Model Forum / General / Rockets / August 2007

Alex;

I don't think that in the year 2007, in the 21st century, after 50 years of
advertising and marketing of model rocketry in this country, that we need
fire code regulation to define the distinction between fireworks and model
rocketry.

If this distinction is not known by now, it will never be known.

I was waiting and hoping somebody would bring up the possibility of 50
states with 50 different state laws, or literally millions of communities
all with their own  regulations.

Right now, with NFPA 122 in place, states and communities around the country
already have the right to disallow or ban model rocketry as they see fit.

threes nothing in NFPA 1122 that prevents local or state oversight of model
rocketry.

Regulation for the sake of regulation is not a good thing.  Regulation that
is unenforceable is unneeded regulation at best.

Regulation is all about "control" and "management".

In the state of Kentucky we have the following in our state law;

227.700 "Fireworks" defined -- Exceptions.

The term "fireworks" shall mean any composition or device for the purpose of
producing

a visible or an audible effect by combustion, deflagration, or detonation,
and which meets

the definition of "common" or "special" fireworks as set forth in the United
States

Department of Transportation's (DOT) hazardous materials regulations.

(2) Exception number 2: Model rockets and model rocket motors designed,
sold, and

used for the purpose of propelling recoverable aero models are not
considered to be

fireworks.

The above is pretty straightforward. It totally exempts model rockets and
model rocket motors from the fireworks laws.

Why is their any further need for the regulations in NFPA 1122?

In Indiana, a state that I will be moving to in about a week states the
following:

IC 22-11-14
   Chapter 14. Regulation of Fireworks by Fire Marshal

IC 22-11-14-1
   Sec. 1. As used in this chapter:

   "Firework" means any composition or device designed for the purpose of
producing a visible or audible effect by combustion, deflagration, or
detonation. Fireworks consist of common fireworks and special fireworks.
The following items are excluded from the definition of fireworks:
       (1) Model rockets.

But Indiana goes one step further:

IC 35-47.5-2-7
"Explosives"

Sec. 7. "Explosives" means a chemical compound or other
substance or mechanical system intended to produce an explosion
capable of causing injury to persons or damage to property or
containing oxidizing and combustible units or other ingredients in
such proportions or quantities that ignition, fire, friction, concussion,
percussion, or detonation may produce an explosion capable of
causing injury to persons or damage to property, including the
substances designated in IC 35-47.5-3.
The term does not include the following:

(1) A model rocket and model rocket engine designed, sold, and
used to propel recoverable aero models.

So in Indiana model rockets, model rocket motors are both exempt from the
fireworks and explosives laws.

And Indiana has not adopted NFPA 1122 because the state fire marshal has
made the correct determination that the contents of  NFPA 1122 are
unenforceable by his office.

I don't necessarily have a problem with NFPA 1122; the problem I have with
NFPA 1122 is that the NAR/NFPA have taken away each states choice in
adopting NFPA 1125 et al, in their respective states  by placing the special
chapters code snippets into NFPA 1 and the ICC IFC.  This was done solely
due to the fact that most(?) states had not adopted ANY of the rocketry
firecodes, and had no plans to do so.

By doing this, the NAR/NFPA did an "end run" around the state fire marshals,
whose decision it should have been to adopt or not adopt any of the NFPA
rocketry firecodes.  Most State Fire Marshal's had evidently already made
the decision that they didn't want to adopt ANY of the rocketry firecodes
for whatever reasons.

SO prior to this, we had exactly the state of affairs that you mention as
being unworkable: 50 states with or without NFPA 1122 adopted  and
everything seemed to be fine for a number of years.

This is a "states rights" issue" it should be up to each state whether or
not they wish to adopt these rocketry firecodes; it should not be forced
upon the states.

I had a talk with several members of the Ky state fire marshal's office and
until I pointed out Chapter 65 in NFPA 1, they were not even aware that the
state of Ky had indeed adopted the rocketry firecodes; prior to that, they
were not adopted in KY.    I would suggest that most state fire marshal's
are in the same state of being un-informed about this.

And why even have regulations if they are unenforceable?

My final problem with NFPA 1122 is that it applies to non-NAR model
rocketeers.  The NAR should not be in the position of making what
essentially ends up as state laws, applying to people that it has no control
over. NFPA 1122 et all should only apply to its own membership; it should
not apply to the general populace.  The general populace has no earthly idea
that when they walk into WAL-Mart or a hobby store and purchase a rocketry
starter kit, that they are then under the regulations of NFPA 1122. And what
if unknowingly they perform a violation?  Not knowing the law is no defense
from the law.

But as I pointed out before, NFPA 1122 is totally unenforceable so why even
have it in the 1st place? We all pay "lip service" to NFPA 1122 but threes
really no penalty involved if we choose to ignore it.

Look the sole purpose of NFPA 1122/1127 historically (and it states this in
both of their purposes) was/is to prevent people from making their own
rocket motors and experimenting with rocket fuels.  That's what they both
boil down too.

From 1122:

1.2.2 The purpose of this code also shall be to discourage the making and
launching of homemade rockets and other rocket-like vehicles

propelled by, or intended to be propelled by, homemade rocket propulsion
devices.

1.2.3 The purpose of this code also shall be to discourage experiments with
explosive or highly energetic rocket propellants,

construction of homemade rocket-propulsion motors, and attempted launchings
or operations of these homemade rocket devices, thereby

minimizing deaths and injuries.

from 1127:

1.2.3 The purpose of this code shall be to discourage the following to
minimize deaths and injuries:

(1) Experiments with explosive or highly energetic rocket propellants

(2) Construction of homemade rocket propulsion motors

(3) Attempted launches or operation of homemade rocket devices

terry dean

erik:

I never said and have repeatedly said that the CA laws aren't a model to be
emulated by any state. And we all know that historically CA has been a
"special case"...

terry dean