| Getting Legal: Wading through the morass |
|
|
|
| 1998 Archived News by Darrell D. Mobley | |||||||
| Friday, April 24, 1998 | |||||||
|
Granted, regulatory concerns are something to be genuinely concerned about - the very smallest infractions could bear serious consequences for the offender. With terms like "felony" and "misdemeanor" being thrown around with penalties that include "fined not more than $10,000" and "imprisoned not more than 10 years," it's nothing to sneeze at. As a result of this, it's time to look into the inner workings of exactly what is going on, see if we can make heads or tails of the situation, and get some common sense infused into the frenzy that has become know as the Regulatory Nightmare of 1998. Misconception #1: The mainstay of the rocketry hobby for rocket propulsion, compressed black powder propellant and ammonium perchlorate composite propellant, have been on this list for years. However, certain volumes of these propellants have been exempted from regulatory oversight by the authorities because of their definition - toy propulsion devices for model rockets. Going back to 1970, model rocket motors were exempted from regulation by The Organized Crime Control Act, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40, a piece of legislation that excluded model rocket engines utilizing small amounts of black powder as propellants. Since that time, the popularity of the hobby as well as the desire for more power led to the development of composite propellants, ammonium and potassium perchlorate composites, to be exact. Enter 62.5 Grams: Since then, hobby rocketry has continued to enjoy a successful period of growth, attracting more and more new entrants into the ranks, effectively raising the visibility of the hobby on the regulatory radar screen. Given the increased participation and the continued growth of more and more powerful motors, hobby rocketry today is a victim of its own success, painting the regulatory community into the proverbial corner, demanding that something be done to assure the safe pursuit of such endeavors. Combined with other unfortunate incidents of late involving explosives and terrorism, its only natural that the mass of the unknowing populace wants some kind of assurances. Big Brother Is Watching: Certainly the regulatory agency's radar screen "blipped" earlier the previous year. ATF Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Number 841 was filed on October 15, 1996, and hundreds of letters from concerned rocketry enthusiasts poured into Washington protesting the call for an increase in Low Explosive Users Permit fees from $20 for a one year permit to $100 for a three year permit. One thing it did was to let Washington know that there were more than just a handful of rocketeers out there that felt their actions deserved regulation. Logically the only people effected by a fee increase would be those who needed to apply for a permit in the first place, something only a user of low explosives would need to do. As such, we tipped our hand to the "other players." In fact, in the June 1997 issue of the ATF Explosives Newsletter was the following statement:
Where Do I Fit In?: They also clearly stated in the memo that users of these products making their purchases from dealers licensed in their own state of residence were not required to have a federal users permit. But, they also cover very clearly that ALL individuals who store explosives, whether they have a federal users permit or not MUST have storage facilities that comply with federal standards. They further go on, in this same memo, to touch upon a seemingly "hot potato" issue - the one about storage in an attached garage. The memo states that storage in attached garage will be allowed, as long as the magazine is separated from the living quarters by "a wall." Read that again - it does not state a "1 hour firewall." It says "a wall." The result of the NPRM 841 was a posting in the Federal Register of Treasury Decision ATF-400 on August 24, 1998, the official status of the rulemaking proposal. The increased fees that were proposed would become official on December 22, 1998. Upon closer scrutiny, it was determined that several UN-exempted products had been left off the regulation, meaning previously exempted model rocket motors would now become regulated, even those with less than 62.5 grams of propellant. Once this was discovered, and was brought to the attention of the ATF, a letter was issued (see sidebar) to Gary Rosenfield of AeroTech that stated: Can You Say Oops?: It also resulted in a field memo being released to all ATF agents requesting that no action being taken. The text of the memo is as follows: DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURYWhat Next?: After an unproductive regulatory "summit" in Washington DC on February 4th of this year, the director of the High Power Rocket Manufacturers and Dealers Association announced his retirement in a letter to the members of the rocketry trade, stating:
It appears the national rocketry organizations favor a more proactive option than simply accepting it, however this would be a long-term solution, and one that will require a lot of effort, money and time. If you plan to wait it out, be prepared for a long, long sitting spell. Misconception #2: This misconception probably stems from the high power rocketry safety codes of the several national rocketry organizations, such as TRA's verbatim adoption of NFPA 1127 as its safety code. As of this date, there are no states that have officially adopted NFPA 1127 into law, meaning the jurisdiction of NFPA 1127 lies solely within the organizations that have adopted it. Taking It To The Streets: The ten motor dealers were: Red Arrow Hobbies, Starflight Industries, Trailing Edge Technologies, Countdown Hobbies, Rocket Science, Zeppelin Hobbies, Magnum Rockets, Commonwealth Displays, and California High Power Rocketry. Of the ten who were contacted, only four chose to participate. Here's how those four scored: 1. "Do you currently sell restricted products to certified individuals who are residents of your state possessing a completed ATF 5400.4 form in lieu of a LEUP?" Of the ten contacted, only two confirmed companies were already operating exactly as the law allows: Countdown Hobbies and Starflight Industries. Zeppelin Hobbies was prepared to modify future operations based on a "revised understanding of the law." The last "no" stated there were extenuating circumstances with California state law requiring additional registrations that hamper the ability to sell to uncertified individuals. With no clear understanding of how California law works, further comment is unavailable. So, there are dealers who are willing to work with in-state residents, whether they are members of national rocketry organizations or not. Granted, if you purchase regulated products and show up at a sanctioned launch, you will have to abide by that organization's rules - which means you must be certified to fly the level of motor you wish to use. The point of this being that it is not a regulatory condition that you must be a member to purchase a regulated product, but what good would it do you to purchase these products if you always fly at sanctioned events? Participation in the national organizations is a good thing, and one that is strongly encouraged. But by all means participate from an educated position, not one of ignorance. Time To Decide:
If on the other hand, how do you respond to these:
If you answered yes to these questions, you probably do not need a Low Explosives Users Permit. Be aware that in doing so, you limit your flying specifically to the state of your residence or you restrict your flying in other states only to unregulated motors. If you just need more information, check out the online Orange Book linked from the sidebar above. If you have questions, you can post them in the Regulatory Issues discussion forum, the place were all answers are a question away. Questions not readily answered are forwarded on to ATF in Washington for detailed answers from the Explosives Technologies area. The important thing is that information is available to be utilized. Lights, Camera, ACTION!: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Or you can call the ATF Atlanta Office at 404-679-5040. Applications are also available online at the ATF Web site at http://www.atf.treas.gov/. While there is no such thing as a "non-storage" Low Explosives Users Permit, ATF will grant you one without personal storage so long as you have a contingency plan should you not be able to use your motors. An information flyer from the ATF states: "Careful consideration of your projected needs can help you avoid having excess explosives at the end of the day and being subject to the special requirements of proper storage. Avoiding any excess is usually the easiest option. Otherwise, you are left with the need to either destroy the explosives, arrange to return them to your supplier, or store them properly."
Today's regulatory environment demands that motor dealers address this customer service issue - either they will provide a refund or storage service, or they will lose customers. Dave Popkin of Starflight Industries has such a policy, and will provide a letter to accompany your Low Explosives Users Permit application stating that he will take back unused motors for a full refund or credit. This is the action of a progressive, proactive businessman at work. With storage solutions such as these, there is no reason not to get legal. Unless, of course, you are an old-school conspiratorial theorist who believes your activities are of interest to the Government. That, or you're already breaking the law and don't want to be detected. Please, don't play games, get legal. It's really not that hard. And it's certainly not worth it to get caught. |
|||||||
| << Previous Article | Next Article >> |
|---|