What You Need to Know About the Latest Airsoft Regulations! Interview with Michael Lukas
Thank you so much for watching this video! I appreciate your support. If you enjoyed what you saw, don't forget to hit that subscribe button and ring the not...
www.youtube.com Important!!!
Take Action Now!
Step 1: Click the link in description to visit the government comment website.
Step 2: Leave a respectful comment urging the Consumer Product Safety Commission to stop the "fast track"
You can copy and paste the text in the description use that for your comment.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/CPSC-2023-0021-0001
The undersigned opposes the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s proposed Direct Final Rule in Docket No. CPSC-2023-0021. As written, the effect of the Commission’s proposed rule would have significant and unnecessary economic impact on the undersigned and all in the air-soft industry. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (AFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612 does apply and requires the Commission to prepare an analysis under 5 U.S.C. 603, 604. Without comment from the industry, the proposed Direct Final Rule would be inappropriate and unacceptable without changes.
The Commission’s stated basis for the Direct Final Rule Process is that the new 16 CFR Part 1272 contains no substantive changes from regulations in effect now for more than 30 years. The reason for the new 16 CFR Part 1272 is that recent federal legislation has transferred oversight and enforcement of the regulation from the Department of Commerce to the Commission. Because the Consumer Product Safety Act requires certain certifications for products subject to regulations enforced by the Commission (see Supplementary Information, Paragraph G in the docket entry), the new, proposed 16 CFR Part 1272 would unnecessarily impact the air-soft industry negatively, substantively and financially.
The subject regulation was enabled by 15 U.S.C. § 5001 which imposes certain marking requirements on “look-alike firearms.” Look-alike firearms include “air-soft guns firing nonmetallic projectiles.” 15 U.S.C. § 5001 (c). While the undersigned have long complied with this statute and 16 CRR Part 1272, there has been no requirement for any general product certifications (GCC). Now, apparently, there would be such a requirement. See Supplementary Information, Paragraph G in the docket entry.
Because the Commission states in the subject docket entry that the Commission would be requiring GCCs for air-soft guns, the undersigned and the industry request an opportunity to comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). See generally, 5 U.S.C. 551-559. The undersigned and the industry request that opportunity to address whether GCCs for air-soft guns under 16 CFR Part 1272 is necessary. It is readily apparent upon visual examination whether an air-soft gun complies with 16 CRR Part 1272 marking requirements. GCCs are not necessary.
The undersigned believe the Commission is also required to conduct a flexibility analysis under 5 U.S.C. 603, 504. Many in the industry are small businesses.
The undersigned also state that they and others in the industry are not equipped to provide GCCs for their air-soft products, in the near future, particularly those that would comply with the legal requirements. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 2063 (g). Many of their air-soft products are in transit, in inventory, with distributors, and in retail stores.
Accordingly, the undersigned request the Commission withdraw the proposed direct final rule. The undersigned appreciate and understand the Commission’s approach and requests the Commission consider excepting air-soft guns from any requirement for GCCs.
Thank you for your consideration.
