NFPA 112? Questions



I am totally saving this!!
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Actually, the question does have a very simple answer. One of the following MUST necessarily be true:
A) the NAR holds the position that LEMP is required to manufacture APCP.
B) the NAR holds the position that a LEMP is not required to manufacture APCP.
C) the NAR holds no position regarding the requirement of possessing a LEMP to manufacture APCP.
Whether A or B are correct is a whole different discussion and bears no relevance to the original question.
PLD

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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'."
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:08:27 GMT, Mark B. Bundick

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
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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)
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 45΅ 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 > 45΅ 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
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:51:58 -0500, "shockwaveriderz"

Why? The definition of an explosive is that its intended purpose is to function by explosive. Since rocket motors do not, then none of 27 CFR 555 applies. Therefore, by federal law, no LEMP is required. Additionally, NFPA is only applicable if levied by state law. What happens if the residence state of the manufacturer has not passed NFPA 1125?

Uh, no..Nobody is bound by NFPA1125. They are bound by state laws that levy NFPA by reference.

Reference to the above definition of an explosive and compare it to the function for a rocket engine. So none of the rest of this matters.
Bob

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
badbob: you forget that we are talking about the ingredients of a typical APCP rocket motor......in a manufacturing facility....these components are explosives and therefore a LEMP would be required.... shockie B)
wrote:

NFPA
Explosives
Power
AMW,
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:04:37 -0500, "shockwaveriderz"

No, I would not be manufacturing the components.
Perhaps you meant that I would have to have a LEUP since I would be using the components (although I don't know any of the standard components that require an LEUP).
Bob
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
shockwaveriderz wrote:

Which components would those be? The ingredients are typically just combustibles or oxidizers until combined into a propellant.
-dave w
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which itself is EXEMPT!
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

False and VERIFIED by ATF agents. Your false representation is trade libel to the extent it is relied on for anything at all.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

applicable
contrary
that
regulations.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I for one hope not considering just how wrong it is.
Let me summarize this wacky (shocky) post.
Take 3 ingredients, each not ATF regulated (AP,AL,HTPB), mix them up and make an unregulated finished product. But for a time it is regulated while it is being mixed? What is the point of exempting something if it is not exempt?
Jerry is your legal god.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

in
are
it
and
NAR
own
required
a
any
compliance
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I kinda jumped the gun there folks..... and misspoke....or whatever I was trying to say......... what I was attempting to say is that the BATFE considers APCP an explosive.....when you manufacture APCP rocket motors you have APCP "shavings", APCP dust,etc that can accumulate within the manufacturing plant...and that can explode......and APCP is on the BATFE list of explosives, so it seems to me that if APCP is on their explosives list and you are manufacturing APCP then you need a LEMP for that manufacturing plant...
shockie B)
wrote:

applicable
contrary
that
regulations.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't put words in their mouth. In practice (remember the fear mongers whining about enforcement and handcuffs and jail?), PADS are exempt at all levels.
Scrap is a county issue. I for one recycle all of my scrap to assure the issue does not exist, in law, in practice, or in enforcement. Every authority respects and appreciates that.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
PADS are exempt to you...the BATFE position is that PADS aren't exempt.. actually the BATFE position is that even if it is a PAD, the APCP propellant in the PAD is explosive and therefore not exempt...
shockie b)

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Fuck "them" (who you cannot point to with specifics).
The LAW and the COURTS are all that matter.

Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry wrote: << Scrap is a county issue.>>
Which county would that be?
<<I for one recycle all of my scrap to assure the issue does not exist, in law, in practice, or in enforcement. >>
Uh, how would APCP shavings be an issue for you if you're not the manufacturer? Wouldn't that be more of an issue for the subcontractor who makes your motors?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.