Document ID: OSHA-2007-0032-0001
Agency: osha
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Explosives
Posted Date: 2007-04-13T04:00Z

[Federal Register: April 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 71)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 18791-18845]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13ap07-25]                         

[[Page 18791]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III

Department of Labor

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

29 CFR Part 1910

Explosives; Proposed Rule

[[Page 18792]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec.  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://

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 
o 
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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  1910.109(k)(2) which states that the manufacture of explosives 
must meet the requirements contained in Sec.  1910.119 and by adding 
Sec.  1910.109(k)(3) which states that the manufacture of pyrotechnics 
must meet the requirements in Sec.  1910.119. 57 FR 6356.
    The most recent revisions made to Sec.  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 (Sec.  1910.109(d)(1)(iv)) and allow the re-use 
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 (Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  1910.119 and incorporate revised PSM requirements 
for the manufacture of explosives into Sec.  1910.109;
     Replace references to outdated DOT explosives 
classifications with the current DOT classification system;
     Eliminate the provisions in Sec.  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 Sec.  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, Allied-Industrial, 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

[[Page 18794]]

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 Sec.  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 ``user-friendly,'' 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 (Sec.  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

[[Page 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

[[Page 18796]]

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      29 CFR 1910.109(c)(2), (3)
 magazines.                                  and (4).
27 CFR 555.212 Smoking and open flames....  29 CFR 1910.109(c)(5)(vii).
27 CFR 555.213 Quantity and storage         29 CFR 1910.109(c)(1)(ii).
 restrictions.
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).
27 CFR 555.218 to .220 Tables of distances  29 CFR 1910.109(c)(1) Table
 for storage of explosive materials.         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 Sec.  1910.109. 
Therefore, OSHA has concluded that its storage requirements for 
explosives in Sec.  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 Sec.  1910.109 that deal with the storage of explosives.
    OSHA is proposing to retain the provisions in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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, Sec.  
2936, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3244) and added the following reverse 
preemption language in Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1805 covered the registration, filing, and permit 
requirements for transporters of hazardous materials.
    The reverse preemption language in Sec.  1805(b)(3) of the Hazmat 
Act nullified any effect of the OSH Act's 4(b)(1) preemption provision 
over matters covered by Sec.  1805 of the Hazmat Act. Because Sec.  
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, Sec.  5101 et seq. (Pub. L. 103-272, July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 
745). Although the reverse preemption language was altered and 
recodified at Sec.  5107(f)(2), its meaning and coverage remained the 
same. Section 5107(f)(2) states:

Sec.  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 Sec.  5109 covers safety permits for motor carriers transporting 
hazardous materials.
    Similar to the reverse preemption language in the 1990 amendments 
to the Hazmat Act, Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1805(b)(3) in the 
Yellow Freight case. DOT stated that the reverse preemption language 
``found in Sec.  1805(b)(3) * * * referred to the entirety of Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 pre-
transportation 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

[[Page 18798]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1910.119 and another provision requiring that the 
manufacture of pyrotechnics comply with Sec.  1910.119. Proposed 
paragraph (a)(2) requiring that the manufacture of explosives comply 
with Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 
Sec.  1910.119, OSHA in proposed paragraph (a)(2) is specifically 
excluding blasting agents from the requirements of Sec.  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

[[Page 18799]]

explosive chemicals (see Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
1910.119. Although the manufacture of blasting agents is not subject to 
the PSM standard, both the existing standard at Sec.  1910.109(g) and 
(h) and the proposed standard at Sec.  1910.109(c) and (g) have 
requirements covering the safe manufacture of blasting agents.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i) clarifies that Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 18800]]

handling, loading, and firing of explosives.
    The 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) does not use the term 
``blaster-in-charge'' 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-in-charge'' 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 (Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec. Sec.  1910.109(k)(2) and (3) and proposed 
standard Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 18802]]

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: Explosive-actuated power devices, 
highway, special industrial explosive devices, and DOT specifications.
    Existing paragraph (a)(7), which reads: ``Motor vehicle--any self-
propelled 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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

[[Page 18804]]

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 static-sensitive and do not require protection. IME further 
argues that, since explosives manufacturing is subject to the 
requirements of OSHA's PSM standard at Sec.  1910.119, areas in an 
explosives manufacturing facility where static electricity protection 
systems may be needed should already have been identified through the 
process hazard analysis requirements of the PSM standard, and adequate 
safeguards should have been instituted in accordance with the PSM 
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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  1910.252(a) and 
proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section are implemented prior to 
beginning hot work operations. The requirements in Sec.  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 Sec.  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, Sec.  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, Sec.  
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, Sec.  1910.1200. 
This simply clarifies that packages of explosives are required to be 
labeled in accordance with Sec.  1901.1200. In addition, the proposed 
requirement specifies that, where labeling of explosives is required 
under Sec.  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 (Sec.  
1910.1200) and proposed paragraph (c)(5)(i) would require the labels to 
be GHS. In addition, all in-plant containers, packages, boxes, or bags 
would be required to follow Sec.  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 Sec.  1910.1200. Labels required for 
compliance with Sec.  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

[[Page 18806]]

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 phase-in 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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  1910.1201(d), for 
non-bulk packages containing explosives that will not be reshipped, the 
requirements of Sec.  1910.1201 are met if a label or other acceptable 
marking is affixed in accordance with the Hazard Communication standard 
(see Sec.  1910.1201(d)). Under Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 18807]]

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 self-ventilating 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 self-ventilation 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 ``fire-resistive 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 four-hour 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Existing 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 18808]]

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 
re-written 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 re-written 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 re-written 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?

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 [deg]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

[[Page 18810]]

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 [deg]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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Existing 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  1910.106 
and proposed paragraph (d)(5)(i) of Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 re-written 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

[[Page 18812]]

``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 spark-producing 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 
spark-sensitive 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 spark-sensitive 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  
1910.155(c)(3)(iv)(A) for a definition of listed fire extinguishers and 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1910.157, the Agency wants to 
emphasize in the proposed requirement that portable fire extinguishers 
in vehicles used for carrying explosives must comply with Sec.  
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

[[Page 18814]]

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 
spark-producing 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 
Sec.  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, Sec.  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-in-charge is trained, 
knowledgeable, and experienced in the storage, transportation, 
handling, and use of explosives. This new requirement is intended to 
ensure that the blaster-in-charge 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

[[Page 18815]]

addition to training and experience, proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i)(B) 
requires the employer to ensure that the blaster-in-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 blaster-in-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 blaster-in-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 blaster-in-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 blaster-in-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-in-charge 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

[[Page 18816]]

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 Sec.  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 
non-sparking 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 non-sparking 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 non-sparking. 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

[[Page 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-in-charge 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 
Sec.  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 pre-blast 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

[[Page 18818]]

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 case-by-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-in-charge 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 non-electric 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-in-charge. 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

[[Page 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 lead-line 
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-in-charge the 
authority to fire the shot in addition to the person making the lead-
line 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 Sec.  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-in-charge 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-in-charge 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-in-charge 
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 Sec.  
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 Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 18820]]

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-in-charge 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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Proposed paragraph
                                                         (g) blasting
 Existing paragraph (g) blasting  Existing paragraph     agents, water
             agents                 (h) water gels      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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 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. 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

[[Page 18822]]

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 Sec.  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 
[deg]F (51.7 [deg]C) is used in the manufacture of blasting agents 
except at ambient air temperatures below 45 [deg]F (7.2 [deg]C) where 
fuel oils with flashpoints as low as 100 [deg]F (37.8 [deg]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 
moisture-resistant 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).

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 18824]]

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 gravity-flow 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1910.1200.

[[Page 18826]]

    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 Sec.  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 non-portable 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

[[Page 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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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)

[[Page 18828]]

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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
1910.1200, the Hazard Communication standard, and further requires the 
employer to inform each employee of the requirements in Sec.  1910.109 
that apply to the employee's work duties. Employers must also make 
available to employees a copy of the Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 de-regulatory 
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

[[Page 18829]]

to the scope of the standard and (2) some of the overlaps with other 
OSHA or Federal standards that have precedence over Sec.  1910.109. As 
an example of the first category, proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 18830]]

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 Sec.  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 self-paced 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 Industry-Specific 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.

[[Page 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 x 3 
minutes x $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 Industry-
Specific 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

[[Page 18832]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Based 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).

                            Table 1.--Summary of Explosives Manufacturing and Small Arms Ammunition Manufacturing Industries
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           Total
                           NAICS code                                  Number of         Number of    Employment \1\    compliance      Compliance cost
                                                                  establishments \1\     firms \1\                         costs           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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                               Compliance    Compliance
                                                         Number  of       Total      Profit rate  Revenue  per   Profit  per    cost as a     cost as a
                      NAICS code                          firms \1\      revenue         \3\          firm          firm       percent of    percent of
                                                                      ($1,000) \2\    (percent)     ($1,000)      ($1,000)       revenue       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)

[[Page 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           Total
                                                                  SBA employment     Number of SBA    Number of  SBA    compliance      Compliance cost
                           NAICS code                              size standard  establishments \1\     firms \1\     costs for SBA       per firm
                                                                                                                           firms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Total SBA
                                                  Number of     revenue    Profit rate  Revenue per   Profit per  Compliance cost as  Compliance cost as
                   NAICS code                     SBA firms     ($1,000)       \3\          firm         firm        a percent of        a percent of
                                                     \1\          \2\       (percent)                                   revenue             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 Sec.  1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and Sec.  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

[[Page 18834]]

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: Sec.  1910.109(c)(5) Labels, Sec.  
1910.109(d)(3) Storage of ammonium nitrate in bags and containers, and 
Sec.  1910.109(e)(2) Vehicles. Proposed paragraphs that provide 
specific language for labels and/or signs include: again, Sec.  
1910.109(c)(5) Labels, Sec.  1910.109(d)(4) Storage of bulk ammonium 
nitrate, and Sec.  1910.109(f)(1) and (3) Use of explosives for 
blasting. Proposed paragraph Sec.  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 Sec.  1910.109(f)(3) Use of explosives for blasting, Sec.  
1910.109(g)(3) Bulk delivery vehicles, and Sec.  1910.109(j) Training, 
contain training requirements that are not counted since these 
provisions provide the employer a ``performance-oriented'' 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 (State-Plan 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 
OSHA-approved 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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 18836]]

    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:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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 propellant-actuated 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-s-
triazine (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 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.
    (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 Sec.  
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, Sec.  1910.1200. Where labeling of explosives 
is required under Sec.  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

[[Page 18838]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AP07.000

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that DOT markings, placards, and 
labels are retained in accordance with Sec.  1910.1201.

[[Page 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 Sec.  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[deg] 
(54 [deg]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 [deg]F (54 [deg]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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 18840]]

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 
spark-producing 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 Sec.  
1910.155(c)(3)(iv)(A) for definition of listed fire extinguishers, and 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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, 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 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

[[Page 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 electricity-sensitive 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 one-ohm 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 blaster-in-charge and found to be free of misfires and other safety 
hazards and the blaster-in-charge has given an all-clear 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.

[[Page 18842]]

    (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 
Sec.  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 
[deg]F (51.7 [deg]C) is used except at ambient air temperatures below 
45 [deg]F (7.2 [deg]C) where fuel oils with flashpoints as low as 100 
[deg]F (37.8 [deg]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 
moisture-resistant 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:

[[Page 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 Sec.  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);

[[Page 18844]]

    (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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  1910.1200, Hazard Communication, the employer shall inform each 
employee of the requirements in Sec.  1910.109 that apply to the 
employee's work duties and make a copy of the Sec.  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 Sec.  
1910.1200, Hazard Communication or DOT training requirements (49 CFR 
part 172).
    5. Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of Sec.  1910.119 is added to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1910.119  Process safety management of highly hazardous 
chemicals.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) The manufacture of explosives as defined in Sec.  
1910.109(b), but does not apply to the manufacture of blasting agents, 
as defined in Sec.  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 Sec.  
1910.1200 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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.
Division 1.6..............................  No applicable hazard class.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. E7-6607 Filed 4-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P