|
|
Home / Archives / News Archive 1999 / NAR President publishes statement on ATF meeting
|
NAR President publishes statement on ATF meeting |
|
|
|
|
1999 Archived News by National Association of Rocketry
|
|
Friday, February 12, 1999 |
|
CHICAGO, Illinois USA -- After a prolonged silence, the representatives of the various hobby rocketry organizations have released a joint statement with regard to the meeting held February 4, 1999 in Washington, DC with representatives of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
What follows is the full text of the joint statement as taken from the UseNET News Group, rec.models.rockets.
---
JOINT STATEMENT ON FEBRUARY 4, 1999 MEETING WITH ATF
Mark Bundick, NAR President
Bruce Kelly, TRA President
Pat Miller, NFPA Committee on Pyrotechnics
Mike Platt, HPRMADA
Our thanks to Teresa Ficaretta, Tom Hogue, Bill, O'Brien, Roy Parker, Mark Waller, and Jim Zammillo of the ATF , with particular thanks to Mark who arranged the meeting.
Overview: The ATF has little latitude in the law to provide regulatory relief to the HPR hobby. They are charged by the Congress via the National Firearms Act and the Explosives Act to insure that regulated materials are not used in pathological ways, or diverted from licensed users of these materials. Changes in regulation of materials must be based on assurance that any relaxation poses no greater risks than existing limits relative to pathological use or diversion. It is on that charge that ATF is bound and on which they are proceeding to draft the revised regulations.
1. AP Propellant Issues - AP propellant mixtures cannot be removed from the annual list of explosives. The enabling legislation behind this annual list says "any chemical mixture which may be explosive.....". The ATF has no latitude to exclude low or inefficient explosive mixtures, or items which, when used as intended don't detonate. The Congressional mandate as written in the law requires regulation of both low and high explosives. They pointed out to us that many of the items on the annual list are lousy explosives, but they have no room to change the list without legislative relief from Congress.
2. Propellant Weight Limits - ATF is committed to the 62.5 gram limit because they believe that limit represents a risk threshold of what can be safely used and stored by the general public without license. Their obligations under the law are to regulate any quantity of items on the annual list, but by regulation, they exempt selected quantities that don't represent any threat of misuse or increase public safety risks. Since CPSC established this threshold for general, over the counter sale, they believe this definition meets their statutory needs.
If we wish to change this limit to something higher, we will need to demonstrate to ATF that increased exempt limits represent no increase in potential for misuse, or increased public safety risks. NAR and TRA are carrying on a discussion to determine what sorts of data or test can be used to argue for an increased limit.
It was clear that as things stand currently, any motor with assembled weight over 62.5 grams is to become a regulated device. This has been a consistent ATF position since the 1996 Huntsville NFPA meeting.
Also, while the language is yet to be finalized on this limit, we pointed out that a suggested wording could leave single use G motors as unregulated, but reloadable G's as regulated. ATF does not want that to happen, but we were unable to come up with a complete paragraph that accomplished leaving reloadable G's unregulated. TRA and NAR will produce suggested wording for ATF use within two weeks.
3. Destructive Device Determination - We discovered that rules relevant to rocketry are actually embodied in two pieces of legislation, the Explosives Act, which we knew about and the National Firearms Act (NFA), which we did not. Under NFA, any rocket with more than 4 ounces of propellant can be considered a destructive device. ATF counsel strongly suggested we formally petition the Explosives Technology Branch (ETB) for an exemption, provided under the law, for sport rockets. Counsel indicated obtaining such an exemption should not be difficult, but we should do this to further protect our hobby. NAR and TRA will work to draft, complete and file such a letter with ETB within the next two weeks.
4. Criminal Use - ATF data indicated 442 cases where rocket materials were used in an "incident", a case where property damage, injury or death occurred. We expect to obtain a detailed compilation of these incidents, which the ATF was willing to share with us. They contrasted that number to 140 incident reports involving dynamite over the same ten year period. ATF believes the magnitude of rocket related incidents requires them to act. We suggested that 442 incidents over the volume of material used, literally in the millions, showed a much less serious problem, but they were not swayed by that argument. TRA and NAR will review the documentation when it's supplied, or, if necessary, file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request to obtain it.
5. Garage Storage - All garage storage requests now must be handled as a variance from published regulations. The Public Safety Branch is responsible for granting such requests, and will do so provided (a) the storage application is in conformity with NFPA 1127, and (b) it has been approved by the local authority having jurisdiction (AHJ), usually your local fire marshall. Field inspectors do not have the right to deny your request for a variance, nor are they the proper office to make a determination on it. We recommend when applying for an LEUP storage variance, you first clear your storage with the local fire marshall, then make the variance application.
ATF intends to codify the indoor storage variance in the upcoming NPRM, i.e. the new regulations will stipulate NFPA compliance and local AHJ approval as being adequate for sport rocket storage in attached garages of single family dwellings.
If you do not intend to store motors, then you must make alternate arrangements for storage and indicate those arrangements on your application. LEUP holders are required to have some provision for storage per the law, and ATF cannot grant variances to that, i.e. there is no "non-storage LEUP". Your alternate storage can be with either another LEUP holder or a licensed dealer.
However, ATF said sport rocket modelers cannot legally store black powder and AP motors in the same magazine. Black powder, except for the specific exemption granted in the law for antique firearms, must be stored separately from other low explosives.
6. On Field Sales - Licensed dealers cannot legally sell motors on site. You must order motors in advance, and can have them delivered to you, but the transaction must be consummated in the dealer's business location indicated on his license. The reasons for this are embedded in legislation restricting gun dealer sales to a fixed premises that can be inspected. Dealers can take orders to forward to their place of business and fill them from there, but cannot execute the trades on the field. ATF indicated relief on this front would have to come from legislation, and asking for such a change for sport rockets would result in the gun dealer community asking for equal treatment. As a result, we don't think we can obtain any relief on this item, and strongly urge you to order motors for delivery in advance.
Dealers may legally sell at a site only if ATF has granted them an additional license listing that location as a place of business. Dealers interested in the details of this approach should contact either their ATF office or HPRMADA
7. Sport Rocket LEUP - ATF was quite amenable to creating this class of license, generally in line with the elements of the position paper, i.e. lower fee, specifically for sport rocket use, etc.
8. Foreign National Participation - Our discussion of foreign nationals resulted in ATF correcting our understanding. The term used is "non-resident", i.e. they mean anyone not a resident of a particular state. Thus the regulation is much broader than we thought. There seems to be little relief in store for non-LEUP holder to obtain regulated material.
9. NPRM Scope and Timing - The proposed scope of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) encompasses more than sport rocketry issues. ATF also intends to revise some other definitions, storage issues for other users, etc. Because of this breadth of items, we expect a 90 day comment period to be applied. ATF plans to complete its work and internal reviews within 90 days; the proposed NPRM would then be reviewed by Treasury staff, a process of unknown duration. Only after Treasury review would the NPRM be published. Our associations will kept informed on the progress and publication of the NPRM.
ATF suggested we can make our response to the NPRM publication more effective by asking our members to respond in effective ways. While you may wish to comment about the relative merits of the law or cite Constitutional passages, this is not effective. The ATF is required, with extremely limited staff, to log, read, review, and classify every response received. If responses don't stick to the relevant items cited directly in the NPRM, then time is wasted, and the final rule notice is delayed. We indicated we had no direct control over the responses, but would suggest to members how they can be more effective in replying to the NPRM. When it is published NAR and TRA will suggest how members can better support our positions with suggested outlines and drafts.
10. Summary - The meeting, 3 1/2 hours long, was cordial, productive and open. In cases where the law constrains the ATF, those constraints were made clear to us, and explained fully. In cases where regulation might be needed, ATF was open to our suggestions, and in many cases incorporated them. Where we had work to do after the meeting, that was also made clear. All in all we had a very productive meeting that set the stage for a clean NPRM publication.
We obviously do not get everything we wanted, but the door is open for us to obtain higher propellant weight limit exemptions if we can provide substantive data to ATF on the risks associated with such increases. The burden is now on the sport rocketry community once again to provide the underlying scientific and technical data to back our case for safe operation.
Finally, we believe that an open dialog has now been established with ATF that can result in a better environment for sport rocketry. Meeting the people involved was helpful, for both sides, and will only make the job easier going forward. As always, we appreciate our members' patience and input, and will strive to keep you informed going forward. |
|
|
|
