ATF Clarifies Articles Of Pyrotechnics Oct 2021 Newsletter

[joewad]

A portion of ATF's current newsletter addresses Articles Of Pyrotechnics (close to the beginning). Other interesting info for 1.3 throughout.

[BMoore]

I received the same newsletter and had to read it a couple of times to interpret what they are trying to say. My take away is that the ATF's articles of pyrotechnics exemption has additional criteria than simply the UN0431/0432 designation. The additional criteria include 1) Labeled for professional use, not consumer use, 2) Similar composition and construction to consumer product and 3) Meet the weight limits for consumer fireworks. Without meeting those criteria you can have articles of pyrotechnics that effectively fall under the same regulations as 1.3 product.

My questions are, what articles of pyrotechnics are illegally being imported sold that do not meet the ATF's exemption? Most articles are not constructed like consumer product due to lack of stabilization, e-matched, etc. Is this widespread or isolated? Who makes the determination and is there an approval process? Using terms like "similar composition and construction" seems rather subjective.

I'm generally not in favor of increased regulation, but this whole Articles of Pyrotechnics is a gray area that really needs to be sorted out.

[Birdman]

"It has recently come to ATF’s attention that companies who do not possess an ATF explosives license are importing articles pyrotechnic (e.g. launchable projectiles, pyrotechnic grenades) and distributing them to customers who also do not possess an ATF explosives license or permit."

If I'm interpreting this correctly, it seems to me they are saying that an ATF license is needed to both import and purchase AoP.

[WithReport]

Birdman, I don't think that is what it is saying.

This is my current take away

1) it clarifies that just labeling things UN0431/2 doesn't automatically make "exempt" from ATF regulation. It must meet the following:
*for "professional use" and not labeled for consumer use
*"similar" in chemical composition and construction to consumer fireworks
*must meet weight limits

This is no different that what has been on the ATF website for some time: "However, not all items classified by DOT as articles pyrotechnic are exempt from ATF regulations..."
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/qa/are-%E2%80%9Carticles-pyrotechnic%E2%80%9D-subject-requirements-federal-explosives-regulations


2) The ATF is saying some bay be using AoP to bring in and distribute products as AoP, but they should be non-exempt and under ATF regulations - which would require the licensing. Unfortunately, the letter gives no insight into what those specific items may be. However, I do not take this to be a general statement on AoP.




The other question out there is whether this is implying some disagreement with APA-871C and the new EI&T standard for pyrotechnics which uses UN0336, but retains a professional only application. I don't think that this letter is implying any disagreement as that APA standard has been in work for years and recently added to the federal regulations.

[displayfireworks1]

Here is a link to the full ATF October 2021 Newsletter for those that have not received. If the link does not work someone let me know. I read it a few times and as usual it remains ambiguous. I believe the intent is to stop importation by non ATF license importers more than it is for who can use it. As usual there some shady stuff going on in the industry with this classification. The ATF already lost some court cases on a distributor selling these AP products. In defense of the ATF , some distributors need to be selective who they sell these AP products to. I like how the ATF started that first paragraph, "It has recently come to the ATF attention...." like they was in a MF coma for the last 10 years.
.
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/docs/newsletter/explosives-industry-newsletter-october-2021/download

[joewad]

I use to work for the federal government for 35 plus years. A primary portion of my duties were writing local policies in relation to regulations, standard operating procedures and other related documents. It amazes me the level of consistent "gray" or unecessary complexity I read into a lot of ATF documents. Keep it simple, keep it on point. I agreed with Birdman the first time I read it then the following time not so much.

[Birdman]

This is one of those cases where I am happy to be wrong.

[Rick_In_Tampa]

I use to work for the federal government for 35 plus years. A primary portion of my duties were writing local policies in relation to regulations

OMG.... I sooooo feel your pain! Going on 40 years now myself and I can attest to your characterization of ATF and federal documents in general. You almost need a lawyer on staff to understand them, and even then, some other lawyer will have a different interpretation. It's just nuts.

By adding a new classification of pyro called AOP, the ATF was just setting everyone up for failure. I mean, how can they be 1.4, but "for professional use only?" That makes 0 sense to me. If the idea is/was that they be for "advanced users", then create a certificate to establish someone as an "advanced user" and label the AOP products accordingly. Seems like common sense to me. But what do I know...

[BMoore]

OMG.... I sooooo feel your pain! Going on 40 years now myself and I can attest to your characterization of ATF and federal documents in general. You almost need a lawyer on staff to understand them, and even then, some other lawyer will have a different interpretation. It's just nuts.

By adding a new classification of pyro called AOP, the ATF was just setting everyone up for failure. I mean, how can they be 1.4, but "for professional use only?" That makes 0 sense to me. If the idea is/was that they be for "advanced users", then create a certificate to establish someone as an "advanced user" and label the AOP products accordingly. Seems like common sense to me. But what do I know...

I've always felt like AOP was too much of a gray area, but I never realized that some AoP can essentially be treated like 1.4 and other like 1.3 and statements like "Similar Construction" being the deciding factor. I remember when AOPs first became a thing there were people claiming "These aren't actually fireworks at all. These are pyrotechnic devices that simulate fireworks." What?? Honestly, I wouldn't be too sad to see AOP go away permanently without more clarification and standardization about who can buy them. Then again I have my type 54 so I realize this doesn't affect me the same way it affects non-licensed folks, many who have invested considerably in AOP equipment.

[WithReport]

Working in a field dealing with federal regulations on a daily basis, although not related to explosives or pyrotechnics, I'm going to assume that the ATF has an established set of advisory policies that take out much of that gray area we see by just reading the federal regulations. The federal regulations are gray somewhat by design - to ensure they are broad sweeping. It is the agency that finds compliance to those regulations that then establishes what is considered acceptable vs no-acceptable with respect to the regulations. And if needed, those policies could be challenged.

[Birdman]

I believe this is often the product of trying to please everyone. Keep the language vague so everyone feels they got what they wanted and then let the courts sort out any questions that arise. Most laws/regulations are enacted because some interest group is pushing for them. Stuck in the middle are the legislators and regulators that aren't as intimately involved with the topic being debated. It's the lawyers from all of the different sides who are writing the language and duke it out until compromised language is agreed upon and/or one interest group wins out over the other(s). Legislators and regulators are typically just rubber stamping the agreed upon language. In the case of AoP it seems we have several interest groups (display companies, importers, ATF retailers, consumers etc) and the language was written to appease them all. Again, keep it vague and if any grievances arise let the courts sort it out. If you lose in court then you go back and lobby to get the language changed again....rinse and repeat until all sides are happy or give up.

[Arclight]

The ATF already requires an FEL for a lot of UN0432 products. For instance, here are two products I use for blasting. Both are 1.4S cartridges with electric igniters. The small one is an exempt cartridge that is sold to non-licensees that have taken an on-line training. It has 1-2g net weight of smokeless gunpowder in each cartridge. The NXBurst products in the picture contain 10-60g of similar materials and ATF does require you to have an explosives license to buy them.

http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=6047&stc=1
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=6046&stc=1

[215less]

The ATF already requires an FEL for a lot of UN0432 products. For instance, here are two products I use for blasting. Both are 1.4S cartridges with electric igniters. The small one is an exempt cartridge that is sold to non-licensees that have taken an on-line training. It has 1-2g net weight of smokeless gunpowder in each cartridge. The NXBurst products in the picture contain 10-60g of similar materials and ATF does require you to have an explosives license to buy them.

http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=6047&stc=1
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=6046&stc=1


Nice
Det cord or shock tube???

[Arclight]

Nice
Det cord or shock tube???

This kind has a pre-installed electric igniter. There are some with built-in shock tube, or a well for installing a regular blasting cap. Usually, you wouldn't use detcord with these 1.4 products, as they are intended for places where using 1.1 high explosives is a problem due to neighbors, regulations, etc.

[Rick_In_Tampa]

I've been having a heck of a time finding comets and mines for next year. I reached out to a new pyro place (that I recently found out is a PGI vendor) and I got back the following response related to AOP products: "1.4 Pro items have changed classification out of China and are now being classified as 1.3g. Having recently attended the APA Convention, I know that most importers are still scrambling to figure out what needs to be done moving forward."

If true, it looks like my shows just got a lot more boring.

[displayfireworks1]

The ATF already requires an FEL for a lot of UN0432 products. For instance, here are two products I use for blasting. Both are 1.4S cartridges with electric igniters. The small one is an exempt cartridge that is sold to non-licensees that have taken an on-line training. It has 1-2g net weight of smokeless gunpowder in each cartridge. The NXBurst products in the picture contain 10-60g of similar materials and ATF does require you to have an explosives license to buy them.

http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=6047&stc=1
http://www.pyrotalk.com/bulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=6046&stc=1

At Arclight: I would like to see the on-line training you referenced for that one device in the explosive industry. This sounds very similar to the on-line training in a similar situation with these Articles of Pyrotechnics. Link to the training would be great. Also, a link to the ATF regulations on that exempt product and how they define it in their regulations would be great.

[Rick_In_Tampa]

If AOP is now 1.3G then there's really no such thing as AOP, and therefore, no need for online training to buy AOP products.

How will the change effect your training regime Dave? Will you still offer training but only for 54 holders?

[Birdman]

I've been having a heck of a time finding comets and mines for next year. I reached out to a new pyro place (that I recently found out is a PGI vendor) and I got back the following response related to AOP products: "1.4 Pro items have changed classification out of China and are now being classified as 1.3g. Having recently attended the APA Convention, I know that most importers are still scrambling to figure out what needs to be done moving forward."

If true, it looks like my shows just got a lot more boring.

Here I thought you had already ordered everything you needed. I was wondering where you found AoP and assumed maybe you had enough stash to get you through this year.

I suspect everyone involved is trying to sort out how things proceed from here. If we can't get back to where we were, hopefully they can find a way to bridge the gap between AoP and 1.4 so the ATF doesn't have to be involved.

[displayfireworks1]

If AOP is now 1.3G then there's really no such thing as AOP, and therefore, no need for online training to buy AOP products.

How will the change effect your training regime Dave? Will you still offer training but only for 54 holders?
.
.
.
.
.

Rick you are reading something I am not seeing. How these AP products are sold does not change. It is who can import and offer for sale is the intent of this. It is also the ATF adding these AP products are to be built to Consumer Fireworks powder specs. This is one of those things that everyone that reads it see's something different. I have a whole bunch more I could say about it and will save it for a future rant. I think what is happening is some importers are trying to exploit a way to sell products not intended for this category.
On a side note about this, someone on the corporate end of this industry needs to recognize and adapt/address the advanced backyard fireworks enthusiast. This advanced user is where the Display Fireworks Industry was in the late 90's. I know because I worked it and now see it. He/She is using an advanced fireworks firing system , electric match , racks , wires etc. They are also designing choreographed pyro-musicals. Some of these users have an ATF license and/or some do not want an ATF license. The desire to advance either way is there. The problem is the industry will not address it. Instead they try to get the Consumer Product Safety Commission, The Department of Transportation or the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Fireworks to regulate it. The next issue is , who to shift blame to when something goes wrong with these products. More to say/come.

[Rick_In_Tampa]

Here I thought you had already ordered everything you needed. I was wondering where you found AoP and assumed maybe you had enough stash to get you through this year.

I suspect everyone involved is trying to sort out how things proceed from here. If we can't get back to where we were, hopefully they can find a way to bridge the gap between AoP and 1.4 so the ATF doesn't have to be involved.

I can certainly make do with what I have, but I can't do the show I want to do without some mines and comets. I certainly hope you are right and we find a way through this mess. Sooner rather than later.

[Arclight]

At Arclight: I would like to see the on-line training you referenced for that one device in the explosive industry. This sounds very similar to the on-line training in a similar situation with these Articles of Pyrotechnics. Link to the training would be great. Also, a link to the ATF regulations on that exempt product and how they define it in their regulations would be great.


Here ya go!
https://sierrablaster.com/cartridge-certification/
https://sierrablaster.com/is-it-legal/

Arclight

[WithReport]

If AOP is now 1.3G then there's really no such thing as AOP, and therefore, no need for online training to buy AOP products.

How will the change effect your training regime Dave? Will you still offer training but only for 54 holders?

I think there is some confusion - there is still AOP, but it may have to take on a different name when shipping into the US....

The newsletter that triggered this post was simply saying one or both of the following: "hey, putting a UN0431/2 label on it isn't the only requirement to make it exempt" and/or "stop treating regulated items as exempt" The newsletter is no different than what has been on the web for some time. This newsletter had nothing to do with shipping from China.

But....

I understand The China CIQ (equivalent to US DOT???) is now requiring AOP to be labeled and shipped at 1.3. This is a different can of worms that, along with the general shipping issues, is causing availability problems.

Although not ideal, there is a US "Special Permit" under the DOT/PHMSA that allows AOP shipped from China to be re-labeled once they reach their final destination:



2.a. This emergency special permit authorizes fireworks classified as UN0431 by the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety to be transported from China to their final destination within the United States as UN0335....

7.b.(4) Packages and containers must be marked and placarded as required by the HMR for 1.3G explosives for the vessel and rail shipments until the containers reach their final destinations in the United States. Once at the final destinations, all packages must be remarked and re-labeled to reflect the correct classification of the articles.
Reference SP21223 (https://www7.phmsa.dot.gov/approvals-and-permits/hazmat/file-serve/offer/SP21223.pdf/offerserver/SP21223) listed on the Hazardous Material Special Permit List Website (https://www7.phmsa.dot.gov/approvals-and-permits/hazmat/special-permits-list)

This certainly is NOT ideal as there is limited capability to deal with 1.3 containers and additional restrictions and costs involved, but I understand it is the current approach. Hopefully a better solution is found.

And that better solution may be related to the new APA 87-1C for Entertainment & Technical Pyrotechnics (https://www.americanpyro.com/apa-standard-87-1) ("EI&T Pyrotechnics") that can be labeled UN0336 Fireworks for Professional Use Only (Labeling as UN0336 may provide relief of the China CIQ 1.3 shipping requirements). EI&T product approved by PHMSA can be labeled UN0336 for Professional Use Only. For example, as I understand, a single shot comment (does not have a report) would fall under the EI&T 3.2.1.15 Mine and can have 150g of composition, tube without a base, electronic ignition, .... - Sounds like AOP, huh?

If you have additional/different understanding - do share.

[displayfireworks1]

WithReport , thanks for the information and links. You may be one of the few frequent posters on pyrotalk that is cool to post without identifying a State of location in your profile. I recently overheard a conversation about shipping a fireworks container into United States, now with the cost of shipping most important, plus the ever shrinking approved fireworks factories, and the current packaging specifications ex. space per mortar on cakes , no bulk canisters Consumer Shells etc. I overheard a few tricks and strategies. Without going into details. The strategy is to get as much weight of product into that container as possible.
On the other end of things . the professional display industry does not want to special store and count certain AOP products. However, at the same time , they can not allow an advanced fireworks enthusiast to buy, use and not enjoy those same privileges. It is most interesting to follow to say the least.

[Salutecake]

How about a plug for Dave -- AOP is it 1.4 or 1.3 take Dave's course get your FEL and don't worry about it.

[Birdman]

I believe WithReport confirms what we already determined in another thread. However, it does complicate the supply chain which is the last thing the industry needs right now.

I fail to understand why professional display companies are concerned with a relatively small number of enthusiasts that use AOP. It's a niche market that could grow but not a burgeoning threat to the professional display industry. If I were a professional display company I would be much more concerned about other technologies like drones, lasers and holograms.

[displayfireworks1]

Companies in the display business feel someone shooting a $3000.00 local birthday fireworks display for profit is a threat. LOL The real threat is not who is using/buying AOP products. It is who is importing them and selling them. Remember the CPSC can not just grab a AOP product and test it for compliance. I already received word from confidential sources that are 1.3 distributors. During inspections , they will ask the ATF Inspector do you want to check these, as they point to big stack of AOP products, they answer "No". The real issue is , there are too many opportunist ready to exploit the AOP category. I doubt anyone will challenge the ATF on this, so they took the first step. If I am reading this correctly, they are yea , you can import AOP products. However, you better also be an ATF 1.3 Importer License holder also. This gives the ATF some authority to at least inspect you. If you are just a regular "Consumer Fireworks" importer distributor , the ATF has no reason to inspect you without probably cause. It is all a big game to keep things to a credible professional level.

[Arclight]

Here ya go!
https://sierrablaster.com/cartridge-certification/
https://sierrablaster.com/is-it-legal/

Arclight

Another similar product:
https://www.ezebreak.com/

They make you do their online training (free) as well as fill out a short compliance questionnaire.

Arclight

[displayfireworks1]

At Arclight : Thanks for this information. I know very little about blasting products so this information is helpful. It looks like the gentleman from Sierra Blaster received ATF exemption for a specific product he sells. It does not appear his education program and storage exemption crosses over into any other related product and/or a class of product. In other words does that particular ATF storage and sell exemption he acquired apply to a similar product a competitor may be selling? I wish I knew the terminology for all of these blasting products but I do not.

[Arclight]

At Arclight : Thanks for this information. I know very little about blasting products so this information is helpful. It looks like the gentleman from Sierra Blaster received ATF exemption for a specific product he sells. It does not appear his education program and storage exemption crosses over into any other related product and/or a class of product. In other words does that particular ATF storage and sell exemption he acquired apply to a similar product a competitor may be selling? I wish I knew the terminology for all of these blasting products but I do not.

I don't believe it crosses over, and I know those two products are competitors. They occupy a niche in between "mechanical" rock breaking and "things you need an FEL for." They're popular with small Gold miners and some contractors.