From: buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: More DOT/Reload Information
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:44:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NEC America, Radio Software Dept


In regards to the latest reports of CPSC banning high power reloads.....

In article <14751@umd5.umd.edu>, wildstar@moeng2.minc.umd.edu (Derek Wildstar) writes:
|> 
|> I'm sorry, I came in late, and there seems to be a story behind all of
|> this.  Could someone please summarize and bring me up to date?
|> 

I'm not sure how much history you want, or how much history others will post to
the newsgroup.  Here's my version of what's been going on.....


Feb 1992:  At a regularly scheduled meeting of the NFPA the NAR and
           Tripoli were going to call for a vote on the revised model, and
           new high power, safety codes.  Before this is done, Vulcan Systems
           shows a videotape that depicts reloadable technology, and especially
           reloads, as being very unsafe.  Estes and Vulcan were in negociations
           (or had already signed a deal) for Vulcan to produce expendable
           motors in the E-G range for a forthcoming line of kits and motors
           from Estes.  It was thought by many rocketry people that the 
           safety tests shown in the video were (at least somewhat) 'rigged'
           and did not show a true picture of RMS safety issues.  The only
           manufacturer shipping RMS at the time was Aerotech, but Aerotech
           reloads were not used in the test (it was a Vulcan formula).

           As a result of the video, the question of voting on the new
           safety codes was withdrawn.

           A copy of the video was also sent to the CPSC.  The CPSC, as a result
           of information presented in the tape, realized that G motors were
           being treated as model rocket motors.  The CPSC reported back to
           the NFPA that the CPSC limit (i.e., the law) on model rocket 
           motors was 80 NS, and that G motors were high power.  Since G motors
           had been sold (for several years) as over-the-counter model rocket
           motors, the CPSC ruled them as 'Banned Hazerdous Material' and
           subsequently, all manufacturers stopped shipping them. 

 Apr 1992: In another meeting of the NFA the following was pointed out:

           A stay of enforcement was in place which would allow ISP to
           continue to sell high power reloads.  The current wording of the 
           CPSC regulations considered reloads to be banned hazerdous 
           materials.  The stay was to allow ISP to continue shipping while
           a change in the codes was considered.  The code revisions were
           reported to be a 12 - 24 month process.

           G rocket motors (expendable and reloadable) are considered banned
           hazerdous meterials by CPSC, and no requests for excemptions or
           stays of enforcement had been requested by any manufacturer.

Other:     Aerotech requested both a stay of enforcement to allow it to ship
           high power reloads and an excemptions to allow it to ship G motors
           while the CPSC and NFPA considered changing the rules and regs
           on rocketry.

Jul 1992:  Since then, it has been reported that the CPSC has ruled all
           High Power reloads as 'Banned Hazerdous Materials' and prohibited
           them from being shipped in interstate commerce.  This was reported
           to have happened on Monday or Tuesday, July 27/28.

           The recent posting (as subsequent clarifications) have not 
           (IMO) explained the status of G motors and reloads.  Aerotech is 
           still waiting to hear back from the CPSC (I think) on whether or
           not they can resume shipping G motors (at least expendables, if not
           reloads as well) at Class C Flammable materials (i.e, model rocket
           stuff).

           It would appear that high power reloads are now completely banned
           from interstate commerce, and have been ruled more dangerous than
           Class B expendable rocket motors, which are restricted but not
           banned.


Summary:   There has been a lot reported on about the infamous reload video
           made by Vulcan.  All of the above problems seem to have been 
           brought to a head by the showing of the video to the CPSC and NFPA.
           What else has been made clear is that neither the NAR or TRA, or
           any of the high power motor manufacturers, had properly done their
           homework prior to getting into HPR.  If the proper forms had been
           submitted, requests for excemption filed, etc., several years
           ago then we might not be in this mess now.  It is also clear that
           the NAR and NFPA 'dropped the ball' when they approved the NFPA 1122-
           1987 model rocketry regs which allowed G motors as model rockets.
           I'm not tryining to place blame anywhere.  I'm just pointing out
           that a lot of 'boo boos' were made by several organizations.


           The above information has been taken from old net news postings, 
           the DARS newsletter, a reprint of the Mar/Apr/May issue of the 
           SENTINEL, and the last two issues of AmSpam.  I believe it to be
           a reasonbly accurate summary of my (lack of???) understanding
           of the situation.  I have no idea if its anywhere close to reality.
           I admit to being totally confused by the whole thing.

============================================================================
Buzz McDermott                   Internet: buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com
NAR  13559
TRA   1785
============================================================================