Problems in China

[fatcat]

Hey Guys, just talked to my local vendor and he said that there is a problem in China as far as exports go because two provinces are having a dispute over customs regulations. Consequently there will be limited products available for New Years. Also when I asked him about the outlook for the 4th in 2021 he said there are rumors that Cannister shells will not be available. Also said that China wants the 9 inch racks ( assuming he meant the tubes that come with the canister shells like excals etc) to be classified as a 1.3 item. I always thought that only the actual firework had a classification and not the other associated equipment. Anybody out there also hearing any thing like the above. Can any of you pyro dealers that are on this sight provide some insight as to what is really happening?

[FinnAmerican]

I've talked with our local Phantom and they're having trouble getting new stock. Store still empty . They only got some 500g's in stock.

[Birdman]

The issue, as I understand it, with canister shells is that China requires they be produced in a higher classified factory than they use to (i.e. in a factory that would normally produce 1.3). There are not that many factories that have that classification and those that do are producing larger stuff (e.g. 1.3). This change in classification in China only effects how/where they can be produced in China. Once produced they can be labeled as 1.4 for US export.

Other issues I am aware of:

Articles of Pyrotechnics (1.4 Pro). Word is these are not being allowed out of the provinces by local customs because they are only allowed to approve shipments of fireworks. Technically AP's are AP's and not fireworks.

2" + NOAB's may require to be packaged in a wire cage to pass UN safety tests for shipping

2" + tubes (single shots and NOAB's) need to be produced in one of the higher classified factories like canister shells.

I suggest reviewing the thread and video below:

http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/showthread.php?8258-1-4pro-UN0431-reclassification&highlight=boom+carson

https://www.facebook.com/carson.lee....460319/?t=1631

[jamisonlm3]

Part of me wonders if we'll see a size reduction of some firewroks. This is also with me believing we'll still see 8" canister shell in a couple of years.

[Birdman]

Part of me wonders if we'll see a size reduction of some firewroks. This is also with me believing we'll still see 8" canister shell in a couple of years.

From a marketing perspective I don't think that will work. Especially if the cost is going up.

[displayfireworks1]

From the National Fireworks Association News Letter.
.
.
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=5320&stc=1
.
.
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=5321&stc=1
.
.
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=5322&stc=1

[jamisonlm3]

How long a 1" shell do you need to get 60g? I hope we aren't debating over 8" vs 9" shells this time next year.

[Fulliautomatix]

How long a 1" shell do you need to get 60g? I hope we aren't debating over 8" vs 9" shells this time next year.

Per the UN recommendations, each tube would be limited to 25grams or less.

[topshelfpyro]

Brothers already has a 7" long canister shell kit called full speed coming for next year.

[Icooclast]

ok, i am confused... are they going to make all reload shells 1.3G only or are they just cutting down on the 60 gram cans' power? same question with the NOABs.

the technical terms and quoting of different bills/laws in the article confused me. does anyone have a way to explain it in simple, regular guy terms? without a big long list. kinda sum it up, ya know? thanks in advance

[topshelfpyro]

Its not about shells its about AP and cakes that have tube sizes over 30mm. 200 gram cakes are already exempt

[Birdman]

ok, i am confused... are they going to make all reload shells 1.3G only or are they just cutting down on the 60 gram cans' power? same question with the NOABs.

the technical terms and quoting of different bills/laws in the article confused me. does anyone have a way to explain it in simple, regular guy terms? without a big long list. kinda sum it up, ya know? thanks in advance

As I understand it, it comes down to China and the UN classifying fireworks based on tube size whereas the US classifies fireworks based on total weight of composition along with other construction regulations like tube spacing. The NFA, I believe correctly, is arguing that the US standards make more sense and prevents a mass explosion while the UN/China regulations present more risk. Using the NFA's example, under the UN/China regulations a 1.4G cake could have 100 30mm tubes with 25grams of composition in each tube (total of 2500grams). There does not need to be any tube spacing. Whereas a 2" or 3" NOAB would be considered 1.3G solely because of the tube size. There is no consideration for the tube spacing or total weight of composition which is an important factor when considering the risk of a mass explosion. That risk is much higher when you have many tightly packed together tubes filled with composition that can far exceed what would be allowed in US for 1.4G product. So the issue becomes how to resolve these conflicts in regulations.

In even shorter terms, China wants to use the UN regulations which conflict with US regulations and the NFA is arguing that as far as safety goes, the US regulations pose much less risk. They want China to produce and ship fireworks for US export per US regulations. Unless this can get straightened out it will be a round hole square peg situation. Meaning that the US wants to import round pegs but China is shipping us square pegs. So far the only solution offered by China is essentially telling us our only option is to make their square pegs round ones when they get get here. The problem with this is not only added cost but the confusion and potential for "mistakes" (i.e. smuggling) that could happen when a shipment of 100 shot 2500gram cakes comes to our shores labeled as 1.4G or a shipment of 3" NOABs come here labeled as 1.3G.

If I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting something please correct me.

Thanks for posting the NFA newsletter Dave!

[Icooclast]

As I understand it, it comes down to China and the UN classifying fireworks based on tube size whereas the US classifies fireworks based on total weight of composition along with other construction regulations like tube spacing. The NFA, I believe correctly, is arguing that the US standards make more sense and prevents a mass explosion while the UN/China regulations present more risk. Using the NFA's example, under the UN/China regulations a 1.4G cake could have 100 30mm tubes with 25grams of composition in each tube (total of 2500grams). There does not need to be any tube spacing. Whereas a 2" or 3" NOAB would be considered 1.3G solely because of the tube size. There is no consideration for the tube spacing or total weight of composition which is an important factor when considering the risk of a mass explosion. That risk is much higher when you have many tightly packed together tubes filled with composition that can far exceed what would be allowed in US for 1.4G product. So the issue becomes how to resolve these conflicts in regulations.

In even shorter terms, China wants to use the UN regulations which conflict with US regulations and the NFA is arguing that as far as safety goes, the US regulations pose much less risk. They want China to produce and ship fireworks for US export per US regulations. Unless this can get straightened out it will be a round hole square peg situation. Meaning that the US wants to import round pegs but China is shipping us square pegs. So far the only solution offered by China is essentially telling us our only option is to make their square pegs round ones when they get get here. The problem with this is not only added cost but the confusion and potential for "mistakes" (i.e. smuggling) that could happen when a shipment of 100 shot 2500gram cakes comes to our shores labeled as 1.4G or a shipment of 3" NOABs come here labeled as 1.3G.

If I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting something please correct me.

Thanks for posting the NFA newsletter Dave!

seems to make sense. wouldn't it be great to get 2500 gram cakes that aren't so closely packed, though? lol. we'll never see that. but a guy can dream. lol. thanks for the info :)

[beaver nation]

As I understand it, it comes down to China and the UN classifying fireworks based on tube size whereas the US classifies fireworks based on total weight of composition along with other construction regulations like tube spacing. The NFA, I believe correctly, is arguing that the US standards make more sense and prevents a mass explosion while the UN/China regulations present more risk. Using the NFA's example, under the UN/China regulations a 1.4G cake could have 100 30mm tubes with 25grams of composition in each tube (total of 2500grams). There does not need to be any tube spacing. Whereas a 2" or 3" NOAB would be considered 1.3G solely because of the tube size. There is no consideration for the tube spacing or total weight of composition

Not only the "total weight" of the composition but WHAT kind of composition too! keeping in mind that US fireworks are already watered down with limitation on flash compared to other markets! So comparing the total weight is not even comparable. I hope that someone in China has half a brain in consideration of US products or they will do some damage until it either gets fixed or some alternative sourcing is done....the tariffs on chinese tires ended up seeing chinese companies starting up manufacturing in Thailand and other places so maybe some ambitious chinese could do the same for 500g cakes to not have to deal with chinese CIQ

[beaver nation]

ok, i am confused... are they going to make all reload shells 1.3G only or are they just cutting down on the 60 gram cans' power? same question with the NOABs.

so far I thought this is only being applied to pre-loaded tubes and not shell kits. I did have 1 chinese company tell me they had 3" NOAB that had passed the UN test but I don't know how they conduct the testing so it could not exceed the limitation on distance required (not sure if it was 15m or 20m or 25m??). I think the guy must have been lying but am not positive because I don't know the details of how they are going to conduct the test to judge whether items pass to still be considered 1.4g instead of 1.3g.

[Birdman]

so far I thought this is only being applied to pre-loaded tubes and not shell kits. I did have 1 chinese company tell me they had 3" NOAB that had passed the UN test but I don't know how they conduct the testing so it could not exceed the limitation on distance required (not sure if it was 15m or 20m or 25m??). I think the guy must have been lying but am not positive because I don't know the details of how they are going to conduct the test to judge whether items pass to still be considered 1.4g instead of 1.3g.

Could it be that the NOAB passed the test with a wire cage?

[beaver nation]

Could it be that the NOAB passed the test with a wire cage?

no, because the price was as low as they were prior to this situation and still packed 2/1