1)(iii) and has been modified to 

improve employee safety. The existing 

requirement addresses adjacent 

structure damage and, presumably, 

pedestrian protection in congested areas 

near the blasting operations. In the 

proposed standard, the protective 

measures have changed to focus on 

employee safety and include removal of 

employees to safe locations or the use of 

other equivalent means to protect 

employees. 

Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(E) would require 

the employer to ensure that adequate 

precautions are taken to prevent sources 

of induced current, such as lightning, 

adjacent power lines, dust storms, snow 

storms, radar, radio transmitters, 

cellular phones, or other sources of 

extraneous electricity, from causing the 

accidental detonation of electric blasting 

caps. This proposed paragraph replaces 

a similar requirement in existing 

paragraph (e)(1)(vii) except that it has 

been revised to include snow storms 

and cellular phones. Both snow storms 

and cellular phones can generate 

extraneous electricity and be potential 

sources of accidental ignition. The 

addition of snow storms is consistent 

with the requirements in paragraph 

9.1.16 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 

(Ex. 2–5). In addition, due to the 

increasing use of cellular phones and 

their potential to be a source of ignition, 

OSHA proposes to add cellular phones 

to the list of items to be controlled. This 

addition was based on a 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18816 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2–

1). 

Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(F) would require 

the employer to post signs warning 

against the use of mobile radio 

transmitters or cellular phones on all 

roads within 350 feet of the blasting 

operations. This is similar to existing 

paragraph (e)(1)(vii)(b), except that 

cellular phones have been added to the 

proposed language. Cellular phones 

have been included because of their 

increased use and potential to be a 

source of ignition for electric blasting 

caps. Unlike existing paragraph 

(e)(1)(vii)(b), proposed paragraph 

(f)(1)(ii)(F) identifies the specific 

warning language to be displayed on the 

signs: 

WARNING 

EXPLOSIVES HAZARD 

DO NOT USE MOBILE RADIO 

TRANSMITTERS OR CELLULAR 

PHONES 

Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(iii) deals 

with certain types of blasting 

operations. Paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(A) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that all surface blasting operations are 

conducted only during daylight hours. 

This proposed language is similar to and 

replaces existing paragraph (e)(1)(v), 

except that the existing requirement 

applies to ‘‘blasting operations’’ whereas 

the proposed language limits the 

requirement to ‘‘surface blasting 

operations.’’ The proposed language is 

the same as paragraph 9.1.14 of the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). Surface 

blasting operations rely on natural light 

whereas underground blasting 

operations are illuminated with 

artificial light. Therefore, OSHA 

proposes to limit (f)(1)(iii)(A) to surface 

blasting operations because it believes it 

is unnecessary for the purposes of 

employee safety to restrict underground 

blasting operations to daylight hours. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(B) 

provides a limited exception to 

proposed paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(A). It 

allows unusual blasting operations 

associated with industrial processes, 

such as blasting slag pockets and 

dustcatchers, to be performed at any 

time of the day, provided they are 

performed indoors and a minimum 

illumination density of 20 lumens per 

square foot is provided within a 5-foot 

(1.5 m) radius of locations where 

explosives are being assembled, placed, 

or attached to detonators. This is a new 

requirement but it is consistent with 

OSHA policy contained in OSHA 

Instruction STD 1–5.12, dated October 

30, 1978 (Ex. 2–3). In that directive, 

OSHA identified several necessary 

revisions it planned to make to 

§ 1910.109, including a revision to allow 

unusual blasting operations associated 

with industrial processes to occur at any 

time of day, provided proper 

illumination and other appropriate 

requirements were met. Proposed 

paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(B) is intended to 

implement the Agency’s stated 

intention. 

Paragraph (f)(1)(iv) would require that 

whenever blasting operations are being 

conducted in close proximity to gas, 

electric, water, telephone, or other 

similar utilities, the employer shall not 

commence such blasting operations 

until receiving and documenting 

approval from the appropriate utility 

representatives. This proposed 

paragraph replaces existing paragraph 

(e)(1)(vi). The existing standard only 

requires notification of the affected 

utility 24 hours in advance of blasting. 

It does not require a response from the 

utility prior to the employer beginning 

blasting. Thus, the employer may have 

already begun or even completed the 

blasting operation before a utility has 

had adequate time to identify a potential 

problem with the blasting operation and 

communicate this fact to the employer. 

The Agency believes this is a flaw in the 

existing standard and could lead to the 

endangerment of employees working in 

blasting operations near utility lines. 

Obtaining and documenting approval 

from the utility prior to blasting is 

important to employee safety. The 

approval process will vary by locality 

depending on already established 

procedures and may, in fact, often take 

less than 24 hours. Documentation may 

be in the form of a fax, e-mail, or record 

of a conversation. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2) addresses 

the handling and storage of explosives 

at blast sites. Proposed paragraph 

(f)(2)(i) would require the employer to 

ensure that empty containers and paper 

and fiber packing materials which 

previously contained explosives are 

disposed of in a safe manner, or reused 

in accordance with DOT regulations (49 

CFR chapter I) (Ex. 2–8). This proposed 

requirement is the same as existing 

paragraph (e)(2)(i) except that it has 

been re-written in clearer language. The 

proposed requirement is also consistent 

with paragraph 9.6.1 of the 2001 edition 

of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Paragraph (f)(2)(ii) would require the 

employer to ensure that only nonsparking tools are used to open 

containers of explosives. This proposed 

requirement is consistent with the 

requirement in existing paragraph 

(e)(2)(ii) which allows the use of nonsparking metallic slitters for opening 

fiberboard cases. However, this 

proposed paragraph differs from 

paragraph 9.1.10 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) which does not 

require that metal slitters used for 

opening fiberboard containers be nonsparking. OSHA believes the 

requirement to use non-sparking slitters 

is needed to reduce the potential for 

introducing any material that can create 

sparks into areas where explosives are 

located. The Agency does not believe 

the exception for fiberboard containers 

is necessary and is concerned that it 

may actually create a hazard by 

allowing a sparking tool in the area of 

explosives. If permitted, the tool could 

potentially be mistakenly used for a task 

other than opening fiberboard 

containers. As a general approach, this 

proposed rule requires the consistent 

use of only non-sparking tools and 

materials when working with 

explosives. 

Paragraph (f)(2)(iii) would require the 

employer to ensure that no explosives 

are abandoned. This proposed 

requirement is the same as and replaces 

existing paragraph (e)(2)(iv) and is 

consistent with paragraph 9.1.2 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) and 

ensures that abandoned explosives are 

not accidentally detonated. 

Paragraph (f)(2)(iv) would require the 

employer to ensure that all unused 

explosives are returned immediately to 

appropriate magazines. This proposed 

requirement is similar to a requirement 

in existing paragraph (e)(3)(iv) except 

that it has been moved to proposed 

paragraph (f)(2) which addresses the 

storage of explosives at blast sites. The 

proposed paragraph is intended to 

address safety and security by ensuring 

that no unused explosives are left 

behind after a blast and are returned 

immediately to the proper storage 

magazine if not used. Proposed 

paragraph (f)(2)(iv) is consistent with 

paragraph 9.2.6 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) which requires that 

all excess explosive materials be 

removed from the area and returned to 

the proper storage facilities. 

The requirement in existing paragraph 

(e)(2)(ii) that containers of explosives 

not be opened in any magazine or 

within 50 feet of any magazine has not 

been retained in the proposed rule 

because it is already covered by ATF at 

27 CFR 555.214(c) and OSHA does not 

want to duplicate the regulations of 

other federal agencies. In addition, the 

language in existing paragraph (e)(2)(ii) 

addressing the opening of kegs and 

wooden cases is not in the proposed 

rule since these types of containers are 

no longer used in the industry. 

Paragraph (f)(3) in the proposal 

addresses the loading of explosives in 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18817 

drill holes. Paragraph (f)(3)(i) would 

require the employer to ensure that all 

drill holes are of sufficient size to 

permit the free insertion of explosives. 

Attempting to force explosives into a 

drill hole that is too small for the size 

of the explosives may in some 

circumstances cause the explosives to 

detonate. This proposed requirement 

replaces existing paragraph (e)(3)(i) 

except that it has been re-written in 

clearer language. The proposed language 

is also consistent with the requirement 

in paragraph 9.2.2 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (f)(3)(ii) 

addresses safe procedures for tamping 

explosives. Paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(A) would 

require the employer to ensure that 

tamping of explosives is performed only 

with non-sparking tools. This proposed 

requirement replaces a requirement in 

existing paragraph (e)(3)(ii) except that 

it has been rewritten to simplify the 

requirement by only allowing the use of 

non-sparking tools. The existing 

requirement limits the tool to be used 

for tamping to wood rods. Rather than 

specifying the type of tamping rods 

used, OSHA is using performance 

language to allow any non-sparking tool 

to be used. In this way, an employer 

may elect to use a non-wood tamping 

rod provided it is only comprised of 

non-sparking material. OSHA’s intent is 

that no part of the rod, including any 

connectors, can be made of a sparking 

material. 

Paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(B) would require 

the employer to ensure that tamping of 

explosives is performed in a manner 

that does not degrade, or otherwise 

damage the explosives or cause the 

explosives to detonate. This proposed 

requirement is consistent with a 

requirement in existing paragraph 

(e)(3)(ii) except that it has been revised 

to better clarify the meaning of violent 

tamping. Both existing paragraph 

(e)(3)(ii) and paragraph 9.2.5.1 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) 

require that violent tamping be avoided. 

Initiation of explosives by impact or 

friction could result from severe or 

violent tamping, especially if a 

detonator is involved. In the proposal, 

OSHA more clearly expresses the intent 

of the requirement by using 

performance language and stating that 

tamping must be done in a manner that 

does not degrade or damage the 

explosives or cause the explosives to 

detonate. The Agency believes this 

better describes the intent of the existing 

requirement and the meaning of the 

term ‘‘violent tamping,’’ and will aid in 

compliance with the regulation. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(3)(iii) would 

require the employer to ensure that 

certain requirements are followed when 

performing pneumatic loading of 

explosives into drill holes primed with 

electric detonators or other static 

electricity-sensitive initiation systems. 

For example, paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(A) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that the equipment is bonded and 

grounded, paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(B) would 

require the employer to ensure that a 

semi-conductive hose is used, and 

paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(C) would require the 

employer to ensure that the blaster-incharge evaluates all systems to assure 

that they will safely dissipate static 

electricity under potential field 

conditions. These proposed 

requirements are essentially the same as 

and replace existing § 1910.109(e)(3)(iii) 

and (g)(3)(iv)(c). The only modification 

to the language in the proposed rule is 

an update to include drill holes primed 

with electric detonators or other static 

electricity-sensitive initiation systems. 

The existing language in (e)(3)(iii) only 

addresses electric blasting caps. This 

modification reflects current industry 

practice and is consistent with the 

paragraph 9.2.4 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Paragraph (f)(3)(iv) would require the 

employer to ensure that no employee 

drills into explosives or any portion of 

a hole that at any time contained 

explosives. This proposed requirement 

modifies existing paragraph (e)(3)(vi), 

which prohibits the deepening of drill 

holes that have previously contained 

explosives. The proposed language 

increases employee safety by expanding 

the coverage of existing paragraph 

(e)(3)(vi) to prohibit drilling into 

explosives or any portion of a hole that 

at any time contained explosives. This 

includes drilling through a cross-section 

of a drill hole that once contained 

explosives. This proposed language was 

recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2–1). 

Paragraph (f)(3)(v) would require the 

employer to ensure that, after the drill 

hole loading process is completed but 

before detonation, all remaining 

explosives, including detonators, are 

immediately returned to the appropriate 

magazines. This ensures that none of the 

remaining explosives are 

unintentionally left near the loaded drill 

holes and detonated when the loaded 

drill holes are detonated. The proposed 

requirement replaces existing paragraph 

(e)(3)(vii) except that, without changing 

the intent of the requirement, it has 

been rewritten in clearer language using 

terms more consistent with those used 

in other parts of the proposed standard. 

Unlike the existing requirement, the 

proposed version explicitly states that 

all the remaining explosives must be 

immediately returned to the appropriate 

magazines before the loaded explosives 

are detonated. This proposed 

requirement is also consistent with 

paragraph 9.2.6 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) which addresses 

storage of excess explosive materials. 

Paragraph (f)(3)(vi) would require the 

employer to ensure that, during the time 

that drill holes are loaded or are being 

loaded, only personnel who are engaged 

in drilling or loading operations, or are 

otherwise authorized by the employer, 

may enter the blast site. The time when 

the drill holes are loaded or being 

loaded is a period of increased risk of 

accidental detonation of the explosives. 

The proposed provision reduces the risk 

to employees by ensuring that only 

essential employees are in the blast site 

during this time. This is a new 

requirement recommended by the 

Petition (Ex. 2–1). The Agency agrees 

that this is an important consideration 

for the safety and security of the blast 

site and should be addressed in the 

proposed rule. This proposed 

requirement is also consistent with 

paragraph 9.2.1 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) which addresses 

unauthorized personnel entering the 

blast site during loading operations. 

Paragraph (f)(3)(vii)(A) would require 

the employer to ensure that, after the 

loaded drill holes are connected but 

prior to them being connected to a 

source of initiation, the blast area is 

barricaded and posted, guarded, or both. 

If the blast area is barricaded and 

posted, the posted sign must contain 

sufficient language, such as 

‘‘DANGER—EXPLOSIVES HAZARD—

DO NOT ENTER,’’ to ensure that 

employees are aware of the hazards 

involved within the blast area. In 

addition, paragraph (f)(3)(vii)(B) would 

require all personnel to be removed 

from the blast area. These proposed 

requirements are new and were 

recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2–1). 

The Agency agrees with the Petition that 

it is necessary to ensure that all 

employees are removed from the blast 

area for their safety during this stage of 

the blasting operations. These proposed 

requirements are also consistent with 

paragraph 9.2.7 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) which addresses 

personnel in the blast area during preblast and post-blast operations. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(4) continues 

with the blasting operation sequence 

and addresses the initiation of the 

explosives. Paragraph (f)(4)(i) would 

require the employer to ensure that, 

where sources of extraneous electricity 

in excess of fifty (50) milliamperes 

(flowing through a one-ohm resistor) are 

present, electric detonators are used 

only after sufficient measures are taken 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18818 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

to ensure that the detonators will not 

inadvertently activate. This is a new 

requirement based on a 

recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2–

1) and is consistent with paragraph 9.3.3 

of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–

5). This determination about whether to 

use electric detonators would need to be 

made by the blaster-in-charge on a caseby-case basis. As discussed earlier in 

proposed paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(E), certain 

sources of electrical current can cause 

accidental ignitions of electric 

detonators and paragraph (f)(4)(i) is 

being proposed to ensure that 

appropriate steps are taken so that 

electric detonators do not activate 

accidentally. 

Paragraph (f)(4)(ii) would require the 

employer to ensure that the blaster-incharge supervises selection and 

installation of the blast initiation 

system. This is a new requirement based 

on a recommendation in the Petition 

(Ex. 2–1) and is consistent with 

paragraph 9.3.6.4(1) of the 2001 edition 

of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). The purpose of 

this requirement is to ensure that the 

proper initiation system is selected and 

installed depending on the particular 

blast to be performed. 

Paragraph (f)(4)(iii) would require the 

employer to ensure that the initiation 

system is used in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s recommendations. This 

is a new requirement based on a 

recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2–

1) and is consistent with paragraph 

9.3.6.4(2) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 

495 (Ex. 2–5). This proposed 

requirement applies to both electric and 

electronic detonators and OSHA 

believes it would increase employee 

safety in the use of initiation systems. 

Proposed paragraphs (f)(4)(iv), 

(f)(4)(v), and (f)(4)(vi) address 

requirements that are specific to nonelectric initiation systems, including 

electronic initiation systems. The 

proposal also contains similar (where 

applicable) requirements specific to 

electric initiation systems below in 

proposed paragraphs (f)(4)(xi) and 

(f)(4)(xii). Paragraph (f)(4)(iv) would 

require the employer to ensure that the 

blaster-in-charge checks the initiation 

system visually after the blast hookup. 

This is a new requirement based on a 

recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2–

1) and is consistent with paragraph 

9.3.6.4(3) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 

495 (Ex. 2–5). The purpose of this 

requirement is to visually ensure the 

connections in the initiation system 

were made properly in order to prevent 

misfires. Paragraph (f)(4)(v) would 

require the employer to ensure that the 

blaster-in-charge tests the blast layout 

for continuity as recommended by the 

manufacturer. This is a new 

requirement based on a 

recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2–

1) and is consistent with paragraph 

9.3.6.4(4) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 

495 (Ex. 2–5). OSHA believes this new 

requirement will enhance employee 

safety during blasting operations by 

reducing the chance of misfires due to 

improper connections. 

Paragraph (f)(4)(vi) would require the 

employer to ensure that where deemed 

necessary by the blaster-in-charge, a 

double trunk line or closed-loop hookup 

is used in the initiation system. This is 

a new requirement based on a 

recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2–

1) and is consistent with paragraph 

9.3.6.4(5) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 

495 (Ex. 2–5). OSHA believes this 

proposed requirement would increase 

employee safety by reducing misfires 

through the use, where necessary, of 

double trunk lines or closed-loop 

hookups. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(4)(vii) would 

require the employer to ensure that 

when a safety fuse is used, only a 

crimper approved by the detonator 

manufacturer or the safety fuse 

manufacturer is used to connect the 

detonator to the safety fuse. This 

requirement replaces a requirement in 

existing paragraph (e)(4)(ii) that, when a 

fuse is used, the blasting cap must be 

securely attached to the safety fuse with 

a standard-ring type cap crimper. 

Compared to the existing requirement, 

the new language enhances employee 

safety by ensuring that the appropriate 

type of crimper is used to connect the 

detonator to the safety fuse. This new 

requirement was recommended by the 

Petition (Ex. 2–1). 

Issue #13: Paragraph 10.3.2 of the 

2006 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–21) 

includes a requirement that when a 

safety fuse is used, ‘‘in no case shall 

fuse lengths of less than 3 ft or with a 

burn time of less than 120 seconds be 

used.’’ The proposed standard does not 

contain this requirement. Should it be 

included in the standard? If so, are the 

fuse length and burn time restrictions 

adequate to protect the safety of 

employees? 

Paragraph (f)(4)(viii) would require 

the employer to ensure that all primers 

are assembled at least 50 feet (15.25 m) 

away from any magazine. This proposed 

requirement replaces a similar 

requirement in existing paragraph 

(e)(4)(ii). It is also consistent with a 

requirement in paragraph 9.3.6.1 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Issue #14: After further discussions 

with IME concerning the Petition, IME 

suggested an exception to proposed 

paragraph (f)(4)(viii) to allow primers to 

be assembled within 50 feet of a Type 

3 ‘‘day box’’ magazine. IME argued that 

worksite conditions and space 

restrictions may make it impractical or 

impossible to keep the Type 3 magazine, 

in which detonators are located, at a 

distance of 50 feet or more from the 

place where the primer is being 

assembled. IME asserted that such 

situations may occur when blasting is 

taking place in an underground or other 

confined area. IME argued that the 50 

foot restriction in the proposed 

paragraph requires the blaster-in-charge 

to transport only one detonator at a time 

from the Type 3 magazine which could 

potentially leave the primers 

unattended and could result in the 

magazine being located in an area out of 

the sight and physical control of the 

blaster-in-charge. OSHA requests 

comments on whether proposed 

paragraph (f)(4)(viii) should apply to all 

magazines including Type 3 magazines? 

Alternatively, when warranted by work 

conditions, should primers be allowed 

to be assembled within 50 feet of a Type 

3 magazine? If so, what kinds of work 

conditions would warrant such an 

exception? If an exception is made for 

Type 3 magazines, how close to such a 

magazine can primers be assembled 

safely? 

Paragraph (f)(4)(ix) would require the 

employer to ensure that primers are 

made up only as needed for immediate 

use. This proposed requirement is the 

same as and replaces existing paragraph 

(e)(4)(iii) except that it has been 

rewritten in clearer language without 

changing the intent of the requirement. 

In addition, the proposed requirement is 

consistent with a requirement in 

paragraph 9.3.6.1 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Paragraph (f)(4)(x) would require the 

employer to ensure that when an 

explosives cartridge that does not have 

a detonator well is used as a primer, a 

hole large enough to accommodate the 

detonator is made in the cartridge with 

a spark-resistant powder punch 

approved either by the explosives 

manufacturer or by the blaster-incharge. This proposed paragraph is 

based on and replaces existing 

paragraph (e)(4)(iv) but has been revised 

to reflect current industry practice. The 

revised language also clarifies the kind 

of powder punch that can be used to 

make a well for the detonator. The 

proposed requirement allows the use of 

a spark-resistant cap crimper for this 

purpose since it is a form of a powder 

punch. The purpose of this requirement 

is to ensure that, for safe use, the 

detonator well is made in the correct 

manner and is the correct size to 

accommodate the detonator. For safety 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18819 

reasons, the employer should never use 

a cast primer or booster if the hole for 

the detonator is too small. Further, the 

employer should never enlarge a hole in 

a cast primer or booster to accept a 

detonator or force or attempt to force a 

detonator into explosive material. The 

revisions in the proposed paragraph 

were recommended by the Petition (Ex. 

2–1) and are consistent with the 

requirements contained in paragraph 

9.3.6 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 

(Ex. 2–5). 

Paragraph (f)(4)(xi) would require the 

employer to ensure that, when testing 

electric circuits that connect loaded 

drill holes, only blasting galvanometers 

or other instruments specifically 

designed for this purpose are used. This 

proposed requirement is similar to 

existing paragraph (e)(4)(vii) except that 

it has been updated to be consistent 

with paragraph 9.3.5 of the 2001 edition 

of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) which allows 

other test instruments to be used as long 

as they are designed for that purpose. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(4)(xii) 

addresses requirements for electrical 

firing of blasts. Paragraph (f)(4)(xii)(A) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that only the person making the leadline connections or the blaster-in-charge 

fires the shot. This paragraph is 

essentially the same as a requirement in 

existing paragraph (e)(4)(viii) but has 

been revised to allow the blaster-incharge the authority to fire the shot in 

addition to the person making the leadline connections. The change was made 

to be consistent with the responsibilities 

given to the blaster-in-charge in this 

proposed rule and to be consistent with 

paragraph 9.3.7 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5), which allows the 

blaster-in-charge to fire the shot. In 

some cases, the blaster-in-charge may 

need to delegate the responsibility of 

firing the shot to the person who made 

the lead-line connections. This is the 

only other person the blaster-in-charge 

may delegate to perform this duty. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(4)(xii)(B) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that blasting lead lines remain shunted 

(shorted) and not connected to the 

blasting machine or other source of 

current until the charge is to be fired. 

This proposed requirement is the same 

as and replaces a requirement in 

existing paragraph (e)(4)(viii) except 

that the term ‘‘shunted’’ has been added 

to clarify the intent of the requirement 

and to be consistent with paragraph 

9.3.7 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 

(Ex. 2–5). 

Issue #15: The proposed rule does not 

address static sensitive detonators. 

OSHA would like specific comments on 

whether there is a potential hazard 

associated with static electricity setting 

off electric detonators. If there is a 

hazard, should OSHA address this 

hazard in § 1910.109 by requiring all 

electric detonators be tested for 

electrostatic sensitivity? If so, what 

testing procedures should be used? Is it 

technically and economically feasible to 

require detonator manufacturers to test 

for static sensitivity? Are there 

procedures employees can take to 

eliminate an electrostatic hazard such as 

using rubber gloves or friction tape 

when working with electric detonators? 

Proposed paragraph (f)(5) addresses 

the need for a warning signal prior to 

firing a blast. Paragraph (f)(5) would 

require the employer to ensure that, 

before a blast is fired, all persons and 

vehicles are at a safe distance outside 

the blast area or under sufficient cover, 

and that an adequate warning signal is 

given. This proposed requirement is 

essentially the same as and replaces 

existing paragraph (e)(5) except that it 

has been rewritten in clearer language. 

Unlike the existing paragraph, the 

proposed paragraph does not include a 

requirement that surplus explosives be 

in a safe place because this requirement 

is already addressed in proposed 

paragraphs (f)(2)(iv) and (f)(3)(v) which 

require that unused explosives and 

detonators be immediately returned to 

the appropriate magazines. The purpose 

of the warning signal, usually a siren, is 

to ensure that all employees are a safe 

distance away from the blast when fired. 

Typically, the blast area is cleared by 

the blaster-in-charge well before the 

siren sounds. The siren is used to warn 

of an imminent blast (the siren usually 

sounds up to a minute before the blast). 

If anyone is still in the blast area, it 

provides them with adequate time to get 

out safely. Also, the warning siren 

allows anyone outside the blast area a 

chance to move behind a barrier or use 

necessary hearing protection. Proposed 

paragraph (f)(5) is consistent with 

paragraph 9.3.8 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Paragraph (f)(6) in the proposal 

addresses post blast procedures. 

Paragraph (f)(6)(i) would require the 

employer to ensure that, after a blast, no 

other person enters the blast area until 

it is inspected by the blaster-in-charge 

and found to be free of misfires and 

other safety hazards and the blaster-incharge has given an all-clear signal. This 

is a new requirement that requires the 

blaster-in-charge to conduct a search for 

safety hazards and to prevent all 

persons from entering the blast area 

until the blaster-in-charge determines it 

is safe. It is also consistent with 

paragraphs 9.4.1 and 9.4.3 of the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Paragraph (f)(6)(ii) would require the 

employer to ensure that the blaster-incharge does not enter the blast site until 

sufficient time has passed to allow 

smoke and fumes to dissipate and dust 

to settle. This is a new requirement 

intended to prevent the blaster-incharge from entering the blast site before 

it is safe to conduct the inspection of the 

blast site. It is also consistent with 

paragraph 9.4.2 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Paragraph (f)(7) in the proposal 

addresses misfires. It is a consolidation 

of many paragraphs scattered 

throughout the existing standard 

concerning misfires. OSHA felt it would 

be easier for employers to understand 

the requirements involving misfires if 

they were located in the same 

paragraph. 

Paragraph (f)(7)(i) would require the 

employer to ensure that, whenever there 

is a misfire while using blasting cap and 

fuse or electronic detonators, all 

employees remain outside the blast area 

for at least 1 hour. If electric detonators 

or non-electric detonators are used and 

a misfire occurs, this waiting period 

may be reduced to 30 minutes. This 

proposed requirement is essentially the 

same as existing paragraph (e)(4)(vi) and 

paragraphs 9.5.4 and 9.5.5 of the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). The only 

changes are that, compared to the 

existing requirement, the proposed 

requirement has been rewritten for 

clarity and electronic detonators have 

been added. Since electronic detonators 

are relatively new technology, the 

existing standard does not contain 

requirements that address a waiting 

period following a misfire involving 

electronic detonators. 

Issue #16: OSHA is seeking comments 

on what is an appropriate waiting 

period after misfires. The Agency is 

proposing a misfire waiting period of at 

least 1 hour if a blasting cap and fuse 

or an electronic detonator was used and 

a misfire waiting period of at least 30 

minutes if an electric or non-electric 

(other than blasting cap and fuse) 

detonator was used. OSHA’s 

construction standard at § 1926.911(d) 

requires a waiting period of at least one 

hour if there is a misfire while using cap 

and fuse. On the other hand, MSHA’s 

regulations at 30 CFR §§ 56.6310 and 

57.6310 require persons to wait 30 

minutes if a safety fuse and blasting 

caps are used and 15 minutes if any 

other type of detonator is used. These 

MSHA requirements apply to surface 

metal and nonmetal mines and to 

underground metal and nonmetal 

mines. Paragraphs 9.5.4 and 9.5.5 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 require a 1- 

hour waiting period after a misfire using 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18820 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

cap and fuse and a 30 minute waiting 

period after a misfire using an electric 

or non-electric detonator (other than cap 

and fuse). However, the 2006 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–21) has reduced the 

waiting periods to 30 minutes when 

using electronic or cap and fuse 

initiation and 15 minutes for all others. 

OSHA is seeking comment on 

whether the waiting periods for misfires 

in its proposed standard are appropriate 

for employee safety. Should the Agency 

consider the waiting periods in the 2006 

edition of NFPA 495 or other alternative 

waiting periods and, if so, why? What 

is the general industry practice for 

waiting periods after misfires? 

Paragraph (f)(7)(ii) would require the 

employer to ensure that, whenever 

explosives remain in a misfired hole, a 

new primer is inserted and the hole is 

reblasted. Where reblasting presents a 

hazard, the remaining explosives shall 

be washed out with water, or, where the 

misfire is underwater, blown out with 

air. This proposed requirement is 

similar to and replaces existing 

paragraph (e)(4)(v) and has been 

rewritten in clearer language. Unlike the 

existing requirement, when reblasting 

presents a hazard, the proposed 

paragraph allows the explosive to be 

extracted using water or, where the 

misfire is underwater, using air. This is 

consistent with the requirements in 

paragraph 9.5.3 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) and provides for 

misfire situations where reblasting may 

be unsafe. 

Paragraph (f)(7)(iii) would require the 

employer to ensure that misfires are 

handled under the direction of the 

blaster-in-charge and all initiation paths 

are carefully traced and a thorough 

search made for unexploded charges. 

This proposed requirement is 

essentially the same as and replaces 

requirements in existing paragraph 

(e)(4)(vi) except that the blaster-incharge is specifically assigned the duty 

to direct the handling misfires. This 

proposed requirement is also consistent 

with paragraphs 9.5.6 and 9.5.7 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) 

which address the employer’s 

responsibility concerning misfires and 

the need to conduct a search for 

unexploded charges. 

Paragraph (f)(7)(iv) would require the 

employer to ensure that explosives 

recovered from blasting misfires are 

placed in a magazine that is used only 

for the storage of misfired explosives 

and are then disposed of as soon as 

possible in accordance with the 

manufacturers’ recommendations. This 

would be a new requirement and is 

consistent with the requirements in 

paragraph 8.8.4 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). The proposed 

paragraph is intended to protect 

employee safety by requiring possibly 

dangerous and unstable misfired 

explosives to be isolated in magazines 

and to be kept away from other 

explosives. 

Paragraph (f)(7)(v) would require the 

employer to ensure that detonators 

recovered from blasting misfires are not 

reused and are disposed of as soon as 

possible in accordance with the 

manufacturers’ recommendations. 

Proposed paragraphs (f)(7)(iv) and (v) 

are essentially the same as and replace 

those in existing paragraph (c)(5)(ix) and 

are also consistent with the 

requirements in paragraph 8.8.4 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Paragraph (g) Blasting agents, water 

gels, slurries, and emulsions. In 

paragraph (g), OSHA is proposing 

specific requirements for blasting 

agents, water gels, slurries, and 

emulsions. Existing paragraph (g) covers 

blasting agents and existing paragraph 

(h) covers water gels and slurries. OSHA 

has determined that these two 

paragraphs contain many duplicative 

requirements. Therefore, OSHA is 

proposing to combine these two existing 

paragraphs into one proposed paragraph 

(g) to cover blasting agents, water gels, 

slurries, and emulsions. Most of the 

requirements in proposed paragraph (g) 

would cover blasting agents, water gels, 

slurries, and emulsions, but some would 

only cover water gels, slurries, and 

emulsions. 

Existing paragraph (h) addresses 

water gels and slurries but does not 

address emulsions. Emulsions are 

similar to water gels and slurries but are 

a relatively new product which did not 

exist when the current § 1910.109 

standard was promulgated. They are 

being included with blasting agents, 

water gels, and slurries in proposed 

paragraph (g). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(1)(i)(A) would 

require that, unless otherwise specified 

in proposed paragraph (g), blasting 

agents, water gels, slurries, and 

emulsions shall be stored, transported, 

handled, and used in the same manner 

as other explosives. The revised 

requirement is essentially the same as 

existing paragraph (g)(1) and (h)(1). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(1)(i)(B) would 

require that, unless otherwise specified 

in proposed paragraph (g), water gels, 

slurries, and emulsions classified as 

Division 1.1 or Division 1.5 must meet 

the same requirements as blasting agents 

in paragraph (g). As mentioned above in 

the preamble, there is a large overlap 

between existing paragraph (g) covering 

blasting agents and existing paragraph 

(h) covering water gels and slurries. To 

avoid unnecessary duplication, these 

two existing paragraphs are being 

combined in proposed paragraph (g), 

which would apply to blasting agents, 

water gels, slurries, and emulsions. In 

addition, proposed paragraph (g)(1)(i)(B) 

states that the manufacture of water 

gels, slurries, and emulsions that can be 

classified as Division 1.1 explosives 

must also comply with § 1910.119 

Process Safety Management. However, 

unless specified in the proposed 

standard, water gels, slurries, and 

emulsions that can be classified as 

Division 1.5 explosives are subject to 

the same requirements in the proposed 

standard that apply to other kinds of 

blasting agents. This includes the 

requirements in the proposed standard 

covering the manufacture of such 

Division 1.5 water gels, slurries, and 

emulsions. 

CONSOLIDATION OF REQUIREMENTS IN

EXISTING PARAGRAPHS (G) AND (H) 

INTO PROPOSED PARAGRAPH (G) 

Existing paragraph (g) 

blasting 

agents 

Existing paragraph (h) 

water gels 

Proposed 

paragraph (g) 

blasting 

agents, water 

gels, slurries, 

and emulsions 

(g)(2)(ii)(a) .... (h)(3)(ii)(a) .... (g)(2)(i)(A). 

(g)(2)(ii)(b) .... (h)(3)(ii)(b) .... (g)(2)(i)(B). 

(g)(2)(ii)(d) .... (h)(3)(ii)(d) .... (g)(2)(i)(C). 

(g)(2)(ii)(e) .... (h)(3)(ii)(e) .... (g)(2)(i)(D)–

(F). 

(g)(2)(ii)(f) ..... (h)(3)(ii)(f) ..... (g)(2)(i)(G) 

and (H). 

(g)(2)(ii)(c) .... (h)(3)(ii)(c) .... (g)(2)(i)(J). 

(g)(2)(iii)(a) ... (h)(3)(iv)(a) ... (g)(2)(ii)(A). 

(g)(3)(iii)(a) ... (h)(4)(ii)(b) .... (g)(3)(iii)(A) 

and (B). 

(g)(3)(iii)(c) ... (h)(4)(ii)(d) .... (g)(3)(iii)(C). 

(g)(3)(iii)(d) ... (h)(4)(ii)(e) .... (g)(3)(iii)(E). 

(g)(3)(iii)(e) ... (h)(4)(ii)(f) ..... (g)(3)(iii)(G). 

Paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A) would require 

the employer to ensure that caked 

oxidizers, either in bags or in bulk, are 

not loosened by blasting. The provision 

is the same as existing (g)(5)(vi) and 

consistent with paragraph 5.5.3 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(B) would require 

the employer to ensure that equipment 

used for mixing and packaging blasting 

agents is constructed of materials 

compatible with the blasting agent 

composition. The proposed paragraph is 

phrased in performance language but is 

consistent with existing paragraph 

(g)(2)(iii)(b) and with paragraph 5.2.4.2 

of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 

(Ex. 2–5). 

Paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(C) would require 

the employer to ensure that spills or 

leaks which may contaminate 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18821 

combustible materials are cleaned up 

immediately. The provision is 

equivalent to and replaces existing 

paragraph (h)(3)(iii)(b) with the 

exception that the proposed 

requirement does not retain the 

statement that: ‘‘Nitrate-water solutions 

may be stored in tank cars, tank trucks, 

or fixed tanks without quantity or 

distance limitations.’’ OSHA has 

omitted this statement from the 

proposal because it is merely advisory 

and does not improve employee safety. 

In addition, the proposed paragraph 

extends the coverage of the existing 

paragraph to cover not only water gels, 

slurries, and emulsions but also blasting 

agents in general. OSHA believes that 

the expansion of the existing 

requirement to blasting agents in general 

will enhance employee safety. 

Paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(D) would require 

the employer to ensure that ingredients 

are not kept with incompatible materials 

that may endanger the safety of 

employees if the ingredients and 

incompatible materials are commingled. 

This proposed requirement is 

essentially the same as and replaces the 

corresponding existing provision 

(h)(3)(iii)(d) and is consistent with 

paragraph 6.3.3(4) of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). While the existing 

paragraph only applies to water gels, 

slurries, and emulsions, the proposed 

paragraph also applies to blasting agents 

in general. OSHA believes that it is 

important for employee safety that 

ingredients of blasting agents in general, 

and not only those of water gels, 

slurries, and emulsions, be kept away 

from incompatible materials. 

Paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(E) would require 

the employer to ensure that water gels, 

slurries, and emulsions maintain their 

liquid or water content. This is a new 

requirement based on a 

recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2–

1). OSHA believes the requirement is 

needed because, according to IME, 

when water gels, slurries, and 

emulsions lose their liquid or water 

content, their stability decreases and the 

possibility of unintentional detonation 

increases. Therefore, maintaining the 

water content of water gels, slurries, and 

emulsions helps to maintain their 

stability and avoid unintentional 

deteriorations. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(1)(iii) would 

apply where a Type 5 magazine is used 

as a bulk storage container for blasting 

agents and would require the employer 

to ensure that any electrically-driven 

conveyor used for loading or unloading 

the magazine be designed to minimize 

damage from corrosion. This proposed 

provision is consistent with the 

requirements of existing (g)(4)(iv) and 

with paragraph 5.4.5 of NFPA 495–2001 

(Ex. 2–5). One minor change is that 

OSHA has not retained the language in 

existing paragraph (g)(4)(iv) that 

specifically requires electrically driven 

conveyors to conform to subpart S 

(Electrical) because the obligation is 

already imposed in subpart S and, 

therefore, there is no need to restate that 

requirement. 

Existing paragraphs (g)(4)(i) through 

(iii), covering explosives storage, are not 

being retained in the proposed standard 

because they are preempted by ATF’s 

explosives storage regulations at 27 CFR 

part 555. See the discussion above at 

‘‘OSHA’s Authority to Regulate’’ on how 

ATF’s explosives storage regulations 

preempt OSHA’s explosives storage 

regulations in § 1910.109. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2) sets forth a 

number of requirements related to fixed 

location mixing of blasting agents. The 

requirements are essentially the same as 

existing requirements except for 

editorial revisions to make the 

provisions easier to understand. The 

proposed requirements are also 

consistent with the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A) would 

require the employer to ensure that 

buildings used for the mixing of blasting 

agents are of noncombustible 

construction or constructed of sheet 

metal on wood studs. The provision is 

equivalent to existing (g)(2)(ii)(a) and 

(h)(3)(ii)(a) and is consistent with 

paragraphs 5.2.3.1 and 6.3.2(1) of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(B) would 

require the employer to ensure that the 

floors of any building used for mixing 

blasting agents are constructed of 

concrete or other minimally absorbent 

material and have no drains or piping 

into which molten materials could flow 

and be confined during a fire. Apart 

from minor revisions, the provision is 

equivalent to existing paragraphs 

(g)(2)(ii)(b), (g)(2)(vi)(a), and (h)(3)(ii)(b) 

and is consistent with paragraphs 

5.2.3.2 and 6.3.2(2) of the 2001 edition 

of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). Specifically, the 

word ‘‘nonabsorbent’’ in the existing 

provision has been changed to 

‘‘minimally absorbent’’ to reflect that 

concrete floors can allow some liquid to 

penetrate their surface. Concrete floors 

are common in fixed location mixing 

buildings, and the ‘‘nonabsorbent’’

language of the existing provision has 

caused some concern about the use of 

concrete. Therefore, the purpose of the 

revision is to clarify the requirements of 

the proposed provision. OSHA believes 

this minor change will have no negative 

effect on employee safety. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(C) would 

require the employer to ensure that the 

building is ventilated to prevent unsafe 

heat or fume accumulations. The 

provision is equivalent to and replaces 

existing paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(d) and 

(h)(3)(ii)(d) and is consistent with 

5.2.3.4 and 6.3.2(4) of the 2001 edition 

of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) . However, 

existing paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(d) and 

(h)(3)(ii)(d) and paragraphs 5.2.3.4 and 

6.3.2(4) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 

use the phrase ‘‘well ventilated.’’ The 

proposed paragraph uses the phrase 

‘‘ventilated to prevent unsafe heat or 

fume accumulations.’’ OSHA believes 

the proposed language more clearly 

expresses the intent of the requirement. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(D) would 

require the employer to ensure that 

heating, if supplied for the building, is 

provided in a manner that does not 

create a fire or ignition hazard. Proposed 

paragraph (g)(2)(i)(E) would further 

require that all direct sources of indoor 

heat be provided exclusively from units 

located outside the building. For 

example, if heat is pumped into the 

building, the heating element must be 

located outside the building to eliminate 

the ignition source from within the 

building. Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(F) 

would clarify that heating units may be 

used in the building if they do not 

depend on combustion processes, such 

as electric heaters, and do not create a 

fire or ignition hazard. Examples of 

unacceptable heating units are those 

that use kerosene or propane. The 

provisions replace requirements in 

existing paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(e) and 

(h)(3)(ii)(e) and are consistent with 

paragraphs 5.2.3.5 and 6.3.2(5) of the 

2001 edition of NFPA (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(G) would 

require the employer to ensure that all 

internal combustion engines are located 

outside the building, or that they are 

safely ventilated and isolated by a fire 

barrier wall with at least a 1-hour rating. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(H) would 

require the employer to ensure that the 

exhaust systems on all internalcombustion engines are located so that 

no sparks or other ignition sources 

create a hazard to any materials in or in 

close proximity to the building. These 

requirements are essentially the same as 

and replace those in existing paragraphs 

(g)(2)(ii)(f) and (h)(3)(ii)(f) and are 

consistent with paragraphs 5.2.3.6 and 

6.3.2(6) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 

(Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(I) would 

require the employer to ensure that all 

electric equipment located in the mixing 

room meets the requirements in subpart 

S of this part for Class II, Division 2 

locations. The proposed provision is 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18822 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

equivalent to and replaces existing 

paragraph (g)(2)(v) and is consistent 

with paragraph 5.2.6 of the 2001 edition 

of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Paragraph (g)(2)(i)(J) would require 

the employer to ensure that all fuel-oil 

storage facilities are separated from the 

mixing building and located in such a 

manner that in case of tank rupture, the 

oil will drain away from the mixing 

building and other facilities containing 

explosives or employees. Alternatively, 

tanks may be diked in a manner that 

will contain the entire tank contents in 

case of rupture. The proposed provision 

replaces existing paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(c) 

and (h)(3)(ii)(c) except that OSHA has 

made two changes in the proposed 

paragraph compared to the existing 

paragraphs. First, in the proposed 

paragraph, OSHA has added the 

alternative method of diking tanks. This 

addition is based on a recommendation 

in the Petition (Ex. 2–1). OSHA believes 

this alternative method is as safe as 

allowing the oil to drain away from the 

mixing building. Second, the existing 

paragraphs only require the oil from a 

ruptured tank to drain away from the 

mixing building, whereas the proposed 

paragraph requires such oil to drain 

away from all buildings and other 

facilities containing explosives or 

employees. OSHA believes this 

expansion increases safety for 

employees at the workplace by ensuring 

that oil from a ruptured tank is diverted 

away from buildings and other facilities 

where employees may be located. 

Except for these two additions, the 

proposed paragraph is consistent with 

paragraphs 5.2.3.3 and 6.3.2(3) of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(K) would 

require the employer to ensure that the 

land surrounding blasting agent mixing 

plants be kept clear of all combustible 

materials for a distance of at least 25 

feet. This proposed paragraph is the 

same as and replaces existing paragraph 

(g)(2)(vi)(e) and is consistent with 

paragraph 5.2.8(5) in the 2001 edition of 

NFP A 495. Note that under 

§ 1910.119(e)(3)(v), the employer must 

already identify and control any 

hazards, such as nearby combustible 

materials, relating to the siting of a 

facility at which Division 1.1 to 1.4 

explosives are manufactured, that could 

initiate a catastrophic release within the 

manufacturing process. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii) sets forth 

requirements for equipment used for 

mixing of blasting agents at fixed 

locations. Like the requirements of 

proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i), the 

requirements in proposed paragraph 

(g)(2)(ii) are essentially the same as 

those in the existing standard and in 

paragraph 5.2 of NFPA 495 except that 

they have been reorganized into 

separate provisions so they are easier to 

understand. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(A) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that the mixing equipment minimizes 

the possibility of frictional heating, 

compaction, and confinement of the 

explosives present. The provision is 

equivalent to and replaces 

corresponding requirements in existing 

paragraphs (g)(2)(iii)(a) and (h)(3)(iv)(a) 

and is consistent with paragraphs 

5.2.4.1 and 6.3.4(1) of the 2001 edition 

of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(B) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that all surfaces of the mixing 

equipment are accessible for cleaning. 

The provision is equivalent to and 

replaces the corresponding requirement 

in existing paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(a) and is 

consistent with paragraph 5.2.4.1 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(C) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that all bearings and drive assemblies 

are mounted outside the mixer and are 

protected against dust accumulation. 

The provision is equivalent to and 

replaces the corresponding requirement 

of existing paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(a) and is 

consistent with paragraph 5.2.4.1 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(D) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that fuel oil is prevented from flowing 

to the mixer in case of fire. It further 

requires that in gravity-flow systems, an 

automatic spring-loaded shutoff valve 

with a fusible link be installed. The 

provision is equivalent to and replaces 

the corresponding requirement of 

existing paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(c) and is 

consistent with paragraph 5.2.4.3 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(E) would 

require the employer to ensure that both 

the equipment and handling procedures 

prevent the inadvertent introduction of 

foreign objects or materials into the 

mixing process. The provision is 

equivalent to and replaces existing 

paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(b) and is consistent 

with paragraph 6.3.4(2) of the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(F) would 

require the employer to ensure that 

mixers, pumps, valves, and related 

equipment are regularly and 

periodically flushed, cleaned, 

dismantled, and inspected. The 

provision is equivalent to and replaces 

existing paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(c) and is 

consistent with paragraph 6.3.4(3) of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). In 

the existing standard, the requirements 

in paragraphs (h)(3)(iv)(b) and (c) apply 

only to water gels and slurries whereas 

proposed paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(E) and (F) 

are applying these requirements to all 

blasting agents, including water gels, 

slurries, and emulsions. OSHA believes 

that the regular and periodic flushing, 

cleaning, dismantling, and inspection of 

these types of equipment help to 

prevent the malfunction of the 

equipment. Such malfunctions could 

lead to a potential explosion hazard and 

endanger the safety of employees. 

OSHA further believes that these safety 

provisions should cover the 

manufacture of all blasting agents and 

not just water gels and slurries. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iii) sets 

forth requirements for blasting agent 

compositions in fixed mixing locations. 

Paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(A) would require 

the employer to ensure that oxidizers of 

small particle size, such as crushed 

ammonium nitrate prills or fines, which 

may be more sensitive than coarser 

products, are handled with additional 

care compared to the coarser products. 

These oxidizers of small particle size 

may be more sensitive and more likely 

to be accidentally ignited or initiated if 

care is not taken in their handling. The 

provision is equivalent to and replaces 

the requirement of existing paragraph 

(g)(2)(iv)(b) and is consistent with 

paragraph 5.2.5.1 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(B) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that no hydrocarbon liquid fuel with a 

flashpoint lower than 125 °F (51.7 °C) is 

used in the manufacture of blasting 

agents except at ambient air 

temperatures below 45 °F (7.2 °C) where 

fuel oils with flashpoints as low as 100 

°F (37.8 °C) are used. The requirement 

replaces existing paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(c) 

and has been updated to be consistent 

with paragraph 5.2.5.2 of the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(C) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that crude oil and crankcase oil are not 

used as blasting agent ingredients. This 

requirement is the same as and replaces 

existing paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(d). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(D) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that metal powders such as aluminum 

are kept dry and stored in moistureresistant or weather-tight containers. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(E) would 

require that solid fuels be used in a 

manner that minimizes dust explosion 

hazards as far as possible. These 

requirements are essentially the same as 

and replace those in existing paragraph 

(g)(2)(iv)(e) and are consistent with 

paragraph 5.2.5.4 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18823 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(F) 

would prohibit the use of peroxides and 

chlorates in mixing blasting agents. The 

provision is equivalent to and replaces 

existing paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(f) and is 

consistent with paragraph 5.2.5.5 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) . 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iv) sets 

forth requirements for mixing 

operations for blasting agents and water 

gels, slurries, and emulsions classified 

as Division 1.5 blasting agents. 

However, water gels, slurries, and 

emulsions classified as Division 1.1 

explosives must meet the requirements 

of § 1910.119. Paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(A) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that empty ammonium nitrate bags are 

disposed of daily in a safe manner. The 

provision is equivalent to existing 

paragraph (g)(2)(vi)(f) and is consistent 

with paragraph 5.2.8(6) of the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(B) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that no hot work or open flame is 

permitted in or around the mixing 

building unless the equipment and 

surrounding area have been completely 

washed down and all oxidizers and 

fuels removed. This provision is similar 

to existing paragraph (g)(2)(vi)(g) except 

the more general term ‘‘hot work’’ has 

been substituted in the proposal for the 

term ‘‘welding’’ in the existing standard. 

As discussed above in Definitions, 

proposed paragraph (b), ‘‘hot work’’

means any work involving electric or 

gas welding, cutting, brazing, or similar 

flame or spark-producing operations. 

Hot work in general, including welding, 

can be a hazard in the presence of 

explosives. The proposed language is 

consistent with § 1910.119, the process 

safety management standard, and was 

recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2–1). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(C) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that, before welding or repairing hollow 

shafts of mixing equipment, all blasting 

agents and their ingredients are 

removed from the outside and inside of 

the shaft, and the shaft is vented 

through an opening at least one-half 

inch in diameter. This provision is 

equivalent to and replaces existing 

paragraph (g)(2)(vi)(h) and is consistent 

with paragraph 5.2.8(8) of the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(D) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that no explosives other than blasting 

agents (Class 1, Division 1.5 explosives) 

are located inside or within 50 feet 

(15.25 m) of any building used for the 

mixing of blasting agents. The provision 

is equivalent to and replaces existing 

paragraph (g)(2)(vi)(i) and is consistent 

with paragraph 5.2.8(9) of the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3) sets forth 

requirements for bulk delivery vehicles 

transporting blasting agents and their 

ingredients. Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(i) 

would require that, in addition to the 

provisions of proposed paragraph (g)(3), 

bulk delivery vehicles also meet the 

requirements of proposed paragraph (e) 

Transportation of explosives. OSHA has 

added the new language to make it clear 

that bulk delivery vehicles transporting 

blasting agents or their ingredients in 

bulk form are subject to both proposed 

paragraph (e) and (g)(3). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii) sets forth 

requirements for the construction of 

bulk delivery vehicles. Proposed 

paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(A) would require the 

employer to ensure that the vehicle 

body is constructed of noncombustible 

materials. Proposed paragraph 

(g)(3)(ii)(B) would require the employer 

to ensure that bulk delivery vehicles 

have enclosed bodies. Proposed 

paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(C) would require the 

employer to ensure that all moving parts 

of the mixing system are designed to 

prevent heat buildup. Proposed 

paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(D) would require the 

employer to ensure that shafts or axles 

which contact the blasting agent or 

blasting agent ingredients have outboard 

bearings with a 1-inch (2.54 cm) 

minimum clearance between the 

bearings and outside of the product 

container. The requirements in 

proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii) replace 

those in existing paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(a) 

through (c) and are consistent with 

paragraph 5.3.2(1) through 5.3.2(3) of 

the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

The proposal does not retain the portion 

of existing paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(c) that 

requires the employer to give particular 

attention to clearances on moving parts. 

The intent of the provision is unclear, 

the issue of clearance is covered in part 

by proposed paragraphs (g)(3)(ii)(A), (C), 

and (D), and the provision would be 

difficult to enforce 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(E) would 

require the employer to ensure that 

when electrical power is supplied by a 

self-contained generator located on the 

vehicle, the generator is located where 

it will not create a fire or ignition 

hazard. The requirement is similar to 

and replaces existing paragraph 

(h)(4)(i)(b) and is consistent with 

paragraph 6.4.1(2) of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5), except that the 

existing requirement and the NFPA 

provision only apply to vehicles used to 

deliver water gels. OSHA is proposing 

to revise the requirement to apply to 

vehicles used to deliver all types of 

blasting agents, not just water gels. This 

change is based on a recommendation in 

the Petition (Ex. 2–1) and OSHA 

believes it will improve employee safety 

by ensuring that the location of the 

generator will not create a fire or 

ignition hazard on bulk delivery 

vehicles transporting all types of 

blasting agents. The proposed 

requirement also differs from the 

existing requirement and the NFPA 

provision in that they only require a 

generator to be at a point separate from 

the where the water gel is discharged, 

whereas the proposed requirement 

contains performance language and 

requires that the generator be located so 

that it does not create a fire or ignition 

hazard. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(F) would 

require the employer to ensure that the 

vehicle is able to safely carry the 

designated load. This requirement is 

equivalent to a requirement in existing 

paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(d) and is consistent 

with paragraph 5.3.2(4) of the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(G) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that the vehicle’s processing equipment, 

including its mixing and conveying 

equipment, is compatible with the 

relative sensitivity of the materials being 

handled and does not create a risk of 

accidental ignition or detonation of the 

materials. The provision is equivalent to 

and replaces the corresponding 

requirement of existing (h)(4)(i)(c) 

(which refers to existing paragraph 

(h)(3)(iv)(a)) and consistent with 

paragraph 6.4.1(3) of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) except the existing 

requirement only applies to vehicles 

used to deliver water gels. The proposed 

requirement would apply to vehicles 

used to deliver all types of blasting 

agents, not just water gels. OSHA 

believes that this application is 

reasonable, is important for employee 

safety, and reflects current industry 

practice. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(H) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that all hollow shafts in the vehicle’s 

processing equipment are constructed to 

permit venting through an opening at 

least one-half inch in diameter. 

Although this is a new requirement, it 

is already implicitly contained in 

existing paragraph (g)(3)(v)(b) which 

requires that, before welding or making 

repairs to a hollow shaft on bulk 

delivery and mixing vehicles, the shaft 

must be vented through a minimum 

one-half-inch diameter opening. The 

new requirement was recommended by 

the Petition (Ex. 2–1) and is consistent 

with paragraph 5.3.5(2) of the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) which 

requires that all oxidizing material be 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18824 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

removed from the outside and inside of 

the shaft and the shaft is vented with an 

opening at least one-half inch in 

diameter. Proposed paragraph 

(g)(3)(ii)(H) is also consistent with 

proposed paragraph (g)(3)(v)(B) which 

requires the employer to ensure that, 

before welding or repairing a hollow 

shaft on bulk delivery vehicles, the shaft 

must be vented with an opening at least 

one-half inch in diameter. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(I) would 

require the employer to ensure that 

suitable means are provided to prevent 

the flow of fuel oil to the mixer in case 

of fire. The proposed requirement 

would also require that, in a gravityflow system, an automatic spring-loaded 

shutoff valve with a fusible link be 

installed. This proposed requirement is 

the same as existing paragraph 

(g)(2)(iii)(c) and proposed paragraph 

(g)(2)(ii)(D) for fixed location mixing of 

blasting agents. The requirement is 

being proposed for the construction of 

bulk delivery vehicles since the hazard 

of fire is the same as in fixed location 

mixing of blasting agents. The Petition 

(Ex. 2–1) also recommended extending 

this requirement to cover the 

construction of bulk delivery vehicles. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii) sets 

forth requirements for the operation of 

bulk delivery vehicles. Proposed 

paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(A) would require 

the employer to ensure that the driver 

of the vehicle is trained and capable of 

safely operating the vehicle. Proposed 

paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(B) would require 

the employer to ensure that the 

operator, whether the driver or another 

employee, is trained and capable of 

safely operating the mixing, conveying, 

and related equipment on the vehicle. 

As described above in the preamble on 

definitions, proposed paragraph (b), 

some bulk delivery vehicles only 

transport blasting agents or their 

ingredients but have no mixing, 

conveying or related equipment. Other 

bulk delivery vehicles include such 

additional equipment. On these 

vehicles, this additional equipment may 

be operated by the driver or by one or 

more additional employees. Proposed 

paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(B) requires the 

employer to ensure that, whoever is the 

operator of the mixing, conveying and 

related equipment, they must be trained 

and capable of operating the equipment 

in a safe manner. Proposed paragraphs 

(g)(3)(iii)(A) and (B) are equivalent to 

and replace requirements in existing 

paragraphs (g)(3)(iii)(a) and (h)(4)(ii)(b), 

and are consistent with paragraphs 

5.3.3(2) and 6.4.2(1) of the 2001 edition 

of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(C) 

would prohibit smoking, matches, open 

flames, spark-producing devices, and 

firearms (except firearms required to be 

carried by guards) within 25 feet (7.63 

m) of bulk delivery vehicles. The 

proposed paragraph differs from the 

existing provisions in paragraphs 

(g)(3)(iii)(c) and (h)(4)(ii)(d) as well as 

paragraphs 5.3.3(5) and 6.4.2(2) of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). The 

proposal sets a distance of 25 feet (7.63 

m) from the vehicle where smoking, 

matches, open flames, spark producing 

devices, and firearms are not permitted 

whereas the existing requirements in 

paragraphs (g)(3)(iii)(c) and (h)(4)(ii)(d) 

use the phrase ‘‘in or about bulk 

vehicles’’ and the NFPA standard uses 

the phrase ‘‘in or around bulk vehicles’’

to describe the distance or area in which 

smoking, carrying matches, etc., is not 

permitted. The proposed change is 

based on a recommendation from the 

Petition (Ex. 2–1). OSHA believes the 

language in the existing requirements is 

too vague and should be replaced with 

the more concise restriction of 25 feet. 

A similar 25-foot restriction is 

imposed by the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) in its 

transportation of hazardous materials 

regulations. At 49 CFR 397.13, FMCSA 

requires that ‘‘[n]o person may smoke or 

carry a lighted cigarette, cigar, or pipe 

on or within 25 feet of (a) A motor 

vehicle which contains Class 1 

materials.’’ However, this FMCSA 

regulation only applies to motor 

vehicles on public highways whereas 

paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(C) in the proposal 

applies at all times to bulk delivery 

vehicles, whether or not they are at 

private facilities or worksites or on 

public highways. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(D) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that the transfer of blasting agents or 

their ingredients from one bulk delivery 

vehicle to another vehicle is performed 

at a safe distance away from any blast 

site where drill holes are loaded or in 

the process of being loaded. This 

proposed requirement is similar to 

existing paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(g) except 

the existing requirement only applies to 

vehicles used to deliver water gels 

whereas the proposed requirement 

applies to vehicles used to deliver all 

types of blasting agents. The proposed 

paragraph is also consistent with 

paragraph 6.4.2(5) of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). OSHA believes that 

this proposed language is reasonable, 

necessary to minimize the risk of 

accidental detonation, and reflects 

current industry practice. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(E) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that while the bulk delivery vehicle is 

in a blast site, caution is exercised to 

avoid driving the vehicle over hoses or 

dragging hoses over firing lines, 

detonating cords, detonator wires or 

tubes, or explosives. Proposed 

paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(F) would require 

the employer to ensure that the driver 

has the assistance of a second person to 

act as a guide to ensure the safe 

movement of the bulk delivery vehicle 

in the blast site. These provisions are 

equivalent to and replace the 

requirements in existing paragraphs 

(g)(3)(iii)(d) and (h)(4)(ii)(e) and are 

consistent with paragraphs 5.3.3(6) and 

6.4.2(3) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 

(Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(G) 

would prohibit the mixing of blasting 

agent ingredients while the bulk 

delivery vehicle is in transit. This 

proposed requirement is equivalent to 

and replaces existing paragraphs 

(g)(3)(iii)(e) and (h)(4)(ii)(f) and is 

consistent with paragraphs 5.3.3(7) and 

6.4.2(4) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 

(Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(H) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that a positive action parking brake, 

which sets the wheel brakes on at least 

one axle, is used during bulk delivery 

operations. Proposed paragraph 

(g)(3)(iii)(I) would require the employer 

to ensure that at least two wheels are 

chocked whenever necessary to prevent 

vehicle movement. These provisions are 

similar to existing paragraph (h)(4)(i)(d) 

and are consistent with paragraph 

6.4.1(4) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 

(Ex. 2–5). However, unlike the existing 

requirement, the proposed requirement 

applies to vehicles used to deliver all 

types of blasting agents, not just water 

gels. OSHA believes that this proposed 

requirement will increase employee 

safety compared to the existing 

requirement and reflects current 

industry practice. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(J) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that the vehicle is maintained in good 

mechanical condition. This requirement 

is equivalent to and replaces 

corresponding requirements in existing 

paragraphs (g)(3)(ii)(d) and (g)(6)(vi). 

The proposed paragraph is also 

consistent with paragraphs 5.3.2(4), 

5.3.3(4), and 5.6.6 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iv) sets 

forth requirements for drill holes, 

primed with electric detonators or other 

static-electricity sensitive systems that 

are being pneumatically loaded from 

bulk delivery vehicles. Paragraph 

(g)(3)(iv)(A) would require the employer 

to ensure that the blaster-in-charge 

evaluates all such systems to determine 

that they adequately dissipate static 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18825 

electricity under potential field 

conditions. The proposed provision 

substitutes ‘‘blaster-in-charge’’ for the 

term ‘‘qualified person’’ used in existing 

paragraph (g)(3)(iv)(c) and is consistent 

with paragraph 5.3.4(3) of the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iv)(B) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that a grounding device is used to 

prevent the accumulation of static 

electricity. This provision is equivalent 

to and replaces existing paragraph 

(g)(3)(iv)(a) and is consistent with 

paragraph 5.3.4(1) of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iv)(C) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that the discharge hose used has a 

resistance range sufficient to prevent 

conducting stray currents, yet is 

conductive enough to bleed off static 

electricity buildup. The provision is 

equivalent to and replaces existing 

paragraph (g)(3)(iv)(b) and is consistent 

with paragraph 5.3.4(2) of the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(v) proposes 

requirements for repairs to bulk delivery 

vehicles. Paragraph (g)(3)(v)(A) would 

prohibit hot work from being performed, 

or open flames used, on or around any 

part of the bulk delivery vehicle until all 

blasting agents and their ingredients 

have been removed and the vehicle has 

been completely washed down. This 

provision is similar to existing 

paragraph (g)(3)(v)(a) and paragraph 

5.3.5(1) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 

(Ex. 2–5) except in two areas. First, the 

existing paragraph and the NFPA 

standard use the term ‘‘welding’’

whereas the proposed paragraph uses 

the term ‘‘hot work.’’ As discussed 

above in the explanation of proposed 

paragraph (b), ‘‘hot work’’ means any 

work involving electric or gas welding, 

cutting, brazing, or similar flame or 

spark-producing operations. Thus, ‘‘hot 

work’’ includes welding but is a more 

general term. Use of the term ‘‘hot 

work’’ in the proposed paragraph 

broadens the protective scope of the 

provision and is consistent with the use 

of the term in other parts of the 

proposed standard. Second, the existing 

language requires that welding must not 

be performed unless ‘‘all oxidizer 

material’’ has been removed. The 

proposed language is more general in 

that it requires ‘‘all blasting agents and 

their ingredients’’ be removed before hot 

work is performed. Again, the language 

of the proposed paragraph broadens the 

protective scope of the provision. OSHA 

believes that the broader language in 

proposed paragraph (g)(3)(v)(A) 

provides greater safety for employees. 

Similar language for this proposed 

provision was recommended by the 

Petition (Ex. 2–1). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(v)(B) would 

require the employer to ensure that 

before welding or repairing hollow 

shafts of equipment, all blasting agents 

and their ingredients are removed from 

the outside and inside of the shaft and 

the shaft is vented through an opening 

at least one-half inch in diameter. The 

proposed language is similar to and 

replaces existing paragraph (g)(3)(v)(b) 

and is consistent with paragraph 

5.3.5(2) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 

(Ex. 2–5). However, the proposed 

language is more specific than the 

existing language by requiring that ‘‘all 

blasting agents and their ingredients be 

removed.’’ The existing language only 

requires that the shaft be thoroughly 

cleaned but does not specify what is to 

be removed. OSHA believes the 

proposed language is more 

understandable and increases workplace 

safety by explicitly requiring that all 

blasting agents and their ingredients 

must be removed before such welding or 

repair work. 

Existing paragraphs (g)(4)(v), 

(g)(4)(vi), and (g)(5) (except for (g)(5)(v) 

and (vi)) are not retained in the 

proposed standard because they deal 

with issues covered by ATF regulations 

at 27 CFR part 555 subpart K (see 

preamble discussion above on 

preemption of storage requirements in 

§ 1910.109 by ATF’s regulations). 

Existing paragraphs (g)(5)(v) and (vi) are 

retained in the proposed standard in 

proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(B) and 

(g)(1)(i)(B), respectively (see the 

preamble discussion above on these two 

proposed paragraphs for a detailed 

explanation). 

Existing paragraph (g)(7) requires 

persons using blasting agents to comply 

with all applicable provisions of 

existing paragraph (e), Use of explosives 

and blasting agents. With the redefining 

of explosives in the proposed standard 

to include blasting agents, existing 

paragraph (g)(7) becomes redundant and 

therefore is not retained in the proposed 

rule. 

Paragraph (h) Small arms 

ammunition, small arms primers, and 

smokeless propellants. The 

requirements of proposed paragraph (h) 

are very similar to the requirements in 

existing paragraph (j). Most of the 

revisions have been made to make 

proposed paragraph (h) consistent with 

the 2001 edition of NFPA 495. 

Small arms ammunitions are finished 

consumer products that pose lesser 

hazards to employees when compared 

with most other forms of explosives. 

There are very small quantities of 

explosive matter sealed in the 

ammunition shells which, when 

inadvertently detonated (except when 

confined as in the firing chamber of a 

weapon), do not constitute a substantial 

projection or mass explosion hazard. 

Therefore, the safe storage and 

transportation requirements for small 

arms ammunition are different from 

other explosives. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(1) states that 

proposed paragraph (h) does not apply 

to in-process temporary storage during 

the manufacture of small arms 

ammunition, small arms primers, and 

smokeless propellants. This is similar to 

and replaces existing paragraph (j)(1) 

except that the proposed language uses 

the phrase ‘‘temporary in-process 

storage’’ whereas the existing language 

only uses the phrase ‘‘in-process 

storage.’’ The term ‘‘temporary’’ has 

been added to emphasize that in-process 

storage is limited to storage which is 

temporary in nature and is an integral 

and indispensable part of the 

manufacturing process. However, 

proposed paragraph (h) does apply to 

the non-temporary storage of small arms 

ammunition, small arms primers, and 

smokeless propellants. In addition, 

existing paragraph (j)(1) states that 

existing paragraph (j) does not apply to 

the intraplant transportation during the 

manufacture of small arms ammunition, 

small arms primers, and smokeless 

propellants. This provision has not been 

retained in the proposed paragraph 

because none of the requirements in 

proposed paragraph (h) apply to such 

intraplant transportation. 

Existing paragraph (j)(2)(i) contains a 

requirement that states: ‘‘No quantity 

limitations are imposed on the storage 

of small arms ammunition in 

warehouses, retail stores, and other 

general occupancy facilities, except 

those imposed by limitations of storage 

facilities.’’ This statement has not been 

included in proposed paragraph (h) 

because it is not mandatory in the 

existing paragraph and does not 

improve employee safety. 

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. The proposed requirement 

replaces the existing paragraph (j)(2)(ii). 

The existing provision defines 

‘‘flammable solid’’ in terms of the 

classification used by DOT. The 

proposed rule has dropped the reference 

to DOT’s classification because 

‘‘flammable solid’’ is defined in OSHA’s 

Hazard Communication standard at 

§ 1910.1200. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18826 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Issue #17: Although proposed 

paragraph (h)(2) is consistent with 

paragraph 923 of the 1970 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–13), it is not consistent 

with paragraph 13.2.3 of the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). In the 

2001 edition, NFPA has reduced the 

separation distance from 25 to 15 feet. 

This reduction in distance may reduce 

employee protection. OSHA requests 

specific comments on whether the 

minimum separation distance between 

small arms ammunition and flammable 

liquids, flammable solids, and oxidizing 

materials should remain 25 feet, be 

reduced to 15 feet, or be changed to 

some other distance. 

Existing paragraph (j)(2)(iii), which 

addresses small arms ammunition 

storage with Class A and Class B 

explosives, has not been retained in the 

proposed rule because it is already 

covered by ATF storage regulations (27 

CFR part 555 subpart K) and OSHA does 

not want to duplicate the regulations of 

other federal agencies. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(3) sets forth 

requirements for smokeless propellants. 

Paragraph (h)(3)(i)(A) would require the 

employer to ensure that all smokeless 

propellants be stored in shipping 

containers in accordance with DOT 

regulations at 49 CFR part 173 for 

smokeless propellants. The proposed 

provision is consistent with paragraph 

13.3.6 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 

(Ex. 2–5) and substantially the same as 

existing paragraph (j)(3)(i). 

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. The existing standard 

does not have any provisions restricting 

the quantity of smokeless propellants 

that may be displayed in commercial 

establishments. On March 31, 1972, 

OSHA revised § 1910.109 to include the 

following language: ‘‘Not more than 20 

pounds of smokeless propellants, in 

containers of 1 pound maximum 

capacity, shall be displayed in 

commercial establishments’’ (37 FR 

6577). This is identical to the intent of 

proposed paragraph (h)(3)(i)(B). 

However, on October 24, 1978, OSHA 

removed this language from the 

explosives standard because it believed 

it addressed public safety requirements 

that are subject to the control of local 

building and fire code officials (43 FR 

49726). While OSHA agrees that the 

provision did cover a public safety 

issue, it now believes that it also 

addressed an employee safety issue 

because employees in commercial 

establishments that display smokeless 

propellants are often in close proximity 

to the propellants. OSHA believes that 

having no restriction on the quantity of 

smokeless propellants that can be 

displayed in commercial establishments 

is contrary to employee safety. 

Therefore, OSHA is reinstating this 

provision in the proposed standard as 

paragraph (h)(3)(i)(B). 

Issue #18: Although proposed 

paragraph (h)(3)(i)(B) is consistent with 

paragraph 937 of the 1970 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–13), it is not consistent 

with paragraph 13.3.8 of the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5), which 

allows not more than 50 pounds of 

smokeless propellants to be displayed in 

a commercial establishment. The 1970 

edition appears to provide greater 

employee safety. OSHA requests 

specific comments on whether there 

should be a weight restriction for the 

display of smokeless propellants in 

commercial establishments and, if so, 

whether the maximum weight limit 

should be 20 pounds, 50 pounds, or 

some other quantity. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(3)(ii) sets 

forth storage requirements for 

commercial stocks of smokeless 

propellants. Proposed paragraph 

(h)(3)(ii)(A) would require the employer 

to ensure that quantities of smokeless 

propellants over 20 pounds and not 

exceeding 100 pounds be stored in 

portable wooden boxes having walls at 

least 1 inch thick. 

Issue #19: Proposed paragraph 

(h)(3)(ii)(A) is not consistent with 

paragraph 13.3.9(1) of the 2001 edition 

of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5) which requires 

commercial stocks of smokeless 

propellants exceeding 50 pounds but 

not over 100 pounds to be stored in 

portable wooden boxes having walls at 

least 1 inch thick. The weight 

restrictions in proposed paragraph 

(h)(3)(ii)(A) are the same as in paragraph 

937 of the 1970 edition of NFPA 495 

(Ex. 2–13) and in existing paragraph 

(j)(3)(iii) (i.e., over 20 pounds but not 

over 100 pounds). Thus they appear to 

provide better employee protection than 

the 2001 edition of NFPA 495. OSHA 

requests comments on whether the 

weight restrictions should be over 20 

pounds but not over 100 pounds, over 

50 pounds but not over 100 pounds, or 

some other range of weights. In 

addition, OSHA seeks comments on 

whether it should allow storage of 

quantities of 20 to 100 pounds in either 

portable wooden containers or nonportable cabinets. 

Paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B) would require 

the employer to ensure that quantities of 

smokeless propellants over 100 pounds 

and not exceeding 750 pounds are 

stored in non-portable cabinets having 

walls at least 1 inch thick. Paragraph 

(h)(3)(ii)(B)(1) would require that not 

more than 400 pounds be permitted to 

be stored in any one non-portable 

cabinet, and paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B)(2) 

would require non-portable cabinets be 

separated by a distance of at least 25 feet 

or by a fire barrier wall with at least a 

1-hour fire resistance rating. Proposed 

paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(B) and 

(h)(3)(ii)(B)(1) are similar to existing 

paragraph (j)(3)(iv). Proposed paragraph 

(h)(3)(ii)(B)(2) is a new requirement that 

OSHA believes would increase 

employee safety and is contained in 

paragraph 13.3.9(2) of the 2001 edition 

of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Issue #20: Proposed paragraph 

(h)(3)(ii)(B) is not consistent with 

paragraph 13.3.9(2) of the 2001 edition 

of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5), insofar as the 

NFPA provision requires commercial 

stocks of smokeless propellants 

exceeding 100 pounds but not over 800 

pounds to be stored in nonportable 

storage cabinets having walls at least 1 

inch thick. The weight restrictions in 

proposed paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B) (over 

100 pounds but not over 750 pounds) 

are the same as in paragraph 937 of the 

1970 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–13). 

Thus they appear to provide better 

employee protection than the 2001 

edition of NFPA 495. OSHA requests 

comments on whether the weight 

restrictions for the storage of 

commercial stocks of smokeless 

propellants should be over 100 pounds 

but not over 750 pounds, over 100 

pounds but not over 800 pounds, or 

some other range of weights. 

Paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C) would require 

the employer to ensure that quantities of 

smokeless propellants over 750 pounds 

and not exceeding 5,000 pounds are 

stored in a building only if the 

requirements in proposed provisions 

(h)(3)(ii)(C)(1) through (h)(3)(ii)(C)(7) are 

met. These proposed provisions are new 

and offer an alternate means of 

compliance to existing paragraph 

(j)(3)(v) for commercial stocks of 

smokeless propellants over 750 pounds 

but less than 5,000 pounds. If the 

quantity of smokeless propellants is 

greater than 750 pounds, and the 

provisions in proposed paragraph 

(h)(3)(ii)(C)(1) through (7) are not met, 

storage in accordance with the proposed 

(h)(3)(iii) is required. If the quantity of 

smokeless propellants is over 5000 

pounds, then the storage requirements 

in proposed paragraph (h)(3)(iii) must 

be met. 

Paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C)(1) would 

require that the warehouse or storage 

room not be accessible to unauthorized 

personnel. Paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C)(2) 

would require that smokeless 

propellants be stored in nonportable 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18827 

storage cabinets having wood walls at 

least 1 inch thick and having shelves 

with no more than 3 feet of separation 

between shelves. Paragraph 

(h)(3)(ii)(C)(3) would require that no 

more than 400 pounds be stored in any 

one cabinet. Paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C)(4) 

would require that cabinets be located 

against the walls of the storage room or 

warehouse. Paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C)(5) 

would require the cabinets to be at least 

40 feet apart. It further allows that the 

separation between cabinets shall be 

permitted to be reduced to 20 feet where 

barricades twice the height of the 

cabinets are attached to the wall 

midway between each cabinet and the 

barricades extend at least 10 feet 

outward, and are constructed of either 

1/4-inch boiler plate, 2-inch thick wood, 

brick, or concrete block. Paragraph 

(h)(3)(ii)(C)(6) would require that 

smokeless propellants be separated from 

flammable liquids, flammable solids, 

and oxidizing materials by a distance of 

at least 25 feet or by a fire barrier wall 

with at least a 1-hour fire resistance 

rating. Paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C)(7) would 

require that the building be protected by 

an automatic sprinkler system installed 

in accordance with § 1910.159. 

Proposed paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(C)(1) to 

(7) are based on paragraphs 13.3.9(3)(a) 

to (g) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 

(Ex. 2–5). OSHA believes that the level 

of safety provided by these requirements 

in proposed paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C) 

would provide an equivalent level of 

employee safety to existing paragraph 

(j)(3)(v). 

Paragraph (h)(3)(iii) would require the 

employer to ensure that smokeless 

propellants exceeding 5,000 pounds or 

not stored in accordance with proposed 

paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) through (C) of 

this section are stored in a Type 4 

magazine in accordance with ATF 

regulations for the storage of explosives 

(27 CFR 555.203 and 555.210). Proposed 

paragraph (h)(3)(iii) is equivalent to 

existing paragraph (j)(3)(v) except that it 

also covers the new requirements in 

proposed paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C) for 

quantities over 750 pounds but not 

exceeding 5,000 pounds. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(4) sets forth 

requirements for small arms 

ammunition primers. Paragraph 

(h)(4)(i)(A) would require the employer 

to ensure that small arms ammunition 

primers be stored in shipping containers 

in accordance with the applicable 

regulations of DOT (49 CFR chapter I) 

(Ex. 2–8). This is substantially the same 

as existing paragraph (j)(4)(i). 

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. 

The proposed requirement is similar to 

existing paragraph (j)(4)(iii) and is 

consistent with paragraph 13.5.6(2)(f) of 

the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). 

The existing provision defines 

‘‘flammable solid’’ in terms of the 

classification used by DOT. The 

proposed rule has dropped the reference 

to DOT’s classification because 

‘‘flammable solid’’ is defined in OSHA’s 

Hazard Communication standard at 

§ 1910.1200. 

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 

establishment. This requirement is in 

accordance with paragraph 13.5.5 of the 

2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). In 

a notice published in the Federal 

Register on October 24, 1978 (43 FR 

49726), OSHA revoked a similar 

provision that it believed addressed 

public safety requirements subject to the 

control of local building and fire code 

officials. As with proposed paragraph 

(h)(3)(i)(B) discussed above, OSHA 

agrees that this is a public safety issue 

but believes that it is also an employee 

safety issue because employees, as well 

as the public, can be near primers in a 

commercial establishment that displays 

them. Limiting display quantities of 

small arms primers protects such 

employees. Therefore, a display 

limitation is included in proposed 

paragraph (h)(4)(i)(C). 

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? 

Proposed paragraph (h)(4)(ii) sets 

forth requirements for commercial 

stocks of small arms primers. Paragraph 

(h)(4)(ii)(A)(1) and (2) would require the 

employer to ensure that, when 

quantities of 750,000 or less are stored 

in a building, not more than 100,000 are 

stored in any one pile and the piles are 

at least 15 feet (4.6 m) apart. The 

proposed provisions are equivalent to 

and replace existing paragraph (j)(4)(iv) 

and are in accordance with paragraph 

13.5.6(1) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 

495 (Ex. 2–5). 

Paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(B) would require 

the employer to ensure that quantities of 

small arms ammunition primers in 

excess of 750,000 are stored in a 

building only if it meets the 

requirements in proposed paragraphs 

(h)(4)(ii)(B)(1) through (h)(4)(ii)(B)(7). 

Paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(B)(1) would 

require that the warehouse or storage 

room not be accessible to unauthorized 

personnel. Paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(B)(2) 

would require primers to be stored in 

cabinets with no more than 200,000 

primers stored in any one cabinet. 

Paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(B)(3) would require 

that shelves in cabinets have a vertical 

separation of at least 2 feet. Paragraph 

(h)(4)(ii)(B)(4) would require cabinets to 

be located against the walls of the 

warehouse or storage room. Paragraph 

(h)(4)(ii)(B)(5) would require the 

cabinets be at least 40 feet apart. It 

further allows that the separation 

between cabinets may be reduced to 20 

feet where barricades twice the height of 

the cabinets are firmly attached to the 

wall midway between each cabinet and 

the barricades extend at least 10 feet 

outward and are constructed of either 

1⁄4-inch boiler plate, 2-inch thick wood, 

brick, or concrete block. Paragraph 

(h)(4)(ii)(B)(6) would require primers to 

be separated from materials classified by 

DOT as flammable liquids, flammable 

solids, and oxidizing materials by a 

distance of at least 25 feet or by a fire 

barrier wall with at least a 1-hour fire 

resistance rating. Paragraph 

(h)(4)(ii)(B)(7) would require the 

building to be protected by an automatic 

sprinkler system installed in accordance 

with § 1910.159. Proposed paragraphs 

(h)(4)(ii)(B)(1) to (7) are based on 

paragraph 13.5.6(2) of the 2001 edition 

of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). These proposed 

paragraphs are all new and offer an 

alternate means of compliance to 

existing paragraph (j)(4)(v), which 

requires primers in excess of 750,000 to 

be stored in magazines. OSHA believes 

that the level of safety provided by these 

alternative requirements would provide 

an equivalent level of employee safety 

as the existing paragraphs (j)(4)(iv) and 

(j)(4)(v). 

Proposed paragraph (h)(4)(iii) would 

require the employer to ensure that 

small arms ammunition primers that are 

not stored in accordance with proposed 

paragraph (h)(4)(ii) be stored in a 

magazine in accordance with ATF 

regulations for the storage of explosives 

(27 CFR 555.203 and 555.210). 

Issue #22: Paragraph 14.1.6 of the 

2006 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–21) 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18828 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

requires that: ‘‘The bulk repackaging of 

small arms ammunition, primers, 

smokeless propellants, or Black Powder 

propellants shall not be performed in 

retail stores.’’ The proposed standard 

does not contain this requirement. 

Should it be included in the standard to 

protect the safety of employees and, if 

so, why? 

Paragraph (i) Pyrotechnics. Proposed 

paragraph (i) is reserved for the future 

development of pyrotechnic regulations. 

The existing standard has no separate 

requirements for pyrotechnics, although 

they are covered, where applicable, by 

the general explosives provisions of the 

proposed standard as well as other 

existing OSHA standards, such as 

§ 1910.119, Process safety management. 

Paragraph (j) Training. Proposed 

paragraph (j) is new and contains 

proposed training requirements for 

employees in the explosives industry. 

OSHA believes that the proposed 

training requirements will enhance the 

workplace safety benefits resulting from 

the proposal’s safety provisions. This 

paragraph has been written to clearly 

state what training is required and to 

avoid overlapping training requirements 

with other standards. 

Paragraph (j)(1) would require the 

employer to provide information and 

training on safe work practices for each 

employee prior to or at the time of the 

employee’s initial job assignment 

involving the manufacture, storage, sale, 

transportation, handling, or use of 

explosives, including repair or 

maintenance of related facilities and 

equipment. An equivalent training 

requirement is contained in OSHA’s 

hazard communication standard at 

§ 1910.1200(h)(1). 

Paragraph (j)(2) would require the 

employer to ensure that the training 

provided under proposed paragraph (j) 

is specific to each employee’s unique 

work duties. It is not the intent of OSHA 

that each employee should be trained in 

all aspects of an operation. However, 

every employee needs to be trained to 

do his or her specific job safely. 

Paragraph (j)(3) would reinforce the 

training requirements in § 1910.1200, 

the Hazard Communication standard, 

and further requires the employer to 

inform each employee of the 

requirements in § 1910.109 that apply to 

the employee’s work duties. Employers 

must also make available to employees 

a copy of the § 1910.109 standard. This 

will help employees to be better 

informed about workplace hazards 

involving explosives. 

Paragraph (j)(4) would require 

employers to train employees in safety 

practices, including applicable 

emergency procedures, that relate to 

their work involving explosives and are 

necessary for their safety. OSHA is 

proposing this paragraph because it 

believes that training in safety practices, 

including applicable emergency 

procedures, enhances workplace safety. 

Paragraph (j)(5) would require the 

employer to retrain employees as 

necessary to ensure that each employee 

has the requisite proficiency in the 

relevant safe work practices whenever 

there are workplace changes, such as the 

institution of new or modified 

procedures or products. Workplace 

changes can create new safety hazards 

to employees. OSHA believes that, 

when such changes create new 

workplace hazards, retraining is 

necessary to ensure employee safety and 

health. 

Paragraph (j)(6) would require the 

employer to conduct retraining 

whenever the employer has reason to 

believe that there are inadequacies in 

the employee’s knowledge or 

performance of safe work practices. 

These reasons may include, but are not 

limited to, observation of unsafe work 

practices and errors in operating 

procedures. Considering the potential 

catastrophic impact of unsafe work 

practices in the explosives industry, 

such unsafe work practices or habits 

need to be detected and corrected as 

soon as possible before a tragedy occurs. 

Paragraph (j)(7) would require the 

employer to provide information and 

training in a manner that is 

understandable to each employee. 

Differences in language, reading 

capabilities, and physical challenges 

may create communication issues in a 

workplace. It is essential that employers 

adapt their training methods so that 

individual employees comprehend the 

information and training provided. 

Paragraph (j)(8) would require the 

employer to determine that each 

employee has demonstrated proficiency 

in all aspects of the required training. 

Such demonstrations help to identify 

comprehension deficiencies or training 

failures so they can be corrected in a 

prompt manner. 

Paragraph (j)(9) would state that an 

employer is deemed to be in compliance 

with a training provision in proposed 

paragraph (j) of this section for an 

employee if an identical training 

provision has been satisfied for that 

employee under § 1910.1200, Hazard 

Communication or DOT training 

requirements (49 CFR part 172) (Ex. 2–

8). This provision is consistent with 

OSHA’s goal that duplicative training 

efforts are not required. 

All existing ‘‘reserved’’ paragraphs in 

§ 1910.109 would be eliminated in the 

proposed standard. These existing 

paragraphs are: (a)(5), (a)(9), (a)(11), 

(c)(3)(viii), (d)(1)(ii), (d)(2)(ii)(b), 

(e)(4)(i), (g)(2)(i), (g)(6)(v), (h)(3)(i), 

(i)(1)(ii)(a), (j)(3)(ii), and (j)(4)(ii). 

OSHA is proposing to revise the 

definition of explosives in OSHA’s 

hazard communication standard at 

§ 1910.1200 by replacing it with the 

definition of explosives in paragraph (b) 

of the proposed standard. This revision 

of the definition of explosives in the 

hazard communication standard would 

not only make the definition consistent 

with the one used in the proposed 

standard, it would also make it 

consistent with the definition of 

explosives used by DOT. As discussed 

earlier, the definition in the proposed 

standard incorporates the Globally 

Harmonized System of Classification 

and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). Thus, 

the revised definition of explosives in 

the hazard communication standard 

would also incorporate the GHS. 

IV. Preliminary Economic and 

Regulatory Screening Analysis 

Overview 

The proposed rule would revise and 

update the provisions contained in 

§ 1910.109 of the existing Subpart H 

standards. OSHA has determined that 

this action is not a significant regulatory 

action within the meaning of Executive 

Order 12866. In sum, the proposed rule 

is anticipated to generate a maximum of 

$1.5 million in regulatory costs 

annually. These costs will be at least 

partially, if not fully, offset by cost 

savings that may be attributed to the deregulatory aspects of the proposed 

revision. 

The proposed requirements primarily 

update and clarify regulatory language 

and address regulatory inconsistencies 

between OSHA and other Federal 

agencies. A number of the new 

requirements are deregulatory in nature, 

and will yield cost-savings relative to 

the existing standards. For example, in 

cases where there is overlap between 

OSHA and other agencies, the result of 

this action could potentially be a 

reduction in regulatory burden as 

covered employers will no longer have 

to track and comply with multiple sets 

of Federal regulations for explosives. 

OSHA has conducted detailed 

comparisons of the existing and 

proposed rules in order to determine 

which provisions are expected to 

increase compliance costs, which are 

expected to be neutral with respect to 

costs, and which are expected to reduce 

employers’ regulatory burden. 

Generally, the cost-neutral changes to 

the existing standard are changes that 

fall into two categories: (1) Clarifications 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18829 

3The hourly wage rate (including fringe benefits) 

is based on the average hourly wage data for 2002 

reported in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

National Industry-Specific Occupational 

Employment and Wage Estimates (BLS, 2003). The 

BLS wage data are discussed in greater detail in 

estimating the costs associated with new training 

requirements. 

to the scope of the standard and (2) 

some of the overlaps with other OSHA 

or Federal standards that have 

precedence over § 1910.109. As an 

example of the first category, proposed 

§ 1910.109(a)(3)(i) explicitly excludes 

the construction industry, which is 

consistent with the OSHA convention 

that a specific OSHA standard 

supersedes the more general applicable 

standard. Activities occurring during 

construction or demolition would be 

covered under the part 1926 

construction standards rather than the 

part 1910 general industry standards for 

explosives and blasting agents. While 

the explicit exclusion of construction 

improves clarity, it does not represent 

any change in regulatory burden. 

Several provisions represent changes 

with deregulatory or cost-saving 

features. For example, proposed 

paragraph (b) adds the definition of a 

‘‘competent person,’’ which is applied 

in proposed paragraph (e)(1)(iii), 

replacing existing paragraph (d)(1)(iii). 

This existing requirement states that 

‘‘proper and qualified supervision’’

needs to be provided for transferring 

explosives from one vehicle to another, 

which tends to infer that a supervisor 

may be required for such a transfer. In 

the proposed standard, the competent 

person needed to perform these duties 

need not be a supervisor, so there will 

be a cost savings due to differential 

wage rates associated with the new 

wording. These cost savings are 

estimated below. As a second example, 

the labeling criteria for explosives in 

proposed paragraph (c)(5), by 

recognizing the globally harmonized 

system criteria, may provide a cost 

savings as these are the same criteria 

that DOT is using for the transportation 

of explosives. This will help remove the 

need for having two different sets of 

labeling for shipments overseas or 

within the United States. The proposed 

rule also eliminates storage 

requirements. Currently, the employer 

must follow the storage requirements for 

explosives in § 1910.109 and ATF’s 

storage regulations in 27 CFR part 555. 

Under the proposed rule, the employer 

would only have to comply with the 

ATF regulations. This reduction in 

overlapping regulations should result in 

cost savings for the employer. 

Compliance Cost Estimates 

There are a few provisions in the 

proposed standard that may potentially 

result in cost increases for affected 

employers. Specifically, these relate to 

new general provisions in paragraph (c) 

and new training provisions in 

paragraph (j), as described below. OSHA 

estimates that the costs associated with 

complying with the provisions in 

paragraph (c) would be $549,375 

annually and the training provisions in 

paragraph (j) would be $908,354 

annually. OSHA believes that the cost 

estimates presented below represent 

upper bound estimates since the 

overwhelming majority of employers in 

the explosives industry are subject to 

other explosives regulations in addition 

to § 1910.109. 

In addition, provisions in current 

paragraphs (h)(3)(iv)(b) and (c) that now 

apply only to water gels will apply to all 

blasting agents in proposed paragraphs 

(g)(2)(ii)(E) and (F). OSHA believes that 

employers are currently meeting the 

proposed requirements that both 

equipment and handling procedures be 

designed to prevent the introduction of 

foreign objects or materials and that 

mixers, pumps, valves, and related 

equipment be designed to permit regular 

and periodic flushing, cleaning, 

dismantling, and inspection. Thus, 

employers will not incur new costs. 

OSHA welcomes comments on this 

assumption. 

New General Provisions in Paragraph (c) 

The manufacturers of blasting agents 

may be affected by new provisions that 

are contained in proposed paragraph (c). 

Specifically, the provisions with 

potential cost implications are: 

• Requiring that the primary 

electrical supply to a facility containing 

explosives be able to be disconnected 

from a safe remote location [proposed 

paragraph (c)(2)(i)]; 

• requiring the removal of explosive 

materials, prior to the conduct of 

maintenance or repair activities, from 

the immediate area where such 

activities are to take place [proposed 

paragraph (c)(4)(i)]. 

These new provisions affect only 

areas where blasting agents (explosives 

classified as Division 1.5 explosives) are 

manufactured or loaded. Since the 

manufacturing of Division 1.1–1.4 

explosives must follow the Process 

Safety Management (PSM) standard 

requirements (which already include 

these types of requirements), 

manufacturers of blasting agents, who in 

general also manufacture other 

explosives, are already likely to be in 

compliance with the proposed 

paragraph (c) provisions. 

Manufacturers of blasting agents are 

classified in the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

as code 325920, Explosives 

Manufacturing. This classification 

includes all types of explosives 

manufacturing, not just blasting agent 

manufacturing. According to the U.S. 

Department of Commerce’s (USDOC, 

2003) 2001 County Business Patterns 

(CBP) database and as shown in Table 

1, there are 100 establishments with a 

total of 7,325 employees in NAICS 

325920. These include all types of 

explosives manufacturing, not just 

blasting agents. 

OSHA estimates that the costs to 

comply with the above requirements are 

a function of the size of the 

establishment. Larger establishments 

typically: (1) Require a greater 

investment for disconnecting the 

primary electrical supply to a facility 

from a remote location and (2) have 

larger amounts of maintenance and 

repair activities where the removal of 

explosive materials would be required. 

Thus, to account for the size of the 

establishment, the compliance costs 

were expressed on a per-employee basis. 

In OSHA’s professional judgment, a 

reasonable estimate of the annualized 

expenses associated with complying 

with these provisions is $75 per 

employee. Thus, with 7,325 employees 

affected by the new general provisions 

in paragraph (c), the aggregate annual 

costs of complying with the provisions 

in (c) are estimated to be $549,375 for 

all affected facilities. OSHA estimates 

that providing a remote way to 

disconnect electricity to a facility would 

be about $25 per employee or $250 for 

a facility with 10 employees. Other 

costs, such as labor costs to remove 

explosive materials during maintenance 

and repair activities are estimated to be 

$50 per employee. For a facility with 10 

employees, $500 translates into roughly 

25 hours per year (or 2 hours per month) 

at a wage rate of $20.44 for production 

and maintenance workers.3 This seemed 

reasonable for maintenance activities 

that occur during the year. OSHA 

requests comments on these estimates. 

These figures are considered to 

represent upper bound estimates for 

several reasons. First, the above 

estimates assume that all explosive 

manufacturers produce blasting agents, 

which is not likely to be the case. 

Second, not all employees at all 

facilities are involved in making 

blasting agents. Third, many 

manufacturers of blasting agents also 

manufacture other explosives and are 

already likely to be in compliance with 

these new requirements in the buildings 

where the other explosives are handled, 

since they are subject to PSM 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18830 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

requirements. Finally, the above 

requirements represent IME or NFPA 

recommended practices, which many 

manufacturers follow voluntarily. 

New Training Provisions in Paragraph 

(j) 

The new training requirements 

include the following: 

• Providing information and training 

on safe work practices for each 

employee prior to or at the time of the 

employee’s initial job assignment 

involving the manufacture, storage, sale, 

transportation, handling, or use of 

explosives, including repair or 

maintenance of facilities and related 

equipment; 

• ensuring that the training provided 

is specific to each employee’s unique 

work duties; 

• in addition to the information and 

training requirements of § 1910.1200, 

Hazard Communication, informing each 

employee of the requirements of this 

section that apply to the employee’s 

work duties and making a copy of the 

standard available to the employee; 

• training employees in any safety 

practices, including applicable 

emergency procedures that relate to 

their work and are necessary for their 

safety; 

• whenever there are workplace 

changes, such as the institution of new 

or modified procedures or products, 

retraining employees, as necessary, to 

ensure that each employee has the 

requisite proficiency in the relevant safe 

work practices; 

• retraining employees whenever the 

employer has reason to believe that 

there are inadequacies in the employees’

knowledge of or performance of safe 

work practices; 

• providing information and training 

in a manner that is understandable to 

each employee; and 

• determining that each employee has 

demonstrated proficiency in all aspects 

of the required training. 

The proposed training requirements 

also state that an employer will be 

deemed to be in compliance with the 

training requirements for an employee if 

an identical training provision has been 

satisfied for that employee under 

Section 1910.1200, Hazard 

Communication, or the DOT training 

requirements (in 49 CFR part 172). 

The proposed training requirements 

could primarily affect employees who 

come into contact with explosive 

materials during the manufacturing of 

explosives, including blasting agents 

(NAICS 325920) and small arms 

ammunition (NAICS 332992). In 

particular, these employees primarily 

include production employees, as well 

as installation/maintenance/repair 

employees and transportation/material 

moving employees. Some transportation 

workers (i.e., truck drivers, packers, and 

packagers), as well as shipping clerks 

and order fillers, must already be 

trained in accordance with DOT 

requirements, so their employers would 

already be in compliance with the 

training required by proposed paragraph 

(j). In addition, the ATF requirements 

described earlier will apply to persons 

involved with handling, storing, and 

using explosives and pyrotechnics. The 

ATF requirements have training and 

qualification criteria and Hazcom 

training requirements are applicable (so 

these persons, too, would already have 

training meeting the requirements of 

proposed paragraph (j)). 

Table 1 presents summary data for the 

manufacturing of explosives, including 

blasting agents (NAICS 325920) and 

small arms ammunition (NAICS 

332992). According to the U.S. 

Department of Commerce’s (USDOC, 

2003) 2001 County Business Patterns 

(CBP) database, there are 100 

establishments with 7,325 employees in 

NAICS 325920. An estimated 58 percent 

are installation/maintenance/repair, 

production, and transportation/material 

moving workers (excluding truck 

drivers, packers, and packagers), based 

on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 

2003) Occupational Employment 

Statistics (OES) Survey data for 2002 for 

NAICS 3259. Similarly, the 2001 CBP 

database (USDOC, 2003) indicates that 

there are 111 establishments with 6,717 

employees in NAICS 332992. An 

estimated 66 percent are installation/ 

maintenance/repair, production, and 

transportation/material moving workers 

(excluding truck drivers, packers, and 

packagers) based on the BLS (2003) OES 

Survey data for 2002 for NAICS 3329. 

Thus, combined, there are, after 

rounding, approximately 8,700 

employees who potentially will need 

training in accordance with proposed 

paragraph (j). 

The estimation of the compliance 

costs associated with providing the 

necessary training to these employees 

has been determined based on: (1) An 

assessment of the risks faced by each 

employee given each employee’s unique 

work duties; (2) the provision of training 

courses to employees that satisfy the 

hazard communication requirements 

tailored to explosive chemicals; and (3) 

the allowance for some additional time 

to go over emergency evacuation 

procedures with each employee. The 

number of chemicals that an employee 

will be using and exposed to in making 

blasting agents will be limited in 

number. Therefore, the training can be 

more targeted to the chemicals being 

used, rather than to more general 

training on all types of chemicals. 

The compliance cost estimates for the 

risk assessment are based on the amount 

of supervisor time (15 minutes per 

employee) and clerical support time (3 

minutes per employee) required to 

determine the risk of exposure and the 

appropriate training level for each 

employee (given each employee’s 

unique work duties), coupled with 

supervisor and clerical wages. 

The cost estimates for the necessary 

training materials are based upon two 

alternative approaches: (1) Using a selfpaced on-line training course (example 

at http://www.hazmatschool.com) or (2) 

using a self-paced interactive training 

course available on CD–ROM (example 

at http://www.jjkeller.com). With each of 

the training approaches, approximately 

two hours of employee time is expected 

to be required to complete the course, 

including time to demonstrate a 

proficiency with the material learned to 

a supervisor. Thus, the compliance cost 

estimates associated with the hazard 

communication training are calculated 

based on estimates of the average cost of 

the training course (about $50 per 

employee), the amount of training time 

required for each employee to take the 

course, clerical support time (3 minutes 

per employee) to document that the 

training was taken and successfully 

completed, coupled with employee and 

clerical wages. 

Finally, the compliance cost estimates 

associated with explaining the 

emergency evacuation procedures to 

each employee are based on the amount 

of supervisor time (5 minutes per 

employee) and employee time (5 

minutes per employee) required, 

coupled with supervisor and employee 

wages. 

The hourly wage rates for the above 

employees are based on the average 

hourly wage data for 2002 and were 

obtained from the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) National IndustrySpecific Occupational Employment and 

Wage Estimates (BLS, 2003) for those 

occupational categories and affected 

industry sectors where explosives 

(including blasting agents) and small 

arms ammunition are manufactured. For 

benefits data, the March 2000 edition of 

Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation (BLS, 2000) was used, 

which indicates a fringe benefits rate of 

37 percent of the hourly wage rate. 

Specifically, average hourly wage rates 

(including fringe benefits) of $31.34, 

$20.42, and $16.40 were used for 

supervisors, employees, and clerical 

support, respectively, within NAICS 

3259 and NAICS 3329. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18831 

Combining the training course cost 

with the labor hour estimates and the 

hourly wage rates produces a total 

training cost of approximately $105 per 

employee. This consists of $9 per 

employee for the risk assessment, $92 

per employee for the training itself, and 

$4 per employee for the review of the 

evacuation procedures. For the 8,682 

employees that require training, the 

annual training cost is estimated to be 

$908,354. Again, these figures are 

considered to represent upper bound 

estimates in that most explosives and 

small arms ammunition manufacturers 

are believed to be in compliance with 

these new training requirements since 

they represent current industry 

recommended practices, as well as 

overlap with other OSHA, DOT, and 

ATF regulations. 

As described earlier in the Summary 

and Explanation section of this Notice, 

for blasting operations conducted near 

gas, electric, water, telephone, or other 

similar utilities, proposed paragraph 

(f)(1)(iv) would require that, prior to the 

start of blasting operations, employers 

document the approval given by utility 

representatives. The current standard, at 

paragraph (e)(1)(vi), specifies that 

employers are to notify utility 

representatives in writing at least 24 

hours in advance of the blasting 

operations. The 2001 edition of NFPA 

495 (Ex. 2–5) contains provisions for 

written notification of utilities that are 

nearly identical to OSHA’s current 

requirement. 

Based on a review of the consensus 

standard indicated above and 

discussions with industry experts, 

OSHA believes that most employers 

maintain a written record of 

communication with utilities prior to 

blasting operations. However, even if 

that were not the case, the incremental 

employer burden associated with the 

documentation of approval given by 

utilities would in all likelihood be 

modest, representing, at most, three 

minutes of a clerical employee’s time to 

document and maintain a written record 

that the utility representative has 

approved the blasting operation. By 

applying a conservative estimate that as 

many as 1,000 blasting operations could 

be affected by this provision, total costs 

would equal $820 (1,000 operations × 3 

minutes × $16.40/hour). With costs for 

the other requirements in the proposed 

standard totaling $1.5 million, the costs 

for documenting approval of blasting 

operations near utilities would increase 

total costs by 0.06 percent and would 

therefore not present economic 

feasibility concerns. OSHA requests 

public comment on this cost issue. 

Technological and Economic Feasibility 

The proposed requirements primarily 

update and clarify regulatory language 

and address regulatory inconsistencies 

between OSHA standards and those of 

other Federal agencies. A number of the 

new requirements are deregulatory in 

nature, and will yield cost-savings 

relative to the existing standard. The 

new requirements that potentially 

generate costs are consistent with OSHA 

standards that apply in similar 

industries. Moreover, OSHA believes 

that most explosives and small arms 

ammunition manufacturers are already 

in compliance with the proposed 

training requirements since they 

represent current industry 

recommended practices, as well as 

overlap with OSHA’s PSM requirements 

and with the requirements of DOT and 

ATF regulations. High levels of current 

compliance with the proposed rule 

clearly demonstrate that the proposed 

rule is both technologically and 

economically feasible. OSHA 

anticipates that there will be no 

technological barriers for employers to 

achieve compliance with the proposed 

standard. 

OSHA estimated the cost to 

employers of the proposed standard and 

considered whether it would be 

economically feasible. This analysis is 

presented in Table 2. For NAICS 325920 

and 332992, estimated upper bound 

compliance costs are significantly less 

than one percent of revenue, and 2.6 

percent and 1.9 percent of profits 

respectively. Therefore, OSHA has 

determined that the proposed standard 

is economically feasible. 

Regulatory Flexibility Screening 

Analysis 

In order to determine whether a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is required 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

OSHA has evaluated the potential 

economic impacts of this action on 

small entities. Table 3 and Table 4 

present the data used in this analysis to 

determine whether this standard would 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. For 

purposes of this analysis, OSHA used 

the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) definition of a small firm. For 

NAICS 325920 and NAICS 332992, SBA 

uses an employment based standard of 

500 and 1,000 employees, respectively. 

OSHA derived estimates of profits 

and revenues using data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau and Dun and Bradstreet. 

As shown in Table 4, upper bound gross 

compliance costs represent 0.07 percent 

of the revenues for NAICS 325920 and 

0.08 percent of the revenues for NAICS 

332992. Upper bound gross compliance 

costs constitute 1.7 percent of profits for 

NAICS 325920 and 2.4 percent of profits 

for NAICS 332992. Based on this 

evaluation, OSHA certifies that this 

proposed regulation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Benefits 

De-Regulatory Benefits. Several 

provisions in the proposed standard 

potentially reduce compliance costs. As 

noted above, one area of cost savings is 

in the change in definition of competent 

person. In the proposed standard, a 

competent person need not be a 

supervisor, so there are some cost 

savings due to differential wage rates. 

These cost savings will accrue 

primarily to employers involved in the 

manufacturing of explosives, including 

blasting agents (NAICS 325920) and 

small arms ammunition (NAICS 

332992). The U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s (USDOC, 2003) 2001 

County Business Patterns (CBP) 

database reports that there are 100 

establishments with 7,325 employees in 

NAICS 325920 and 111 establishments 

with 6,717 employees in NAICS 332992. 

An estimated 4.1 percent of the 

employees in NAICS 325920 and 3.9 

percent of the employees in NAICS 

332992 (based on the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS, 2003) Occupational 

Employment Statistics (OES) Survey 

data for 2002 for NAICS 3259 and 

NAICS 3329, respectively) are 

supervisory personnel responsible for 

the production and transport of 

explosive materials. Thus, combined, 

there are an estimated 561 supervisory 

employees. 

The hourly wage rates (including 

fringe benefits) for all production and 

transportation personnel and for all 

production and transportation 

supervisory personnel are estimated to 

be $19.85 and $30.88, respectively, for 

NAICS 3259 and NAICS 3329 

combined. These estimates are based on 

average hourly wage data for 2002, 

which were obtained from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS) National IndustrySpecific Occupational Employment and 

Wage Estimates (BLS, 2003) for these 

occupational categories for the affected 

industry sectors (NAICS 3259 and 

NAICS 3329) where explosives and 

small arms ammunition are 

manufactured. For benefits data, the 

March 2000 edition of Employer Costs 

for Employee Compensation (BLS, 2000) 

was used, which indicates a fringe 

benefits rate of 37 percent of the hourly 

wage rate. 

To the extent that certain 

responsibilities under the proposal can 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18832 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

4Based on EPA’s estimate of a value of $6.1 

million for a statistical life, updated to $6.3 million 

for inflation (See EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, EPA 240–R–00–003, 

September 2000). 

be handled by a trained competent 

person rather than by a supervisor, a 

savings in labor costs of about $11 per 

hour can be realized. Depending on the 

amount of time devoted to these 

activities, the cost-savings could be 

quite significant. For example, if each of 

the 561 supervisors delegate to 

competent persons the responsibilities 

of enforcing safety requirements and 

precautions related to the transferring of 

explosives from one vehicle to another 

for approximately 80 hours per year 

(equivalent to 2 weeks), then the total 

labor savings would be equal to $0.5 

million per year. 

The above cost savings estimate 

applies only to the competent person 

requirement. OSHA believes that the 

proposed rule offers many other 

opportunities for cost savings. For 

example, while the existing standard 

covers the storage of explosives 

(including small arms ammunition, 

primers, and smokeless propellants), the 

proposed standard would only cover the 

storage of small arms ammunition, 

primers, and smokeless propellants, but 

not other explosives. OSHA is 

proposing this change because ATF 

regulates the storage of explosives (but 

not the storage of small arms 

ammunition, primers, and smokeless 

propellants designed for use in small 

arms). OSHA has determined that its 

authority to regulate the storage of these 

explosives is preempted by ATF’s 

regulations. Therefore, currently an 

employer must comply with both OSHA 

and ATF regulations for the storage of 

explosives while under the proposed 

standard, the employer would only have 

to comply with the ATF regulations. 

This reduction in regulatory burden 

would likely lead to cost reductions. 

Another example relates to the exterior 

markings or placards on vehicles that 

transport explosives. Currently 

employers must comply with OSHA’s 

marking and placarding requirements 

and with those of the DOT. Under the 

proposed standard, employers would 

only have to use the markings and 

placards required by DOT. Again, this 

reduction in regulatory burden should 

lead to cost savings by employers. 

The proposal’s elimination of 

overlapping (and sometimes conflicting) 

regulatory requirements should save 

some time each year in assuring 

compliance with the standard. For 

example, if the revised standard can 

save, on average, four hours of review 

by a lawyer, as well as four hours of 

review by a health or safety engineer for 

each establishment, the potential cost 

savings would equal $108,200. This 

estimate is based on an hourly wage rate 

of $87.51 for lawyers and $40.73 for 

health or safety engineers, which 

includes 37 percent for fringe benefits 

applied to the 211 establishments in 

NAICS 325920 and NAICS 332992 (BLS, 

Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation, 2000; and National 

Industry-Specific Occupational 

Employment and Wage Estimates, 

2003). 

Safety Benefits. The potential safety 

benefits of the proposed standard 

include a reduction in the number of 

injuries and deaths associated with 

accidents involving explosives. In 

addition, significant property damage 

often occurs during these accidents. 

Unlike injury and fatality data, OSHA 

does not systematically collect data on 

the amount of property damage which is 

incurred during workplace accidents. 

Consequently, OSHA did not attempt to 

estimate benefits associated with 

reduced property damage. 

To determine the extent to which the 

proposed standard may reduce the 

number of deaths and injuries 

attributable to explosive accidents, 

OSHA examined its accident 

investigation reports. The most recent 

and complete reports cover 1992–2002, 

and provide detailed information 

regarding accidents involving explosive 

materials. During 1992–2002, there were 

39 accidents, including 18 that were 

fatal. 

As noted above, the proposed 

standard primarily affects explosive 

manufacturing that is not covered under 

PSM. Upon review of the accident 

reports, OSHA found that seven of the 

39 accidents occurred during the 

manufacture of explosives. Seven 

fatalities and five hospitalizations 

occurred as a consequence of these 

accidents during 1992–2002. Upon 

further review, OSHA found that at least 

one of these accidents, which involved 

two fatalities, could have potentially 

been prevented through compliance 

with the new training requirements. 

Specifically, in this particular accident, 

the employer did not assure that the 

employees were wearing appropriate 

protective clothing or that spark 

producing devices were not taken into 

explosive processing areas. 

Focusing only on this single accident, 

the proposed standard would have 

produced $12.6 million in total benefits 

or $1.3 million annually if it were 100 

percent effective at preventing these 

deaths.4

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF EXPLOSIVES MANUFACTURING AND SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

NAICS code Number of establishments 1

Number of 

firms 1 Employment 1 Total compliance costs 

Compliance cost 

per firm 

325920 ................................................................. 100 63 7,325 $993,888 $15,776 

332992 ................................................................. 111 105 6,717 463,840 4,418 

1 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2001. 

TABLE 2.—ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

NAICS code Number 

of firms 1

Total revenue 

($1,000) 2

Profit rate 3

(percent) 

Revenue 

per firm 

($1,000) 

Profit 

per firm 

($1,000) 

Compliance 

cost as a 

percent of 

revenue 

Compliance 

cost as a 

percent of 

profit 

325920 ....................................... 63 1,582,333 2.45 25,116 615,352 0.06 2.56 

332992 ....................................... 105 1,051,301 2.28 10,012 228,282 0.04 1.94 

1 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2001. 

2 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 1997, updated to 2002 dollars using the GDP implicit price deflator (NAICS 325920 maps 

to SIC 2892 and NAICS 332992 maps to SIC 3482) 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18833 

3 Dun & Bradstreet, Industry Norms and Key Business Ratios, 2000/2001. An alternative source of profit data is the IRS Corporation Source 

Book of Statistics of Income, which suggests profit rates of 5.05 percent and 7.09 percent, respectively. OSHA chose the lower rates reported in 

Dun & Bradstreet to keep the analysis conservative. 

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF EMPLOYMENT DATA AND COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES FOR SMALL EXPLOSIVES AND SMALL

ARMS AMMUNITION MANUFACTURING FIRMS

NAICS code 

SBA employment size 

standard 

Number of SBA establishments 1

Number of 

SBA firms 1

Total compliance costs for 

SBA firms 

Compliance cost 

per firm 

325920 ................................................................. 500 59 52 $269,062 $5,174 

332992 ................................................................. 1,000 101 99 84,178 850 

1 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2001. 

Note: The published data for NAICS 

332992 (SIC 3482) does not provide 

information for the < 1,000 employment size 

class, so the analysis was based on the < 500 

size class. Because the overwhelming 

majority of establishments/firms fall into the 

< 500 category, OSHA believes the approach 

is reasonable. Comments are welcome. 

TABLE 4.—SCREENING ANALYSIS FOR SMALL FIRMS AFFECTED BY THE RULE

NAICS code Number of 

SBA firms 1

Total SBA 

revenue 

($1,000) 2

Profit rate 3

(percent) 

Revenue 

per firm 

Profit per 

firm 

Compliance cost 

as a percent 

of revenue 

Compliance cost 

as a percent 

of profit 

325920 ............................. 52 383,261 4.16 $7,370,406 $306,609 0.07 1.69 

332992 ............................. 99 105,296 3.31 1,063,595 35,205 0.08 2.42 

1 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2001. 

2 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 1997, updated to 2002 dollars using the GDP implicit price deflator (NAICS 325920 maps 

to SIC 2892 and NAICS 332992 maps to SIC 3482). 3 Dun & Bradstreet, Industry Norms and Key Business Ratios, 2000/2001. An alternative source of profit data is the IRS Corporation Source 

Book of Statistics of Income, which suggests profit rates of 5.05 percent and 7.09 percent, respectively. OSHA chose the lower rates reported in 

Dun & Bradstreet to keep the analysis conservative. 

Note: The published data for NAICS 

332992 (SIC 3482) does not provide 

information for the < 1,000 employment size 

class, so the analysis was based on the < 500 

size class. Because the overwhelming 

majority of establishments/firms fall into the 

< 500 category, OSHA believes the approach 

is reasonable. Comments are welcome. 

V. Environmental Impact Analysis 

The proposed standard has been 

reviewed in accordance with the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 

regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 

part 1500), and DOL NEPA Procedures 

(29 CFR part 11). The provisions of the 

proposed standard focus on the 

reduction and avoidance of employee 

injuries and deaths during the storage, 

handling, transportation and use of 

explosives, including blasting agents 

and pyrotechnics. OSHA has 

determined that these proposed 

provisions will have no significant 

effect on air, water, or soil quality, plant 

or animal life, the use of land, or other 

aspects of the environment. 

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act 

After review of the proposed revisions 

to the Explosives Standard, OSHA has 

identified one new collection of 

information (paperwork) requirement 

and determined other paragraphs are 

not paperwork requirements or impose 

no burden hours or costs on employers. 

Collection of information requirements 

are subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA95), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq., and its 

regulation at 5 CFR part 1320. PRA95 

defines a collection of information to 

mean ‘‘the obtaining, causing to be 

obtained, soliciting, or requiring the 

disclosure to third parties or the public 

of facts or opinions by or for an agency 

regardless of form or format’’ (44 U.S.C. 

3502(3)(A)). 

The new paperwork requirement, 

contained in proposed paragraph 

(f)(1)(iv), requires employers to 

document approval from the utility 

prior to blasting operations that are 

being conducted in close proximity to 

gas, electric, water, telephone, or other 

similar utilities. Documentation may be 

in the form of a fax, email, or record of 

a conversation. 

The title, summary, description of the 

need for and proposed use of the 

collection of information requirement, 

description of respondents, and the 

frequency of response of the information 

collection requirement are described 

below with an estimate of the annual 

cost and reporting burden as required by 

§ 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and § 1320.8(d)(2). The 

reporting burden includes the time for 

reviewing instructions, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

OSHA has a particular interest in 

comments on the following issues: 

• Whether the proposed collection of 

information requirement is necessary for 

the proper performance of the Agency’s 

functions to protect workers, including 

whether the information is useful; 

• The accuracy of OSHA’s estimate of 

the burden (time and costs) of the 

collection of information requirement, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• The quality, utility, and clarity of 

the information collected; and 

• Ways to minimize the burden on 

employers who must comply; for 

example, by using automated or other 

technological information-collection 

and transmission techniques. 

Title: Explosives (29 CFR 1910.109). 

Summary: Proposed paragraph 

(f)(1)(iv) would require that whenever 

blasting operations are being conducted 

in close proximity to gas, electric, water, 

telephone, or other similar utilities, the 

employer will not commence such 

blasting operations until receiving and 

documenting approval from the 

appropriate utility representatives. 

Description: The current Standard 

does not require a response from the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18834 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

utility prior to the employer beginning 

blasting; this could lead to the 

endangerment of employees working in 

blasting operations near utility lines. 

Obtaining and documenting approval 

from the utility prior to blasting will 

better ensure employee safety during 

these operations. 

Respondents: Employers in general 

industry who conduct blasting 

operations near utilities. 

Frequency: On occasion. Employer 

will contact the utility prior to blasting 

near gas, electric, water, telephone, or 

other utilities. 

Average Time per Response: OSHA 

estimates on average, the employer will 

spend 3 minutes (.05 hour) to document 

and maintain written approval that the 

utility representative has approved the 

blasting operation. 

Total Burden Hours: 25. 

Costs (purchase of capital/startup 

costs): None. 

The Agency has submitted an 

information collection request (ICR) for 

the proposed standard to OMB for 

review and approval of the collection of 

information contained in proposed 

paragraph (f)(1)(iv). 

Other proposed paragraphs reviewed 

for paperwork are not new; or, are not 

collection of information requirements 

for the following reasons: (1) The 

paperwork requirements are contained 

in existing standards; (2) the 

requirements are exempt from the 

definition of a collection of information, 

since the Government provides specific 

language for signs/labels for public 

disclosure (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)); (3) the 

requirements are usual and customary 

business activities that impose no new 

burden hours or costs on employers (5 

CFR 1320.3(b)(2)); and, (4) the training 

provisions are performance-oriented, 

and are not considered collections of 

information. 

Proposed paragraphs containing 

paperwork requirements that are in 

existing standards include: 

§ 1910.109(c)(5) Labels, § 1910.109(d)(3) 

Storage of ammonium nitrate in bags 

and containers, and § 1910.109(e)(2) 

Vehicles. Proposed paragraphs that 

provide specific language for labels and/ 

or signs include: again, § 1910.109(c)(5) 

Labels, § 1910.109(d)(4) Storage of bulk 

ammonium nitrate, and § 1910.109(f)(1) 

and (3) Use of explosives for blasting. 

Proposed paragraph § 1910.109(e)(1) 

Transportation of explosives, contains a 

notification requirement that is the same 

as the notification requirement in 

paragraph 7.1.7 of the 2001 edition of 

NFPA 495 (Ex. 2–5). Since employers 

routinely follow the NFPA Codes, the 

notification is a usual and customary 

business practice. Finally, paragraphs 

§ 1910.109(f)(3) Use of explosives for 

blasting, § 1910.109(g)(3) Bulk delivery 

vehicles, and § 1910.109(j) Training, 

contain training requirements that are 

not counted since these provisions 

provide the employer a ‘‘performanceoriented’’ approach. 

Interested parties who wish to 

comment on OSHA’s ICR seeking OMB 

approval for paragraph (f)(1)(iv), or 

OSHA’s determination that proposed 

paragraphs in the preceding paragraph 

impose no new burden hours or costs on 

employers must send their written 

comments to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk 

Officer for OSHA, Office of Management 

and Budget, Room 10235, 726 Jackson 

Place, NW., Washington, DC 20503. The 

Agency also encourages commenters to 

submit their comments on this 

paperwork determination to OSHA 

along with their other comments on the 

proposed rule. To read or download the 

complete ICR, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov (Docket No. 

OSHA–S031–2006–0665) or http:// 

dockets.osha.gov (Docket No. S–031). 

You also may obtain an electronic copy 

of the complete ICR at http:// 

www.reginfo.gov. Click on ‘‘Inventory of 

Approved Information Collections, 

Collections Under Review, Recently 

Approved/ Expired,’’ then scroll under 

‘‘Currently Under Review’’ to 

Department of Labor (DOL) to view all 

of the DOL’s ICRs, including those ICRs 

submitted for proposed rulemakings. To 

make inquiries, or to request other 

information, contact Mr. Todd Owen, 

OSHA, Directorate of Standards and 

Guidance, Room N–3609, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone (202) 693–2222. 

VII. Federalism 

OSHA has reviewed this proposed 

rule in accordance with the Executive 

Order on Federalism (Executive Order 

13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 

which requires that agencies, to the 

extent possible, refrain from limiting 

State policy options, consult with States 

prior to taking any actions that would 

restrict State policy options, and take 

such actions only when there is clear 

constitutional authority and the 

presence of a problem of national scope. 

Executive Order 13132 provides for 

preemption of State law only if there is 

a clear congressional intent for the 

Agency to do so. Any such preemption 

is to be limited to the extent possible. 

Section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 

651 et seq.) expresses Congress’s intent 

to preempt State laws where OSHA has 

promulgated occupational safety and 

health standards. Under the OSH Act, a 

State can avoid preemption on issues 

covered by Federal standards only if it 

submits, and obtains Federal approval 

of, a plan for the development of such 

standards and their enforcement (StatePlan State). 29 U.S.C. 667. Occupational 

safety and health standards developed 

by such State-Plan States must, among 

other things, be at least as effective in 

providing safe and healthful 

employment and places of employment 

as the Federal standards. Subject to 

these requirements, State-Plan States are 

free to develop and enforce under State 

law their own requirements for safety 

and health standards. 

This proposed rule complies with 

Executive Order 13132. As Congress has 

expressed a clear intent for OSHA 

standards to preempt State job safety 

and health rules in areas addressed by 

OSHA standards in States without 

OSHA-approved State Plans, this 

proposed rule would limit State policy 

options in the same manner as all OSHA 

standards. In States with OSHAapproved State Plans, this action does 

not significantly limit State policy 

options. 

State comments are invited on this 

proposal and will be fully considered 

prior to promulgation of a final rule. 

VIII. State Plan Standards 

When Federal OSHA promulgates a 

new standard or more stringent 

amendment to an existing standard, the 

26 States and U.S. Territories with their 

own OSHA-approved occupational 

safety and health plans must revise their 

standards to reflect the new standard or 

amendment, or show OSHA why there 

is no need for action, e.g., because an 

existing State standard covering this 

area is already ‘‘at least as effective’’ as 

the new Federal standard or 

amendment. 29 CFR 1953.5(a). The 

State standard must be at least as 

effective as the final Federal rule, must 

be applicable to both the private and 

public (State and local government 

employees) sectors, and must be 

completed within six months of the 

publication date of the final Federal 

rule. When OSHA promulgates a new 

standard or amendment to a standard 

which does not impose additional or 

more stringent requirements than an 

existing standard, States are not 

required to revise their standards, 

although OSHA may encourage them to 

do so. The 26 States and territories with 

OSHA-approved State Plans are: Alaska, 

Arizona, California, Connecticut (plan 

covers only State and local government 

employees), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New 

Jersey (plan covers only State and local 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18835 

government employees), New York 

(plan covers only State and local 

government employees), North Carolina, 

Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, 

Virgin Islands (plan covers only State 

and local government employees), 

Washington, and Wyoming. 

IX. Unfunded Mandates 

OSHA reviewed this proposed rule 

according to the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq.) and Executive Order 12875 

and determined that this rule does not 

include any Federal mandate that may 

result in increased expenditures by 

State, local, and tribal governments, or 

increased expenditures by the private 

sector of more than $100 million in any 

year. 

X. Public Participation 

Submission of Comments and Access to 

Docket 

OSHA invites comments on all 

aspects of the proposed rule. 

Throughout this document OSHA has 

invited comment on specific issues and 

requested information and data about 

practices at your establishment and in 

your industry. OSHA will carefully 

review and evaluate these comments, 

information and data, as well as all 

other information in the rulemaking 

record, to determine how to proceed. 

You may submit comments in 

response to this document (1) 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, which is the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by 

facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All 

comments, attachments and other 

material must identify the Agency name 

and the OSHA docket number for this 

rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA–2007–

0032). You may supplement electronic 

submissions by uploading document 

files electronically. If, instead, you wish 

to mail additional materials in reference 

to an electronic or fax submission, you 

must submit three copies to the OSHA 

Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

The additional materials must clearly 

identify your electronic comments by 

name, date, and docket number so 

OSHA can attach them to your 

comments. 

Because of security-related 

procedures, the use of regular mail may 

cause a significant delay in the receipt 

of comments. For information about 

security procedures concerning the 

delivery of materials by hand, express 

delivery, messenger or courier service, 

please contact the OSHA Docket Office 

at (202) 693–2350 (TTY (877) 889–

5627). 

Comments and submissions in 

response to this Federal Register notice 

are posted without change at http:// 

www.regulations.gov (Docket No. 

OSHA–2007–0032). Therefore, OSHA 

cautions commenters about submitting 

personal information such as social 

security numbers and date of birth. 

Exhibits referenced in this Federal 

Register document are posted in both 

Docket No. OSHA–S031–2006–0665 

(which is available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov) and OSHA Docket 

No. S–031 (which is available at 

http://dockets.osha.gov. 

Although all submissions in response 

to this Federal Register notice and 

exhibits referenced in this notice are 

listed in the http://www.regulations.gov 

and http://dockets.osha.gov indexes, 

some information (e.g., copyrighted 

material) is not publicly available to 

read or download from those Web 

pages. All submissions and exhibits, 

including copyrighted material, are 

available for inspection and copying at 

the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES

section). Information on using the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web page to 

submit comments and access dockets is 

available at the Web page’s User Tips 

link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office 

for information about materials not 

available through the Web pages and for 

assistance in using the internet to locate 

docket submissions. 

Electronic copies of this Federal 

Register document are available at 

http://regulations.gov. This document, 

as well as news releases and other 

relevant information, also are available 

at OSHA’s Web page at http:// 

www.osha.gov. 

Requests for Informal Public Hearings 

Under section 6(b)(3) of the OSH Act 

and 29 CFR 1911.11, members of the 

public may request an informal hearing 

by following the instructions under the 

section of this Federal Register notice 

titled ADDRESSES. These requests must 

include the objections to the proposal 

that warrant a hearing. The hearing 

requests must: 

• Include the name and address of the 

party requesting the hearing; 

• Ensure that the request is sent or 

postmarked no later than June 12, 2007; 

• Number each objection separately; 

• Specify with particularity the 

grounds for each objection; 

• Include a detailed summary of the 

evidence supporting each objection 

which the requester plans to offer at the 

requested hearing. 

XI. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910 

Blasting agents, Explosives, Health, 

Occupational safety and health, 

Pyrotechnics, Safety. 

XII. Authority and Signature 

This document was prepared under 

the authority of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. 

Pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 

OSH Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 

657), Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 5–

2002 (67 FR 65008), and 29 CFR part 

1911, it is hereby amending subpart H 

of 29 CFR part 1910 as set forth below. 

Signed at Washington, DC on April 4, 

2007. 

Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

XIII. Amendments to Standards 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, OSHA proposes to amend 

Part 1910 of Title 29 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 1910—[AMENDED] 

Subpart A—General 

1. The authority citation for Subpart 

A of part 1910 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s 

Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 

25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 

9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), or 5–2002 (67 FR 

65008), as applicable. 

Sections 1910.7 and 1910.8 also issued 

under 29 CFR part 1911. Section 1910.7(f) 

also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29 U.S.C. 

9a, 5 U.S.C. 553; Pub. L. 106–113 (113 Stat. 

1501A–222); and OMB Circular A–25 (dated 

July 8, 1993) (58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993). 

2. Section 1910.6 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs 

(k)(9), (q)(17), and (q)(25). 

Subpart H—Hazardous Materials 

3. The authority citation for subpart H 

of part 1910 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s 

Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 

25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 

9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR 

50017), or 5–2002 (67 FR 65008), as 

applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. 

Sections 1910.103, 1910.106 through 

1910.111, and 1910.119, 1910.120, and 

1910.122 through 126 also issued under 29 

CFR part 1911. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18836 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Section 1910.119 also issued under 

section 304, Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–549), reprinted at 

29 U.S.C. 655 Note. 

Section 1910.120 also issued under 

section 126, Superfund Amendments 

and Reauthorization Act of 1986 as 

amended (29 U.S.C. 655 Note), and 5 

U.S.C. 553. 

4. Section 1910.109 of subpart H is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 1910.109 Explosives. 

(a) Scope. (1) This section applies to 

the manufacture, storage, sale, 

transportation, handling, and use of 

explosives, including blasting agents 

and pyrotechnics. 

(2) The employer also shall comply 

with § 1910.119, Process Safety 

Management, for operations involving 

the manufacture of explosives as 

defined in paragraph (b) of this section. 

However, blasting agents as defined in 

paragraph (b) of this section, including 

water gels, slurries, and emulsions 

classified as Division 1.5 explosives, are 

not covered by § 1910.119. 

(3) This section does not apply to: 

(i) Construction work covered by 29 

CFR part 1926; 

(ii) The use of explosives in 

medicines and medicinal agents in the 

forms prescribed by the official United 

States Pharmacopeia and the National 

Formulary (USP–NF); or 

(iii) The sale and use of consumer and 

public display pyrotechnics. 

(b) Definitions applicable to this 

section. Blast area means the area of a 

blast within the influence of flying rock 

or other debris, gases, and concussion. 

Blast site means the area where 

explosives are handled during the 

preparation and loading of drill holes, 

including 50 feet (15.2 m) in all 

directions from the perimeter formed by 

loaded holes. The 50 foot distance 

requirement applies in all directions 

along the full depth of the drill hole. 

Blaster-in-charge means the person in 

charge of the handling, loading, and 

firing of explosives within the blast site 

and blast area. 

Blasting agent means any material or 

mixture intended for blasting that is 

classified as a Division 1.5 explosive. 

Bulk delivery vehicle means any 

vehicle that transports blasting agents or 

their ingredients in bulk form including 

bulk delivery vehicles that are capable 

of mixing the ingredients to form 

blasting agents and loading the blasting 

agents directly into drill holes. 

Competent person means an 

employee designated by the employer 

who, by way of training and experience, 

is knowledgeable of applicable 

standards, is capable of identifying 

workplace hazards relating to 

explosives, and has authority to take 

appropriate corrective actions to control 

such hazards. 

Detonator means any device 

containing an initiating or primary 

explosive that is used for initiating 

detonation in another explosive 

material. A detonator may not contain 

more than .35 ounces (10 g) of total 

explosives by weight, excluding ignition 

or delay charges. The term includes, but 

is not limited to, electric blasting caps 

of instantaneous and delay types, 

electronic detonators, blasting caps for 

use with safety fuse, detonating cord 

delay connectors, and nonelectric 

instantaneous and delay blasting caps 

which use detonating cord, shock tube, 

or any other replacement for electric leg 

wires. 

Electric detonator means a detonator 

designed for, and capable of, initiation 

by means of an electric current. 

Electronic detonator means a 

detonator that utilizes stored electrical 

energy as a means of powering an 

electronic timing delay element/module 

and that provides initiation energy for 

firing the base charge. 

Emulsion means an explosive that 

either contains substantial amounts of 

oxidizer dissolved in water droplets that 

are surrounded by an immiscible fuel, 

or contains droplets of an immiscible 

fuel that are surrounded by water 

containing substantial amounts of 

oxidizer. Emulsions, depending on their 

properties, are classified as Division 1.1 

explosives or Division 1.5 blasting 

agents. 

Explosive means any device, or liquid 

or solid chemical compound or mixture, 

the primary or common purpose of 

which is to function by explosion. 

(i) The term ‘‘explosive’’ includes all 

material included as a Class 1 explosive 

by DOT in accordance with 49 CFR 

chapter I. The term includes, but is not 

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. 

(ii) Explosives are classified using the 

same classification system as used by 

DOT (see 49 CFR 173.50). Explosives are 

classified into the following divisions: 

(A) Division 1.1 consists of explosives 

that have a mass explosion hazard. A 

mass explosion is one which affects 

almost the entire load instantaneously. 

(B) Division 1.2 consists of explosives 

that have a projection hazard but not a 

mass explosion hazard. 

(C) Division 1.3 consists of explosives 

that have a fire hazard and either a 

minor blast hazard or a minor projection 

hazard or both, but not a mass explosion 

hazard. 

(D) Division 1.4 consists of explosives 

that present a minor explosion hazard. 

The explosive effects are largely 

confined to the package and no 

projection of fragments of appreciable 

size or range is to be expected. An 

external fire must not cause virtually 

instantaneous explosion of almost the 

entire contents of the package. 

(E) Division 1.5 consists of very 

insensitive explosives. This division is 

comprised of substances which have a 

mass explosion hazard but are so 

insensitive that there is very little 

probability of initiation or of transition 

from burning to detonation under 

normal conditions. (The probability of 

transition from burning to detonation is 

greater when large quantities are 

involved.) 

(F) Division 1.6 consists of extremely 

insensitive articles which do not have a 

mass explosive hazard. This division is 

comprised of articles which contain 

only extremely insensitive detonating 

substances and which demonstrate a 

negligible probability of accidental 

initiation or propagation. (The risk from 

articles of Division 1.6 is limited to the 

explosion of a single article.) 

CLASSIFICATION CONVERSION TABLE

Current OSHA/DOT 

classification 

Prior OSHA classification 

Division 1.1 ............... Class A explosives. 

Division 1.2 ............... Class A or Class B 

explosives. 

Division 1.3 ............... Class B explosives. 

Division 1.4 ............... Class C explosives. 

Division 1.5 ............... Blasting agents. 

Division 1.6 ............... No applicable hazard 

class. 

Hot work means any work involving 

electric or gas welding, cutting, brazing, 

or similar flame or spark-producing 

operations. 

Magazine means any building or 

structure, other than an explosives 

manufacturing building, used for the 

storage of explosives. 

Propellant-actuated power device 

means any tool or special mechanized 

device or gas generator system which is 

actuated by a propellant or which 

releases and directs work through a 

smokeless propellant charge. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18837 

Pyrotechnics means combustible or 

explosive compositions or 

manufactured articles designed and 

prepared for the purpose of producing 

audible or visible effects by combustion, 

deflagration, or detonation. They are 

commonly referred to as fireworks. 

Semiconductive hose means a hose 

with an electrical resistance high 

enough to limit flow of stray electric 

currents to safe levels, yet not so high 

as to prevent drainage of static electric 

charges to ground; or a hose of not more 

than two megohms resistance over its 

entire length and of not less than 1,000 

ohms per foot. 

Small arms ammunition means any 

shotgun, rifle, pistol, or revolver 

cartridge, and cartridges for propellantactuated power devices and industrial 

guns. Military-type ammunition 

containing explosive-bursting charges, 

or incendiary, tracer, spotting, or 

pyrotechnic projectiles are excluded 

from this definition. 

Small arms ammunition primers 

mean small percussion-sensitive 

explosive charges, encased in a cap, and 

used to ignite propellant powder. 

Smokeless propellants mean solid 

propellants, commonly called smokeless 

powders, used in small arms 

ammunition, cannons, rockets, and 

propellant-actuated power devices. 

Special industrial explosive materials 

mean shaped materials and sheet forms 

and various other extrusions, pellets, 

and packages of high explosives, which 

include dynamite, trinitrotoluene 

(TNT), pentaerythritol tetranitrate 

(PETN), hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-striazine (RDX), and other similar 

compounds used for high-energy-rate 

forming, expanding, and shaping in 

metal fabrication, and for 

dismemberment and quick reduction of 

scrap metal. 

Vehicle means any motor vehicle, 

machine, tractor, trailer, or semi-trailer 

propelled or drawn by mechanical 

power and used in the transportation of 

explosives. 

Water gels or slurries mean explosives 

that contain substantial proportions of 

water, oxidizers, and fuel with a crosslinking agent, a gelling, or a thickening 

agent added. Water gels or slurries, 

depending on their properties, are 

classified as Division 1.1 explosives or 

Division 1.5 blasting agents. 

(c) General provisions. (1) Explosives 

hazards. The employer shall ensure the 

following: 

(i) Explosives are manufactured, 

stored, sold, transported, handled, and 

used in a safe manner; 

(ii) Only persons trained in 

accordance with paragraph (j) of this 

section handle or use explosives; 

(iii) Blasting equipment or explosives 

that are unsafe due to deterioration, 

damage, or other causes are not used, 

and are disposed of by an experienced 

person as soon as possible in 

accordance with manufacturers’

recommendations; 

(iv) Proper housekeeping is performed 

to prevent hazardous accumulations of 

explosives, oxidizers, or fuels and other 

sensitizers in, on, or in close proximity 

to facilities and equipment containing 

explosives; 

(v) All equipment is maintained in 

good working condition; 

(vi) A program of systematic 

maintenance of equipment is conducted 

on a regular schedule; 

(vii) 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; 

(viii) No person enters a facility 

containing explosives or a blast site 

unless authorized to do so by the 

employer; and 

(ix) No flammable cleaning solvents 

are permitted in facilities containing 

explosives except where authorized by 

the employer who determines that their 

presence does not endanger the safety of 

employees. 

(2) Electrical hazards. (i) The 

employer shall ensure that the primary 

electrical supply to a facility containing 

explosives can be disconnected at a safe 

remote location away from the facility. 

(ii) During the approach and progress 

of an electrical storm, the employer 

shall ensure that: 

(A) All explosive manufacturing and 

blasting operations are suspended; and 

(B) Employees located in or near 

facilities containing explosives or in 

blast sites are withdrawn immediately 

to a safe remote location. 

(3) Fire and Explosion Prevention. (i) 

The employer shall ensure that 

explosives are handled in a manner that 

minimizes their spillage and jarring, the 

generation of explosive dust, and the 

creation of friction in or in close 

proximity to explosives. 

(ii) When a fire is in imminent danger 

of contact with explosives, the employer 

shall ensure that: 

(A) Employees do not fight the fire; 

(B) All employees are immediately 

removed to a safe area; and 

(C) The fire area is guarded against 

intruders. 

(iii) The employer shall ensure that: 

(A) No open flames, matches, or 

spark-producing devices are located 

within 50 feet (15.2 m) of explosives or 

facilities containing explosives; 

(B) Smoking is only permitted in 

authorized smoking areas located a safe 

distance from explosives; 

(C) No person carries firearms, 

ammunition, or similar articles in 

facilities containing explosives or blast 

sites except as required for work duties; 

and 

(D) Vehicles are not refueled within 

50 feet (15.25 m) of a facility containing 

explosives or a blast site. 

(4) Maintenance and Repairs. The 

employer shall ensure the following: 

(i) Before maintenance or repairs are 

started in or in close proximity to any 

facility containing explosives or in a 

blast site, the immediate area 

surrounding the maintenance or repair 

work is free of explosives, including 

residues and dusts containing 

explosives; and 

(ii) The fire prevention and protection 

requirements in § 1910.252(a) and 

paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section are 

implemented prior to beginning hot 

work operations. 

(5) Labels. (i) The employer shall 

communicate hazards associated with 

explosives in accordance with the 

requirements of the Hazard 

Communication Standard, § 1910.1200. 

Where labeling of explosives is required 

under § 1910.1200, Globally 

Harmonized System (GHS) labels shall 

be used as shown in the figure below for 

different divisions of explosives. The 

labels shall have a signal word, a hazard 

statement, and either a division 

designation or a pictogram as shown in 

the figure below. The pictogram shall be 

black on a white background with a red 

frame sufficiently large to be clearly 

visible. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18838 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C (ii) The employer shall ensure that 

DOT markings, placards, and labels are 

retained in accordance with 

§ 1910.1201. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2EP13AP07.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18839 

(d) Storage of ammonium nitrate. (1) 

Applicability. (i) Paragraph (d) of this 

section applies to the storage of 

ammonium nitrate in quantities of 1,000 

pounds (454 kg) or more to be used in 

the manufacture of explosives. 

(ii) Paragraph (d) of this section does 

not apply to ammonium nitrate that can 

be classified as an explosive as defined 

in paragraph (b) of this section. 

(2) Storage buildings. (i) Buildings or 

structures constructed and used to store 

ammonium nitrate since before August 

27, 1971, and that do not meet the 

requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section, shall be deemed to be 

acceptable for continued storage use 

when such use does not endanger the 

safety of employees. 

(ii) The employer shall ensure the 

following: 

(A) Ammonium nitrate is stored in a 

manner that minimizes as far as possible 

fire and explosion hazards, including 

exposure to toxic vapors from burning 

or decomposing ammonium nitrate; 

(B) Storage buildings are not over one 

story in height above ground level; 

(C) Storage buildings do not have 

basements unless the basements are 

open on at least one side; 

(D) Storage buildings are adequately 

ventilated to prevent unsafe heat or 

fume accumulations; 

(E) Storage building walls are 

constructed to meet a four-hour fire 

resistant rating whenever they face and 

are within 50 feet (15.2 m) of a 

combustible building, forest, pile of 

combustible materials, or other similar 

hazards. In lieu of a four-hour fire 

resistant wall, other equivalent means of 

exposure protection may be used; 

(F) At a minimum, the roof coverings 

afford a light degree of fire protection to 

the roof deck, do not slip from position, 

and do not present a flying brand 

hazard; 

(G) Storage buildings do not exceed a 

height of 40 feet unless constructed of 

noncombustible material or adequate 

facilities for fighting a roof fire are 

available; 

(H) All flooring is of noncombustible 

material; 

(I) All flooring is protected against 

impregnation by ammonium nitrate; 

(J) Flooring has no drains or piping 

into which any molten ammonium 

nitrate could flow and be confined in 

the event of fire; 

(K) Storage buildings are dry and free 

from water seepage; 

(L) Unauthorized persons do not enter 

an ammonium nitrate storage area; 

(M) Ammonium nitrate and storage 

buildings containing ammonium nitrate 

are located at a safe distance from 

readily combustible fuels; and 

(N) In areas where lightning storms 

are prevalent, lightning protection 

systems are provided. Lightning 

protection systems meeting the safety 

requirements found in Appendix K of 

National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA) 780–2004, Standard for the 

Installation of Lightning Protection 

Systems, or other equally protective 

criteria would meet the requirements of 

this provision. 

(3) Storage of ammonium nitrate in 

bags and containers. The employer shall 

ensure that: 

(i) Bags and containers used for 

ammonium nitrate storage are: 

(A) Constructed in accordance with 

DOT regulations (49 CFR chapter I); and 

(B) Labeled in accordance with DOT 

regulations (49 CFR chapter I) or 

§ 1910.1200, as applicable; 

(ii) Bags and containers of ammonium 

nitrate are not placed into storage when 

the temperature of the ammonium 

nitrate exceeds 130 F° (54 °C); 

(iii) Bags and containers of 

ammonium nitrate are not stored within 

30 inches (76.2 cm) of storage building 

walls and partitions; 

(iv) Stacks of bags or containers of 

ammonium nitrate do not exceed 20 feet 

(6.1 m) in height or 20 feet (6.1 m) in 

width; 

(v) Stacks of bags or containers of 

ammonium nitrate are limited to 50 feet 

(15.2 m) in length unless located in a 

building of non-combustible 

construction or protected by an 

automatic sprinkler system; 

(vi) Bags or containers of ammonium 

nitrate are not stacked within 36 inches 

(91.4 cm) of the roof or overhead 

supporting structure of the storage 

building; 

(vii) Aisles at least 3-feet (91.4 cm) 

wide are provided to separate stacks of 

bags or containers of ammonium nitrate; 

and 

(viii) At least one main aisle 

separating stacks of bags or containers of 

ammonium nitrate in the storage area is 

at least 4-feet (1.2 m) wide. 

(4) Storage of bulk ammonium nitrate. 

The employer shall ensure the 

following: 

(i) Bulk storage bins used to store 

ammonium nitrate are clean and free of 

materials which may contaminate 

ammonium nitrate; 

(ii) Galvanized iron, copper, lead, and 

zinc are not used in the construction of 

ammonium nitrate bulk storage bins, 

unless suitably protected against the 

corrosive and reactive properties of 

ammonium nitrate, to avoid 

contamination of the ammonium nitrate 

by these metals; 

(iii) Aluminum and wooden bulk 

storage bins used to store ammonium 

nitrate are protected against ammonium 

nitrate impregnation; 

(iv) The partitions dividing stored 

ammonium nitrate from other products 

are constructed to prevent 

contamination of the ammonium nitrate 

with these other products; 

(v) Ammonium nitrate bulk storage 

bins or piles are clearly identified by 

signs reading ‘‘Ammonium Nitrate’’

with letters at least 2 inches (5.1 cm) 

high; 

(vi) Ammonium nitrate in piles or in 

bulk storage bins is loosened or moved 

periodically to minimize caking; 

(vii) Explosives are not used to break 

up or loosen caked ammonium nitrate; 

(viii) The top of an ammonium nitrate 

pile is no closer than 36 inches (91.4 

cm) below the roof or supporting 

structure of the storage building; and 

(ix) Bulk ammonium nitrate is not 

placed into storage when its 

temperature exceeds 130 °F (54 °C); 

(5) Contaminants. The employer shall 

ensure that: 

(i) Ammonium nitrate is kept in a 

separate building or is separated from 

flammable, combustible, corrosive, 

explosive, or contaminating materials or 

processes by a wall with at least a 1- 

hour fire-resistant rating. This 

separation wall shall extend at least to 

the underside of the roof. In lieu of 

separation walls, ammonium nitrate 

may be separated from these materials 

or processes by a space of at least 30 feet 

(9.1 m) with means to prevent mixing, 

such as sills or curbs; 

(ii) Flammable liquids are not placed 

or stored in buildings used for the 

storage of ammonium nitrate except in 

accordance with § 1910.106, and 

paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section; 

(iii) No liquefied petroleum gas is 

placed or stored in the storage building 

except in accordance with § 1910.110; 

and 

(iv) Sulfur and finely divided metals 

are not stored in the same building with 

ammonium nitrate. 

(6) Fire protection. The employer 

shall ensure the following: 

(i) Buildings in which greater than 

2500 tons (2268 metric tons) of 

ammonium nitrate is stored are 

equipped with an automatic sprinkler 

system that complies with § 1910.159; 

and 

(ii) All fire protection equipment and 

systems in ammonium nitrate storage 

buildings meet the requirements of 

subpart L of this part. 

(e) Transportation of explosives. (1) 

General provisions. The employer shall 

ensure that: 

(i) No employee smokes, carries 

matches or any other flame-producing 

device, or carries any firearms or 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18840 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

cartridges (except firearms and 

cartridges required to be carried by 

guards) while in, or within 25 feet 

(7.63m) of, a vehicle containing 

explosives; 

(ii) No employee drives, loads, or 

unloads a vehicle containing explosives 

in an unsafe manner; 

(iii) Explosives are not transferred 

from one vehicle to another without 

informing local fire and police 

departments. A competent person shall 

supervise the transfer of explosives. In 

the event of breakdown or collision, the 

local fire and police departments shall 

be promptly notified; 

(iv) No repair work, other than 

emergency repairs that do not present a 

source of ignition, is performed on a 

vehicle containing explosives; 

(v) Detonators are not transported 

with other explosives on the same 

vehicle, unless packaged, segregated, 

and transported in accordance with the 

regulations of DOT (49 CFR 177.835(g)); 

(vi) When explosives are transported 

on a railway car utilizing private 

railroad tracks, the car, its contents, and 

method of loading are in accordance 

with the regulations of DOT (49 CFR 

chapter I); 

(vii) Explosives at a railway facility, 

truck terminal, pier, harbor facility, or 

airport terminal, whether for delivery to 

a consignee or forwarded to some other 

destination, are kept in a manner that 

minimizes risk to employees; and 

(viii) The driver or other employee 

attending the vehicle is knowledgeable 

about the nature and hazards of the 

explosives contained in the vehicle and 

the procedures for handling emergency 

situations. 

(2) Vehicles. (i) The employer shall 

ensure that any vehicle used to carry 

explosives: 

(A) Is able to safely carry the 

designated load; 

(B) Has close-fitting floors; and 

(C) Has wood or other non-sparking 

materials covering any exposed sparkproducing metal on the inside of the 

vehicle body. 

(ii) The employer shall ensure that 

any vehicle containing explosives or 

oxidizers located at a private facility or 

blast site has exterior markings or 

placards designed and displayed in 

accordance with the regulations of DOT 

(49 CFR chapter I). 

(iii) For all open-bodied vehicles 

containing explosives, the employer 

shall ensure that: 

(A) The explosives are protected with 

a flameproof and moisture-proof 

tarpaulin or other effective means of 

protection from fire, sparks, and 

moisture; and 

(B) The explosives are not loaded 

above the sides of the vehicle. 

(iv) For each vehicle used to carry 

explosives, the employer shall ensure 

that: 

(A) The vehicle is equipped with at 

least two fire extinguishers filled and in 

good working order, each having a 

rating of at least 4–A:40–B:C; 

(B) One of the fire extinguishers on 

the vehicle is located in close proximity 

to the driver’s seat; and 

(C) The fire extinguishers on the 

vehicle are listed or approved by a 

nationally recognized testing laboratory 

(refer to § 1910.155(c)(3)(iv)(A) for 

definition of listed fire extinguishers, 

and § 1910.7 for nationally recognized 

testing laboratories). 

(v) For each vehicle used for carrying 

explosives, the employer shall ensure 

the following: 

(A) Fire extinguishers are used, 

maintained, and tested in accordance 

with § 1910.157; 

(B) Fire extinguishers are used only to 

fight non-explosive fires; i.e., tire fires, 

battery fires, engine fires, cab fires, etc., 

where the fire has not yet reached the 

explosive cargo; and 

(C) The explosive cargo cannot shift, 

spill, or become damaged during transit. 

(vi) The employer shall ensure that 

any vehicle containing explosives is 

maintained in good and safe working 

condition for transporting explosives. 

(3) Operation of vehicles. (i) The 

employer shall ensure that: 

(A) Only employees designated by the 

employer ride in or drive a vehicle 

containing explosives; 

(B) Vehicles containing explosives are 

only driven by and are in the charge of 

a driver who is familiar with relevant 

traffic regulations and the provisions of 

paragraph (e) of this section, and 

possesses a valid driver’s license 

appropriate for the vehicle; 

(C) Except under emergency 

conditions, no vehicle containing 

explosives is parked before reaching its 

destination on any public street adjacent 

to or in close proximity to any place of 

employment; 

(D) No spark-producing metal, sparkproducing tools, oils, matches, firearms, 

electric storage batteries, flammable 

substances, acids, oxidizers, or corrosive 

compounds are carried in the body of 

any vehicle containing explosives, 

unless the carrying of such dangerous 

articles and the explosives complies 

with DOT regulations (49 CFR chapter 

I); and 

(E) Deliveries of explosives are 

received only by employees authorized 

by the employer to receive such 

explosives. 

(ii) The employer shall ensure that 

every vehicle containing Division 1.1, 

1.2, or 1.3 explosives at the employer’s 

worksite or facility is attended at all 

times by the driver or other responsible 

person authorized by the employer. 

(A) For the purposes of this section, 

the vehicle shall be considered 

‘‘attended’’ only when the driver or 

other responsible person authorized by 

the employer is physically on or in the 

vehicle, or can see and reach the vehicle 

quickly and without any interference. 

‘‘Attended’’ also means that the driver 

or other employee is awake, alert, and 

not engaged in other duties or activities 

which may divert attention from the 

vehicle; and 

(B) The driver or other employee 

attending the vehicle shall be 

authorized, capable, and have the 

necessary means to drive the assigned 

vehicle safely. 

(f) Use of explosives for blasting. (1) 

General provisions. (i) The employer 

shall ensure that the blaster-in-charge: 

(A) Is trained, knowledgeable, and 

experienced in the storage, 

transportation, handling, and use of 

explosives; 

(B) Is knowledgeable about relevant 

federal, state, and local regulations 

pertaining to explosives; 

(C) Is trained, knowledgeable, and 

experienced in the use of each type of 

blasting method being used; 

(D) Is in control of the blasting 

operations, blast site, and blast area; and 

(E) Evaluates each blast site and blast 

area for which he or she is responsible 

and implements the measures that will 

ensure the safety of employees and the 

security of those areas. 

(ii) The employer shall ensure the 

following: (A) Explosives are used in 

accordance with manufacturers’

recommendations; 

(B) All employees involved in blasting 

operations work only under the 

supervision of the blaster-in-charge; 

(C) Only Type 3 magazines or the 

original containers are used to transport 

detonators and other explosives from 

magazines to the blast site; 

(D) Employees are protected from 

flying fragments produced during 

blasting operations by removing 

employees to a safe distance, using 

protective barricades, or utilizing other 

equivalent means to protect employees; 

(E) Adequate precautions are taken to 

prevent sources of induced current, 

such as lightning, adjacent power lines, 

dust storms, snow storms, radar, radio 

transmitters, cellular phones, or other 

sources of extraneous electricity, from 

causing the accidental ignition of 

electric blasting caps; and 

(F) Signs are posted warning against 

the use of mobile radio transmitters or 

cellular phones on all roads within 350 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18841 

feet (106.7 m) of the blasting operations. 

The signs shall read: 

WARNING 

EXPLOSIVES HAZARD 

DO NOT USE MOBILE RADIO 

TRANSMITTERS OR CELLULAR 

PHONES 

(iii) (A) The employer shall ensure 

that all surface blasting operations are 

conducted only during daylight hours; 

except as provided in (f)(1)(iii)(B) of this 

section. 

(B) Unusual blasting operations 

associated with industrial processes, 

such as blasting slag pockets and 

dustcatchers, that are performed indoors 

are permitted at any time of day when 

a minimum illumination density of 20 

lumens per square foot is provided 

within a 5-foot (1.5 m) radius of 

locations where explosives are being 

assembled, placed, or attached to 

detonators. 

(iv) Whenever blasting operations are 

being conducted in close proximity to 

gas, electric, water, telephone, or other 

similar utilities, the employer shall not 

commence such blasting operations 

until receiving and documenting 

approval from the appropriate utility 

representatives. 

(2) Explosives at blast sites. The 

employer shall ensure that: 

(i) Empty containers and paper and 

fiber packing materials which 

previously contained explosives are 

disposed of in a safe manner, or reused 

in accordance with DOT regulations (49 

CFR chapter I); 

(ii) Only non-sparking tools shall be 

used to open containers of explosives; 

(iii) No explosives are abandoned; and 

(iv) All unused explosives are 

immediately returned to appropriate 

magazines. 

(3) Loading of explosives in drill 

holes. The employer shall ensure that: 

(i) All drill holes are of sufficient size 

to permit the free insertion of 

explosives; 

(ii) Tamping of explosives is 

performed: 

(A) Only with non-sparking tools; and 

(B) In a manner that does not degrade 

or otherwise damage the explosives or 

cause the explosives to detonate; 

(iii) Pneumatic loading of explosives 

into drill holes primed with electric 

detonators or other static electricitysensitive initiation systems conforms to 

the following requirements: 

(A) Equipment is bonded and 

grounded; 

(B) A semi-conductive hose is used; 

and 

(C) The blaster-in-charge evaluates all 

systems to assure that they will safely 

dissipate static electricity under 

potential field conditions; 

(iv) No employee drills into 

explosives or any portion of a hole that 

at any time contained explosives; 

(v) After loading for a blast is 

completed but before detonation, all 

remaining explosives, including 

detonators, are immediately returned to 

the appropriate magazines; 

(vi) During the time that drill holes 

are loaded or are being loaded, only 

personnel who are engaged in drilling or 

loading operations, or are otherwise 

authorized by the employer, may enter 

the blast site; and 

(vii) After the loaded drill holes are 

connected but prior to them being 

connected to a source of initiation: 

(A) The blast area shall be barricaded 

and posted, guarded, or both. If 

barricaded and posted, the posted sign 

shall read ‘‘DANGER—EXPLOSIVES 

HAZARD—DO NOT ENTER’’ or 

equivalent language; and 

(B) All personnel shall be removed 

from the blast area. 

(4) Initiation of explosive charges. The 

employer shall ensure that: 

(i) Where sources of extraneous 

electricity in excess of fifty (50) 

milliamperes (flowing through a oneohm resistor) are present, electric 

detonators are used only if sufficient 

measures are taken to ensure that the 

detonators will not inadvertently 

activate; 

(ii) The blaster-in-charge supervises 

selection and installation of the 

initiation system; 

(iii) The initiation system is used in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations; 

(iv) The blaster-in-charge checks the 

initiation system visually after blast 

hookup; 

(v) The blaster-in-charge tests the 

blast layout for continuity as 

recommended by the manufacturer; 

(vi) Where deemed necessary by the 

blaster-in-charge, a double trunk line or 

closed-loop hookup is used in the 

initiation system; 

(vii) When a safety fuse is used, only 

a crimper approved by the detonator 

manufacturer or the safety fuse 

manufacturer is used to connect the 

detonator to the safety fuse; 

(viii) All primers are assembled at 

least 50 feet (15.25 m) away from any 

magazine; 

(ix) Primers are made up only as 

needed for immediate use; 

(x) When an explosives cartridge that 

does not have a detonator well is used 

as a primer, a hole large enough to 

accommodate the detonator is made in 

the cartridge with a spark-resistant 

powder punch approved either by the 

explosives manufacturer or by the 

blaster-in-charge; 

(xi) When testing electric circuits that 

lead to loaded drill holes, only blasting 

galvanometers or other instruments 

specifically designed for this purpose 

are used; and 

(xii) In electrical firing: 

(A) Only the person making the lead 

line connections or the blaster-in-charge 

shall fire the shot; and 

(B) Blasting lead lines shall remain 

shunted (shorted) and not connected to 

the blasting machine or other source of 

current until the charge is to be fired. 

(5) Warning signal. The employer 

shall ensure that, before a blast is fired, 

all persons and vehicles are at a safe 

distance outside the blast area or under 

sufficient cover, and that an adequate 

warning signal is given. 

(6) Post blast procedures. After a blast, 

the employer shall ensure that: 

(i) No other person enters the blast 

area until it is inspected by the blasterin-charge and found to be free of 

misfires and other safety hazards and 

the blaster-in-charge has given an allclear signal; and 

(ii) The blaster-in-charge does not 

enter the blast site until sufficient time 

has passed to allow smoke and fumes to 

dissipate and dust to settle. 

(7) Misfires. The employer shall 

ensure that: 

(i) Whenever there is a misfire while 

using blasting cap and fuse or electronic 

detonators, all employees remain 

outside the blast area for at least 1 hour. 

If electric detonators or nonelectric 

detonators (other than cap and fuse) are 

used and a misfire occurs, this waiting 

period may be reduced to 30 minutes; 

(ii) Whenever explosives remain in a 

misfired hole, a new primer is inserted 

and the hole is reblasted. Where 

reblasting presents a hazard, the 

remaining explosives shall be washed 

out with water, or, where the misfire is 

underwater, blown out with air; 

(iii) Misfires are handled under the 

direction of the blaster-in-charge and all 

initiation paths are carefully traced and 

a thorough search made for unexploded 

charges; 

(iv) Explosives recovered from 

blasting misfires are placed in a 

magazine that is used only for the 

storage of misfired explosives and are 

then disposed of as soon as possible in 

accordance with the manufacturers’

recommendations; and 

(v) Detonators recovered from blasting 

misfires are not reused and are disposed 

of as soon as possible in accordance 

with the manufacturers’

recommendations. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18842 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(g) Blasting agents, water gels, 

slurries, and emulsions. (1) General 

provisions. 

(i) Unless otherwise set forth in this 

paragraph (g): 

(A) Blasting agents, water gels, 

slurries, and emulsions shall be stored, 

transported, handled, and used in the 

same manner as other explosives; and 

(B) Water gels, slurries, and emulsions 

classified as Division 1.1 or Division 1.5 

shall meet the same requirements as 

blasting agents in paragraph (g). 

However, the manufacture of water gels, 

slurries, and emulsions classified as 

Division 1.1 explosives also shall 

comply with § 1910.119 Process Safety 

Management. 

(ii) The employer shall ensure the 

following: 

(A) Caked oxidizers, either in bags or 

in bulk, are not loosened by blasting; 

(B) Equipment used for mixing and 

packaging of blasting agents is 

constructed of materials compatible 

with the blasting agent composition; 

(C) Spills or leaks which may 

contaminate combustible materials are 

cleaned up immediately; 

(D) Ingredients are not kept with 

incompatible materials; and 

(E) Water gels, slurries, and 

emulsions, or their liquid ingredients 

maintain their liquid or water content. 

(iii) If a Type 5 magazine is used as 

a bulk storage container for blasting 

agents, the employer shall ensure that 

any electrically driven conveyors used 

for loading or unloading the magazine 

are designed to minimize damage from 

corrosion. 

(2) Fixed location mixing. (i) In a 

building used for the mixing of blasting 

agents, the employer shall ensure the 

following: 

(A) The building is of noncombustible 

construction or constructed of sheet 

metal on wood studs; 

(B) Floors are constructed of concrete 

or other minimally absorbent material 

and have no drains or piping into which 

molten materials could flow and be 

confined during a fire; 

(C) The building is ventilated to 

prevent unsafe heat or fume 

accumulations; 

(D) Heating, if supplied for the 

building, is provided in a manner that 

does not create a fire or ignition hazard; 

(E) All direct sources of building heat 

shall be provided exclusively from units 

located outside the building; 

(F) Heating units which do not 

depend on combustion processes may 

be used in the building if they do not 

create a fire or ignition hazard; 

(G) All internal-combustion engines 

are located outside the building, or are 

safely ventilated and isolated by a fire 

barrier wall with at least a 1-hour rating; 

(H) The exhaust systems on all 

internal-combustion engines are located 

so that no sparks or other ignition 

sources create a hazard to any materials 

in or in close proximity to the building; 

(I) All electric equipment located in 

the mixing room is in accordance with 

the requirements in subpart S of this 

part for Class II, Division 2 locations; 

(J) All fuel-oil storage facilities are 

separated from the mixing building and 

located in such a manner that in case of 

tank rupture, the oil will drain away 

from the building and other facilities 

containing explosives or employees. 

Alternatively, tanks may be diked in a 

manner that will contain the entire tank 

contents in case of rupture; and 

(K) The land surrounding the building 

is kept clear of all combustible materials 

for a distance of at least 25 feet (7.63 m). 

(ii) Equipment used for mixing 

blasting agents. The employer shall 

ensure that: 

(A) The mixing equipment minimizes 

the possibility of frictional heating, 

compaction, and confinement; 

(B) All surfaces of the mixing 

equipment are accessible for cleaning; 

(C) All bearings and drive assemblies 

are mounted outside the mixer and 

protected against dust accumulation; 

(D) Suitable means are provided to 

prevent the flow of fuel oil to the mixer 

in case of fire. In gravity-flow systems, 

an automatic spring-loaded shutoff 

valve with a fusible link shall be 

installed; 

(E) Both equipment and handling 

procedures prevent the inadvertent 

introduction of foreign objects or 

materials into the mixing process; and 

(F) Mixers, pumps, valves, and related 

equipment are regularly and 

periodically flushed, cleaned, 

dismantled, and inspected. 

(iii) Blasting agent compositions. The 

employer shall ensure that: 

(A) Oxidizers of small particle size, 

such as crushed ammonium nitrate 

prills or fines, which may be more 

sensitive than coarser products, are 

handled with additional care compared 

to the coarser products; 

(B) No hydrocarbon liquid fuel with a 

flashpoint lower than 125 °F (51.7 °C) is 

used except at ambient air temperatures 

below 45 °F (7.2 °C) where fuel oils with 

flashpoints as low as 100 °F (37.8 °C) are 

used; 

(C) Crude oil and crankcase oil are not 

used as a blasting agent ingredient; 

(D) Metal powders such as aluminum 

are kept dry and stored in moistureresistant or weather tight containers; 

(E) Solid fuels are used in a manner 

that minimizes dust explosion hazards 

as far as possible; and 

(F) Peroxides and chlorates are not 

used. 

(iv) Mixing operations. The employer 

shall ensure the following: 

(A) Empty ammonium nitrate bags are 

disposed of daily in a safe manner; 

(B) No hot work or open flames are 

permitted in or around the mixing 

building unless the equipment and 

surrounding area have been completely 

washed down and all oxidizers and 

fuels removed; 

(C) Before welding or repairing 

hollow shafts of mixing equipment, all 

blasting agents and their ingredients are 

removed from the outside and inside of 

the shaft, and the shaft is vented 

through an opening at least one-half 

inch in diameter; and 

(D) No explosives other than blasting 

agents are located inside or within 50 

feet (15.25 m) of any building used for 

the mixing of blasting agents. 

(3) Bulk delivery vehicles. (i) 

Applicability. The provisions of 

paragraph (e) of this section also apply 

to bulk delivery vehicles transporting 

blasting agents or their ingredients in 

bulk form. 

(ii) Bulk delivery vehicle construction. 

The employer shall ensure that the 

following requirements are met for bulk 

delivery vehicles: 

(A) The vehicle body is constructed of 

noncombustible materials; 

(B) Vehicles have enclosed bodies; 

(C) All moving parts of the mixing 

system are designed to prevent heat 

buildup; 

(D) Shafts or axles which contact the 

blasting agent or blasting agent 

ingredients have outboard bearings with 

a 1-inch (2.54 cm) minimum clearance 

between the bearings and the outside of 

the product container; 

(E) When electrical power is supplied 

by a self-contained generator located on 

the vehicle, the generator is located 

where it will not create a fire or ignition 

hazard; 

(F) The vehicle is able to safely carry 

the designated load; 

(G) The vehicle’s processing 

equipment, including its mixing and 

conveying equipment, is compatible 

with the relative sensitivity of the 

materials being handled; 

(H) All hollow shafts of the vehicle’s 

processing equipment are constructed to 

permit venting through an opening at 

least one-half inch in diameter; and 

(I) Means are provided on the vehicle 

to prevent the flow of fuel to the mixer 

in case of fire. In gravity flow systems, 

an automatic spring-loaded shut-off 

valve with fusible link shall be 

installed; 

(iii) Bulk delivery vehicle operation. 

The employer shall ensure the following 

requirements are met for bulk delivery 

vehicle operation: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18843 

(A) The driver of the vehicle is trained 

and capable of safely operating the 

vehicle; 

(B) The operator, whether the driver 

or another employee, is trained and 

capable of safely operating the mixing, 

conveying, and related equipment on 

the vehicle; 

(C) Smoking, matches, open flames, 

spark-producing devices, and firearms 

(except firearms required to be carried 

by guards) are not permitted within 25 

feet (7.63 m) of the vehicle; 

(D) The transfer of blasting agents or 

their ingredients from one bulk delivery 

vehicle to another vehicle is performed 

at a safe distance away from any blast 

site where drill holes are loaded or in 

the process of being loaded; 

(E) While the bulk delivery vehicle is 

in a blast site, caution is exercised to 

avoid driving the vehicle over hoses or 

dragging hoses over firing lines, 

detonating cords, detonator wires or 

tubes, or explosives; 

(F) To ensure the safe movement of 

the bulk delivery vehicle in the blast 

site, the driver has the assistance of a 

second person to guide the vehicle’s 

movements; 

(G) Blasting agent ingredients are not 

mixed while the bulk delivery vehicle is 

in transit. 

(H) A positive action parking brake, 

which will set the wheel brakes on at 

least one axle, is used during bulk 

delivery operations; 

(I) At least two wheels are chocked 

whenever necessary to prevent vehicle 

movement; and 

(J) The vehicle is maintained in good 

mechanical condition. 

(iv) Pneumatic loading from bulk 

delivery vehicles. When drill holes, 

primed with electric detonators or other 

static-electricity sensitive systems, are 

pneumatically loaded from bulk 

delivery vehicles, the employer shall 

ensure that: 

(A) The blaster-in-charge evaluates all 

systems to determine that they will 

adequately dissipate static electricity 

under potential field conditions; 

(B) A grounding device is used to 

prevent the accumulation of static 

electricity; and 

(C) A discharge hose is used that has 

a resistance range that will prevent 

conducting stray currents, but that is 

conductive enough to bleed off static 

buildup. 

(v) Repairs to bulk delivery vehicles. 

The employer shall ensure that: 

(A) No hot work is performed or open 

flames used on or around any part of the 

bulk delivery vehicle until all blasting 

agents and their ingredients have been 

removed and the vehicle has been 

completely washed down; and 

(B) Before welding or repairing 

hollow shafts of equipment, all blasting 

agents and their ingredients are 

removed from the outside and inside of 

the shaft and the shaft is vented through 

an opening at least one-half inch in 

diameter. 

(h) Small arms ammunition, small 

arms primers, and smokeless 

propellants. 

(1) Applicability. This paragraph does 

not apply to temporary in-process 

storage during the manufacture of small 

arms ammunition, small arms primers, 

or smokeless propellants. 

(2) Small arms ammunition. The 

employer shall 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 rating or by 

a distance of at least 25 feet (7.6 m). 

(3) Smokeless propellants. (i) The 

employer shall ensure that: 

(A) All smokeless propellants are 

stored in shipping containers in 

accordance with DOT regulations at 49 

CFR part 173 for smokeless propellants; 

and 

(B) No more than 20 pounds (9.1 kg) 

of smokeless propellants, in containers 

not to exceed 1 pound (.45 kg), are 

displayed in a commercial 

establishment. 

(ii) For commercial stocks of 

smokeless propellants, the employer 

shall ensure the following: 

(A) Quantities over 20 pounds (9.1 kg) 

and not exceeding 100 pounds (45.4 kg) 

are stored in portable wooden boxes 

having walls at least 1-inch (2.54 cm) 

thick; 

(B) Quantities over 100 pounds (45.4 

kg) and not exceeding 750 pounds 

(340.5 kg) are stored in non-portable 

cabinets having walls at least 1-inch 

(2.54 cm) thick, and: 

(1) Not more than 400 pounds (181.6 

kg) shall be permitted to be stored in 

any one non-portable cabinet; and 

(2) The non-portable cabinets shall be 

separated by a distance of at least 25 feet 

(7.6 m) or by a fire barrier wall with at 

least a 1-hour rating; and 

(C) Quantities over 750 pounds (340.5 

kg) and not exceeding 5,000 pounds 

(2270 kg) are not stored in a building 

unless the following requirements are 

met: 

(1) The warehouse or storage room 

shall not be accessible to unauthorized 

personnel; 

(2) Smokeless propellants shall be 

stored in non-portable storage cabinets 

having wood walls at least 1-inch (2.54 

cm) thick and having shelves with no 

more than 3 feet (0.91 m) of separation 

between shelves; 

(3) No more than 400 pounds (181.6 

kg) shall be stored in any one cabinet; 

(4) Cabinets shall be located against 

the walls of the storage room or 

warehouse; 

(5) Cabinets shall be separated by at 

least 40 feet (12.2 m). The separation 

between cabinets shall be permitted to 

be reduced to 20 feet (6.1) where 

barricades twice the height of the 

cabinets are attached to the wall 

midway between each cabinet. The 

barricades shall extend at least 10 feet 

(3.0 m) outward and be constructed of 

either 1⁄4-inch (6.35 mm) boiler plate, 2- 

inch (5.1 cm) thick wood, brick, or 

concrete block; 

(6) Smokeless propellant shall be 

separated from flammable liquids, 

flammable solids, and oxidizing 

materials by a distance of at least 25 feet 

(7.6 m) or by a fire barrier wall with at 

least a 1-hour rating; and 

(7) The building shall be protected by 

an automatic sprinkler system installed 

in accordance with § 1910.159. 

(iii) The employer shall ensure that 

smokeless propellants exceeding 5,000 

pounds (2270 kg) or not stored in 

accordance with paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of 

this section are stored in a Type 4 

magazine in accordance with ATF 

regulations for the storage of explosives 

(27 CFR 555.203 and 555.210). 

(4) Small arms ammunition primers. 

(i) The employer shall ensure that: 

(A) Small arms ammunition primers 

are stored in shipping containers in 

accordance with the applicable 

regulations of DOT (49 CFR chapter I); 

(B) Small arms ammunition primers 

are separated from flammable liquids, 

flammable solids, and oxidizing 

materials by a fire barrier wall with at 

least a 1-hour rating or by a distance of 

at least 25 feet (7.6 m); and 

(C) No more than 10,000 small arms 

primers are displayed in a commercial 

establishment. 

(ii) For commercial stocks of small 

arms primers, the employer shall ensure 

the following: 

(A) When quantities of 750,000 or less 

are stored in a building: 

(1) Not more than 100,000 shall be 

stored in any one pile; and 

(2) Piles shall be at least 15 feet 

(4.6 m) apart; and 

(B) When quantities in excess of 

750,000 are stored in a building: 

(1) The warehouse or storage room 

shall not be accessible to unauthorized 

personnel; 

(2) Primers shall be stored in cabinets 

with no more than 200,000 primers 

stored in any one cabinet; 

(3) Shelves in cabinets shall have a 

vertical separation of at least 2 feet 

(0.6 m); 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
18844 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(4) Cabinets shall be located against 

the walls of the warehouse or storage 

room; 

(5) Cabinets shall be separated by at 

least 40 feet (12.2 m). The separation 

between cabinets shall be permitted to 

be reduced to 20 feet (6.1 m) where 

barricades twice the height of the 

cabinets are firmly attached to the wall, 

midway between each cabinet. The 

barricades shall extend at least 10 feet 

(3.0 m) outward and shall be 

constructed of either 1⁄4-inch (6.35 mm) 

boiler plate, 2-inch (5t.2cm) thick wood, 

brick, or concrete block; 

(6) Primers shall be separated from 

materials classified by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation as 

flammable liquids, flammable solids, 

and oxidizing materials by a distance of 

at least 25 feet (7.6 m) or by a fire barrier 

wall with at least a 1-hour rating; and 

(7) The building shall be protected by 

an automatic sprinkler system installed 

in accordance with § 1910.159. 

(iii) The employer shall ensure that 

small arms primers that are not stored 

in accordance with paragraph (h)(4)(ii) 

are stored in a Type 4 magazine in 

accordance with ATF regulations for the 

storage of explosives (27 CFR 555.203 

and 555.210). 

(i) Pyrotechnics. [Reserved] 

(j) Training. (1) The employer shall 

provide information and training on safe 

work practices for each employee prior 

to or at the time of the employee’s initial 

job assignment involving the 

manufacture, storage, sale, 

transportation, handling, or use of 

explosives, including repair or 

maintenance of related facilities and 

equipment. 

(2) The employer shall ensure that the 

training provided under paragraph (j) of 

this section is specific to each 

employee’s unique work duties. 

(3) In addition to the information and 

training requirements of § 1910.1200, 

Hazard Communication, the employer 

shall inform each employee of the 

requirements in § 1910.109 that apply to 

the employee’s work duties and make a 

copy of the § 1910.109 standard 

available to the employee. 

(4) Employers shall train employees 

in all safety practices, including 

applicable emergency procedures, that 

relate to their work and are necessary 

for their safety. 

(5) Whenever there are workplace 

changes, such as the institution of new 

or modified procedures or products, 

employees shall be retrained as 

necessary to ensure that each employee 

has the requisite proficiency in the 

relevant safe work practices. 

(6) The employer shall conduct 

retraining whenever the employer has 

reason to believe that there are 

inadequacies in the employee’s 

knowledge of or performance of safe 

work practices. 

(7) The employer shall provide 

information and training in a manner 

that is understandable to each 

employee. 

(8) The employer shall determine that 

each employee has demonstrated 

proficiency in all aspects of the training 

required by paragraph (j) of this section. 

(9) An employer is deemed to be in 

compliance with an employee training 

provision in paragraph (j) of this section 

if an identical training provision has 

been satisfied for that employee under 

§ 1910.1200, Hazard Communication or 

DOT training requirements (49 CFR part 

172). 

5. Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of § 1910.119 is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 1910.119 Process safety management of 

highly hazardous chemicals. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) The manufacture of explosives as 

defined in § 1910.109(b), but does not 

apply to the manufacture of blasting 

agents, as defined in § 1910.109(b), 

including water gels, slurries, and 

emulsions classified as Division 1.5 

explosives by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (49 CFR Chapter I). 

* * * * * 

Subpart Z—Toxic and Hazardous 

Substances 

6. The authority citation for subpart Z 

of part 1910 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); Secretary of 

Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 

(41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 

FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR 

50017), or 5–2002 (67 FR 65008), as 

applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911. 

All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) 

of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970, except those substances that have 

exposure limits in Tables Z–1, Z–2, and Z–

3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. The latter were 

issued under section (6)(a) of the Act (29 

U.S.C. 655(a)). 

Section 1910.1000, Tables Z–1, Z–2, and 

Z–3 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not 

under 29 CFR part 1911, except for the 

inorganic arsenic, benzene, and cotton dust 

listings, and chromium (VI) listings. 

Section 1910.1001 also issued under 

section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and 

Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3704) and 5 

U.S.C. 553. 

Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 

U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 

29 CFR part 1911. 

Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, and 

1910.1200 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653. 

Section 1910.1030 also issued under Pub. L. 

106–430, 114 Stat. 1901. 

7. The definition of ‘‘explosive’’ in 

paragraph (c) of § 1910.1200 is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 1910.1200 Hazard communication. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

Explosive means any device, or liquid 

or solid chemical compound or mixture, 

the primary or common purpose of 

which is to function by explosion. 

(i) The term ‘‘explosive’’ includes all 

material included as a Class 1 explosive 

by DOT in accordance with 49 CFR 

chapter I. The term includes, but is not 

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. 

(ii) Explosives are classified using the 

same classification system as used by 

DOT (see 49 CFR § 173.50). Explosives 

are classified into the following 

divisions: 

(A) Division 1.1 consists of explosives 

that have a mass explosion hazard. A 

mass explosion is one which affects 

almost the entire load instantaneously. 

(B) Division 1.2 consists of explosives 

that have a projection hazard but not a 

mass explosion hazard. 

(C) Division 1.3 consists of explosives 

that have a fire hazard and either a 

minor blast hazard or a minor projection 

hazard or both, but not a mass explosion 

hazard. 

(D) Division 1.4 consists of explosives 

that present a minor explosion hazard. 

The explosive effects are largely 

confined to the package and no 

projection of fragments of appreciable 

size or range is to be expected. An 

external fire must not cause virtually 

instantaneous explosion of almost the 

entire contents of the package. 

(E) Division 1.5 consists of very 

insensitive explosives. This division is 

comprised of substances which have a 

mass explosion hazard but are so 

insensitive that there is very little 

probability of initiation or of transition 

from burning to detonation under 

normal conditions. (The probability of 

transition from burning to detonation is 

greater when large quantities are 

involved.) 

(F) Division 1.6 consists of extremely 

insensitive articles which do not have a 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18845 

mass explosive hazard. This division is 

comprised of articles which contain 

only extremely insensitive detonating 

substances and which demonstrate a 

negligible probability of accidental 

initiation or propagation. (The risk from 

articles of Division 1.6 is limited to the 

explosion of a single article.) 

CLASSIFICATION CONVERSION TABLE

Current OSHA/DOT 

classification 

Prior OSHA classification 

Division 1.1 ............... Class A explosives. 

Division 1.2 ............... Class A or Class B 

explosives. 

Division 1.3 ............... Class B explosives. 

Division 1.4 ............... Class C explosives. 

Division 1.5 ............... Blasting agents. 

CLASSIFICATION CONVERSION TABLE—

Continued 

Current OSHA/DOT 

classification 

Prior OSHA classification 

Division 1.6 ............... No applicable hazard 

class. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–6607 Filed 4–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2