ALTOONA, Wisconsin USA — Mark Bundick has published some of his notes regarding rocketry issues and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF), from discussions that took place during the NAR Board of Trustees Meeting on January 24-26 in Phoenix:

Background

Pat Miller repeatedly emphasized that the BATF was serious about its intention to ensure compliance to the existing law by HPR users. He stressed the need for the NAR to promote compliance among members, and to ensure compliance by dealers operating at NAR events. He also emphasized that BATF is very interested in working with both the NAR and TRA to work for changes which may result in some regulatory relief for HPR users.

Model Rocket Issues

While many HPR issues were created by the BATF's announcement, Pat Miller pointed out the extraordinary effort to which BATF staffer worked to avoid any adverse impacts on the model rocket hobby. He reported BATF would leave unregulated any igniters with 35-50mg of pyrogen each. That amount would be determined by averaging over 30 igniters. AP-based single-use and reloadable motors with less than 62.5 grams total propellant weight remain unregulated.

Time Frame

Some Board members expressed confusion regarding the one-year time frame for the NAR to ensure compliance. Some thought that BATF would have to make some type of formal announcement before the clock started ticking. However, given the uncertainty, the President was requested to inform the membership that our best bet would be to come into compliance sooner, and certainly not later than December 1997. Others also pointed out that by applying for a LEUP now prior to the publication of a final rule regarding LEUP fees, applicants could save money.

Membership Notification

To get the word out to members regarding this need to come into compliance, the President will conduct another mailing to NAR HPR consumers, a mailing to sections, adding materials on the LEUP need and application process to our HPR packets at HQ, and posting material to the NAR Web site. Suggestions for this material included guidelines for LEUP applications, both storage and non-storage types, an appropriate list of addresses to request and mail applications, and a suggested checklist of things to cover upon inspection by BATF. Bunny agreed to coordinate this information distribution with the webmaster. (Post-meeting note: Trip Barber agreed to assist given his previous experience writing a regulatory chapter for the new Section Manual.)

Indoor Storage

Concerning indoor storage of HPR motors, Pat has received repeated oral assurances that a 20mm ammo can, lined with plywood, employing a hasp for a padlock, and appropriately labeled per NFPA 1127, would be adequate to meet the storage requirements. We currently lack a letter stating this interpretation and thus members are beginning to report uneven responses from BATF inspectors. Pat and Bruce will press BATF for the letter at the April NFPA meeting.

Thermalite Exemption

Prior to the meeting, many members have requested the NAR seek an exemption for LEUP storage of short lengths (up to 10 centimeters) of Thermalite type ignition fuse. Pat indicated that BATF has repeatedly said this would not be granted due to use of Thermalite in many explosives incidents investigated by BATF. Bruce Kelly highlighted several efforts underway to develop replacement technology that would work as well at Thermalite and provide an unregulated alternative for igniters. The Board consensus was to not seek a Thermalite exemption.

Canadian and Other Foreign Participation in HPR

The President reviewed two outstanding requests from foreign NAR members for relief from the NFPA 1127 US citizenship requirement to participate in HPR. The Board agreed changes were needed to eliminate an inconsistency between NFPA code and BATF's view on some G motors. Pat will pursue this in NFPA 1127 rewrite.

The Board then discussed options for changing this requirement which included asking for an exemption, or seeking legislative relief. Two options for an exemption from the BATF director are open. One is to ask for an exemption from the citizenship requirement at selected sanctioned events (e.g., NARAM, NSL). Board members pointed out that getting that exemption for foreigners would allow their HPR participation, but still require US citizens obtain LEUP's. Any event-based exemption would need to apply to all participants, regardless of nationality.

Another suggested approach would required NAR HPR certified consumers to "mentor" foreign participation. This eliminates the need to list specific events, but shifts a large compliance monitoring burden to individual members. The Board assumed BATF would insist that any such "buddy" system would require individual to assure that HPR motors were used and not allowed to leave the country.

Control of the motors in the event of bad weather cancelling a flight was seen as a major issue to either approach. If the materials are purchased at the launch but not used, somehow LEUP regulated materials would have to be returned to an LEUP holder and stored in the appropriate manner. It was unclear how this situation can be properly administered: would dealers accept for credit or temporary storage (until a future launch?) a reload kit which had been assembled and not flown?

While leaving the unused motor question aside, the Board directed Pat Miller to discuss the mentoring option with BATF at the April, 1998 NFPA meeting, and to prepare a letter requesting the exemption. The President would deliver that letter after consultation with Pat after the April meeting.

Legislative Efforts

There were far more questions than answers on how the NAR might go about changing the underlying explosives law to give long-term relief to HPR flyers.

Which congressional committee is or would be working on explosives legislation? Does BATF know who this is? Will there be a chance to see pending legislation and monitor it for adverse effects? Will this session of congress discuss a complete rewrite of explosives law or is the scope more limited (e.g. mandating use of taggants)?

Since the legislative process mechanics or the intentions of Congress were not clear, the Board turned its attention to legislative specifics, i.e., what limits would we be willing to live with on HPR activities?

Technically speaking, there appears to be little justification for an eight-fold increase in propellant weight (62.5 to 375 grams). Board members well versed in propellant chemistry could not think of a test which would technically prove the increase would be no less hazardous than the current limit. Thus, trustees decided not to pursue any technically-based approach to convincing Congress to make the change. However, the Board felt that an increase to this level would allow Level 2 certification without an LEUP, and that was the appropriate amount to seek. If necessary, however, reductions to the limit that would leave Level 1 certification motors (i.e., greater than 62.5 grams but less than 375 grams) would be an acceptable compromise.

Even if BATF agrees to changes to these levels, members are still faced with a variety of local and state storage requirements. This means that adoption of NFPA 1127 is key to getting uniform treatment of HPR activity by states and localities. Any effort to change federal law must be coupled with efforts at the state level for NFPA 1127 adoption there.

Action Items

Pat Miller was directed to attempt to get specific guidance from the BATF representative at the NFPA meeting on the following:

1. Indoor storage: When will we receive a letter outlining the proper indoor storage requirements for HPR motors which can be used by both BATF inspectors and members to ensure compliance without resorting to individual inspector interpretations in the field?
2. Status of any pending legislation: i.e., how broad or narrow such legislation might be, which congressional committee would handle the legislation, etc. Based on this discussion, the Board would consider paying some amount to secure the help of a Washington-based lobbyist to find out legislative specifics and help begin the NAR's entry into the legislative process.
3. Timing: If a broad legislative effort to rewrite the explosives law is already underway, major changes to that legislation are unlikely after the summer. We would have to take immediate action to make the required changes to exempt HPR activity, and the logistics of that would probably involve a couple of trips to DC plus the lobbyist's assistance -- i.e., a major expenditure. If the legislative change could be postponed until the next session, we have more time to develop a coherent strategy, find the right legislators and committees, and spend less money.
4. Determination of any possible regulatory relief prior to legislative changes; could the Orange Book regulations be rewritten to exempt any HPR activity? Could AP propellant be removed from the list of explosive material? (Note: Pat Miller cautioned these changes were unlikely, but suggested we be prepared to petition the director anyway.)
5. BATF position on foreign participation: how should a request to the director for a mentoring program be set up such that the exemption would be granted to allow foreign participation in HPR activities?
6. BATF position on proposed legislation: will BATF staff be supportive of the specific request to change the applicable propellant weight limit to 375 grams (low J)? If not, to what propellant level would BATF be supportive?

Board Meeting Followup

The President tentatively scheduled an April 19 teleconference meeting of the NAR Board to review any developments and assess the need for immediate action on the legislative front.