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?

    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

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

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

``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

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 <IP_ADDRESS>
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

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

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

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

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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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

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 <IP_ADDRESS>(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 <IP_ADDRESS>(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 <IP_ADDRESS>(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 <IP_ADDRESS>(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 <IP_ADDRESS>(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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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

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

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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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

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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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
<IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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

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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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
<IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> of the 2001
edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).

    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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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

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

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