Amendments to Fireworks Regulations; Notice of Opportunity for Oral Presentation

[displayfireworks1]

Amendments to Fireworks Regulations; Notice of Opportunity for Oral Presentation of Comments
.
The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on March 7, 2018. The Office of the Secretary must receive requests to make oral presentations, along with the written text of the oral presentations, no later than 5 p.m. EST on February 28, 2018.
.
We are apparently moving into the next phase of the proposed new regulations.
.
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CPSC-2006-0034-2443
.
.
The meeting will be in the Hearing Room, on the 4th Floor of the Bethesda Towers Building, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. Submit requests to make oral presentations and the written text of oral presentations to the Office of the Secretary, with the caption, “Fireworks NPR; Oral Presentation,” by email to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov, or by mail to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.
.
.
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=2861&stc=1

[Mattp]

That does not seem right to hold one meeting in one place. How many hobbyists are going to be able to miss a day or two of work and pay to travel in order to go to MD to state their case.. guess thats one way to get their agenda across... hopefully people in the industry can make it !!

[displayfireworks1]

Now you know why the American Pyrotechnic Association main office is 0.7 mile and/or a 3 minute drive to this location listed above. Great business strategy I must say.
.
The National Fireworks Association main office is 1,065 miles away from this location.
.
APA is closer, they win. LOL

[fatcat]

Hey Dave,
Excuse my stupidity or chalk it up to old age, but exactly what are we talking about here. Does it concern 1.3 or 1.4 or both and basically what is the govt trying to do to us pyro hobbyists. Gees, I thought we lived in a free country. What civil servant thought up a idea to get promoted by screwing us pyro hobbyists?

[Mattp]

That is definitely a good strategy, as im sure this is an ongoing battle.. this year its metals.. next time itll be something else. Hopefully they can state a good case for us.. between china. And the cpsc the 1.4 market can drastically change pretty quickly.. more reason for a type 54.. i think its time for me!!! I feel like theyll be going after that next.. making it harder for hobbyists to get 1.3

[displayfireworks1]

At fatcat the proposed change is about metal in fireworks and testing methods, I'll include some links from CPSC. It only affects Consumer Fireworks. Some in the business feel its a political move to have the government pick winners and losers in the business. Some companies would be at an economic advantage if it passes and be able to better push their agenda. However, at the same time overloaded or salute work around fireworks products are gaining too much market share and pass through undetected because of old testing. Others feel the whole thing is from TNT Fireworks that apparently holds a majority role on the board of the AFSL. TNT is an expert in the Safe and Sane market , they also an expert in the temporary tent/stand gigs. What is the real story who knows. I'll tell you this, the CPSC told me the old regulations are dated and need changed. All sides need to agree on a compromise. I'm predicting something is going to change, because the CPSC knows its time to do so. The ideal solutions is both side bring an agreement to the CPSC. So I hope that happens.
.
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=CPSC-2006-0034
.
Most of those 2419 comments came from me bringing the matter to my YouTube subscribers, I believe the comment count was 35 before I got involved. This delayed the decision making process because those comments came in within a short time period at the close of the public comment section. CPSC told me all of those comments need read and categorized. The only person that thanked me for getting involved was an attorney hired by NFA and one other unnamed source. Instead one of the officers of the NFA falsely took credit for the sudden spike in comments to the CPSC. While I did not expect credit for bringing the public enthusiast response, I am certainly not going to let anyone steal the credit from me. I told him about it. How this guy got in an NFA officer position is beyond me , he takes credit for creating everything from all NFPA regulation to black powder. At this point in the regulatory process I'm not sure how I feel about whole thing. If I get connected with the right people I want to expand the Articles of Pyrotechnics certification I envision. the same way I envisioned the expansion of the ATF license. Then we can separate ourselves from the general public fireworks.
.

[Kenny East]

Still looking forward to see where the new regulations go... Not sure that a market with only TNT brand fireworks is a good thing. It does really seem like the major players are pushing for these new regulations... Ones that would force a lot of competition out of business. Maryland would be a bit of a drive it would be interesting to hear the oral comments on the proposed changes.

[displayfireworks1]

I would not expect any decision on this from CPSC until late 2018. I suspect they have given up on pushing that Safe and Sane agenda for everyone. If you ask the big players in the business who is the main problem and competition in this business, they will probably tell you the Mom and Pop stores. They can't sit back and lose market share to stores selling non-compliant product. They also need a quick way to identify a non-complaint product. The current method of an ear test and chemical assay, takes to long and is inefficient considering the volume that needs checked. If you look at this realistically, the testing method is dated. My source at CPSC told me for years he has heard over and over to eliminate the ear test. They also told me they are not stupid either. You going to have to present hard scientific evidence to get them to adopt something new. They are well aware of someone trying to use them to get a competitive advantage. What I am getting out of this is, something is going to occur because it has to. I do not see the CPSC walking away from this.

[beaver nation]

My source at CPSC told me for years he has heard over and over to eliminate the ear test. They also told me they are not stupid either. You going to have to present hard scientific evidence to get them to adopt something new. They are well aware of someone trying to use them to get a competitive advantage. What I am getting out of this is, something is going to occur because it has to. I do not see the CPSC walking away from this.

"because it has to" ??? this is a bit off the mark because when CPSC tests products now that are actual "overloads" they don't pass their testing. If anything the people that are selling over loads get them in because those items are not tested by CPSC. Based on results that I have heard upwards of 50% of cakes and shells that pass CPSC now would be deemed "illegal".... CPSC has not presented any factual data to show that burst charges have been causing injuries let alone evidence of burst charges with metallic powder over 1%. CPSC supposed "job" is to protect consumers based on factual data to demonstrate there are injuries that warrant regulation which I fully believe is NOT the case with 1.4g items that have burst charges (especially items that currently pass CPSC examinations), I seriously doubt they have much of ANY data on injuries and burst charges let alone burst charges that had more than 1% fine metallic powder and in fact with shells I would even believe that the LIFT charges (not burst charge) could be common source of injury for those people that use the shells improperly (hold tube in hand/against body/etc.)

the idea that something "has to occur" is just absurd when what they are proposing is watering down further products that currently have been tested and approved for years, and people intent to try to sneak in overloads will still do it as they do now because of how little is actually tested to catch these overloaded 1.3g cakes and shells.

[displayfireworks1]

To me it sounds like it is coming down to a few things. The amount and particle size of metal used in break changes and the method used to test for the metal. I'll include a link to read the proposal . Here is one part that explains some of it. when the metal content goes from 1% to 3% the explosive power increases 25%. The theory is a less powerful fireworks product is a safer product. Apparently black powder is not used as often for break charges and instead a hybrid powder is used.
.
The proposed requirement would ban devices that contain any amount of metallic powder less than 100 mesh in particle size in the burst charge, when the burst charge is produced by more than 2 grains of pyrotechnic content. However, the Commission recognizes that it may be difficult to ensure that there is no such metallic powder present due to potential contamination from visual effects or environmental contamination, and it may be difficult to consistently identify the presence of metallic powder because of detection limitations and variation. Consequently, the Commission will allow for minimal contamination of up to, but not exceeding, 1.00 percent of metallic powder in burst charges that are subject to 1500.17(a)(3).

The Commission believes that the presence of a metal, such as aluminum, in trace amounts would not pose an increased safety risk to consumers because a scarce amount of contaminant would not significantly add to the energy of the explosive. As the Chemistry memorandum in the briefing package for this NPR explains, staff's preliminary testing revealed that metallic content used in visual effects may inadvertently contaminate break charge content at very low levels. Staff found that when contamination occurred, the contamination level in the break charge was generally less than 1 percent. In addition, different detection instruments can vary in the particle sizes and metallic content levels they detect. Staff evaluated the detection levels of Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-OES) and X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) and found that they produced largely similar results but can identify metallic content at slightly different levels. Commission staff believes that both ICP-OES and XRF are viable instruments for assessing compliance with proposed 1500.17(a)(3).

To account for these variables, the Commission will exercise enforcement discretion to allow up to, but not exceeding, 1.00 percent contamination of metallic powder in a burst charge. The Commission believes that 1.00 percent is an appropriate level for two reasons. First, 1.00 percent would allow for unintentional contamination at the levels Commission staff has seen are common in fireworks devices. As the Chemistry memorandum explains, staff's preliminary testing reveals that when metallic content present in visual effects inadvertently contaminates a break charge, it is generally at levels below 0.4 percent; a 1.00 percent allowance should adequately allow for inadvertent contamination. Second, the increase in explosive force from 1.00 percent metallic fuel contamination is minimal, and the Commission believes that it does not present a notable increase in the safety risk to the public. As staff's preliminary testing indicates, a 1.00 percent increase in metallic content increases the energy of a device by 3 percent (using aluminum as an example), and further increases in metallic content correspondingly increase the explosive power of the device up to 25 percent, at which point the explosive power begins to diminish. Thus, contamination up to 1.00 percent likely does not notably increase the risk to consumers.
.
Here is a link to the proposed amendment
.
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CPSC-2006-0034-0002

[beaver nation]

it comes down to them trying to do something (eliminate about half of the cakes and shells we enjoy now) with no factual data that they are causing injuries. All fireworks are dangerous if not used properly even cakes and shells that have weak ass breaks because they only have black powder for burst charge!!

America already has weak consumer fireworks and now we have to endure bureaucrats making them even weaker without any evidence the ones they approve now are presenting widespread injury (the evidence show that is NOT the fact and sparklers and roman candles are the items that cause close to 3/4 of all injuries. the fatalities caused by consumer shell devices were almost exclusively because the people are using them improperly (kind of like with firearms, scaffolding, chainsaws, etc.)

[beaver nation]

There is a outline of what the CPSC can do that has been set by federal court rulings over the years as to regulating consumer products and they do not have the power to arbitrarily create new limitations based on speculation, opinion and "theory" but have to substantiate their action on an established record of need based on injury. I am 100% confident that they have zero data to substantiate widespread public injury due to burst charges and most assuredly no factual information on what the metallic content was on burst charges they speculate were involved in an injury. This is outside their scope of "authority" in my opinion

[displayfireworks1]

This is all being pursued under the guise of safety. It sounds better that way. The real reason is market share of the consumer fireworks business and eliminating a segment of the competition. There also may be some push for the AFSL certification across the board for all imported products. If the real reason was safety of the users , the strategy would be education, adoption of universal fuse placement , standard build specifications etc. . Let’s use Pennsylvania as an example, the full line of consumer fireworks was recently legalized here. This July 4th holiday will bring in a massive amount of people to purchase fireworks that may have never purchased a fireworks product . If anyone was concerned about safety, some sort of education on how to properly use fireworks would be in the works or actually should be already ready to go. The instructions on the boxes are only mildly helpful. No doubt the post July 4th holiday news reports will include injuries. What was done pre July 4th to prevent this?
If I look at the other side of this proposed metal restriction , it may not really change much of anything and there is a possibility that fireworks may improve. I spoke with an unnamed fireworks importer distributor , he has a reputation of selling quality performing product. He told he that he was told, everything he currently sells would not be affected. I was also told if this goes through , you will start seeing better quality product and more effects in products . So, if it does pass , it may not be the end of the world.
I personally enjoy the energetic break qualities on some consumer fireworks. I know most of us as advanced users can handle this type of product. The problem for us is we are grouped in with the once a year average consumer. It will be interesting to follow this and see what if anything eventually occurs. The group that initially started this didn’t count on the response from the users of fireworks. We delayed the entire process and may eventually defeat it. From what the CPSC told me, that last minute 2400 comments got their attention.

[beaver nation]

This is all being pursued under the guise of safety. It sounds better that way.

Yes, but what I am telling you is they cannot invent new regulations for products without there being evidence of widespread injuries from them. if a desire for "safety" was all it takes for them to limit products we are in for trouble because thousands of products are dangerous and can cause injuries as I stated before such as firearms/chainsaws/scaffolding etc. and etc.

I'm pretty confident that if they try to impose this regulation that they will be overturned in litigation based on the absence of injury data to support the regulation.

[Mattp]

I just recieved an email from an onlime company i buy stuff from.. asking for everyones help to send an email to the CPSC by wednesday as that is the last day to submit by.. but as i understood it from daves first comment in this thread.. this is for making an oral presentation.. and to submit an email ONLY if you wish to make an oral presentation.. am i understanding this right.. or should we all be sending in another round of email to state our case????

[displayfireworks1]

They send out that flyer sheet and do not send a written paragraph with it to explain what to do. It also does not state if you do something what if any impact it will will not have have. The example of what you are thinking is most likely represents what many may be thinking. "What do they want me to do with this email?".

[Mattp]

Yes, exactly.. i dont want to send in another written statement if we are not supposed to at this time.. but i also dont want to miss the opportunity to do so if we are!!!

[displayfireworks1]

An attorney contacted me. We discussed a few issues. At this point I am temporarily stepping out of Social Media involvement on this issue until I speak with a few people to clarify a few things. So what if anything someone wants to do with this latest email flyer is up to them.

[beaver nation]

normally under administrative rules when a federal agency publishes in the federal register proposed rule making they set up a comment period for people to be "on the record". That comment period was extended but is now closed awhile ago. I don't think they can legally add anything else to "the record" after the close of comments which makes this oral presentation thing weird legally....I kind of get the idea that maybe they want the members of the 5 person CPSC committee that votes on this to use the oral comments as their "cliff notes" before they vote on this (because they don't read the comments submitted). I still think that the agency is likely to be overturned if they pass this new testing and limitation on metallic powder for lack of injury data that shows that break charges have been causing widespread injuries and not only break charges but ones that have over 1% metallic powder!! hehe They have zero in the way of "widespread" injury data on this and in general firework injury data is estimated/extrapolated from hospital reports and is not factual and relies on self reporting as well from the dumbsh!ts that misuse them or use them carelessly. So don't worry the oral presentations are going to be mostly "suit and tie" lobbyists/lawyers for the big players and not "joe plumber" ....

[pimpdaddee28]

Here's hoping that this all works out for the better. Perhaps because of the reasons that Dave stated in this thread, that this is why Black Cat was able to include 2 cakes with salutes in them in their new product line for 2018 (Thunder Kat and Hell Kat). It would make a lot of sense if that was the case. Perhaps this is a sign of things to come, meaning that the regulations will indeed be changed FOR THE BETTER in order to level the playing field when it comes to some of the "special" 1.4 items that keep hitting the shelves in many of these smaller firework stores/tents.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urm_mI9_DHM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U82qvDcjOs

[CMiller]

Those were both very nice!

[beaver nation]

Here's hoping that this all works out for the better. Perhaps because of the reasons that Dave stated in this thread, that this is why Black Cat was able to include 2 cakes with salutes in them in their new product line for 2018 (Thunder Kat and Hell Kat). It would make a lot of sense if that was the case. Perhaps this is a sign of things to come, meaning that the regulations will indeed be changed FOR THE BETTER in order to level the playing field when it comes to some of the "special" 1.4 items that keep hitting the shelves in many of these smaller firework stores/tents.

The fact that people are importing overloads won't change because they are currently illegal and they do it so this will have no effect on whether they still continue to take chances and bring in overloaded products.

I am curious if the new black cat cakes are labeled 1.4g or if they are 1.4s1?? I am also curious if the break charges of those cakes were scanned with the XRF scanning tool what result would be found under a 1% limitation on metallic powder in burst charge (the proposed limit the agency (CPSC) has proposed. as I said earlier a major importer and wholesaler I know scanned their own product and some competitors product and says that they had a 50% failure rate under the proposed 1% limitation for cakes and higher for artillery. No 60g shells passed. I know a shell I get that has been tested by CPSC 2x and passed their exam has 4% (on low end) and 8% (on high end) aluminum fines in burst charge and the shell is nothing special as to loudness or break size (average 60g can).

If they develop new burst charges that don't use metal then they will have side stepped the "ear test" for salutes that current exists under CPSC testing which will be revoked under the proposed regulation BUT (huge empahsis) they will do nothing for the alleged concern with "safety" which is just crap since nobody has even stated there has been injuries due to burst charges let alone knowledge that they had more than 1% metallic powder and even a comparison to other markets where consumer items use flash powder in burst charges I believe has no higher rate of injury due to burst charges. The entire lie of "necessary for safety" is BS. fireworks are dangerous even if they have 100% Black Powder in burst charges! and especially when used stupidly or against warning labels. Most of the major fatalities with aerial shell devices were from the LIFT CHARGES not the burst charge!!

[BillRoss]

Bob Kellner has initiated a "Go Fund Me" campaign to fight the metals ban. Here is the link: https://www.gofundme.com/saveyourfireworks

[beaver nation]

Bob Kellner has initiated a "Go Fund Me" campaign to fight the metals ban. Here is the link: https://www.gofundme.com/saveyourfireworks


Bizarre to see this unless they want to litigate the CPSC and want the money for the lawyer fees. What exactly do they think they can do since CPSC has already finished taking in comments and will make their decision?? the NFA cannot do anything other than try to bribe or pressure the 5 member commission or their boss in executive branch concerning what they decide. the only other option is to litigate the decision and try to get it repealed that way since the commission essentially is promulgating fireworks regulation without any widespread injury evidence to sustain it being necessary for safety.