CPSC & Skylighter NOT GOOD I THINK!!!

[viziers]

* CPSC Visits Skylighter: Time to Stock Up?

* New Products

 

 

CPSC VISITS SKYLIGHTER: SHOULD YOU STOCK UP NOW?

 

Many of you fireworks makers have asked me to keep you posted on issues pertaining to CPSC’s actions against fireworks supplies vendors. In particular, some of you wanted me to give you an “early warning” if I thought any CPSC action might be brought against Skylighter. (If you are not aware of CPSC enforcement activities in recent years against fireworks chemical suppliers, you may want to read my blog posts on the subject at:

 

http://blog.skylighter.com/fireworks/2007/03/index.html

http://blog.skylighter.com/fireworks/2007/01/index.html

http://blog.skylighter.com/fireworks/2006/12/index.html

 

More information is also available at the Fireworks Foundation’s website:

 

http://www.fireworksfoundation.com/actions.aspx

 

So here’s the latest scoop.

 

In early June we were visited by an agent from CPSC on a carefully planned inspection. To make a very long day’s story very short, we were legally required to and did provide a great deal of information about our business practices and sales transactions.

 

That information is being reviewed by CPSC. We were told that it might be several weeks or months before we heard back from them.

 

What will happen? Well, without having a crystal ball, I can only speculate. But I think there are several possibilities:

 

1. CPSC will give us clean bill of health, and we will continue to conduct business as usual without any changes.

 

2. CPSC will request that we further restrict sales of some items to non-ATF licensees

 

3. CPSC will present us with a legally binding document in which we agree to certain restrictions and business practices.

 

4. CPSC could initiate legal action against us in Federal court.

 

These are not mutually exclusive; #2 or #3 could lead to #4. for instance.

 

What does this mean to you? If you are a regular buyer of chemicals and supplies from Skylighter, then 2, 3, or 4 above could result in your not being able to purchase what you want from Skylighter at some point in the future. Since almost all other pyro supplies vendors are now either closed or severely restricted by CPSC in what they can sell, this could mean that you simply cannot get the chemicals or supplies you need.

 

Which outcome is most likely? It’s anybody’s guess.

Here’s what I can tell you. You will have judge for yourself what you think the likely outcome will be and act accordingly.

 

First, in my opinion, Skylighter has always been the most restrictive pyro retailer in the industry with regard to purchasing items that can be used in making illegal exploding devices like M80’s. Over time, we have continued to tighten those restrictions. I believe we have done the best job possible in stopping the sale of M80 components, while still allowing access to items and quantities necessary for making legitimate, legal fireworks. And I believe that our practices are the reason we have never been charged with any violations of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the regulation used by the CPSC to stop M80s. Other pyro supplies companies were charged with violations of this act.

 

But whether Skylighter’s good practices will prevent legal action by the CPSC remains to be seen.

 

Second, there is a pattern in CPSC’s actions against pyro suppliers. During the past 5 years, CPSC has gone after virtually every single pyro supplies dealer in the US. And in every case, they have won.

 

So, is CPSC simply doing its job (as they should), by zealously going after companies who intentionally, illegally sold kits or components for making illegal exploding devices? Well, it appears they go beyond mere enforcement. For instance, I am aware of a number of instances of one or more Federal agencies attempting to make undercover M80 component purchases from Skylighter and their being refused. We even have a taped telephone conversation of a CPSC agent trying to get one of our former customers to make an illegal purchase from us (the customer refused).

 

So, now Skylighter is the “last man standing.” Will CPSC try to force us to restrict our sales as they have with all the other vendors? Or is Skylighter’s existing set of M80 sales restrictions deemed sufficient? I dunno. I wouldn’t wanna bet on it one way or the other.

 

So, for all of you who wonder if they should “stock up” against future shortages, this is the latest. Do what you think you have to. But, before you do, read the next paragraph carefully.

 

Finally, a caution: we have had a rule here for 13 years. If anything in your order looks like it would be used for making M80s or the like, we decline it.

If the mix of items you order (now and in the past) suggests that your primary interest is in making flash devices (aerial or ground), we decline your order.

Three declines and you’re out: no more purchases of anything from Skylighter, again, ever. So, guys, for your own sake, don’t try to start panic buying of dark aluminum, perchlorate, etc. Your orders will be turned down, most automatically at the web site, and you risk exiling yourself to pyro supplies Siberia.

 

 

 

 

Ut oh looks like the CPSC has its cross hairs set up again.

[FrankRizzo]

meh...typical salemanship from Harry the huckster. You see, Harry never lies per-se, but sometimes he does spin the truth a bit.

[jacob]

Oh gimme a break, i'm sure Harry is just trying to stir up more sales, i'll be quite surprised if the cpsc can find ANYthing wrong with his business practices.

[Mumbles]

I always thought firefox was much more stringent and better stuck to regulations than harry ever did. We shall see. He seems to have taken on a rather hardcore attitude as of late. He makes his regulations a lot more public than firefox ever did.

[FrankRizzo]

The issue with Firefox is that the Purringtons had been under a consent decree a few years ago when they ran the business with another name. The way I understand it, they started "FireFox" and thought they could ignore the previously imposed regulations because they were a "new" company. The PGI/Fireworks Foundation were unaware of this previous consent decree when they attempted to help FireFox with their case.