From: Jim Cook <J.Cook@ENS.Prime.COM>
Subject: Re: DOT/CPSC/FAA Situation
Reply-To: <J.Cook@ENS.Prime.COM>
Organization: Prime Computer, Inc.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:43:14 GMT

In article <10490013@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM> bo@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Bo Viger) writes:
>hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack) writes:
>
>>However, the NAR and Tripoli are on top of this.  The NAR is closely
>>working with the FAA to have the total mass and total fuel mass limits
>>raised to match the sporting code.  This should result in a proposed
>>regulation being published soon. The NAR president (who is active on
>>CompuServe) will issue a cry for help if needed, or a call for positive
>>comment letters to the FAA if the reg is published.  Several of us on
>>r.m.r are on CI$ and will post the call for action here.
>
>Yes, but is NAR helping with the DOT ban on reloads? I think not. In fact,
>a hard-core NAR officer has been identified with having initiated the
>California Fire Marshall knee-jerk reaction to reloads, thereby causing
>their confiscation within the state.
>
...
>
>Apparently not all NAR intends to work towards solving the current HP
>bans in place, as my above note points out. And will the infighting within
>Tripoli stop long enough for a real organizational effort to take place?
>
...>they seem to be doing the right things.)
>
>I agree, but I fear that the NAR members that hate HP and the Tripoli members
>that hate NAR may prevent either organization from accomplishing what we, 
>their members who want BOTH model and high-power rocketry properly
represented,
>want.

I take strong exception to your statements Bo.

I have just returned from NARAM-34 in Las Vegas where Pat Miller, president
of the NAR stated the following facts in an open meeting of the association:

1. The NAR has engaged a law firm to deal with the DOT, CPSC, and FAA.
   In the case of the FAA, they are a hair's breath away from sueing them.
   You should note this law firm is the pre-eminent firm for dealing with
   these organizations (read: they listen when the law firm speaks).

2. The NAR and Tripoli are very much working together on these issues.

Furthermore, from my own information, I can add the following things:

1. If you are on the Tripoli side of the fence, you might speak to Chuck
   Rodgers who is your NFPA representative.  He failed to even vote when
   the ballot for the TIA to NFPA 1122 to allow re-loads came out.  The
   amendment failed to pass due to a lack of enough positive votes.

2. Yes, there are some NAR sections that don't believe in HPR.  However,
   the extent of their activites has been not to engage in it themselves
   and send out a letter to other sections promoting their position.  That's
   it.  I'm sure they realize the shaky ground we are all on for all forms
   of rocketry, be it low, medium, or high power rocketry, and they are not
   going outside the organization to rock the boat.  I would like to believe
   that we are not close minded and that their dissenting opinions and   
   discussions are still encouraged and welcomed.

3. With regard to California which someone termed a "knee jerk", that may have
   been from one law-abiding sole who asked (gasp) the fire marshall exactly
   what the rules were and meant and it was found the people were knowingly
   violating them.  If I have the right person, I can tell you he isn't an
   NAR officer.

4. In positive news, Gary Rosenfield, owner of Aerotech, reported that he is
   actively working with the powers that be in California.  He reports that
   when the CPSC gives an temporary exemption for G's, then California may
   also do so, thus making G's legal in California for the first time ever.
   (The letter from California is already written, just waiting on CPSC).

If you wish to know more, send J. Pat Miller some email.  He can be reached
at <72077.65@compuserve.com>.  But please don't assume the NAR is anti-HPR.
From where I sit, it looks like the NAR is doing more for HPR through the
legal channels than the HPR organizations are doing.  No flames; just that
that's the way it looks.

Thanks,
Jim