Legislative Reference

Links to Proposed Laws

Text of 2009 Senate bill S4754 which would establish a statutory pyrotechnic review board.

Sponsor's memo for S4754 by Senator William Stachowski (D, 58th Senate District).

Text of 2009 Assembly bill A08166, identical to S4754.

Sponsor's memo for 2009/2010 A08166 by Assemblyman Mark Schroeder (D, 145th Assembly District).

DOL proposed "emergency" regulations 05/28/2009, including certification requirements.

NYSPC reference list of industry concerns with the new April 3, 2009, DOL Explosives Law (formerly DOL departmental bill S3911A/A09006A)

(See News and Commentary page for post-budget-enactment updates and comments on NYSPC remedial legislative work addressing these concerns)

Does not fully or accurately define classes of explosives and class-relevant licensing requirements. [§2, wrt §451, pp1,2]
Fails to provide for the industry's need that employees of establishments where pyrotechnics are manufactured or stored, while performing their assigned duties, not be required to have individual licenses. [§5, wrt §455, p3]
Defers currently needed remedies for Article 16 Industry operational concerns by substituting options for unspecified future regulations promulgated by the DOL (example: fails to explicitly exempt pyrotechnics from current prohibition on opening "any package of explosives within fifty feet of any magazine" [§5, wrt §455, p4]).
Failure to define classes of explosives licenses and specific charges for each license category. Also, yearly license renewals are unwarranted and unnecessarily burdensome to the Industry. The minimum license period should be specified as 3 years instead of 1 year. [§9, wrt §458, pp4-6]
Failure to distinguish between explosives types with regard to storage requirements and to establish tables of licensing charges consistent with magazine type and usage. [§9, wrt §458, pp4-6]
Allows revocation of licenses and certificates in lieu of demonstrable ineligibility. No provision for appeal of the decision of the Commissioner as allowed by Civil Practice Laws and Rules Code. [§10, wrt §459, pp7-8]
Permits seizure, impounding, destruction or disposition of explosives in lieu of demonstrable fact, and without provision for appeal of the decision of the Commissioner as allowed by Civil Practice Laws and Rules Code. [§11, §460, pp8-9]
Removal of right of review by board of standards and appeals, and substitution of costly civil proceeding "...commenced directly in the appellate division of the supreme court..." for any decision of the Commissioner denying an application for, or revoking a license or certificate. [§14, §463, p10]
The DOL commissioner may arbitrarily and without hearing assess costs for storage, transportation, handling, destruction or other disposition of explosives and assess such costs against the owner. [§15, §464(1), p10]
Excessive costs and penalties. The DOL commissioner may arbitrarily and without hearing assess a fine of up to ten thousand dollars per day for any violation. Problem of failure to distinguish between high and low explosives in threat assessment and consequent criminal penalties. [§15, §464(2,3), p10]
Establishment of Pyrotechnic Review Board should be expressly mandated in proposed statutory amendments. [§19, wrt §483, Article 28-D of the general business law]
Penal Law revisions are substantially incomplete with regard to provisions for industry standard practices such as product testing (e.g., for safety and suitability); pyrotechnic operators and display business owners are exposed to Class E felony for these activities. Minimum age for supervisory personnel should be 21 years rather than 18 years; the requirement for two (licensed) supervisory pyrotechnicians is impractical for small shows (a supervisor and assistant is sufficient to address safety requirements). [§21, wrt revisions to §405 of the Penal Law, pp13-15]

Links to Current Law and Regulations

To see Article 16 of NYS Labor Law regulating explosives, go to Laws of New York, then click the "LAB" link, then click the "Article 16" link.

Text of NYS Department of Labor Code Rule 39, the New York State regulations governing storage of pyrotechnics and explosives.

NYS Penal Code Article 405: Licensing and other provisions relating to fireworks

NYS Penal Code Article 270: Unlawfully dealing with fireworks and dangerous fireworks.

2008 proposed legislation

NYSDOL summary of agreed-to amendments to their bill as of June 20, 2008.

NYSDOL cover letter dated 6/20/2008 describing the agreed-to amendments to the NYSDOL bill.

2009 Governor's Budget Bill containing the text of the 2008 DOL bill, without the agreed-to amendments.

Learn more about New York State's Budget Process

NYSPC pyro-friendly bill S7283

DOL departmental bill S3911A/A09006A as of May 20, 2008.

S7899/A10750 which modifies NYS Penal Law to expand the definition of "public displays" to include weddings and other private functions, without the harmful excess baggage of the DOL bill. This bill is intended to correct the Attorney General's Opinion of May 9, 2007 which (mis)interprets the Penal Law.

Explanation of S7899/A10750

Assemblywoman Destito's bill, A10750, addresses and corrects an extremely pressing problem for the New York State pyrotechnics display industry created by a May 9, 2007 NYS Office of the Attorney General Opinion. In that memorandum, the NYSOAG concluded its review and summary of NYS Penal Law sections §270 and §405) by stating that "A town may not issue a fireworks display permit to a wedding party for a fireworks display to be held as a part of a private wedding celebration."

Our concern with the OAG's Opinion stems from the fact that private pyrotechnic events such as weddings, sports events, conventions and competitions are a significant fraction, approaching 50%, of current business conducted by NYS licensed pyrotechnic operators and businesses. Historically, such events have been routinely permitted. With due respect to the NYS OAG, a careful reading of the OAG opinion reveals that the author(s) failed to consider the origin or subsequent history of the relevant Penal Law language, the legislative intent inherent in its formulation, or the historical scope of pyrotechnics display activities in NYS. Historically, the Legislature has never proposed or enacted legislation with an intent to prohibit safe private pyrotechnic display activities by qualified (licensed) individuals.

Our pro-pyro industry bill S7283 (S4816/A7539, 2005-2006 session) minimizes duplicative NYS DOL regulatory oversight of New York pyrotechnics display businesses and low-explosives operators who presently hold BATFE licensees. This provision of the bill will save both NYS pyrotechnic businesses and the State considerable fiscal resources that would otherwise be required for complying with statutory mandates that are now entirely redundant under the federal Safe Explosives Act, which became operative in January of 2003.

As of May 20, a revised DOL departmental bill (S3911A/A09006A) has finally been posted for public review. You can view the bill text here. We encourage all pyrotechnicians to read the full version since there are significant increases in costs and penalties. Although a revised version, the DOL departmental bill still retains all the problems of the original bill that the Industry has expressed concerns about for four years now. The DOL has simply added another six pages of rules, costs and penalties.

As of May 1, 2008 the NYS DOL has modified its bill.

Click here to see the latest version (as of May 1, 2008) of the onerous DOL bill, S3911
Click here to see the justification memo

If you are not familiar with the severely flawed DOL S3911 bill, this is the departmental legislation where the DOL negotiators summarily rejected 80% of the industry input and which grants the DOL exceptional powers to regulate and punish NYS pyrotechnics licenseholders. If enacted into law, this bill would be especially burdensome for mid- and small-businesses operating in NY state and it would also kill off all licensed amateur activity.

The problematic DOL bill, S3911/A09006, was originally introduced in 2003 as S5080A, and immediately raised red flags for the pyro industry. The bill was found to be not only poorly informed and of consequentially negligible overall merit, but also demonstrably adverse to the economic interests of pyrotechnic businesses and, therefore, the People of the State of New York. After review and rejection by the legislature in the 2003-4 and 2005-6 session, and in spite of detailed objections from the NYS pyrotechnics industry, the DOL reintroduced the bill without improvement in 2007 as S3911.

Original NYS DOL Bill with pro-pyro changes

With grant funding in 2004 from the PGI we hired an attorney specializing in state and federal explosives law, and, with the assistance of NYS Assembly Labor Committee staff and counsel, rewrote the departmental bill to accommodate industry concerns. Our pro-industry bill was introduced in the Senate (S4816/Winner) and Assembly (A07539/John) in April, 2005.

In addition to addressing the homeland security issues, our pro-pyro bill includes a pro-business component which removes the unnecessary burden of post-911 duplicative federal/state regulation adversely affecting NYS display pyrotechnics businesses. The alternate bill also removes DOL-imposed barriers to industry related conferences and competitions. These events could bring at least 10 million dollars in added annual revenue to New York State.

Last updated January 19, 2009