HM-219C: Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Miscellaneous Petitions to Reduce Regulator

[displayfireworks1]

Sent to me for review. Here we go again. This second move was done in anticipation of a win at the CPSC level with the metals and XRF testing. With the loss at the CPSC level, not sure where this is going.
.
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=PHMSA-2017-0120
.
Public comments are open until October 15, 2019. Anyone have knowledge or opinion on it? Please feel free to comment here on the forums before you comment on the site. I have one official response I am waiting for permission to share. Not sure how and if this pertains to users of fireworks

[beaver nation]

I thought the APA's stuff was adopted by the FEDS as administrative rule?? The funny thing was that in the past if you wanted to read it I think you had to pay for it! that even though adopted as administrative rule it wasn't public information. Maybe that has changed? This notice makes it sound as if the federal bureaucratic agency doesn't actually just adopt APA generated rules or regulations whenever they change something??

I had the overall impression that could be way off that APA as a "crony capitalist" Non-governmental organization revolves around 1.3g industry more than 1.4g interests. Whatever the case on the politics of the agency and what agenda they have to change things it essentially occupies a "gate keeper" crony capitalist position (which is pretty common in many areas where special interests essentially write the rules and in some areas of interest there is a revolving door where bureaucrats get big paying jobs with the special interests after leaving their bureaucrat positions (subtle way to bribe people and control) that may not be a factor with APA like banking or other industry interests. One thing is certain though concerning 1.4g I haven't read ANY reports that current products have had any significant danger in transportation with any significant public hazard. Maybe I missed something but I doubt it.

Like other government bureaucracy they can always try to make things even more restrictive holding that it is a safety concern but one must acknowledge that while their further restrictions may definitely be safer that there was no urgent need for it. Like an agency setting some numeric water quality standards which are more stringent but where existing standard is more than adequate for quality water and safety. They call this regulation for regulations sake!! This is a common way that special interests can try to stifle business competition of actual free market over their crony "gate keeper" model.

[Mattp]

I read the whole thing and still have no clue exactly what they’re proposing.. can someone put into dummy terms exactly what the APA is trying to have done here.. and why we don’t like it?? .. To me it sounds like they’re trying to go around the CPSC ruling and have their new composition limits imposed into 87-1 through a different avenue.. do I have that right??

[displayfireworks1]

At Mattp your interpretation sounds about correct. I think the people behind the CPSC metal XRF issue were so certain they would win at the CPSC level, they incorporated some of that into this under that assumption. If you look at this as written I'm thinking a good legal team can tear it apart just based on the loss at the CPSC decision. The public comments close October 15, 2019. This has all been brought to my attention, however no one has ask me to do anything about it. I do not know if anyone noticed but the Fed Department of Transportation sat in on the CPSC hearings. Like I mentioned in my video. There are rules on the books now to cover all of this, problem is they are poorly enforced or very burdensome to enforce. I know World Class has a case against the CPSC for snatching up a shipment of their product. I can't wait for that one to come to court. As far as this issue and the public comment section. If someone conveniences me to move on it into social media and round up the troops I will. If not, I'm just an observer and reporter. If someone in this industry wants to talk safety and how to approach it from a design and education approach. I'm ready for that also.

[Mattp]

20. Incorporation by Reference of an APA Standard
In its petition (P-1711), the APA requested PHMSA update references in the HMR to incorporate the new version of APA Standard 87-1, “Standard for Construction and Approval for Transportation of Fireworks, Novelties, and Theatrical Pyrotechnics,” which is currently incorporated by reference in ? 171.7(f)(1) of the HMR. The APA states that this 2001 edition of the standard needs to be updated, because of advances in the fireworks industry over the last 15 years. For consumer fireworks, new devices have been developed including combination devices, and more devices now contain multiple tubes and combinations of effects that were previously limited to single tubes. The petitioner elaborates that these new products do not fit into the existing classification system under the current standard.

The National Fireworks Association (NFA) submitted a letter in opposition to this petition. The NFA is a domestic fireworks trade organization with 1,200 members. In the letter, NFA states that proposed changes have a substantial impact on the fireworks industry and, in particular, small businesses. In the letter of opposition, NFA states that the proposed action “imposes new restrictions, prohibitions, and specifications that do not exist under the current standard.” In a letter to its members, NFA provides an explanation of its opposition letter. NFA states that although the revised 87-1A standard has “many good updates, including new design categories that would make EX approvals easier for some items,” the updated standard also includes restrictions that are inconsistent with industry practices.

PHMSA is choosing to propose to IBR the new APA standard despite NFA's opposition to the petition. NFA objected to PHMSA accepting the APA petition on the assertion that the APA petition lacked the information described in ? 106.100(b) of the HMR. This section only states that PHMSA may require more information to evaluate a petition for rulemaking; it is not required. In the case of P-1711, PHMSA determined that additional information was not necessary to accept the petition for rulemaking. The revised APA 87-1 is expected to provide clarity to the fireworks industry, while maintaining the composition limits developed by PHMSA for classification that are needed to ensure the safe transportation of fireworks. Furthermore, PHMSA's decision to propose IBR the revised APA standards was informed by its review of the explicit requirements for consumer fireworks in APA 87-1A, display fireworks in APA 87-1B, and professional fireworks (classed as articles pyrotechnics) in APA 87-1C. These standards add numerous new devices, expand the permitted chemical list, and focus solely on hazard classification for transportation. However, PHMSA will consider comments on whether we should move forward with incorporating this standard in a final rule. PHMSA estimates that adoption of this petition would provide an annualized cost savings of approximately $270,000 to industry, through expanding the approval process to reduce testing requirements for theatrical pyrotechnics. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the accompanying PRIA.

PHMSA believes there is merit in this proposal. Therefore, PHMSA is proposing to incorporate this updated standard into ? 171.7 of the HMR. However, PHMSA is seeking comments on both what is proposed in the APA petition and comments submitted by the NFA on the merits of this proposal. All documents related to this petition can be found in the petition docket at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=PHMSA-2018-0019.

tried to make it easier for people to read this.. because there is alot of other things going on on that link... looks like theyre asking for comments to help them decide what to do... just wish there was more info on this..because i still dont fully understand what it is the APA is asking .. and what is their end game in this request.. we have a week to figure it out though..

[cptnding]

Mattp. Thanks for posting that. I completely missed that part when I tried to skim through the information.

"In a letter to its members, NFA provides an explanation of its opposition letter."
Could anyone shed some light on exactly what the NFA's explanation of it's opposition is?

[displayfireworks1]

I'm still waiting for an official response on the details of opposition to this issue. If you follow the link , you can see the NFA is asking for an extension. The little bit I did see in opposition is that it is a further attack on the break charge of Consumer Fireworks and more attack on the canister artillery shells. Some discussion of packaging and transportation will probably be on that list. For those in favor I am not sure what the strategy going forward will be. With the big loss at the CPSC level , what can you tell the transportation people? The connection between metallic powders in the break charge and injuries was apparently not met. During the hearing I remember one of the female CPSC panel members said. "Tell me again how all of this is going to make fireworks safer"?
If I look at this from a legal standpoint in favor of it . I would drop the issue and regroup. If they lose again at the transportation level , then its a huge loss. That huge loss at the transportation level will really escalate the problem they are trying to stop , it will imply we can make these fireworks however we want because they tried to stop us twice and lost. The smart business decision is to negotiate with the NFA on this issue. Everything I read the NFA is still receptive to working out a solution.
While there is no connection between gasoline and fireworks (except Bill Corbett) all of this is reminiscent of years back when the big gasoline distributors ran all of the small independent gas stations out of business. Leaving only the big names to sell the fuel. I'm sure there is a competitive strategy behind all of this . Ironically many of those old closed down gas stations are now converted independent fireworks stores.

[beaver nation]

I'm still waiting for an official response on the details of opposition to this issue. If you follow the link , you can see the NFA is asking for an extension. The little bit I did see in opposition is that it is a further attack on the break charge of Consumer Fireworks and more attack on the canister artillery shells. Some discussion of packaging and transportation will probably be on that list. For those in favor I am not sure what the strategy going forward will be. With the big loss at the CPSC level , what can you tell the transportation people? The connection between metallic powders in the break charge and injuries was apparently not met. During the hearing I remember one of the female CPSC panel members said. "Tell me again how all of this is going to make fireworks safer"?
If I look at this from a legal standpoint in favor of it . I would drop the issue and regroup. If they lose again at the transportation level , then its a huge loss. That huge loss at the transportation level will really escalate the problem they are trying to stop , it will imply we can make these fireworks however we want because they tried to stop us twice and lost. The smart business decision is to negotiate with the NFA on this issue. Everything I read the NFA is still receptive to working out a solution.
While there is no connection between gasoline and fireworks (except Bill Corbett) all of this is reminiscent of years back when the big gasoline distributors ran all of the small independent gas stations out of business. Leaving only the big names to sell the fuel. I'm sure there is a competitive strategy behind all of this . Ironically many of those old closed down gas stations are now converted independent fireworks stores.

during the CPSC hearings several people in favor of the metal ban for burst charges specifically cited that it would put the regulations in line with what APA rules were. The APA wants to water down 1.4g aerial fireworks but they are not honest that it is about "safe transportation"...can anyone cite any example of current 1.4g product that is tested and approved having ANY transportation accidents with a result that would lend one to think there is a safety issue?? No. this is just a political way to achieve a desired end that has nothing to do with an actual problem that exists.

[displayfireworks1]

Here it is 5 hours before comments close.
.
.
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=4534&stc=1
.
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=4535&stc=1
.
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=4536&stc=1
.
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=4537&stc=1
.
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=4538&stc=1
.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/14/2019-16675/hazardous-materials-adoption-of-miscellaneous-petitions-to-reduce-regulatory-burdens#open-comment

[PyroKing31]

Why does the APA hate consumer grade pyro so much?

I hope this goes the same way as the CPSC ruling and they are forced to run back with their tail between there legs.

Very nice to see a well informed and well written response to this insanity.

[beaver nation]

Why does the APA hate consumer grade pyro so much?

I hope this goes the same way as the CPSC ruling and they are forced to run back with their tail between there legs.

Very nice to see a well informed and well written response to this insanity.

I think you'd have to ask how does APA make decisions for themselves and change their rules?? are they adopted by a committee? officers? voted on by the entire membership?? They are a private association that has had a big influence but I think the desire for watering down current 1.4g product is personal to key people that are in a position to push that agenda and not necessarily the ENTIRE membership of the greater association. Politics as usual and this is a political entity