NFPA 112? Questions

"the corporation, its directors AND, in some cases, its members." are expendable :)

I don't follow this line of reasoning.

The NAR requires that only certified motors are allowed on our ranges. People are free to source and use engines of whatever certification (or not) in other venues. Thus, I don't see how we're restricting anyone's ability to sell non-certified motors. If they want to sell them, they're free to do so. The NAR simply won't allow their use on our ranges.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org

"There is a very fine line between ?hobby? and ?mental illness'."

Because you are dense at best, and a moron at worst.

Let me spell it out for you (again).

If a LEMP is NOT required to legally manufacture PADS (which your own lawsuit claims NAR certified motors are), then if you require one anyway KNOWING it is not required, you are excluding those types of motors that meet all of the other guidelines but not that arbitrary one you illegally added. That refusal to certify motors with for example 1.3C DOT papers (like ACS) and a manufacturer who refuses to submit his HEMP since that is NOT required for PADS, you are engaging in restraint of trade.

And doing so on a basis you KNOW to be illegal. Your own lawsuit papers say so.

You sir are screwed.

Jerry

Someone reply to this without editing anything to byass his killfile feature.

With all due respect sir, (honestly), if the NAR requires any governmental paperwork that is not required by the government, that could be construed such as "baDBob" says.

This following statement you made here has no further bearing on the issue, especially when the NAR enjoys the largest segment of membership among any of the other consumer rocketry related groups, with its' symbols or other references found on and within many of the major motor manufacturers packaging.

I quote the NAR web site: "The National Association of Rocketry (NAR)is the oldest and largest sport rocketry organization in the world."

-

Would you not agree?

~ Duane Phillips.

"Motors are the lifeblood of the hobby."

Mark,

Is it NAR's position that a LEMP is required, per federal law, to manufacture APCP hobby rocket motors?

This is a simple yes or no question.

Bob

His statement is completely relevant. The fact that NAR, or TRA, require the use of certified motors at their launches in no way reflects on the ability of manufacturers to sell non-certified motors to those who want to fly them at other venues.

If you believe otherwise, you might as well complain that allowing only "contest approved" motors in contests is an infringement manufacturers who make non-contest approved motors.

Regardless of whether or not the law requires motor certifications, manufacturing permits, or DOT numbers, private organizations will always have the right to set whatever standards they feel are appropriate for use in their events.

!!!!!

!!!!!

"whatever standards"

No they cannot. They cannot legally require something that is against the law... such as requiring government paperwork that even the government does not require.

And the relevancy of Mark's second part (or in this case, the lack thereof) is the level of impact the restrictions have on commerce.

You do not know (or choose to play ignorant of) what you are talking about.

~ Duane Phillips.

It doesn't have a simple yes or no answer, Bob, and at the end of the day, I'm not a lawyer dispensing legal advice about what is and isn't legal in the eyes of the Federal government.

If people are interested in knowing how to comply with the law regarding manufacturing rocket motors or anything else, they should check with the appropriate authorities or their own legal counsel.

Having said that, if manufacturers want the NAR to certify their motors for use on our ranges, we have a set of requirements we can send them. S&T will be happy to do that on request. I don't have those requirements on file here. So I don't know what specific documentation S&T requires currently.

Should that list of requirements be greater than a list of requirments of the Federal, state or local governments, then it's possible for people to legally make motors without having everything on our list.

A final point to consider re: certification and NFPA codes. Remember that the NFPA codes are models for use by state and local governments. Depending on how they're implemented

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org

"There is a very fine line between ?hobby? and ?mental illness'."

If I choose to build motors and sell them without NAR certification, my market will have to be something other than NAR launches. I may have to spend time, effort and energy to build such a market for those launches, but in my opinion, this condition fails to meet a legal definition of trade restraint.

I'm open to citations from the case record that show otherwise.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org

"There is a very fine line between ?hobby? and ?mental illness'."

I hit the "send" when I meant "save" button. Sorry. Let me start over.

It doesn't have a simple yes or no answer, Bob, and at the end of the day, I'm not a lawyer dispensing legal advice about what is and isn't legal in the eyes of the Federal government.

If people are interested in knowing how to comply with the law regarding manufacturing rocket motors or anything else, they should check with the appropriate authorities or their own legal counsel.

Having said that, if manufacturers want the NAR to certify their motors for use on our ranges, we have a set of requirements we can send them. S&T will be happy to do that on request. I don't have those requirements on file here. So I don't know what specific documentation S&T requires currently.

Should that list of requirements be greater than a list of requirments of the Federal, state or local governments, then it's possible for people to legally make motors without having everything on our list.

A final point to consider re: certification and NFPA codes. Remember that the NFPA codes are models for use by state and local governments. Depending on how they're implemented, the codes tend to leave room for local authorities (aka "authorities having jurisdiction" or AHJ) to add additional requirements to meet state or local standards. That applies, I believe, to the NFPA rocketry codes as well.

What does that mean for rocket flyers regarding certification?

What we tell local authorities about the NAR list of certified motors is that we've tested to a set of national standards supported by an organization they're familiar with. Thus, while they're free to establish another set of standards or requirements for use in their jurisdication, if they accept our list, it saves them the time, effort and energy of creating that list, and they have a level of comfort that at least certain minimum standards have been met.

If the local AHJ choses to reject the NAR or TRA list of motors and impose a new set of requirements on motors to permit their use, then it's quite possible that it's legal for him or her to do that. That would, in my opinion, make it potentially harder to get permission to fly. As example, I cite Apogee's inability to sell some of their motors in CA because they didn't want to spend the time and money to get CA Fire Marshall approval for their motors. If CA had simply accepted the NAR list, Tim would have had a bigger market open to him, but local law prevented that and NAR members in CA had a smaller selection of engines available to them.

In principle, this is why the NAR supports the NFPA. We believe that by participating in their process and getting national consensus about our activity and its safety, we open up more oppportunity for members and others to fly. If we work with public safety officials, build some bridges and address their issues, then we build a broader base for the hobby's support among non-hobby participants. Once we have that support in place, it makes it easier for us to, in theory, open up flying sites for members.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org

"There is a very fine line between ?hobby? and ?mental illness'."

I didn't ask about NAR, or TRA, or NFPA, or state, or local requirements. I didn't ask about BATFE's position. I didn't ask for legal advice. I didn't ask about the use of motors.

I asked you, the president of the largest and oldest hobby rocketry organization in the world, to tell me how NAR stands. I asked "Is it NAR's position that a LEMP is required, per federal law, to manufacture APCP hobby rocket motors?"

Again, this is a simple yes or no question.

Bob

At least he changed the subject twice the same way so you know he has an agenda working.

You say follow the law and he says we follow NAR rules.

Just Jerry

Oh, and the cites?

ATF:

27 CFR 555.141-1-8.

DOT:

49 CFR 171.8 Definitions and abbreviations [alphabetical listings]

Person means an individual, firm, co-partnership, corporation, company, association, joint-stock association, including ANY trustee, receiver, asignee, OR other similar representative thereof; OR government, indian tribe, oragency or instrumentality of any government or indian tribe when it offers hazardous material for transportation in commerce or transports hazardous material to further a commercial enterprise, but such term does not include: (1) The United States Postal Service; (2) For purposes of 49 USC 5123 and 5124 any agency or instrumentality of the federal government.

Just citation of regulations Jerry

Except illegal ones!!

Point.

As does the President of the National Association of Rocketry, and he just did the courtesy of proving it for us.

In court.

What a fool.

I am totally saving this!!

the answer is the NAR can require NOTHING more or less than what is in NFPA

1125 or other applicable state or federal laws. NFPA 1125 requires that a motor manufacturer hold the applicable Explosives Permit...

The NAR is bound by the NFPA 1125 just as any motor manufacturere's are bound by NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rockets.

SO if the NFPA1125 says a motor manufacturer must have a LEMP(which it doesn't by the way) then the NAR must require the same.

4.2 Permit Requirements.

4.2.1 Any person engaged in the manufacture of rocket motors, motor-reloading kits, or pyrotechnic modules shall possess

a federal license or permit, as required by Title XI, Regulation of Explosives, of the Crime Control Act of 1970 (Title

18, United States Code, Chapter 40) and shall comply with all applicable state and local laws and regulations.

If NFPA 1125 is state law then the motor manufacturer must have the applicable state and federal explosives permits...per NFPA 1125...

This is determined NOT by the NAR but by the BATFE......Do Aerotech and AMW, Ellis Mountin, ALL have LEMP? I would assume that they do. Does the NAR require that? Through NFPA 1125(adopted as State Law), yes it does indirectly.

what does the BATFE say about this?

Manufacturer. Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing explosive materials for purposes of sale or distribution or for his own use.

Subpart D--Licenses and Permits

Sec. 55.41 General.

(a) Each person intending to engage in business as an importer or manufacturer of, or a dealer in, explosive materials, including black powder, shall, before commencing business, obtain the license required by this subpart for the business to be operated.

Sec. 55.42 License fees.

(a) Each applicant shall pay a fee for obtaining a three year license, a separate fee being required for each business premises, as follows: (1) Manufacturer--$200. (2) Importer--$200. (3) Dealer--$200. (b) Each applicant for a renewal of a license shall pay a fee for a three year license as follows: (1) Manufacturer--$100. (2) Importer--$100. (3) Dealer--$100.

Sec. 55.62 State or other law.

A license or permit issued under this part confers no right or privilege to conduct business or operations, including storage, contrary to State or other law. The holder of a license or permit issued under this part is not, by reason of the rights and privileges granted by that license or permit, immune from punishment for conducting an explosive materials business or operations in violation of the provisions of any State or other law. Similarly, compliance with the provisions of any State or other law affords no immunity under Federal law or regulations.

The above basically states that you also better be in State compliance before you become Federal compliant...

shockie B)

They got them at the request (demand really) of TRA who does require them, not because of a lawyerly reading of 27 CFR which EXEMPTS PADS from any permits whatsoever.

Explosive materials (functions by explosion) excludes items specifically exempted in 27 CFR (555.141) and also excludes those items tested and proven to be non-explosive (As ACS APCP alone has been).

Furthermore AP below 45µ is DOT 1.1D and an ATF listed "explosive material", as are composites containing the material (APCP w/< 45u AP), although if you tested it, it would not "function by explosion." It should thus be delisted.

However AP > 45µ is not an ATF listed "explosive material", but an oxidizer 5.1, and a composite containing the material (ie common APCP) is yet more desensitized by the rubber, hence the doublecheck law

55.141-a-8 which makes abundantly clear the intent of congress.

You will not see these obvious and accurate claims in the NAR/TRA lawsuit because they are not experts on the topic, on the historical creation of federal law or on the intent of congress. Heckthey cannot even read and understand the law most of the time.

But ONLY "explosive materials".

Tripoli for example asked me to get a LEMP and a CSFM permit which I did do and they still refused to certify the motors circa 1999. Those particular permits have been expired for lack of use since they are absolutely not required by law (especially in 49 states). CA has the Pyro-op 2 alternative which rocks hard, given PRK regulatory inertia.

What the big print giveth, the little print taketh away.

Jerry

"Mom and Dad can make the rules, And certain things forbid, But I can make them wish that they Had never had a kid."

- Calvin

"HOWEVER, when organizations are involved in the regulation of a sport/hobby/etc activity, it seems to me, personally, that there ought to be at least the same level of openness and oversight as the government itself is required to demonstrate (which is still not enough, IMHO, but certainly more than none). The rules by which individuals are certified to purchase motors and fly them should be very very clear, and consistently applied."

- Ted Cochran

Well, of course that can't require something that's _against_ the law. But since we're talking about LEMP's and DOT "EX" numbers, that isn't really the case.

NAR's position is irrelevant to what the government enforces. If the NAR says, "No, it's not required", will that get you off the hook if the feds bust you for making motors without a permit? If you want to know whether a LEMP is required by federal law, ask the federal government or a lawyer, as Bunny suggested.