I just got my L1 cert and plan to get L2 in the future. With that said
I guess that I will need to apply for a LEUP?
Finding the application form is easy. I'm looking ofr some instructions
on how to fill out the form. How much does it cost? And does it need to
be renewed yearly?
I'm assuming there is a webpage somewhere that explains all of this.
But I have not ran accross it yet.
Thanks
I'd sure like to hear of the motor vendor that tells a guy in the US that
you need a LEUP for a hybrid ;-)
Mono tube and hyper-tek hybrides don't need LEUPs. (see typo)
Some of the old Aero-tech L&M AP boosted motors did, but are not made
anymore.
Depends on what you want to do.. The Pyro (ejection) change and squib very
well might require a LEUP depending on who you ask, and what you plan on
using. This is the part that most people miss when the claim Hybrids are
"permit free"... These motors will often require an ejection charge!
Daveyfire (squibs) pretty much dropped out of the business due to the new
regs, and it seems that it's hard to find someone who sells BP without a
permit...
The piece of APCP used by all that I know of is under the 62.5g limit.
SkyRipper has the paperwork to be able to ship their preheaters via USPS.
DaveyFire dropped out because the owner hates the rocketry hobby; he no
longer sells to fireworks companies, either.
-Kevin
What is the deal with "depending on who you ask"? Either you do or you
do not... No? Or is it different state to state? If not I am not sure what
the
"depending on who you ask" thing is all about. I would want to know the
actual law not someones interprutation of it. I have had a little too much
of
that recently on another rocket list I am on.
Kevin... You missed the point about the pyro.. (4fg BP, etc). Orxal
squibs may also require a LEUP, and the same with any other replacement to
the Daveyfires. Daveyfire NEVER was thrilled about selling to us rocket
folks, and their "closing down" just eliminated the backdoor thru the
fireworks crowd.
I'm not talking about firing the hybrid, but the ejection charge! How many
folks fly hybrids without some type of recovery? And now many of those plan
BP with a squib triggered by electronics?
End result, is that to do hybrids, you need to use (common route) a squib
and BP - either one of which may require a LEUP based on who you talk to.
So, hybrids (any - even if they don't use APCP to start it), to be actually
be used, may still require a LEUP!
I've yet to hear of any HB manufacturer which ships BP for an ejection with
their reloads.
Yes, the ATF restrictions hit ALL motors... Not just APCP!
Not on rmr. Each person promulgating this falsehood is specifying
themselves or one of their specified paramours as the person to "check
with".
Conflict of interest.
27 CFR 555.141-a-8
.
Then you don't understand the mess this whole thing has been in for the last
couple years! Some folks go by "EA" being unregulated, some don't.. Some
don't consider a reload kit regulated, and other's do,,,
Don't blame me if the rules aren't clear.. Our "leadership" at NAR and TRA
can't give you a clear answer either! Go ahead and pose the question to NAR
and TRA and be sure to post their answers here!
Basically, if the AFTE thinks it's regulated, you may want to be able to
show a permit, reguarless of what is said on any message board. "what hybrid
motors (G and above) can you safely fly in a rocket without any need of
permits as requested by any ATF agent in the US?" I'll bet the resonse
includes "depending on who you ask...."!
Most of the answers to your permit questions can be found at:
formatting link
The cost depends on the permit type.
Renewal period depends on the permit type.
Type 34, User of Low Explosives, is the permit you most likely want and
is currently $100 for the initial application and is good for three
years. After that renewal is $50 and also good for three years.
The Limited Permit is only limited in your privledges, not in paperwork
or requirements. It is $25 for the first year and $12 per year
thereafter. It has a yearly renewal cycle.
Okay. But the rules are CLEAR.
Dickinson:
3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal
meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part
of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other
words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious
by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other
sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number.
4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic
explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic
explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet
form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure
form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25
deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture
malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as
defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused
to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined."
5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors
we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high
explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this
part (part 55) are clearly not applicable.
6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we
are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see
by perusing
formatting link
, Part
55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing
to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is
stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and
Permits, for instance.
7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with
the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I
mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that
LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an
unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives
regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned.
Weinshenker:
The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors.
Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with
respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances).
The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of
compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just
from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also
in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture,
storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials"
(in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive
Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that
BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but
that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of
"Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution
(whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition,
storage and use, are subject to Part 55.
What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having
such trouble understanding?
Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what
is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption?
Irvine:
"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport
rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without
compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA
and the APA."
27 CFR 555.11, Propellant Actuated Device. Any tool or special
mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a
propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant
charge.
27 CFR 555.141 exemptions (a) (8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant
actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured,
imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.
QED
They can and do.
formatting link
Weinshenker:
TMT:
formatting link
2-2.2 In addition to the above the applicant must obtain and submit an
"EX" number assigned for a particular propellant formulation by the U.S.
Department of Transportation/ Research and Special Programs
Administration (US DOT/RSPA). This agency issues this number on a
recommendation by the Bureau of Explosives (BOE), Canada Center for
Mineral and Energy Technology/Canadian Explosives Research Laboratory
(CANMET/CERL), or any other agency approved by the competent authority
of the United States. The recommendation for classification is given
when the applicant provides propellant and other required information
for testing. The applicant must also provide TMT with a copy of a BATF
Low Explosive Manufacturer's license prior to acceptance of motors for
testing. This requirement is by Tripoli Board motion and vote on 23
January 1994.
Just Jerry
Hmmm, 3g of BP is regulated but an A3-4T is not. There's got to be a way to
use commonly available BP motors for ejection chcarges.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Who told you that? LEUPs have nothing to do with getting certified at
Level 2, or any other level. They are completely and utterly irrelevant
to flyer certification.
Why are you asking about this stuff here, instead of asking your local
vendor and/or club? Obtaining the motor for your cert (and any
subsequent flights) is between you and the vendor. Each vendor has his
or her own policies, so only the vendor can advise you on what they
require. Many vendors and/or clubs have arrangements available to
assist flyers who don't have a LEUP, and if you really want a LEUP,
they can help you with that too.
F
Well, the problem with that is, the "actual law" isn't always very
clear, and even when the law is clear, ATF's "interpretation" of it may
still contradict the actual law. In some cases they have policies which
are not even internally consistent. For instance, the ATF will tell you
that ALL rocket motor igniters are regulated explosives requiring a
LEUP and storage. Yet they are not requiring LEUPs and storage for
Estes igniters, and there is nothing in the law nor the ATF policy that
justifies or explains this discrepancy.
Frankly, I'm getting a little suspicious of these recent, often
anonymous, posts in various rocketry forums asking about things that
are better kept between the vendor, buyer and/or local club. Why on
earth would anyone come here to ask what is required for purchase or
use of high power motors, instead of asking their vendor or local club?
Perhaps it's really just an ATF fishing expedition.
Until the court case is finalized, there are very few if any "clear
answers". TRA/NAR can tell you what the law says, they can tell you
what the judge says, and they can tell you what they think it all
means. But they are not the ATF, and the ATF has their own ideas about
these things.
n
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.