As I glance quickly through the proposed regs, OSHA undertook the revision at the request the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI), both of which suggested the 35 year old regs were outdated and there were conflicting standards among the numerous agencies that regulate explosives to some degree.
I wonder how many have read the regs and not just the rhetoric all over the right wing blogs?
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad...TER&p_id=19509
|
I dont know if these new proposed regs are better or worse than the 35 yr old regs...but a little additional research by anyone concerned with the regs wouldnt hurt before jumping to conclusions or relying solely on the veracity of the NRA analysis (they wouldnt exaggerate, would they?).