anyone see this? ATF trying to say motorsa are not PADs

saw this in a listserv, was wondering if this is new or not.....
From the ATF web site:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/rules/ua041212.pdf (on page 19 of 45)
1892. COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES - AMENDED DEFINITION OF PROPELLANT ACTUATED DEVICE
Priority: Other Significant Legal Authority: 18 USC 847 CFR Citation: 27 CFR 555 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The Department of Justice is proposing to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that the term "propellant actuated device" does not include hobby rocket motors or rocket-motor reload kits consisting of or containing ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP), black powder, or other similar low explosives. Timetable: Action Date FR Cite NPRM 05/00/05"

just wondering how Estes is thinking, now that their whole industry is in the ATFs crosshairs

Questes could care less of course as their BP rocket motors will all be below the ATF's 62.5 gram PAD definition limit.....This PAD redefinition is just another tightening of the ATF noose, with regards to anything that is not a model rocket motor.... in NPRM 968 the ATF also redefined the TPD definition Toy Propellant Devices..... to exclude the original model rocket motors definition..... Its clear what they seek and were they are headed: model rocket motors will be those as defined already in NFPA, CSPC,DOT,etc........We screwed ourselves royally with the new DOT model rocket definitions circa 94-96? If only the NAR/TRA had the foresight to also define large and high power rocket motors then and there too... I'm curious to see how long it will be before the ATF lights a fire under the FAA and they get into the ACT of redefining(defining?) what a model rocket motor is and is not....of cousre while the FAA does its NPRM, it will restrict flights to model rocket ONLY.....for safety considerations.....then of course all the federal regulations regarding model rocket motorss will be in sync....anything greater than 62.5 SU will require a leup.....but thats what the NAR/TRA has been telling us to get anyway......
shockie B)
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
I told them so!!!!!!!
  Quoted Text Here  
Conforming to general practice.
I told you so!!!
Care to listen to, and implement, my specific club rule change proposals now??????
Just Jerry
  Quoted Text Here  

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
What? "Don't ask, don't tell."
That seems to be your M.O.

Jerry wrote: << Care to listen to, and implement, my specific club rule change proposals now?????? >>
And once again, Jerry proves he hasn't a clue in the world. ATF announces a proposal to eliminate the PAD exemption for rocket motors, and Jerry's "solution" is to change TRA/NAR rules. As if ATF would stop trying to regulate rocketry if only TRA/NAR would change their rules so that Jerry could cert his illegally manufactured motors.

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Well, yes!
So they can "conform" to something positive? !!
  Quoted Text Here  
They are one party in the situation. There are others.

tater schuld wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I doubt that it would effect them.

blather.
How was the earthquake at the epicenter Brian?
How is the flood?
Still have people at Lytle Creek? 19 inches rain in 2 days and stuck for 13 days?
They need a friggin' bridge.
Jerry

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
All the other BS aside. All of you, good luck and take care of yourselves. Mother nature seems to be reminding us again how small and insignificant we and our endeavors are, in the overall scheme of things.
Fred

W. E. Fred Wallace wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
No doubt. Feel for you folks that got flooded out on the left coast. Happened to me big time in '87. Lost 99% of everything I owned including my complete rocket collection. Motors(FSI and Crown) too ;/
Ironicly here in MN I haven't had to shovel the driveway yet and I up until today still was seeing grass.
Things will dry up eventually.....
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

The first word of this was in the BATFE's November status filing with the court. They claim to have submitted this NRPM for internal review by the Department of Justice and Office of Management and Budget last April.
I am very curious to see how they word this to exclude our favorite rocket motors but include the rocket motors in emergency parachute systems.
tater schuld wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
Simple, they could word it like this: ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- bullocks, I just censored my post due to the effect it might have, what was I thinking, I must be a mad mun.
back to my bitters.

  Quoted Text Here  
Remember all those many times I said ATF will conform the regulations to the actions of TRA and ATF WRT requiring ATF permits for sport rocket motors?
I told you so.
Jerry
1892. COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES‹ AMENDED DEFINITION OF PROPELLANT ACTUATED DEVICE Priority: Other Significant Legal Authority: 18 USC 847 CFR Citation: 27 CFR 555 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The Department of Justice is proposing to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that the term ŒŒpropellant actuated device¹¹ does not include hobby rocket motors or rocket-motor reload kits consisting of or containing ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP), black powder, or other similar low explosives. Timetable: Action Date FR Cite NPRM 05/00/05 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: James P. Ficaretta, Program Manager, Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 650 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20226 Phone: 202 927­8203 RIN: 1140­AA24
1894. COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES‹ EXPLOSIVE PEST CONTROL DEVICES Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 18 USC 847 CFR Citation: 27 CFR 555 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: ATF is proposing to amend the explosive regulations to provide a limited exemption from the requirements of part 555 for wildlife pest control devices that are used for agricultural and other pest control operations. Timetable: Action Date FR Cite NPRM 01/29/03 68 FR 4402 NPRM Comment Period End 02/28/03 Final Action 04/00/05 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None Additional Information: Transferred from RIN 1512-AC80 Agency Contact: James Ficaretta, Program Manager, Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 650 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20226 Phone: 202 927­8203 RIN: 1140­AA03

  Quoted Text Here  
correction

  Quoted Text Here  
I am perfectly willing to lead (dictate) a joint TRA/NAR "tiger team" to change internal club rules as a tactic of defense (in addition to legal manuvers).
What are my chances? I did pioneer HPR AND LMR itself.
Jerry
Ego prevails over logic in rocketry, hence my tag line on EVERY post I EVER make.

tater schuld wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
regulations to
  Quoted Text Here  
rocket
is
You want to fix Humpty Dumpty? Good luck.
Not just Jerry told you so. I've known, and said, for nearly twenty years this day would come. I didn't know exactly when--I'm surprised it took this long. I didn't know exactly how. But I knew that the US gov't would not tolerate forever the general public building and launching large hobby rockets.
Now we have NPRM 968, the new PAD redefinition, the CPSC crackdown all happening roughly simultaneously. That coincidence cannot be "coincidence." The boot heel is descending. Even the FAA has said it intends to soon re-examine its original amateur rocketry exemption--now it will do this under arm-twisting by the Justice Dept.
The "security state" is asserting itself in this area. Rocketry is about to get royally screwed. Soon there will be a thriving black market in powdered metals, AP, and quite possibly even the polymer bases. And then Total Information Snooping will be brought to bear on rocketeers and suspected rocketeers. The downward spiral will accelerate. It is not "if" but rather "how fast?"
What can YOU do about it? Pay more money for more licenses and permits. Agree to be treated like a perpetual suspect. Fight losing, expensive legal battles against a foe with unlimited funds. Struggle to survive under each new round of regulation only to have yet more restrictions placed on the hobby. You can buy years of time this way before the inevitable end.
Others will take rocketry underground. Moles are just rats that decided they'd be safer living in tunnels.
But nowhere is safe.
I've said this radical thought before on other forums: we either play *their* game or we lose. We need to formulate and implement a long term strategy to infiltrate the ranks of government with rocketry-friendly people. A twenty-year plan to place sleeper agents inside the ATF, inside Congress, inside Justice, inside the CPSC...one Senator from Wyoming ain't enough. But we just want to launch rockets, so we're gonna lose. +McG+

kmc wrote: << I've known, and said, for nearly twenty years this day would come >>
No offense, but "big flippin' deal". What, did you think no one else saw this coming?
Sheesh, everytime there's even a hint of bad news relating to regulation of rocketry, we get Jerry blaming it on TRA/NAR, and a few gloaters saying "I told you so" without actually adding anything of value to the issue.
<< Now we have NPRM 968, the new PAD redefinition, the CPSC crackdown all happening roughly simultaneously. >>
Those first two items are still nothing more than proposals, and the last one is far from settled.
<< We need to formulate and implement a long term strategy to infiltrate the ranks of government with rocketry-friendly people. A twenty-year plan to place sleeper agents inside the ATF, inside Congress, inside Justice, inside the CPSC... >>
Oh right, a tiny niche hobby with a few thousand participants is going take over the government via "sleeper agents" -- and monkeys might fly out of my butt.

  Quoted Text Here  
this
of
told
including yourself?