Video NFA APA CPSC Metal Content Fireworks

[displayfireworks1]

.
Video from live feed CPSC 9 hours ago.
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQvlPDD0I-s&t=457s

[RalphieJ]

At 1:10 Joel Anderson begins to pitch the big lie. He attempts to correlate the increase in deaths to the introduction of metal powders to the break charge, when in fact, the deaths were caused by people holding the mortar in their hands, or by placing the mortar on their head or chest, while igniting the shell. The lift charges caused the blunt-force trauma that he speaks of, not the break charge. According to the CPSC's own report "Of the 11 firework related deaths in 2015, nine involved people misusing re-loadable fireworks, often trying to hold them when they fired, either on their head or in their hands." Go to page 7, item 2: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Fireworks_Report_2015FINALCLEARED.pdf

As far as deaths increasing, as stated by the first gent (who is obviously a paid lobbyist for the large importers) deaths actually decreased from 11 in 2015 to 4 in 2016. It's quite apparent that the panel lacks a fact-checker, which would be resources better-spent instead of trying to determine the minute amounts of metal in burst charges

[PTFan]

.
Video from live feed CPSC 9 hours ago.
.

Thanks for posting this Dave.

[Mattp]

Just finished watching it.. took 10 hrs on and off.. lol. Pretty crazy how polar opposite the two sides are. Its like if you watch cnn or fox news kind of opposite..

[displayfireworks1]

My post hearing review and opinion.
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QirJI-IkCDM

[Rocketshooter]

It's quite obvious that the AFSL is controlled by the APA which is controlled by the large fireworks companies, mainly TnT. Follow the money. TnT makes their money
on Safe-n-Sane products which is why they always fight full consumer legalization. For most people, their money would go to cakes, crackers, shells, rockets etc rather
than just fountians, if they had a choice. Now that more states are legalizing full consumer, their only recourse is what we see happening now. Destroy the consumer market
but keep the safe-n-sane market which they dominate.

[beaver nation]

It's quite obvious that the AFSL is controlled by the APA which is controlled by the large fireworks companies, mainly TnT. Follow the money. TnT makes their money
on Safe-n-Sane products which is why they always fight full consumer legalization. For most people, their money would go to cakes, crackers, shells, rockets etc rather
than just fountians, if they had a choice. Now that more states are legalizing full consumer, their only recourse is what we see happening now. Destroy the consumer market
but keep the safe-n-sane market which they dominate.

Yep, TNT is losing market share to other retailers that sell more variety and higher quality products. This is a direct means to reduce the quality of their competitors. I also feel that 1.3g display industry is also wanting to reduce competition in display fireworks gigs from people that can do smaller shows with quality 1.4g for significantly less costs.

I could also see in recent riots in US and abroad that the riot police don't like dealing with shells being lobbed at them and that wouldn't surprise me either if that was a silent motivation as well.

[Ctpyro180]

Jim Yienger did a great job and didn't pull any punches with that commission hearing...Too bad he wasn't there physically...

[pimpdaddee28]

I just don't see them getting away with this. It seems like some type of change is coming, but not to the degree that TNT would like. Who knows, perhaps that change will be for the better, although when you consider the fact that this would hurt Safe and Sane tycoons like TNT even more, I highly doubt that the change will be for the better.

I just have this hunch that since (as Dave mentioned) the 1.4 industry is as close to 1.3 professional displays as it ever has been in recent years, it seems that in order to create a significant gap between the 2 again, you either have to change 1.3 regulations for the better or change 1.4 regulations for the worse. Or, perhaps you can unify the 2 in some capacity, although I HIGHLY DOUBT that this will ever happen.

[jknepp1954]

Jim Yienger did a great job and didn't pull any punches with that commission hearing...Too bad he wasn't there physically...

Yes he did a great job!
I haven't finished watching yet - done with 1st panel - now i need to watch to the 2nd panel.

[Mattp]

One thing i didnt fully understand..with the woman on the right of the commisioner panel,, was she saying that the DOT already has a "0" amount regulation for meshed metals in 1.4g ..??? And they just dont strictly regulate it?? Is that right?? Or did i miss understand her?? But she brought it up a few times..and everyone kind of danced around the answer.. i did turn the video on and off like 20 times in order to watch it all.. so maybe i missed something

[Ctpyro180]

One thing i didnt fully understand..with the woman on the right of the commisioner panel,, was she saying that the DOT already has a "0" amount regulation for meshed metals in 1.4g ..??? And they just dont strictly regulate it?? Is that right?? Or did i miss understand her?? But she brought it up a few times..and everyone kind of danced around the answer.. i did turn the video on and off like 20 times in order to watch it all.. so maybe i missed something

DOT relies on either CPSC lab analysis (or 3rd party analysis if needed) or the EX# application to rule out issues with a item in question. They have no lab to test product as they rely on others if needed and I believe they never had issues concerning break formulas. (Thats why everyone danced around that..No one from DOT was there) DOTs main objective is if the item has a proper EX# that was filed under the item name and performance as well as proper 4G Boxes and markings.

Many years ago Dr. Chang at the American Association of Railroads tested all explosive devices in order to get an EX #. Now the application is streamlined as long as the manufacturer (Self) certifies their product complies to certain DOT standards. Manufacturers can send out their product to "Certified DOT testing facilities" but it is expensive and rarely done in fireworks.

Here is a link on how a EX # is obtained: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/energetic-materials-approvals/procedure-obtaining-ex-numbers-under-apa-standard-87-1

[vegassalute]

Listening to that guy Anderson drone on makes me want to stab myself in the eye with my pen. Good Lord! This whole argument is absolutely INSANE!

[beaver nation]

DOT relies on either CPSC lab analysis (or 3rd party analysis if needed) or the EX# application to rule out issues with a item in question. They have no lab to test product as they rely on others if needed and I believe they never had issues concerning break formulas. (Thats why everyone danced around that..No one from DOT was there) DOTs main objective is if the item has a proper EX# that was filed under the item name and performance as well as proper 4G Boxes and markings.

Many years ago Dr. Chang at the American Association of Railroads tested all explosive devices in order to get an EX #. Now the application is streamlined as long as the manufacturer (Self) certifies their product complies to certain DOT standards. Manufacturers can send out their product to "Certified DOT testing facilities" but it is expensive and rarely done in fireworks.

Here is a link on how a EX # is obtained: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/energetic-materials-approvals/procedure-obtaining-ex-numbers-under-apa-standard-87-1

Doesn't the agency just adopt APA's document with their "rule" as federal administrative code? So essentially APA wrote the code? I have to laugh that the people who are normally ruled by non-elected bureaucrats and their administrative rules (having the force of "law") that in some instances the non-elected bureaucrats don't even create the rules and this happens alot in other industries where big corporate interests basically write the rules themselves and they can make it difficult for competitors in many different ways having this perverse power.

[jyienger]

Hi Dave, I am Jim Yienger the guy that gave the "call in testimony". I've been following your videos for years, and always have my goal of getting that ATF license with your guidance. I got on by responding to a public call to make a presentation. I work on utility regulatory issues and know the mindset of regulators, and how these proceedings work. They are usually controlled by special interests because the average person and small business feels that regulatory policy is are beyond them, and that they can't engage. I submitted written testimony, formatted they way lobbyists do, and stated in the opening line that I represent a group, consumers, "not represented to date in oral proceeedings to date". I knew this statement alone would resonate because there have been no presentations from consumers date, despite receiving thousands of consumer comments against. They added me as the "sixth" panelist at the last minute.

[Mattp]

Hi Dave, I am Jim Yienger the guy that gave the "call in testimony". I've been following your videos for years, and always have my goal of getting that ATF license with your guidance. I got on by responding to a public call to make a presentation. I work on utility regulatory issues and know the mindset of regulators, and how these proceedings work. They are usually controlled by special interests because the average person and small business feels that regulatory policy is are beyond them, and that they can't engage. I submitted written testimony, formatted they way lobbyists do, and stated in the opening line that I represent a group, consumers, "not represented to date in oral proceeedings to date". I knew this statement alone would resonate because there have been no presentations from consumers date, despite receiving thousands of consumer comments against. They added me as the "sixth" panelist at the last minute.

Well, you did an excellent job. And as a consumer that you represented..I thank you!!!

[Big Worm]

Great job Jim!

[Silver jet]

I was in attendance at the meeting last week. I would estimate 50 plus observers were in the audience. I live about 40 miles from hearing and wanted to observe in person. I am a fireworks user and am deeply concerned about the proposal. I think all the speakers against the ban did an excellent job. I also felt the CPSC members welcomed the discussion and were trying to see if common ground could be reached between opposing views. Dave I enjoyed watching your follow up video to the meeting that you posted to this site. During the hearing at least twice the acting commissioner said she would accceot follow up testimony within certain time period. Do you think they would accept your follow up or was follow up just limited to participants at the meeting? I hope for the best outcome and clearly all the feedback from all against the ban is helping with our position.

[displayfireworks1]

Silver jet, thank you for joining the forums. I want to also thank you for coming forward to let us know you were in attendance at that meeting. I think the NFA missed the mark on some of this, they hired a law firm to help with this and the law contacted me. The NFA officers had no idea of my role in this and the 2400 plus comments on the CPSC website from users of Consumer Fireworks. However, I would be willing to bet the APA officers knew exactly where those 2400 comments generated from. Which actually says something if you really think about it. I done with it at this point, I may or may not get involved with it in the future. I see it going nowhere.
Both parties made the mistake of not involving users of the product, although one side did involve the users only they did not know they did !!
.