| UKRA gains remarkable regulatory relief from HSE agency |
|
|
|
| 2008 Archived News by Planet News | |
| Friday, January 25, 2008 | |
|
Simpson served for years as the UKRA chairman, and in this capacity he began lobbying HSE for purchase and storage exemptions for small quantities of rocket motors and other materials classified in the United States as "explosives." After stepping down as chairman, Simpson stayed on as HSE Liaison, working diligently to remove or eliminate burdensome regulatory hurdles for the country's hobby rocketry enthusiasts. That five year effort paid off on December 4th, 2007, when HSE signed off on the Certificates of Exemption for Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations (MSER) and Control of Explosives Regulations (COER) that granted to following: MSER Exemption The main effect of the MSER exemption is that:
COER Exemption The COER exemption certificate means that:
The effect of the exemptions grants users to purchase and store motors of up to 1 kg, or 2.2 US pounds, which extends into the J-class range. The 5 kg storage limit, or 11 US pounds, would be enough for about 10 I-class motors. The caveat of covering black powder is a bonus, when compared to the US where no exemption for black powder exists in current regulations. The current US exemption of 62.5 grams for APCP, when compared to the UK's new 1,000 gram limit, seems insignificant. The UKRA extends their thanks to John Harvey of Southern England Rocket Fliers (SERFS), who represented model rocketry enthusiasts alongside UKRA's Simpson in the efforts with HSE, as well as Richard Brown, who served to clarify several issues with both HSE and UKRA. The UKRA Safety and Technical Committee members include Richard Osborne, Colin Rowe, Rick Newlands and Charles Simpson. Website: http://www.ukra.org.uk/ UKRA's Colin MacLaren contributed to this story. |
| << Previous Article | Next Article >> |
|---|
And this from another country that has seen significant terrorist attacks. Can our policy makers listen now? Hopefully, this information has been distributed much more widely that just RP. Maybe, just maybe...dare one hope?
Judge Walton is in a terrible position — to do the right thing would be career suicide and not likely to stand in post-9/11 America. We win the lawsuit, and APCP regulation then moves to HSA? That would be a terrible outcome for us, where a compromise such as the one the UK fliers negotiated could salvage 80% of our hobby.
If it gets to HSA, then any information that is used to make a regulatory decision can be redacted from the administrative record and kept secret by the simple claim of "executive privilege." A quick search of executive privilege suggests that cases of national security, whether real or imagined, are where such claims have been upheld in court. And if you can't use government data to show the government is acting in an arbitrary fashion, it does not matter if you are right.
This is what EPA is doing to California on the decision to deny California's waiver request for CO2 emissions. EPA denies a waiver over its own scientists recommendation to grant it, and then withhold records from Congress and the public on how it made the denial decision. EPA claims that releasing the records could cause experts to be reluctant to work with EPA. And where is the national security concern here? Should EPA regulate HCl emissions from rocket nozzles? Oh, I get the statement title - "Hobby Rockets could contribute to acid rain" - coming in some future EPA report. Far-fetched? Perhaps not, given this long, long saga.
Getting tired of holding my breath...
Me too, but w/o the EPA and all its faults, you would likely be wanting to hold your breath.... Lets not forget the good in regulation. It wasn't a sudden burst of social consciousness on the part of car makers and petrochemical industry that the air is still breathable. Its a dance with the devil, but until the real costs of pollution show up in the tally sheet, don't count on self regulation to take care of the problem. Rocket regulation OTOH serves no public interest I can discern, and is more about self aggrandizement of the agencies involved and paranoia than public service. What we absolutely agree on is the need for transparency in all gov't dealings which has all but disappeared since 9/11.
Please don't get me wrong - I agree with you completely about breathable air and the potential for self-regulation by certain industries. And EPA is denying California the right to keep the air from getting worse that it is, not to relax any standards. Why else would auto industry execs visit the VP just before the EPA denied California's request. Can there be self-regulation where there is significant economic interest involved? No, but this is where government needs to step in. Otherwise, the argument that people would worry about cars that had seat belts were somehow unsafe would hold sway. I am no tree-hugger, but I appreciate the long term efforts that EPA has made in the past, and the successes it has achieved, through regulations that are clearly in the public interest.
No, I am only making an observation on the state of some of the executive branch agencies under the current administration, where public service certainly does not always take the front seat, but as you say, self-aggrandizement and paranoia do. So I don't see any disagreement with you, just a different tack.
The reality is we may never get that far. We have a complete deadlock currently in a no-win situation for the leader of the band. Walton may not be someone who normally goes with the flow, but the man is not an idiot by any stretch of the imagination, and not likely to buck the system merely for the pleasure of giving us a win. It would set too many dangeous precedents whereby every item on the List of Explosives would suddenly find itself open for attack.
Which is why we need to be prepared for legislative relief and public information campaigns. If black powder can have a special-purpose exemption (for muzzle-loading and period firearms), why (other than the fact that rocketeers are far outnumbered by muzzle-loaders) can we not drive for the same? That, or some compromise such as the one now in the UK.
When someone suggested a compromise like what was recently worked out in the UK on another email list, the response from some was that they flew motors larger than that, so hold out for all or nothing. Rather than to possibly get something, it was better to gamble it all and possibly get nothing.
I do not subscribe to the theory that to search for alternative suggests a sign of weakness, that we are not committed to the lawsuit. But it is a foolish man who puts all of his eggs in one basket and this hobby is no better. We should demand of our leadership to diversify our options or find leadership that will better protect our hobby.