{"id":1382,"date":"2020-08-31T09:47:49","date_gmt":"2020-08-31T01:47:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dpfireworks.com\/blog\/?p=1382"},"modified":"2020-08-31T09:49:28","modified_gmt":"2020-08-31T01:49:28","slug":"complex-situation-unfolding-in-real-timehow-fireworks-regulations-in-us-and-china-difference-affects-the-products-classification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dpfireworks.com\/blog\/2020\/08\/31\/complex-situation-unfolding-in-real-timehow-fireworks-regulations-in-us-and-china-difference-affects-the-products-classification\/","title":{"rendered":"Complex situation unfolding in real-time,how fireworks regulations difference in US and China affects the products classification"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is an email from Matt to our customer:<\/strong><\/p>\n

A meeting was held Saturday morning August 29th<\/sup>, 2020 by Liuyang\/Hunan CIQ officers.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0This is an on-the-fly update that represents the fog of a complex situation unfolding in real-time.\u00a0 I do not know what will happen next.\u00a0\u00a0 I don\u2019t know how serious this really is or if it will be squashed by higher authorities.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This situation has been building for months, and it escalated in the last week.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I kept hoping it would go away, but as of the conclusion of today\u2019s meeting, it does not appear to be going away anytime soon, so that is why I am choosing to try to update you now.<\/p>\n

\"image001(08-31-09-17-01)\"<\/a><\/p>\n

1.)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The source of the problem is the USA Law for Consumer Fireworks is quite different than the fireworks laws in the rest of the world.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Most of the world, including China, follows a close form of the United Nations standard for fireworks.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0For Consumer Fireworks, the UN standard says that cakes over 1.2 inch inside diameter are 1.3g unless tested in a UN Series 6 test and shown to be 1.4g.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0USA law (APA87-1) says that tube diameter is not limited, but instead limits the total powder weight, the power of the burst, and requires \u00bd inch space for cakes over 200g.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This conflict between the USA and International laws has been in place for many decades.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

2.)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In the past, the China authorities have overlooked this conflict.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The assumption was that Chinese made fireworks would be allowed to be built and shipped according to the exporting country\u2019s laws.\u00a0 So USA products were built according to the USA law.\u00a0\u00a0 German products were built according to the German law.\u00a0\u00a0 Etc.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The issue with this \u201csituation\u201d is if an accident occurs with one of these \u201cexport\u201d products on Chinese soil.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Liuyang is over 1,000 miles from the nearest port.\u00a0\u00a0 So USA fireworks must travel long distances on Chinese soil before they can reach international waters.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 On December 4th<\/sup>, 2019 this type of accident happened.\u00a0\u00a0 A factory making large salutes (that technically were legal in the Eastern European country they were being shipped to) had an explosion.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0When the federal authorities investigated the accident they used the China laws, not the laws of the Eastern European country, to determine what was legal and illegal.\u00a0\u00a0 The federal authorities determined the factory and the local officials were breaking China law.\u00a0\u00a0 Several people went to prison.\u00a0\u00a0 Many workers died.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because of this Dec. 4th<\/sup>\u00a0accident, the local officials in China have become spooked.\u00a0 Last month they only planned to make 3 inch cakes 1.3g.\u00a0\u00a0 But after the Beirut Explosion they expanded it to include all cakes greater than 1.2 inch per the standard.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Asking them to compromise and not include 2 inch is not likely at this point.\u00a0\u00a0 They want to just stick to the regulation, which says all cakes greater than 1.2 inch are 1.3g by default.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

3.)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Specifically the recent trouble is coming from the Hunan Customs\/CIQ staff.\u00a0\u00a0 I think the main reason this group specifically has been spooked is because they are new.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 They recently formed in 2018 as a result of the USA\/China trade War.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The USA put tariffs on billions of dollars of Chinese goods.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 China retaliated and put tariffs on USA goods shipped to China.\u00a0\u00a0 However, prior to the Trade War, China did not have a well-organized Customs organization to control things such as inspecting USA imports and calculating tariffs.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Once this new, more powerful government agency was created and given power, they then started to expand their focus past just collecting tariffs on USA Soybeans.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 One area they chose to focus on was fireworks.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 For being such a small industry, fireworks always seems to draw an oversized interest from regulators both in USA, and now in China.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

4.)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The Hunan CIQ\/Customs leadership holds a similar role to USA DOT, in that they issue the \u201cclassification document\u201d to determine if a product is 1.4g or 1.3g.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 So similar to a USA EX number.\u00a0 \u00a0The difference is that CIQ issues their \u201ccertification\u201d for each batch of product produced as compared to the USA EX number which is only issued once.\u00a0\u00a0 Some big USA importers have considered this a limited problem because right now only Hunan CIQ is pushing this.\u00a0\u00a0 However, Hunan is producing 60-70% of the USA fireworks and if we consider the higher quality 2-3 inch cakes, it is closer to 80-90%.\u00a0\u00a0 So the idea that we can solve this problem by moving production to Beihai is not \u00a0a workable solution in my opinion.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

5.)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Customs\/CIQ is not responsible for business.\u00a0 \u00a0Therefore, they don\u2019t lose anything if business is harmed.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In fact, I believe they see it as their duty to try to stop businesses engaged in dangerous activity.\u00a0 So similar to USA where EPA, OSHA, and other government agencies drove entire industries out of the USA due to regulations that were impossible to meet, this new China agency does not seem to care if China businesses are harmed.\u00a0\u00a0 In fact, I think they welcome it as a sign they are \u201cbeing tough on safety\u201d. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0They have very little to lose from being \u201ctough\u201d.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

6.)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Unfortunately the top leadership in China, also does not seem to be a supporter of the fireworks industry.\u00a0\u00a0 They favor environmentally clean, hi-tech industry and consider fireworks a reminder of the \u201cbackwards, ancient\u201d times.\u00a0\u00a0 In fact, over the recent years the China Domestic market has seen a slow-down mainly due to new Federal suggestions that \u201cFireworks are dirty, dangerous, and backwards\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0 The federal government has gone so far as to try to use Fireworks and BBQ as a scapegoat for China\u2019s massive air pollution problems.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The long winded point is that I believe there are strong political pressures from above working against the fireworks industry in China.\u00a0\u00a0 The industry as a whole is tiny compared to the China economy.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

7.)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Liuyang City stands to lose the most.\u00a0\u00a0 The mayor of Liuyang has come out against these Customs\/CIQ changes.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 But the provincial level Customs\/CIQ is higher authority then the local mayor of Liuyang.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 So I believe that we would need to get the Federal Level Customs\/CIQ leaders to intervene if we wanted to stop this from occurring.\u00a0\u00a0 However, at this time, I am not aware of any individual company willing to attempt to talk to the federal authorities.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

8.)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In talking with major USA importers, the feeling as of today seems to be that this is a China problem and not a USA problem.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I don\u2019t agree because the BASE of the problem is the fact that ONLY the USA deviates from the international UN standard.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Therefore, I believe that the easiest solution is for USA DOT to engage their federal level counterparts in China and work out a more legal solution to the problem created several decades ago when USA deviated from the UN Standard.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0I think the USA government has a responsibility to help address this deviation and not expect private companies to work out a solution alone.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

9.)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0To help put things into perspective, we estimate that USA is only about 13% of the total China fireworks industry.\u00a0\u00a0 This number would actually be even smaller if it were not for the recent reduction in the China domestic market.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 So keeping in mind that USA is only 13% of the market, it becomes easier to understand why it is NOT likely that China factories and suppliers are going to be fighting on behalf of the USA importers.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Possible Solutions:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1.)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The best solution is for USA DOT and China Federal Authorities to talk and hammer out a document that allows USA goods to be manufactured, stored and shipped from the China Factory to China port, using USA law.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0This has been the \u201cunofficial\u201d approach for the last 30 years.\u00a0\u00a0 So USA DOT and China Federal Authorities would just need to formalize what they have informally been doing for all these years.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Maybe it would require some small compromises on both sides.\u00a0\u00a0 Keep in mind this is all just paperwork. \u00a0\u00a0It is a simple as a 1.3g vs 1.4g mark on the carton.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We suggested using both a 1.3g and 1.4g sticker on the cartons.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The 1.3g sticker would note \u201cfor China shipping only\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This suggestion was rejected by Hunan CIQ, but perhaps if USA DOT raised this suggestion it would be accepted (this same issue applies to UN0431 vs UN0336).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

2.)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Hunan CIQ has already said that they will accept Series 6 tests as an alternative (see image below & https:\/\/www.unece.org\/fileadmin\/DAM\/trans\/danger\/publi\/unrec\/rev21\/ST-SG-AC10-1r21e_Vol1_WEB.pdf).<\/p>\n

So that means companies would need to pay to have each item tested and \u201cgraded as 1.4g or 1.3g\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The question is who is allowed to conduct these tests.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Typically USA and China have been refusing to allow each other\u2019s labs.\u00a0 \u00a0So China does not allow a USA lab result and USA does not allow a China lab result.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 So the matter of what labs would be allowed to conduct these tests needs to be cleared up.\u00a0 \u00a0AFSL does not do Series 6 tests.\u00a0\u00a0 It needs to be an Explosives lab.\u00a0 The 2nd<\/sup>\u00a0issue is how to administer the Series 6 test.\u00a0\u00a0 Right now Hunan Customs\/CIQ is insisting that any firework debris that flies over 50 feet (including a star) is 1.3g.\u00a0 (a fiery projection emanating from the product is thrown more than 15 m from the edge of the packages or unpackaged articles.)\u00a0 Hence their suggestion to use the Iron Cage.\u00a0\u00a0 But many USA & international testing labs interpret the \u201cfiery projection\u201d requirement differently and don\u2019t count stars as projections in the Series 6 test (recent approvals of bulk 60g shells as 1.4g are examples of this different interpretation).\u00a0\u00a0 Logically, most 1.4g cakes, even 200g cakes, have stars that fly further than 50 feet.\u00a0 So this means most cakes would be reclassified as 1.3g if tested.\u00a0 They consider a fiery projection to be a continuous jet of flame or fiery gas.\u00a0\u00a0 So this aspect of the Series 6 test is a \u201cdebatable point\u201d and different labs interpret \u201cstars\u201d differently. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Currently the test is very expensive in USA (thousands of dollars).\u00a0\u00a0 And applies product by product.\u00a0\u00a0 So some other mass testing method would need to be devised.\u00a0\u00a0 Maybe testing all 2 inch 500g cakes and getting a classification for all of them at once, instead of one by one.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In conclusion, the testing solution, using a Chinese Test Lab.\u00a0\u00a0 Seems like a workable solution.\u00a0\u00a0 The challenge will be to come up with a lower cost solution (other than an Iron Cage) that stops projections. \u00a0Or changing the \u201cinterpretation\u201d of what a projection is to not include stars as projections (as is the current interpretation by most international labs).\u00a0 \u00a0I also believe involvement from organizations like APA, NFA and US DOT to explain why the USA law should be accepted, could also be very helpful.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

We are very interested to hear your ideas and suggestions.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Soon we will need to make decisions to begin to build the items for 2021 or not.\u00a0\u00a0 We have already begun to print labels for some items.\u00a0\u00a0 So we will need to make decisions soon.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Matt<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is an email from Matt to our customer: A meeting was held Saturday morning August 29th, 2020 by Liuyang\/Hunan CIQ officers.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0This is an on-the-fly update that represents the fog of a complex situation unfolding in real-time.\u00a0 I do not … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[135],"tags":[146,147,148,165,145,67],"class_list":["post-1382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-135","tag-1-3g-fireworks","tag-1-4g-fireworks","tag-ciq","tag-fireworks","tag-fireworks-regulation","tag-liuyang-fireworks"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dpfireworks.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1382","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dpfireworks.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dpfireworks.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dpfireworks.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dpfireworks.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1382"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/dpfireworks.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1382\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1385,"href":"https:\/\/dpfireworks.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1382\/revisions\/1385"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dpfireworks.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dpfireworks.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dpfireworks.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}