Compromise S724 Bill Developed by ARSA

[ from
formatting link
]

July 26, 2003 - Today, ARSA revealed a compromise version of S724 for the United States Congress to consider. The compromise bill was reviewed and fine tuned by a "focus" group drawing members from a wide cross section of people in the various groups of rocketry. Members of this "focus" group are affiliated with TRA, NAR, hobby shops, university rocket programs, amateur rocketry and high power rocketry. While maintaining that original S724 goal, a compromise bill was developed that should satisfy most Senators and Representatives who are concerned about rocketeers stockpiling propellant or purchasing large rocket motors without government oversight.

[ from
formatting link
]

Senate Bill S724 Progress Report

updated July, 26 2003 - Earlier this summer, Senators Hatch and Kohl struck out the original S724 bill and wrote a new one. The Hatch-Kohl S724 or H-K S724 is filled with loopholes for the ATFE to exploit. It introduces the concept of exemptions from the Homeland Security Act based on APCP propellant weight. The effects of H-K S724 on rocketry in America are discussed by clicking here.

During July, a group of Senators along with the Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA) and the National Association of Rocketry (NAR) have been working hard to pass the H-K S724 by unanimous consent in the Senate. TRA and NAR are writing an "improved" version of H-K S724 to be introduced in the House of Representatives. This "improved" H-K S724 would have the support of the House Judiciary Committee before its introduction to ensure the bill's speedy passage in the House. Then, H-K S724 and the "improved" H-K S724 would be reconciled in Conference committee. The Conference committee would consist of Senators and Representatives who are assigned the task of reaching a compromise that they feel the House and Senate would accept. This compromise bill would be reported to the floor of the House and Senate in the form of a Conference committee report. The full Senate and House would then vote on whether to accept the compromise by the Conference committee. The hope of those promoting this plan is that the Conference committee will come up with a compromise to their liking based on H-K S724 and the "improved" H-K S724.

"He that lives upon hope will die fasting." - Ben Franklin

ARSA does not support this effort as the outcome will surely be a bill requiring rocketeers to have ATFE permits and meet federal storage requirements. The exemption for escaping the ATFE permit and storage requirements will be based on a propellant weight limit. Neither NAR or TRA have revealed what is an acceptable weight limit. Senators Hatch and Kohl have gone on record at 0.9 lbs. Other Senators privately stated their goal was 50 lbs, but hailed the 0.9 lbs as a victory in their press releases so we don't know where they really stand.

As we stated in our last progress report, ARSA has been working on an alternative approach to break the barrier that the legislation now faces. We did this by forming a private "focus group" drawing members from a wide cross section of people in the various groups of rocketry. Members of this "focus" group are affiliated with TRA, NAR, hobby shops, university rocket programs, amateur rocketry and high power rocketry. To develop a compromise to S724, we went back to its roots or original goal. To eliminate the need for ATFE permits and storage requirements regardless of motor size or propellant. While maintaining that original S724 goal, we developed a compromise bill that we believe will also satisfy most Senators and Representatives who are concerned about rocketeers stockpiling propellant or purchasing large rocket motors without government oversight. While many in the "focus" group were not keen on the compromise bill. It was something that we could live with. We also felt it goes more than halfway to meet the concerns of Senators and Representatives. A discussion of the bill and how it works is given below.

S724 Compromise Bill

July 26, 2003 - The S724 compromise bill would eliminate ATFE permits and storage requirements from certain materials on the ATFE Explosives List provided these materials are used in rockets that do not carry any of the following:

Table 1 - For The Exemption To Apply Your Rocket Cannot Carry Any Of The Following:

  • (A) a gas that is explosive, incendiary or poisonous * (B) a bomb * (C) a grenade * (D) an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one ounce (approx. 28 grams) * (E) a mine * (F) a device similar to items referred to in (A) through (E)

If your rocket does not carry any of the above, then the following items are exempt from the Safe Explosives Act when used in your rocket.

Table 2 - Items Exempted From The Safe Explosives Act

  • (1) Commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to exceed two pounds * (2) Safety and pyrotechnic fuses * (3) Quick and slow matches * (4) Electric matches * (5) Igniters * (6) Non-detonable propellant on the ATFE Explosives List

An individual or organization will not need an ATFE permit to buy, make, store or use the motor if the motor is used in a rocket that does not carry any of the items listed in Table 1, regardless of propellant weight. The same individual or organization may also buy, store and use any of the items listed in Table 2 without an ATFE permit provided those items are intended to be used in a rocket that does not carry any of the items listed in Table 1. The individual or organization may also make Items 2 through 6 in Table 2 for use in the same rocket.

Individuals and organizations must notify the Department of Homeland Security when ownership of a rocket motor containing a propellant on the ATFE Explosives List and an impulse of over 2,400 lb - second is transferred to another individual or organization. The notification will include the name, address and phone number of the new owner, the date of transfer, the impulse of the motor and the quantity transferred. Notification to the Department of Homeland Security must occur no later than 72 hours after the transfer.

[ posted here by iz ]
Reply to
izzy
Loading thread data ...

Other than the above, how does this differ from the original S724?

dave

Reply to
DaveL

Focus group: John Wickman went to an amusement park and sat in the "hall of mirrors" for a while.

Compromise bill: So much for the integrity of someone who vowed never to compromise and criticized other for even considering it.

"Exempted From The Safe Explosives Act" does not exempt propellant from other applicable laws. It needs to refer to the 18 USC and Under 55.141, etc. Correcting the SEA can only correct what it changed.

"Notification to the Department of Homeland Security". This will be an added burden to those that already have LEUP that was not there before. Thanks a lot!

"an impulse of over 2,400 lb - second" (should be "total impulse"). But... That now opens the door to regulating the MOTOR and not just the PROPELLANT! Why even talk about the specifics of the motor?! We are trying to tell the BATFE that they do not have jurisdiction over the the device, only the content! Keep things focused on the propellant and its weight if there has to be a compromise... this is an unbelievably stupid error!

Another unqualified, out-of-touch, self-indulging ego-driven pile of crap offered by someone who has already failed and won't admit it. Time for John Wickman to go back to his Hall of Mirrors and reflect on things some more.

-John DeMar NAR #52094

formatting link

Reply to
John DeMar

John - do you *really* think this is helping any...? And why are you saying that his efforts have 'failed'? Has the NAR/TRA lawsuit also failed, because it hasn't produced results yet? This isn't the kind of thing we should be demanding instant gratification over. :-)

Reply to
Len Lekx

Sig Heil! Youth for Wickman! ;)

Think for yourself and stop being a blind follower. Look at the substance of what has been going on. The new 'compromise' from the self-declared non-compomiser has no chance to succeed and, if it did, it introduces new complication. Ignore my trite dribble and re-read my previous message for the problems I've pointed out.

I DO NOT have a limited LEUP. I have a non-storage regular LEUP. Personally, I'd rather have no limitation other than local fire codes for what I can own and store. John Wickman has nothing realistic to offer to get any relief for anyone. The only people to consider him relavent are himself and his naive idealistic drones.

-John

Reply to
John DeMar

If it wasn't for Wickman, we would still be pouring money into the TRA/NAR lawsuit

Reply to
Stephen

One group has been consistently working toward relief for many years and has made it past many difficult milestone in a long lawsuit, awaiting final resolution. On the other hand, one man has been unrealistic in his bid for instant relief. He is constantly spinning and revising his so-called expert declarations of superior secret knowledge and tactics, causing undue fear, and unreasonable expectations. And he is not taking responsibility for any of the complications he's created. We were all far better off without his involvement. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

Do I *really* think this is helping any? Probably not, but I don't like being misrepresented by John Wickman for his convenience. No one is above criticism, especially one who easily has degraded others that have a better understanding of the complex issues.

He has failed because he doesn't understand the political realities of our time. And now he has essentially the same tune with a couple of added complications, thrown out simply to make himself relevant again. How can

*THAT* possibly be helpful to any of us?

-John DeMar NAR #52094

formatting link

Reply to
John DeMar

If it wasn't for Wickman, the legal fund wouldn't be drained by dealing with an untimely unrealistic piece of legistlation.

Keep thinking.

-John

Reply to
John DeMar

you do not know what you are talking about

it was always expected that security concerns would have to be addressed, as has been reflected in adjustments to the prohibited payloads between drafts of the bill

however, he is not compromising on weight limits. No LEUP or storage is required for any non-detonable propellant of any weight. As opposed to a 0.9 lbs of APCP only in H-K S724

the website shows an general outline, many details will be codified during the coming month

how is simple "vendor notification" of transfers > M impulse in lieu of LEUPS, transaction records, storing, logging, etc. an "added burden".

the website shows an general outline, many details will be codified during the coming month. Or did you want another month to whine about being kept in the dark?

time for you to take a time-out and reflect on your behavior

- iz

Reply to
izzy

Then move to another country. With that attitude, you don't deserve America, and we certainly don't need you.

Ted

Reply to
R Ted Phipps

I tried to control myself but.....

It is an added burden in that I do not now have to notify any federal agency at the time of a transaction. I simply update records that I keep. But it doesn't matter.

I predict that this notification of the Homeland Security Agency will be converted into the same old explosive permit requirements. Congress will look at it and see a new requirement that addresses something that is already covered by existing ATF regulations. (It will purely annoy the hell out of the ATF as well.) Why bother? Just keep the ATF permit process. Plus the ATF permits require a background check that will keep these awful explosives out of the hands of evil terrorists. And that is the job of the new BATFE.

The end result (maybe) will be exactly like HK724 except (maybe again) a higher exemption limit.

Quit while you are behind.

Reply to
David Schultz

Why would money that's been donated *specifically* for the lawsuit be used in a legislative effort that wasn't initiated by TRA/NAR in the first place???

Reply to
Len Lekx

Err,Stephen, the Senate is a rather important part of the government.

Reply to
Christopher Deem

Criticism is one thing... character attacks are quite another. Had you presented a reasoned, logical argument of your points, people might pay more attention. But when your argument is "Johns' committee is himself and a mirror"... well, that just drops into the noise. :-)

What political realities would those be, pray tell...? He saw an opportunity that wasn't being addressed by anyone else, and took it upon himself to pursue it. When it started to make some gains, the NAR and TRA boards (it seems to me... correct me if I'm mistaken...) took it upon themselves to try and co-opt the effort, and make it their own. Instead of pursuing the lawsuit they initiated, they split their efforts - thereby weakening both positions.

Instead of attacking each other, we ought to be uniting against our common adversary - the BATFE. We *all* want the same thing - to get out from under their over-regulation. But each group seems to be trying to undermine the others' efforts, just to say that THEIR way is the RIGHT way.

To use a well-worn cliche... "Can't we all just get along?" :-)

Reply to
Len Lekx

You're planning on selling lots of M+ motors, then...? :-)

Reply to
Len Lekx

Do you really think that the limit will stay at 2400 lb-sec?

John's last effort started with no limit and ended at 0.9 pounds of propellant.

Reply to
David Schultz

Do tell! Exactly how is the money being spent? How much of the legal fund is sent on the legislative effort? Has Wickman's initiative materialy reduced the contribibutions voluntarily make to the legal fund?

Alan

Reply to
Alan Jones

Productive how? What is the outcome to date? Can't even get out of the starting gate. Keep thinking.

-John

Reply to
John DeMar

That's it? That's the Super Secret Plan? We promise not to build weapons (disregarding the fact its already illegal to do so) and to notify HSA if we sell/trade our N or O motors to someone else, and we can get an exemption Bill through the Senate? Pardon me if I find that more than a little hard to believe.

Please note that total impulse will affect ALL rocket motors, not just APCP. A total impulse number in an exemption Bill will open a can of worms that not even John Wickman wants to deal with. Just as a total exemption Bill went into Committee and came out with weight restrictions, a similar Bill which even mentions total impulse may come out with impulse restrictions which will impact ALL of rocketry, including liquid fuels, hybrids, AN, and sugar motors. A much worse choice than a weight restriction on APCP, by far. ANYTHING can be added to the Explosives List; that's our original problem.

You mentioned in another thread that there are several details to work out. That is an understatement.

Reply to
Gary

Ask the NAR and TRA execs, don't ask me.

-John

Reply to
John DeMar

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.