OSHA proposed rules for shipping ammo & components
The Occupational Safety and Health Admin. has proposed rules for transportation of ammunition and components. Here's the NSSF's take on them. The paragraph that caught my eye:
"As written, the proposed rule would force the closure of nearly all ammunition manufacturers and force the cost of small arms ammunition to skyrocket beyond what the market could bear—essentially collapsing our industry. This is not an exaggeration. The cost to comply with the proposed rule for the ammunition industry, including manufacturer, wholesale distributors and retailers, will be massive and easily exceed $100 million. For example, ammunition and smokeless propellant manufacturers would have to shut down and evacuate a factory when a thunderstorm approached and customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition (displayed or otherwise stored) without first being searched for matches or lighters."
Here's a discussion, and at the top a link to where you can file an electronic comment (a rather complicated process).
UPDATE: one commenter points out that OSHA cites, as a reason for the rule, a 1947 explosion. As OSHA admits, that was a huge detonation of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. I know a bit about it because it gave rise to a Supreme Court case construing the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Basically, in order to get fertilizer to Europe after WWII, the federal government cut a lot of corners. It allowed the stuff to be bagged when it was too hot for safety, allowed it to be put in waxed sacks (more waterproof, but if the wax melts it becomes the equivalent of fuel oil in a ANFO bomb), etc., etc.. The port of Texas City was full of boxcars of the stuff when some of it spontaneously ignited, then detonated -- the resulting explosions essentially levelled the town.
Some people sued the government -- it had, after all, ignored all the standard industry safety standards. They lost because the Supreme Court ruled that the situation fell under the "discretionary function exception" to the FTCA. The agencies that ignored the safety standards had discretion to do so, and had essentially made judgments that speed of production was worth the risk to life, and that was that.
A rather strange case to invoke for an argument that government regulation is necessary in order to make us safer.