CPSC Commission Meeting - Final Rule to Revise Current Fireworks Regulations

[cptnding]

This hearing was held yesterday for the CPSC staff to make their recommendations for the revision on fireworks regulations to the commission. I'm not sure what to take away from it. On one hand it sounds like a couple of the commissioners were pushing back but on the other hand it makes me wonder if they are just kicking the can down the road for show.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIYaNkK5e34&feature=youtu.be

If you didn't watch the first hearing with industry members and the commission last year here it a link to the thread with that one.

http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/showthread.php?6741-CPSC-to-Act-on-Fireworks-Rule-by-end-of-September

[cptnding]

Whoops! Wrong link!
Try this one for the first hearing:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1381&v=xQvlPDD0I-s

[cptnding]

Here's the one from last year when the ball really started rolling.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL4IvNPLEDE

[jknepp1954]

After watching it for like hour and half - bottom line - they are going to wait to see what industry comes up with.
NFA supposedly has a test in gear - that both sides can look at and both be happy with.
The PLEASE WAIT TILL WE FINISH TESTING AND STUDIES is what NFA was going for....so we - NFA - was successful in doing that....
Now waiting and hoping CPSC looks at this and are satisfied in that way to go...is hurdle #2.
Of the 600+ samples they tested and broke down stats - 85% of which will still be in the compliant range - makes me wander whose BRANDING of fireworks they tested? TNT? PHANTOM? WORLD CLASS? BIGS? WINDA? RED RHINO? BLACK CAT? etc? WHOSE? or a mirage mix of many???

[Mattp]

Hard to tell what to take away from it.. they need more info.. i like that woman toward the end asked the best question.. "will doing this make it any safer".. and the answer was "we dont know!"!!

[displayfireworks1]

Nice find. I am going to try to get this out to my youtube audience. I need to find time to watch it.

[displayfireworks1]

Joyce, that 85% number is historic data I believe. I have heard and read that number coming out of the AFSL for a while now. They reference this number when talking about the effectiveness of their current testing protocol coming out of China factories. Not that this is related but an incident comes to mind at one factory in China where AFSL testers in China would not place AFSL stickers on a lot of product. The owners of the factory basically told them to place the approval stickers on the product or they are not leaving. AFSL has some instructions in place for this type of event. When threatened in some fashion they are to place the approval stickers and get them self to safety. Then of course report the event. Then other times they find incidence of testers in China receiving the Red Envelope to place AFSL approval stickers on non-compliant product.
If you look at this another way, the APA and AFSL are trying to correct a traditionally corrupt industry.

[displayfireworks1]

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM49ZFW6v0Y
.
Watch this video first.unlisted
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwHt5MkfKhs

[beaver nation]

CPSC staff admitted later that some of the fireworks involved with the fatalities were "homemade" and not 1.4g products and also admitted that they rely on the users to tell them what it was...hello!! if you are using something illegal are you going to self incriminate yourself?? Not likely!

the agency using statistics from a secret list of 600+ products is problematic to use the way they did as if it was representative of the bulk of 1.4g product being used. I know for a fact that one wholesaler bought a testing device to check their products and competitors and they reported that over 50% of the products tested were above 1% metal in burst charge powder!! not ANYWHERE close to only 15%!!! this is total BS from CPSC. One thing is certain by their own alleged "data" that cakes were not a source of widespread injury and should NOT be included in their proposal for new ban and testing. they don't have the authority to just interfere with products that don't produce widespread injuries. All fireworks are dangerous (including ones with 0% metallic powder in burst charges). They should only be allowed to use statistics from products where the consumer was using them as intended...can you imagine them mandating changes to ladders because people were being injured while using them as bridges to walk across??? once the CPSC removes homemade/altered devices, illegal 1.3g items, and items used improperly what do you think the injury data would really show?? I bet it would be nearly NIL

[Rocketshooter]

I got the impression that the CPSC panel is already recommending the change to 0% metals with 1% allowable contamination. The whole basis being that it would be less explosive and therefore safer. All this without out any evidence that it would do so. They did admit that it's still dangerous to have a shell detonate in close proximity. Duh. This all goes back to the safe usage of fireworks. No on the asked the question that of the reported injuries and deaths, how many were caused by unsafe usage rather than product malfunction? That is the root of the problem.

[Mattp]

I got the impression that the CPSC panel is already recommending the change to 0% metals with 1% allowable contamination. The whole basis being that it would be less explosive and therefore safer. All this without out any evidence that it would do so. They did admit that it's still dangerous to have a shell detonate in close proximity. Duh. This all goes back to the safe usage of fireworks. No on the asked the question that of the reported injuries and deaths, how many were caused by unsafe usage rather than product malfunction? That is the root of the problem.

Yes,, i noticed that too.. that is the real question they need to look at

[beaver nation]

I got the impression that the CPSC panel is already recommending the change to 0% metals with 1% allowable contamination. The whole basis being that it would be less explosive and therefore safer. All this without out any evidence that it would do so. They did admit that it's still dangerous to have a shell detonate in close proximity. Duh. This all goes back to the safe usage of fireworks. No on the asked the question that of the reported injuries and deaths, how many were caused by unsafe usage rather than product malfunction? That is the root of the problem.

yes they are seeking zero metallic powder in burst charges with only 1% allowed for contamination and have numerous alleged reasons for doing so. if I remember correctly they tried to say that there were 17 fatalities since 2015 mostly in conjunction with reloadable shells but later on admitted that some of the fatality numbers they stated early on were from non 1.4g products!! They also are citing DOT adoption of APA regulations which supposedly call for no metallic powder in burst charges and were lamenting that DOT doesn't enforce these administrative rules they adopt (irrespective of the fact that metal content with these items that are AFSL and CPSC tested for years have resulted in no significant transportation issues for anyone!! But bureaucrats don't care because they LOVE regulations for REGULATIONS SAKE. common sense is never factored in to the dumb things they seemingly focus on. Same thing happens routinely with EPA and other regulations in regards to regulation for regulations sake and not for the sake of protecting anything.

[Kenny East]

So according to what I heard, the cpsc is putting the proposed changes on the back burner. Using new information about hybrid non metal break charges being more explosive as the reason for this decision.

Not a fact that I know of at this point more of a rumor, but kinda what I was wondering... Since their new changes don't cover non metal hybrids like whistle mix.

[displayfireworks1]

Here is an update from the National Fireworks Association.
.
.
Dear Friend of Fireworks ?

Together, we?re making a difference!

As you know, the four commissioners that comprise the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) unanimously agreed at their staff briefing to take a pause on the proposed metals ban after receiving scientific data from the NFA proving what we?ve been telling them all along.

Our scientific research proves that the powder metals content in a burst charge is less explosive than a hybrid powder that would be an industry standard if the proposed metals ban went through. We?ve said all along that the NPR wouldn?t make fireworks any safer and now we?ve proved that!

More good news from the CPSC is the Peter Feldman, a former congressional staffer for Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) was sworn in as the fifth member of the CPSC. This gives the CPSC a 3-2 Republican majority. For the last ten years, there has only been 18 months where the make up of the CPSC has been lead by a Republican majority.

The NFA and our team in Washington is reaching out to Commissioner Feldman to sit down and brief him on our stance on the NPR. Unfortunately, he is drinking from a fire hose and has no staff, so this effort may take longer than we like. In the mean time, we are assembling a briefing packet that will include our test results, our comments that have been filed, the report from the Small Business Advocacy office and other information. We?re also preparing, as part of that packet, to send him the signatures from the #SaveOurFireworks petition.

Speaking of our petition, we?re over 6,300 supporters! If you haven?t signed it please do so. Can you also forward the petition link to a friend or another NFA member?

Remember, if you are not at the table, you are on the menu. So join us!

Lastly, NFA counsel Spencer Elg participated last week in the Fireworks Brigade Pyro Podcast with our friends John Starr and Ron the Banker. You can listen here.

Remember to follow us on Twitter at @NFASafety.

In Safety,

Nancy Blogin
Executive Director
National Firworks Association

[Rick_In_Tampa]

Sounds like good news for us!! Thanks for the update Dave!

[beaver nation]

Here is a perfect time for some "investigative journalism", wouldn't we all love to find out the details about what happened with the alleged 17 fatalities over last 3 years that CPSC staff brought up in their testimony to the committee?? we all deserve a little more "fleshing out" of what product was really involved and details as to how the product was used, when, and other pertinent details of these serious "accidents". were they being used legally? was alcohol involved? was it even 1.4g consumer items? I think everyone (especially the committee) deserves to hear more about specifics instead of generalities and speculation.

[Supermanpyro8]

Well said!!!

[PyroManiacs]

Here is a perfect time for some "investigative journalism", wouldn't we all love to find out the details about what happened with the alleged 17 fatalities over last 3 years that CPSC staff brought up in their testimony to the committee?? we all deserve a little more "fleshing out" of what product was really involved and details as to how the product was used, when, and other pertinent details of these serious "accidents". were they being used legally? was alcohol involved? was it even 1.4g consumer items? I think everyone (especially the committee) deserves to hear more about specifics instead of generalities and speculation.

Good luck with that!

[countryboy7978]

Here is a perfect time for some "investigative journalism", wouldn't we all love to find out the details about what happened with the alleged 17 fatalities over last 3 years that CPSC staff brought up in their testimony to the committee?? we all deserve a little more "fleshing out" of what product was really involved and details as to how the product was used, when, and other pertinent details of these serious "accidents". were they being used legally? was alcohol involved? was it even 1.4g consumer items? I think everyone (especially the committee) deserves to hear more about specifics instead of generalities and speculation.

2017:

3 deaths involved 1.3 shells hitting the victim in the head.
1 death was a most likely a 1.3 salute that CATO?ed in PVC tube held by a cinder block
1 death was a consumer shell/mortar that was held in hand.
1 death was the result of a fire started by using fireworks indoors
1 death was apparently a sparkler bomb
1 death was an apparent pipe bomb

2016:

1 death was manufacturing related in his home
1 death was most likely a 1.3 shell being fired from PVC
2 deaths were likely consumer shells being fired from the head and chest. (1 victim fell off his roof after the shell exploded on his chest.)

2015:

1 death was a fire caused by manufacturing
1 death was a pipe bomb
3 deaths were likely consumer shells fired from the head.
2 deaths were likely consumer shells fired from the chest.
1 death was a mortar held in the hand.
3 deaths were people hit in the head/chest looking over the mortar. Sounds like 1.3.

So most all were attributable to 1.3 or blatant misuse. The CPSC however doesn?t consider misuse to be an acceptable reason for a serious accident.

[beaver nation]

2017:

3 deaths involved 1.3 shells hitting the victim in the head.
1 death was a most likely a 1.3 salute that CATO?ed in PVC tube held by a cinder block
1 death was a consumer shell/mortar that was held in hand.
1 death was the result of a fire started by using fireworks indoors
1 death was apparently a sparkler bomb
1 death was an apparent pipe bomb

2016:

1 death was manufacturing related in his home
1 death was most likely a 1.3 shell being fired from PVC
2 deaths were likely consumer shells being fired from the head and chest. (1 victim fell off his roof after the shell exploded on his chest.)

2015:

1 death was a fire caused by manufacturing
1 death was a pipe bomb
3 deaths were likely consumer shells fired from the head.
2 deaths were likely consumer shells fired from the chest.
1 death was a mortar held in the hand.
3 deaths were people hit in the head/chest looking over the mortar. Sounds like 1.3.

So most all were attributable to 1.3 or blatant misuse. The CPSC however doesn?t consider misuse to be an acceptable reason for a serious accident.

wow, where did you find this info? this just totally pisses me off as most of this has zero to do with "burst charges" from 1.4g items. even the people killed while shooting off their bodies we don't know whether it was the lift charge driving the bottom into them or if the shells were loaded upside down??

thanks for sharing.

[chriskrc]

Here we go again, make everyone suffer do to people misusing fireworks ( consumer that is ) and apparent accidents in 1.3.

[displayfireworks1]

From the NFA Newsletter for those interested. Posted with permission of the NFA (Bob Kellner)
.
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=3741&stc=1
.
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=3742&stc=1
.
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=3743&stc=1
.
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=3744&stc=1
.
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=3745&stc=1

[pitshack]

Well that doesn't sound very good at all.

[wingman]

Yep. Sounds like the CPSC is full of nanny state, hair-splitting ignorants that don't seem to listen to logic and reason. Best reason to stock up on shells and cans as far as I'm concerned.

[Robbro097]

That really doesnt sound good

[rreffner]

saw this coming as soon as they started talking about it. You could just tell by their mannnerisms that they were going to go ahead with it, and here we are. Glad I got my type 54. Time to stock up on canisters.
I don’t think it was ever disputed that metal in charges increases burst. What the question was, was whether or not injuries would lessen by removing metals. Obviously they ignored that logic and went with ‘people got hurt, make them wimpy’....light a canister off on your head and it will be bad either way. This is all going in the direction firecrackers and m80s did.

[cptnding]

saw this coming as soon as they started talking about it. You could just tell by their mannnerisms that they were going to go ahead with it, and here we are.

Unfortunately I agree. Seemed like the deal was done in the beginning and the only question was is it going to be 3% or zero.

[Fulliautomatix]

To clarify, if/when new regs are passed, would they only impact 1.4?

[Rocketshooter]

Well that just sucks. They had their minds made up from the start!

[PyroManiacs]

To clarify, if/when new regs are passed, would they only impact 1.4?

Yes, 1.4 only.

[Rick_In_Tampa]

What a crock of s--t! No other way to describe it. Simply a crock of s--t.

[Rick_In_Tampa]

Sorry... This really pisses me off. These fools say "The NFA report does not include sufficient data points to establish a "safe level" of metallic fuel that can be used in consumer fireworks."

WTF does that even mean?? What metric is the CPSC using to determine a "safe level?" Where is that information located? Someone explain to me how you make something designed to EXPLODE completely safe? Or is "completely safe" not the standard? Maybe it's "somewhat safe." Or could it be "pretty safe?" WHAT'S THE FRIGGIN TARGET HERE FOLKS?!?! Why isn't the burden of proof on the CPSC to show US how making these changes will make us all more "safe?"

This is a solution in search of a problem IMHO. There is absolutely ZERO empirical or anecdotal evidence to suggest we even HAVE a problem that needs fixed!! Clearly this is a move designed ONLY to kill the consumer fireworks market in this country. No sentient human with connected brain cells could legitimately argue otherwise.

[Mattp]

Well said rick... i think you should send that exactly as written to the cpsc themselves... we all tried the very polite method already!!!

[Rick_In_Tampa]

If I thought it would help I would, believe me. I am sooooo tired of these bureaucrats who get paid to work for US, instead bowing to special interest groups to do things that make our lives less enjoyable. That's about as nice as I can put it.

It's clear by reading the document above; and by watching the hearing video; that the outcome was predetermined, and not in our favor. That's not right, and the people involved should lose their jobs.

[Robbro097]

Iv been wondering does this effect all 1.4 cakes included? (Thats the way it sounds to me) and would this effect 1.4pro articles of pyrotechnics?

[Robbro097]

I know during the hearing video they talked about a process that some fireworks go through that was expensive for manufacture that let them produce fireworks that contained more powdered metal than what was allowed. Sounded to me like they were speaking of the same/similar process described by i believe dave displayfireworks1 a video years ago when explaining AP items

[PyroManiacs]

Iv been wondering does this effect all 1.4 cakes included? (Thats the way it sounds to me) and would this effect 1.4pro articles of pyrotechnics?

Not sure on the AP, but last I remember it was somewhere around the high 70/low 80%(?) of all consumer product.

[beaver nation]

Iv been wondering does this effect all 1.4 cakes included? (Thats the way it sounds to me) and would this effect 1.4pro articles of pyrotechnics?

yes! despite the fact that there has not been any significant injuries from cakes as they are currently produced and used!!

What really pisses me off is that the CPSC staff went before the board and talked about injuries but within the injury stats didn't disclose that the numbers included homemade devices, 1.3g devices!!! talk about a real screw job!! haha they couldn't even use 1.4g products since there is no widespread injury from 1.4g product and CPSC is only given authority to act on widespread injury! the bottom line is all fireworks are dangerous. Can you imagine the CPSC requiring aluminum extension ladders to be built differently because people were injuring themselves while using them as to walk across like a bridge??? that is what they are doing to 1.4g fireworks.

[Rick_In_Tampa]

"and CPSC is only given authority to act on widespread injury!"

My point exactly! What's the basis for any of this!?!? What data did they present that showed a pattern of widespread injury directly attributable to the BURST CHARGE; i.e. NOT the lift charge, NOT 1.3G products, NOT as a result of misuse, etc.?? The answer is, NONE! Zero, zip nadda! This entire exercise is a fraud designed to kill the consumer fireworks market.

[beaver nation]

"and CPSC is only given authority to act on widespread injury!"

My point exactly! What's the basis for any of this!?!? What data did they present that showed a pattern of widespread injury directly attributable to the BURST CHARGE; i.e. NOT the lift charge, NOT 1.3G products, NOT as a result of misuse, etc.?? The answer is, NONE! Zero, zip nadda! This entire exercise is a fraud designed to kill the consumer fireworks market.

yes that is the fact that this is a fraud and some big insiders are behind it either out of profit motives or fear. BUT people made direct comments to CPSC that there was no data that burst charges were causing widespread injury. The CPSC will be sued if they adopt this and maybe there is a chance that the judicial branch can overturn them due to this fact. It really helps us that the CPSC staff gave stats to the commission of deaths and the deaths included homemade and 1.3g items!! how stupid is this CPSC "staff" anyway??? LOL that is pretty damaging IMHO especially when there are were scores of comments sent in saying there was not any significant problem with burst charges let alone any data about what the metal content was!! the slime seem dead set on watering down 1.4g but they should admit it isn't about "safety" at all. and the data on cakes proves that too!! they are one of the safest kinds of firework device.

[wingman]

I think this decision is proving to be a litmus test; it wouldn't surprise me if the Safe and Sane corporations are behind this. If this is the case, then it proves that the CPSC can be manipulated by many other corporations with an agenda to get ahead of their particular market.

This is true with the Better Business Bureau. Although the BBB is not a government entity, consumers are led to believe that they are to provide an accurate rating of businesses and "ethical" practices within them. The truth is that companies can buy an 'A' rating. It all depends on how deep their pockets are.

[pimpdaddee28]

This makes me feel sick to my stomach...

[jamisonlm3]

I think this decision is proving to be a litmus test; it wouldn't surprise me if the Safe and Sane corporations are behind this.Did you watch any of the video Dave posted a while back of the hearing? TNT was all for it. I'll never buy a TNT product after that. That said, I don't like what seems to be an obvious end, but at the same time, I have little doubt that companies will find ways to spice up their burst charges to make them equivalent to what is currently enjoyed in the consumer market. We'll probably be going thrugh this again in another decade or so though there may be a lull while the industry adjusts to what is most likely going to heppen. Instead of saying they were bought and paid to come to this end, I think it's more that they are a group of individuals with power who are exercising it to make it look like they are doing something useful. These are fireworks. They explode. You want to lessen the ability of these explosive to injure, then just ban them outright.

[chriskrc]

So once again tnt is in bed with the screwed up political process to push their safe and sane bs. Here we go no proof to support their claim but they will some how push an agenda with no foundation. TNT should truly get out of the fireworks business.

[magyar127]

this is for large fireworks companies in the U.S. to open up sales in safe and sane states to me the only way to really send a message is to boycott purchases from these companies and their affiliates wake them up because they think hey their going to bu these fireworks anyways.

[Rick_In_Tampa]

You want to lessen the ability of these explosive to injure, then just ban them outright.

And that my friend is the point!

[Mattp]

it definitely really sucks that us as avid enthusiasts are not the ones who matters most to the large corporate consumer firework industry...what is there a few thousand of us across the country spending a few thousand $ each per year.....as opposed to a few million people spending 20-50$ each on shit they cant blow themselves up with (most likely) and sue!!!.. even if this goes into effect, waters down fireworks so badly that we all never buy them again(which i doubt will happen)..but they wont care..were not their target customer base anyway

[Rick_In_Tampa]

This is an end-run by TNT et. al. to put the big boys out of business so they can dominate the "safe and sane" market that's left when 1.4G (as we know it) goes away. Hopefully someone in the consumer fireworks industry gets the other owners to band together to fight to have this nonsensical rule overturned.

[MoDzAudio]

This matter only affects 1.4g consumer fireworks not 1.3g articles of pyrotecnics

[jknepp1954]

Back on Jan 20 - Dave posted copies of several letters from the NFA on this. All he posted was old news - NOTHING NEW has come up since October - I think he just posted so that you would get the "technical" aspect of this.
So basically - the ruling has been temp tabled....I am not aware of anything in the works to resurfaced.
Trust me - when it comes back to life you will all know.

[Fulliautomatix]

You mean I cashed in my 401k to buy all the current production canisters I could for no reason? ;)

[beaver nation]

You mean I cashed in my 401k to buy all the current production canisters I could for no reason? ;)

the 5 member commission can decide whatever they want to so nobody knows unless they are close enough to the commission members to have inside information. they may never adopt the metals ban or they could still do it at any time...I don't know if there is any limitation on this as far as public comments that would be the info in the administrative record to use for lawsuits, you notice that the CPSC staff letter kind of complained about the fact that NFA submitted info on energy comparison with different formulations AFTER the public comment period had closed so technically it can't be apart of the record in lawsuits unless someone in general mentioned the same principle. I think my comment touched on the fact that there was no evidence that metal in burst charges was causing widespread injury OR evidence that non metallic formulations would not cause injury. I still believe most of the injury from actual 1.4g items that are tested and pass inspection is from improper use and the lift charges is what is creating head and body injuries and not the burst charges. but there is essentially almost no data collected to prove or disprove these points, most people injured actually "self report" and who knows if they are telling the truth about what they were using, how they were using it. etc. if they were using altered devices and 1.3g items they might not want to say so out of fear of criminal charges!! This doesn't even broach the subject of items that are labeled 1.4g but actually are 1.3g and would fail testing.

it is hugely unfair to ban items if the actual injuries are not even coming from the items that pass current inspections and are approved as 1.4g but rather the majority of injuries are from altered devices/homemade or 1.3g or 1.3g items labeled as 1.4g and essentially smuggled in. Somebody posted a list of fatalities that have occurred over last several years and there was nearly no deaths from 1.4g compliant products especially if used as directed....the bulk was from altered and 1.3g items and using them against warning label direction....how many other products would be banned based on people using them improperly?? it is absurd.

[Rick_In_Tampa]

There must be something missing here. I find it hard to believe that the entire multi-million dollar consumer fireworks industry (Business owners, resellers, etc.) are just going to roll over and let 5 CPSC bozo's ruin their livelihood's without a fight. This ruling; IF it goes against us; should be so easy to fight, a first year law student should be able to win it.

[beaver nation]

There must be something missing here. I find it hard to believe that the entire multi-million dollar consumer fireworks industry (Business owners, resellers, etc.) are just going to roll over and let 5 CPSC bozo's ruin their livelihood's without a fight. This ruling; IF it goes against us; should be so easy to fight, a first year law student should be able to win it.

well having dealth with suing government over administrative rules I can tell you that it is a total crap shoot as to what judges will do!! so there is zero confidence of slam dunks dealing with that branch. and more importantly the judicial gives "deference" to agencies, their interpretations and their "expertise" as is a well established point of lawsuits (the deck is stacked in favor of the bureaucratic agencies and their opinions)....that said I am anxious to read more case history with CPSC cases and what prior cases have established as to what threshold of injuries is required for an agency to dictate changes in product formulations!! because essentially the CPSC staff in the agency is trying to tell the industry how the products must be made despite the fact that CPSC has been approving them for years as compliant and I would say the vast majority of the specific items have had no injuries reported!! why should any cake that has never had a reported injury and has been approved for years by CPSC have to change its composition solely because of CPSC dictates?? it is absurd and I doubt that the case history of lawsuits has many examples of products being forced banned and forced into alterations with no history of injuries because the staff thinks there is potential for injury!! don't all fireworks have potential for injury??? well of course they do! that is why they require warning labels! it is a F$@%ing joke