[F-FT] Where is the line regarding G motors

No.

david: the 62.5 g limit alluded to in CPSC applies only to minors....It does not apply to adults.

the limitations of power and the labeling requirements, that are required by the CPSC for sales of model rocket motors, are limited to 62.5 if they are indeed minors...

THe labeling and marking requirements of the CPSC were put in place to get model rocket motors exempt from the FULL labeling and marking requirements of the FBSA Federal Banned Substances Act..

The labeling and marking required by the CPSC is to protect children not adults. The CPSC could care less if you are 18 (an adult) and buying model rocket motors exceeding 62.5g.

This is where NFPA 1125 kicks in... the NAR/TRA enshrined into NFPA 1125 the

This is what AT/RCS does with their 18/24/29mm BCDEFG motors. Initially they were actually banned by the CPSC due to their metallic construction. Well actually the CPSC slapped AT/RCS with a "restrainig order" prohibiting their sale, UNTIL AT/RCS provided documentation that they would be sold "behind the counter" with proper id, to insure the purchaser was indeed an adult 18 yrs old and not a minor.

As we all know, these motors are sold out in the open, to minors in most states and most hobbies stores could care less about enforcing CPSC orders.

But this isn't AT/RCS fault nor responsibility unless of course the store in question is perhaps a registered AT/RCS dealer. AS a registered AT/RCS with protected territory, AT/RCS could draw up the franchise agreement such that it specifically states that motors > 62.5 would never be sold to minors directly. They could always of course sell them "indirectly" through parents,guardians, etc over 18.

I can only assume the reason they did not define a model rocket motor as

If model rocket motors do not conform to the CPSC requirements. then they cannot be sold to minors.....

hth shockie B)

I just checked the Report On Proposals (ROP) and Report On Comments (ROC) documents for the 2002 revision cycle on the NFPA web site. From those documents it appears that the 62.5 gram restriction was already in the 1998 edition of the code. The ROP and ROC documents for that revision cycle are not available online.

I don't have a copy of the 1998 edition. I purchased copies of the 2002 editions of NFPA 1122 and 1127 and I have a copy of the TRA safety code which is the 1995 edition (the first I think) of NFPA 1127. The 1995 version from TRA doesn't have the 62.5 gram limit.

If the 62.5 gram limit came from the CPSC, then for consistancy, the impulse limit should be 80N-sec and the maximum average thrust should be

Obviously there is a breakdown in the logic somewhere.

If someone had a copy of the ROP or ROC, or even better, was actually at one of the meetings for the 1998 revision cycle, we could see who submitted the request for change. Then we would know.

Yes, but this was NAR conforming to NFPA, CPSC, etc., not NFPA, CPSC conforming to a restriction originating with the NAR.

At one point I think the NAR was even OK with Class B MR motors.

I am a bit fuzzy on the model rocket AHJ thing, and I'm not very familiar with the CPSC. Certainly they have some authority over the sale of MR motors, especialy wrt minors, but I would not put them in the same class as Fire Marchals, BATF, FAA, launch site owners...

Right. I was thinking Fire Marchals and others, who typicaly use or enforce NFPA codes.

Yes, but nobody says all MR motors must be readily shippable. Let's pray that 62.5 g. rule does not become the 30 g. rule.

Trip Barber

Alan

CPSC regulates what can be sold to minors. That's why G motors are labeled as restricted to those 18 and over. CPSC never changed their definition to include G motors back in 1985.

The BATFE wants those same limits to apply to adults :-(

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

this same topic was discussed here in this forum several years ago. the original NFPA Model Rocket Code 41-L in 1968 had the 62.5g limit. In 1978 in support of the manufacturers the NAR helped determine that 62.5g was the right size as far as DOT packaging requirements to get 1.4S shipping status.

I would gather that the CPSC probably got it from the NFPA in the early

shockie B)

FBSA should be FHSA Federal Hazardous Substances Act,,

See back before 1973, model rocket motors were considered hazardous substances (FOR MINORS ONLY!!!) and to be able to sell them on the Open Shelf (hobby stores, toy shops, and now Wal-Mart,etc) Estes was required to submit their model rocket motors to testing by the CPSC.

In the testing that was done by the CPSC(or was provided to the CPSC by Estes) , it was determined that these motors behaved as flammable substances and were also presurrized containers. That being the case, for Estes to legally sell them to minors, they had to agree with the CPSC for a certain minimal amount of labeling and marking of the motors and instruction sheets that came with them. By doing this, Estes received an EXEMPTION from the CPSC for having to undergo the FULL labeling and marking requirements that flammable substances would normally would be required.

The FHSA details these minmal labeling and marking requirements verus the full requirements.

Its that simple. Its for Retail Sales to minors.

shockie B)

The CPSC limit came from the ICC limit. But it was NAR in its infinite wisdom that applied a minor limit globally. CPSC and ATF didn't do THAT to us.

NAR did.

Jerry

I might have mentioned that before :)

Like at a NFPA meeting!!

NAR and Tripoli certainly do (now).

Jerry

I have questions about that claim.

As an interesting side note to this whole discussion, I went to the CPSC website to try and find some information.

Imagine my surprise when they indicate that they do NOT have authority over alcohol, tobacco, and firearms (among other things), as there are other government agencies that handle those sorts of things. So, since motors are none of these, they feel compelled to regulate them, but then the BATFE also does so (even though they are not A,T, or F), and we end up with double regulation!!!

David Erbas-White

I agree!

Shocking.

Jerry

So much for restraining orders.

I do believe violation of CPSC is a "crime".

They list their approved dealers on their website.

Fortunately for them this is a "non-enforcement zone".

I've been moving toward the high end of MR myself, having launched my first G64 this weekend (at NY Power. Really cool, BTW)

I am in the same boat as Dave - several questions about why some G's are restricted and some are not. Please verify the validity of these statements....

2) If the SU motor or reload has more than 62.5 g of propellant you must have a LEUP to store it. (This is why Aerotech puts the G75 (106g propellant) and other motors for the same 'family' of reloads and casings for these motors in the "Easy Access" area, although five of the 29mm and the two 38mm G motors fall into MR motor classification.)

Am I missing anything?

I've gone over the Rocketry FAQ at the ATF website

The NAR site

Who Needs High Power Certification? A person needs high power certification if he:

The law?

A court order?

ALL "sport motors" are ATF exempt.

Period.

Here's the law that shows that:

27 CFR 555.141 exemptions (a) (8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.

Here's the JUDGE's words verifying it.

"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA and the APA."

Here is the court order that is from:

"Those who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."

"Alas, the problem isn't posts FROM Jerry. It's endless posts ABOUT Jerry. They come from Phil, Fred, Dave, Ray, and even occasionally from me!"

- Bob Kaplow

I'm assuming that the comment refers to ATF and the ability to fly rockets. I made this statement (requesting confirmation) in regards to storage and the 62.5 g limit. Or did I miss something else entirely....

I'm just trying to get the facts straight. In particular, there are some inconsistencies with the way that Aerotech "restricts access" to some of their motors that is somewhat confusing. I've been over several documents from different sources, but none seem to put the "easy summary" together.

=massive snips=

=massive snips=

What is a "sport motor"? MR is intended to mean Model Rocket by the accepted definitions( MR motor is G class or less, less than 62.5 g propellant, 80N or less average thrust). In particular, I am looking for information as to why certain F and G class motors are in Aerotech's "Restricted Access" list. I am thinking that this is done to simplify the steps that Aerotech and their suppliers need to follow for who can get the casings that be used in HP systems, but really has nothing to do with the definition of the MR motors at all.

You mean"Restricted Access"-sm.

It is an Aerotech marketing term.

It pissed off the ATF.

The CPSC can ban anything they wish with a stroke of the pen as a haz substance.

they really were ready to shut down AP hobby motors at one time, and the

compromise makes the world go round.