[rocketlaws-ca] Re: July 1st Update - California Rocketry Problem

Fred,

There is a new code every three years, which is a requirement of the health and 
safety code. There used to be the Uniform Fire Code, which was revised every 
three years. The health and safety code set time parameters within which the 
state had to adopt the lates edition of the UFC, make changes, allow local 
agencies and the public to have input, and then the Fire Marshal would make a 
recommendation to the state legislature an voila - a new code. The UFC no 
longer exists, so a new system has been put into place. If there is a specific 
section of the code that needs to be changed, modified, looked at, reviewed, as 
in our case, then the time frame to provide input is during this review 
process. Otherwise, you would have to have a law just to modify that section of 
the code, if done outside the code revision cycle. If done during the cycle, 
the "law" is presented by the State Fire Marshal, presented to the legislature, 
and hopefully passed. If the Fire Marshal would not buy into the propsed 
changes, then there would be a need to have a legislator sponsor a bill and 
have the code changed in that manner. So far, I have heard no one against the 
proposed change. It just wasn't done in the past because it was never an issue 
before - no one enforced it, looked at it, or cared about it, from a 
legislative view. My understanding of what happened is analogous to the Golden 
State Freeway - the speed limit is 65. Everyone does 80 - 85 with few issues 
from the CHP, until a driver makes the CHP aware that they are not doing their 
job and citing speeders. Someone made the State Fire Marshal aware of what the 
rocket motor definitions happen to be. Until then, I am pretty sure that the no 
one in the CSFM knew the distinction, or cared about the distinction. It was 
and is a non-issue, but the law does neeed to be changed to reflect current 
common practice. How often is someone from Cal-Fire at the Lucerne launches, or 
any launches, as a code enforcer? We never sent anyone to look at rocket 
launches in Los Angeles. The permit was issued, and no problems have ever 
occurred to my knowledge in Los Angeles. So, no enforcer would need to take 
time to oversee rockets. (However, the only NAR lawsuit filed was in Two 
Harbors, Catalina Island, I think - still no regulatory agency oversight - we 
fly at Two Harbors.)

I will make sure that I know what forms to use to submit the code review, and 
let you know. Or you can contact the State Fire Marshal's office and let them 
know that you would like to have input into a modification of the Health and 
Safety Code during the upcoming public comment period. I am pretty sure no one 
from the state has taken the initiative to change this on their own. Changes 
are usually submitted by folks with a particular interest in the topic. 

John

---- Fred Shecter <fredeshecter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> 
> John,
> 
> When you say "There is a new fire code being adopted by the State next year. 
> It will 
> be the ICC code. It is in the adoption process now. This is the time to 
> go through the normal, regular adoption process to ensure that the 
> language is in the fire code (health and safety code) to be consistent 
> with NFPA.", that makes me think that someone is already working on this. Is 
> there a point of contact or a committee working on this that we can present 
> our recommendations to? 
> 
> I think we were under the impression that we would have to find a sponsor 
> (Senator or Assembly Member) to introduce (Author) a bill to change the 
> portion of the H&S Code we are affected by.
> 
> And finally, it would be wonderful if you could find out if the SFM has any 
> preference regarding the scope of the proposed change: either exempt Model 
> Rockets or revise the limits and definitions to the current N.F.P.A. limits 
> and definitions.
> 
> Here is what I sent out many months ago with a tiny bit of editing to reflect 
> the new edition of N.F.P.A. 1122;
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the specific
> sections from the H&S Code that are causing the problem and some possible
> revisions:
> 
>  
> 
> California Health and Safety
> Code Section 12519
> 
> "Model rocket" means any toy or educational device which weighs not more than 
> 500 grams, including the engine
>  and any payload, that is propelled by model rocket engines.
> 
>  
> 
> California Health and Safety
> Code Section 12520
> 
> "Model rocket engine" means a commercially manufactured, nonreusable rocket 
> propulsion device which is constructed
>  of a nonmetallic casing and solid propellant, wherein all of the ingredients 
> are self-contained so as not to 
> require mixing or handling by the user and which have design and construction 
> characteristics determined by the 
> State Fire Marshal to provide a reasonable degree of safety to the user.
> 
>  
> 
> The problem with section
> 12519 is the “500 grams” weight limit - the Model Rocket weight limit has been
> 1500 grams for well over a decade.
> 
> The problems with section
> 12520 are the words “nonreusable”, “nonmetallic” and “wherein all of the
> ingredients are self-contained so as not to require mixing or handling by the
> user”.  Reloadable Model Rocket Motors
> have been part of the NFPA code since 1994. There is no “mixing” of 
> propellant,
> but the premanufactured propellant modules are assembled into a re-usable
> ductile aluminum casing by the user. Also, there are single-use “loadable
> motors” where the premanufactured propellant modules are installed into the
> one-time-use plastic or ductile aluminum casing by the user.
> 
>  
> 
> If I was to re-word these
> sections, I would do the following:
> 
>  
> 
> Section 12519:
> Change: “500 grams” to “1500 grams”. Add: “and shall conform to the
> requirements of the National Fire Protection Association (N.F.P.A.) 1122 
> (2013),
> Code for Model Rocketry.
> 
>  
> 
> Section 12520:
>  Revise wording completely to:"Model rocket engine" means a rocket
> propulsion device using commercially manufactured solid propellant that does
> not require mixing by the user and which shall conform to the requirements of
> the National Fire Protection Association (N.F.P.A.) 1125 (2012), Code for the
> Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors.
> 
> 
> If it is possible to add the words “or any later edition” after “(2013)” and 
> “(2012)”, that would be preferred since it would avoid having to revise the 
> H&S Code whenever there is a revision to the NFPA Code.
> 
> -Fred Shecter NAR 20117 (L2)
> 
> > Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 18:41:15 -0400
> > From: jrkitchens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To: rocketlaws-ca@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [rocketlaws-ca] Re: July 1st Update - California Rocketry       
> > Problem
> > CC: mjerauld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bruce_dale@xxxxxxx; rcoppock@xxxxxxx; 
> > rdavis@xxxxxxxxx; jbowman@xxxxxxxxxx; mc@xxxxxxxx; 
> > punkrocketscience@xxxxxxxxx; lmbrand@xxxxxxxx; jdeveau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > What is the goal?
> > 
> > This issue began with a motor not approved by the California State Fire 
> > Marshal (only one "l" for fire marshals, two for law enforcement marshalls 
> > - don't upset the state office by not spelling their title correctly) as a 
> > model rocket motor because it was beyond the 500 grams limit of model 
> > rocket motors, hence defined by the State Health and Safety Code as a high 
> > power motor. The prior approvals for other motors as model rocket motors 
> > had not been "caught" by the CSFM. Somehow, the Deputy State Fire Marshal 
> > who had the job of approving this motor was made aware of the issue, and 
> > denied the approval based upon the current Health and Safety Code.
> > 
> > California does not adopt all NFPA codes, guidelines, standards as 
> > reference - they take the language from NFPA, change it to suit the State 
> > format and need, and put it into the health and Safety code. The Health and 
> > Safety Code had not been updated, so it reflects an old NFPA document.
> > 
> > There is a new fire code being adopted by the State next year. It will be 
> > the ICC code. It is in the adoption process now. This is the time to go 
> > through the normal, regular adoption process to ensure that the language is 
> > in the fire code (health and safety code) to be consistent with NFPA.
> > 
> > Model rocket motors are considered pyrotechnic devices, as defined by NFPA, 
> > hence covered in the NFPA Pyrotechnic Committee, which also oversees 
> > fireworks of all type. They are regulated as such by individual states. It 
> > is not under the jurisdiction of the Feds except as interstate transport. I 
> > am not aware of any motor that is not an hazardous material, by DOT 
> > definition. Most are explosives ( ie model rocket black powder motors.) The 
> > classification of explosive is dependent upon the chemical content. They 
> > are approved and controlled for retail sale via state fire marshal 
> > regulation, and local regulations. Depending upon the content of the motor, 
> > they may be considered a pyrotechnic device, firework, or explosive, per 
> > state definition. The device is approved by the state, but the use is 
> > governed by the local jurisdiction (AHJ).
> > 
> > However, I think that it is a mistake to confuse the basic issue - to 
> > change the Health and Safety Code to approve certain motors that were once 
> > considered high power, based upon weight content of propellant, that are 
> > now defined by NFPA as model rocket motors. Unless there is a different 
> > goal.
> > 
> > Keep the request simple, to the point, factual (not emotional), no 
> > extraneous rhetoric - just 
> > 
> > "the NFPA states xxxxx as a definiton. Please change the health and safety 
> > code to reflect the NFPA definition."
> > 
> > That's all that is required.
> > 
> > Once that is accomplished, then the other stuff can be reviewed. Keep each 
> > issue separate. Make a separate request for each issue. Use the existing 
> > code change process, and it should be little problem - just time. The code 
> > is reviewed/rewritten every three years. This is the code change time - now.
> > 
> > John Kitchens
> > 
> > 
> 
>                                         

--
John Kitchens
POB 178
Somis, CA  93066
805 216-2569
805 482-2895 fax
jrkitchens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

--
RocketLaws-CA mailing list
rocketlaws-ca@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.freelists.org/list/rocketlaws-ca

Other related posts: