Tag Archives: “regulations”

ATF Publishes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking RE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices

Today the ATF published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Bump-Stock-Type Devices. The comment period is open for 90 days, making comments due on or before June 27, 2018.

Screen Shot 2018-03-29 at 7.09.50 AM

The proposed rule would alter the definition of a machine gun in the regulations pertaining to the National Firearms Act (27 C.F.R. § 479.1, et seq.), the Gun Control Act (27 C.F.R. § 478.1, et seq.), and the Arms Export Control Act (27 C.F.R. § 447.1, et seq.).

Currently, the definition of a machine gun (in the GCA and NFA regulations) is

Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

This change would alter the definition to include the following language

For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger. The term “machine gun” includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

If you are interested in submitting a comment in opposition to the proposed rule, you may do so by visiting www.regulations.gov and searching the docket “ATF 2017R-22”. (Updated with link: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0001-35714) If you wish to stay up to date on issues relating to this infringement of our rights, join the Facebook page Americans Opposed to ATF 2017R-22, where we will post updates and our submitted comments, as they become available. (Make sure to select “See First” from the Following tab to ensure that you see all of the posts)

All comments must reference the docket number ATF 2017R-22, be legible, and include the commenter’s complete first and last name and full mailing address. ATF will not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing profanity. In addition, if ATF cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.

Firearms Policy Coalition has retained Joshua Prince and myself to draft a comment in opposition on their behalf. To learn more visit: www.defendgunparts.com and Americans Opposes to ATF 2017R-22

screen-shot-2016-12-14-at-8-54-53-pm
Did you find this blog article helpful or informative? Be sure to pass it along to a friend who may benefit from the information by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group on Facebook by clicking the “Like” button on the right.

27 Comments

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law

ATF Announces New Form 4473 – Firearms Transaction Record

screen-shot-2016-11-15-at-3-37-15-pm

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is reporting that on Monday, November 14, 2016, ATF announced that the new 4437 would be required on ALL firearms transactions beginning on January 16, 2017. As you may remember, I previously blogged about ATF soliciting comments on the proposed 4473 and then filed a Comment in Opposition to ATF’s Proposed Changes to the Form 4473. ATF responded to my comment in which it admitted to violating its own regulations but seemingly did not care.

It does seem that ATF took into consideration some of the comments FICG had filed in drafting the new form. One of the biggest problems I took issue with was the certification statement that the transferor (person transferring the firearm) had to sign.

Specifically, the individual signing the form is currently certifying that based upon

“…information in the current ATF Publication ‘State Laws and Published Ordinances’ – it is my belief that it is not unlawful for me to sell, deliver, transport, or otherwise disposes of the firearm(s) listed on this form to the person identified in Section A.”

The issue, as I previously blogged about, is that the ATF Publication “State Laws and Published Ordinances” has not been updated since January of 2011, in violation of ATF’s own regulations. See 27 CFR § 478.24.

ATF in the updated version of the form has changed the language to read that based upon

“…State or local law applicable to the firearms business — it is my belief that it is not unlawful for me to sell, deliver, transport, or otherwise dispose of the rearm(s) listed on this form to the person identified in Section A.”

Essentially, ATF changed the language so that the individual signing the form would not be responsible for referring to the guide that ATF is required to publish by its own regulations but rather be responsible for knowing the applicable state and local laws on their own.

Equally of interest is the new language found over question 11e. In case there was any confusion from licensees or individuals attempting to purchase firearms who utilize medical marijuana, there can be no more confusion. If an individual is a user of medical marijuana, they may not answer no to question 11e.

Marijuana leaf on a white background

e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

ATF did fail to take into consideration an important suggestion that FICG had made. There is no box on the form to indicate the firearm is being transferred to a legal entity. Rather than having licensees use a form, which the licensee has to make on their own, ATF could have simply added a spot on the form to indicate the firearm was being transferred to a legal entity. ATF stated that we were free to submit that suggestion again in the future, which is a comical response, because the reason they said they could not include it was that the form had already been drafted when the suggestion was made. It appears this ideal will turn into a Catch 22.

All in all, from my experience behind the gun shop counter, the revisions to the form (at least the part the transferee or purchaser will be responsible for completing) appear to make it a bit easier for individuals to follow and complete. While ATF could have done a better job listening to some of the suggestions which would have been helpful to licensees, it appears this version of the form is better than the last.

 

Did you find this blog helpful or informative? Be sure to share it with your friends by clicking the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group and Prince Law Offices, P.C. on Facebook by using the “Like” button to the right!

4 Comments

Filed under ATF, Uncategorized

BREAKING: BATFE Has Not Changed Anything Relating to Fingerprints for NFA Firearms

screen-shot-2016-09-27-at-9-53-33-am

This morning TheFirearmBlog.com posted a story which stated that ATF had revised its ruling in relation to fingerprints for NFA firearms. The article claims that ATF now requires law enforcement agencies to take fingerprints rather than anyone qualified to. To support this position the article links to ATF’s Explosives website.

As always, the information is provided by an anonymous source. Had the source or TheFirearmBlog.com looked at where the information came from, they would have clearly been able to see that this is simply not true. I’m a bit disappointed in TheFirearmBlog.com because usually they are an excellent source for correct information.

The problem is that the link goes to the Explosives portion of the website, NOT the firearms part. This is the same link that SilencerCo had previously used to support its position that Silencer Shop’s Secure Identity Documentation (SID) system would not be acceptable for the purposes of NFA firearms when it had sent an email to a major distributor earlier this year.

The link the article points to states:

How do I get my fingerprints taken?

Fingerprints must be submitted on Fingerprint Identification Cards, FD–258 that have been issued by ATF. The fingerprint cards must contain the following ORI information: WVATF0900; ATF–NATL EXPL LIC, MARTINSBURG WV. These fingerprint cards may be obtained by contacting the Federal Explosives Licensing Center at 877-283-3352 or the ATF Distribution Center at 703-870-7526 or 703-870-7528. The fingerprint cards must be completed by your local law enforcement authority.

Last Reviewed September 23, 2016

Emphasis added. Further if we look at the website the link goes to, we can clearly denote it is in the explosives area by looking at the information found on the left and above the question.

screen-shot-2016-09-27-at-9-43-04-am

ATF’s own Q&A relating to ATF 41F states that a licensee may take fingerprints provided they are properly equipped.

Q. May a Federal firearms licensee fingerprint a customer? As an FFL dealer, can we fingerprint our customers?

A. Fingerprints may be taken by anyone who is properly equipped to take them (see instructions on ATF Form 1, Form 4, Form 5, and Form 5320.23). Therefore, applicants may utilize the service of any business or government agency that is properly equipped to take fingerprints.”

As if there were any doubt, let us head to the regulations to review them.

In relation to the transfer of an NFA firearm, 27 C.F.R. § 479.85 Identification of Transferee states:

(a) If the transferee is an individual, such person shall:

….

(2) Attach to the application two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card). The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them.

In relation to the making of an NFA firearm, 27 C.F.R. § 479.63 Identification of Applicant states:

(a) If the applicant is an individual, the applicant shall:

….

(2) Attach to the application two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card). The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them.

(b) If the transferee is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company, association, trust, or corporation, such person shall:

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, attach to the application –

(iv) Two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card) for each responsible person. The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them.

(b) If the applicant is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company (including a Limited Liability Company (LLC)), association, trust, or corporation, the applicant shall:

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, attach to the application –

(iv) Two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card) for each responsible person. The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them.

Once again, we see there is no support for the proposition ATF changed anything. If you are applying to make or transfer an NFA firearm you can roll your own fingerprints, utilize Silencer Shop’s SID kiosk, have your FFL roll your fingerprints or head over to your local law enforcement to have them taken.

Did you find this blog article helpful? Be sure to share it with your friends by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group and Prince Law Offices, P.C. on Facebook by clicking the “like” button to the right.

2 Comments

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Gun Trusts, Uncategorized

New Regulations for Explosives/Pyrotechnics Industries (Part 2)

 

09/19/2016

OSHA is currently accepting comments for proposed rulemaking. The proposal is for new Process Safety Management rules for the Explosives and Pyrotechnics Industries and comments will be accepted until September 23rd!

You might ask, “What is ‘Process Safety Management’?”  That is a great question answered in Part 1 of this post click HERE to check it out!

The proposed regulations are expansive and, along with those items mentioned in Part 1, require that employers develop PHAs, SOPs, and Mechanical Integrity Plans.  So welcome to Part 2 let’s get started.

Process Hazard Analyses (PHAs)

Among the proposed regulations is the requirement that all employers perform PHAs.  OSHA defines PHAs as – “A systematic effort designed to identify and analyze hazards associated with the processing or handling of highly hazardous materials; and a method to provide information which will help workers and employers in making decisions that will improve safety.”

At its heart PHAs ares nothing more than identifying processes and identifying what hazards are present. OSHA states that PHAs “attempt[] to determine: the failure points, methods of operations, and other factors that potentially lead to accidents.”

Beyond that, OSHA’s best guidance on the subject was developed by The New Jersey Work Environment Council (WEC) under grant of OSHA. That document is 31 pages long and can be downloaded HERE.  Most businesses have (at a minimum) dozens of processes.  If you fail to identify a hazard within a process, that is a violation.  If you fail to identify a process and the hazards it contains – violation. If you fail to document everything in accordance with those 31 pages of ‘guidance’ – violation.

Seven Steps to PHA Success

Here is a hypothetical – Fictional Enterprises makes Pyrotechnics. The manufacturing is complicated involving over 75 operations.  – Each of these involves one process for purposes of a PHA. Operation 34 states – Technician will mix 3mL of Chemical X with 25cc of Explosive. Technician must then place the mixture in Centrifuge, spinning mixture for exactly 5 minutes at exactly 120 rpm. Fictional Enterprises wants to perform a PHA on Operation 34.

Step 1 – assembling the right team. OSHA stipulates that to perform a PHA your team, “should include engineers, operators, supervisors and other workers who have knowledge of the standards, codes, specifications…which apply to the process….” You assemble Mr. Engineer, Mrs. Supervisor, Ms. Technician, and Homer the technician who performs Operation 34. Your team proceeds to…

Step 2 – develop checklists of applicable regulations and safety standards. Your team examines Operation 34, finding 3 fire safety codes, 5 electrical ordinances, 9 chemical safety standards, and 122 other regulations which may be applicable to Operation 34. Developing the checklist was performed efficiently and only required 42 man hours to complete. The team moves to…

Step 3 – examine those regulations and determine the steps needed to ensure compliance with (or alternatively the non-applicability of) the standards.  All of this must be documented and included in your PHA. Your team continues their efficiency requiring 115 man hours to finish. The team now begins…

Step 4 – performing “What If” evaluations. OSHA defines this as having, “a relatively loose structure” and “only [being] as effective as the quality of questions asked and the answers given.” Even with that precision guidance your team spends 100 man hours in brainstorming the possible “what ifs.” The team now moves to…

Step 5 – Hazard and Operability Study (HazOp). OSHA defines this as “a structured, systematic review that identifies equipment that is being used in a way that it was not designed to be, and which might create hazards or operational problems.”  OSHA notes that this may require an additional “multi-skilled team.” This team must be familiar with, “piping and instrument diagrams” and have a competent understanding of “certain limitations and deviations in flow, temperatures, and pressures…” for your equipment.

Your team enlists the help of Supplier Engineer, Equipment Designer, and Senior Chemist. The team is efficient and prepared documentation for your PHA in only one week.  The Team moves to…

Step 6 – Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA). OSHA defines this process as a “systematic study of the consequences of failure (breakdown) of certain operational hardware….” This is the only guidance provided and results in your team spending an additional week attempting to figure out the FMEA.  The team moves to…

Step 7 – Fault-Tree Analysis. OSHA describes this as, “draw[ing] a picture (model) that shows what undesirable outcomes might result from a specific initiating event….” Or you make a flow chart of Operation 34, INCLUDING flow routes for if things go wrong.  So instead of just having “Homer runs centrifuge for 5 minutes” you should also include what happens if Homer gets distracted by a certain round raspberry confection and lets the centrifuge spin for 19 minutes.

The team is fortunate to have Homer with them and subsequently maps out all the possible faults in only 97 man hours.  Bringing your total time in completing the PHA for Operation 34 to over 800 man hours.

What’s wrong with this picture?

 The first thing you probably noticed was just how many man hours it takes to complete the PHA for one operation. Good thing your company only has 74 more that need to be evaluated…

The next thing that creates a problem is the FMEA.  OSHA provides very little guidance on FMEAs. This could mean they want you to use RAGAGEP but this is never stated. Given that OSHA is explicit in the other sections where they want RAGAGEP it might mean they have some specific standard in mind.  However, if it exists, it is not provided.

Worse still would be if RAGAGEP is to be used –With Aerospace you must often perform FMEAs before you are certified to conduct business.  The American Society for Quality (ASQ) has an excellent write up on their preferred methods for performing FMEAs.  This method is one I am familiar with and find to be successful.  Their write up can be found HERE.  Interestingly, you will note that the ASQ methodology for FMEAs is very similar in description to what OSHA requires for the entire PHA.

This should be of significant concern to business owners because it muddies what OSHA wants.  If they want you to refer to RAGAGEP the ASQ standard is undoubtedly one of the most thorough in the business.  However, if you follow the ASQ methodology you will essentially have a PHA within a PHA. Alternatively, if OSHA wants you to use a specific standard – they do not provide it. In short the FMEA requirement’s lack of clarity puts employers in a catch 22.

Some readers may note that the PHA steps listed above are exactly what is already available in the above referenced guidance document.  This is true and the next problem – the proposed regulations merely create an additional standard which can be cited as requiring employers to be compliant.  So what was before a violation of one PHA requirement can now be a violation of two.

My final gripe before we continue is that OSHA expressly states their reason for promulgating these new regulations are several incidents which could have been prevented had PHAs or other measures been taken.  These new requirements do not assist employers in being better able to conduct PHAs. Neither do they require employers who were previously unregulated to conform.

To the contrary, these new regulations will only serve to confuse businesses by telling them to comply with multiple but un-specified RAGAGEP standards. Confusing and redundant standards do not promote worker safety. They create a culture where employers who are unable to understand what OSHA wants merely give up. OSHA’s response continues to be “just fine them again” rather than actually finding ways to create safety standards that are clear, concise, and focused on the functional application of safe work practices.

In addition to the PHAs employers are also going to be re-required to create Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and create Mechanical Integrity Plans.

SOPs, in brief (I promise).

Again, OSHA is only reiterating already promulgated rules on operating procedures. The only new provision is a couple of vague examples encouraging those in the explosive and pyrotechnics industries to look to RAGAGEP for particulars of their industry.  It is also worth noting that as required by several other standards this standard would once again require employees be trained in the procedures and that employers document this training. However, the general requirements for procedures remain the same:

  1. Procedures must be written.
  2. must be clear
  3. must be available to all operators.
  4. must specify steps for
    1. normal operation.
    2. upset conditions
    3. temporary operations
    4. start-up
    5. emergency shutdown
  5. must include Basic Safety Information
  6. must be certified annually for current-ness an adequacy.
    1. Recommended that they be reviewed before each use to verify the current version is in use.

Mechanical Integrity Plans (MIPs)

OSHA’s requirements for Mechanical Integrity Plans are essentially PHAs used to evaluate equipment rather than processes.  So instead of focusing on what an operator is doing you focus on how our example Centrifuge works, in great detail.

OSHA decided to also include an explicit RAGAGEP provision. So in addition to the extreme scrutiny that must be given within the PHA styled process, they also require “employers [to] identify the subset of RAGAGEP most appropriate for their process equipment, document in the MIP which protocols are to be followed, and ensure that inspection and testing is performed accordingly.”  So stated in English, OSHA’s new standard is requiring employers to (1) figure out which standards apply to them; (2) write up how they decided this and how they are complying; and (3) ensure they are complying in the appropriate manner to the standards which the employer had to find themselves.

OSHA states, “employers are completely unfamiliar with [] RAGAGEP references, consultation with a professional [] is advised.” This can be roughly translated as OSHA saying, “Good luck complying!”

Closing Remarks (and the people rejoice)

This whole section of proposed regulation is a farce.  It is an attempt by OSHA to satisfy an executive order by promulgating a new rule that says nothing more than “do our existing rules” and “find what rules apply and then follow them.”  I cannot reiterate enough that this does not promote worker safety.  No sane person wants their employees to be endangered.  However, no employer can commit to thousands of man hours just to guess at whether they are being compliant with an OSHA Standard.

If your business is in the explosives or pyrotechnics industry I implore you to consider submitting an official comment to OSHA.  OSHA is accepting comments through THIS FRIDAY, September the 23rd.  Click HERE to submit a comment or download the proposed regulations. Comments made to these proposed rules really can affect OSHA’s actions!

Whether you are in the Explosives industry and would like to submit an official comment or you just want to make sure your business is compliant with existing OSHA requirements Prince Law Offices is happy to be of assistance.  Just call 888-313-0416 to schedule an appointment.


Jonathan Moore  served as Manager of Corrective Actions and Director of Corporate Compliance for an Aerospace Manufacturing Company. He  now serves as Prince Law Offices in-house OSHA Consultant while attending law school at the Pennsylvania State University School of Law.

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Business Law, Firearms Law, OSHA, Uncategorized

New Regulations for the Explosives/Pyrotechnics Industry (Part 1)

 

09/09/2016

On August 23rd OSHA initiated the comment period for proposed rule-making. The proposal is for new Process Safety Management rules for the Explosives and Pyrotechnics Industries. You might ask, “What is ‘Process Safety Management’?” and “Why on earth should I care?”  Both are fair questions.

What is Process Safety Management (PSM)?

Process Safety Management includes the preventative safety planning aspects of business. This includes things like planning out business processes and identifying risks and hazards and ways to mitigate those, once identified. If that sounds simple just take a look at your scroll bar and realize this exceedingly long post is Part 1 of 2.

Why do I care?

 Money! – A company I worked with required engineers be consulted about the aspects of components and equipment, supervisors be interviewed about short cuts used to streamline production, and suppliers be contacted and questioned to confirm characteristics of their products. The process took months and cost the company significantly in time lost let alone capital expended. All of that was for a “low risk” business that produced a non-hazardous product using largely low hazard processes, equipment, and chemicals.

The proposed rules apply to what is considered a high risk industry – explosives and pyrotechnics. Subsequently, they are expansive and implementation will cost companies significantly. Even more importantly, failure to comply with the complex regulations will result in significant fines which were increased by almost 80% on August 1st.

Okay, okay tell me about the proposal.

These new regulations are being proposed based on a number of fatalities that occurred within the industry and which OSHA identified as resulting from failures of the Process Safety Management process at those facilities. While well intended, the proposed rules present many new problems which should be addressed before the rules are enacted!

The new requirements contain many of the same aspects as general PSM requirements. The first prong is employers compiling information. The information needed will be on Highly Hazardous Chemicals, Process Technology, and Process Equipment. Second, employers will have to complete Process Hazard Analyses (PHAs) for each of their processes.  Third, employers will need to develop carefully defined Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Fourth, employers will have to meet the training requirements. Finally, employers need to develop ‘Mechanical Integrity Programs’.  The remainder of this post focuses on the first prong.

Highly Hazardous Chemicals – Employers will need to have data on:  toxicity, permissible exposure limits, physical data, reactivity data, corrosivity data, thermal and chemical stability data, and any harmful effects associated with inadvertent mixing of such chemicals that could occur.

This is important because while OSHA already mandates, under its Hazard Communication Standard (HazCom), that Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) be made available, these SDSs might not contain all the information required under the new rule.  This means that employers may have to reach out to suppliers to obtain exact specifications and information needed to comply with the new rules. Also of note, is that different suppliers may report different data regarding what is ostensibly the same chemical. This necessitates retrieving information about every chemical you obtain, from every supplier from which you obtain it.

Process Technology – Employers must also have detailed information about the technology used in their operational processes. This information must include: (1) Diagrams or Flow Charts showing the processes; (2) Information on Process Chemistry; (3) Maximum intended inventory; (4) the safe upper and lower limits for things like temperatures, pressures, humidity, etc.; and (5) “an evaluation of the consequences of deviations….”

This list is full of issues, but two are of particular note. First, while OSHA does not have a specific requirement for explosive inventory the proposed rules defer to a NASA standard (Safety Standard for Explosives, Propellants, and Pyrotechnics) to guide employers [and subsequently OSHA inspectors] in the way to determine what is a reasonable maximum inventory. The NASA standard is not of itself problematic, and probably constitutes the most thoroughly constructed set of regulations on the subject, but it is important for employers to realize that if these proposed rules are enacted they will now have to defer to yet another set of government regulations just to make sure they comply with OSHA’s proposed rules.

Second, the final item on the list – “an evaluation of the consequences of deviations including those affecting the safety and health of employees that could occur if operating beyond the established process limits.” I find this language problematic because the proposed rules do not define what this means. Therefore, it has the makings of being a snare for the unwary.

By way of example – Fictional Enterprises (FicEnt), is getting into the fireworks business. They want to be compliant with all regulations and prepare a detailed evaluation hundreds of pages long.  However, FicEnt fails to evaluate what would happen if an employee mixed “Chemical X” with “Cleaner B” and wouldn’t you know the new guy mixed the two.  FicEnt would now be liable for violating this evaluation provision because they failed to foresee this very unlikely possibility.

This greatly increases the potential cost of enacting these regulations. Furthermore, it increases the likelihood that your business may be found out of compliance despite doing everything in your power to comply.

This section also has the possibility of infringing on Trade Secrets issues but that’s a matter for another time.

Process Equipment – This section will vary in its applicability depending on how a particular business operates.  However, the long and short is that if you use equipment in your business processes you need to document that equipment including diagrams of any piping and or instrumentation systems throughout your facility and process. OSHA is even kind enough to make RAGAGEP the measure of being in compliance with this section.

RAGAGE-WHAT? – If you don’t know what RAGAGEP is, well don’t worry OSHA is vague on that subject too.  The acronym stands for, Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices. OSHA has a memo on RAGAGEP which they encourage employers to review but then note that there are numerous sources of RAGAGEP which may be used.  This is problematic to say the least.

While the proposed rules list a few sources of RAGAGEP it acknowledges that the list is far from complete. This is a problem because saying “just use the accepted standards” is the same as “good luck guessing which standard we will apply.”

Another example – Fictional Enterprises uses NFPA 70 National Electrical Code to determine what specs their electrical equipment should be at.  An accident occurs and OSHA decides that NFPA 77, Recommended Practice on Static Electricity is the more appropriate standard and subsequently fines FicEnt.

Nothing in the proposed rules guides employers on how they choose which RAGAGEP to apply.  Neither does it provide guidance on which varieties of RAGAGEP supersede any other. Regulations are numerous and burdensome enough without regulators saying “Comply with this regulation oh and by the way the definition of comply is now up to an unlisted and potentially innumerable list of other regulations.”

OSHA’s failure to be clear and concise does not promote worker safety! Rather, it puts employers in the unenviable position of having to spend time guessing rather than being able to implement effective solutions to Process Safety Management.

If you made it this far I applaud your commitment to understanding OSHA regulations! If your business would like to submit an official comment to these proposed rules be advised the deadline is September the 23rd, and industry comments really can make a difference! We here at Prince Law Offices are more than happy to assist you in this process. Just call 818-313-0416.

Tune in next week for the exciting sequel! Part 2 – “PHAs, SOPs, and Mechanical Integrity Plans, OH MY!”


Jonathan Moore  served as Manager of Corrective Actions and Director of Corporate Compliance for an Aerospace Manufacturing Company. He  now serves as Prince Law Offices in-house OSHA Consultant while attending law school at the Pennsylvania State University School of Law.

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms Law, OSHA

FICG Files Comment in Opposition to ATF 29P on Behalf of Dead Air Armament

DA logo

The Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C.,  is pleased to announce that it was retained by Dead Air Armament (“Dead Air”) to prepare a detailed filing in opposition to ATF’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) 29P.  Dead Air has combined the brains and passion of both Mike Pappas and Gary Hughes to bring to the market some of the most innovative and anticipated silencers of the past year.

Because there is a delay in the posting of newly filed comments on http://www.regulations.gov, a copy is available for your viewing here.

An inspection of the docket this morning showed that no other silencer companies have filed a comment in opposition to this ANPR, making Dead Air the first in the silencer industry to take charge in the fight to prevent additional, unnecessary regulations.

4 Comments

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Uncategorized