ATF final rule explosives marking, etc.

Would this mean I would no longer require an LEUP to keep grains/motors larger than 62.5 grams? That would mean that I would not need an LEUP if I was level I or II and kept motors of that class on my premises for my own use and not for commercial purposes?

Kurt Savegnago

This has the potential to have a huge negative effect on rocketry. Fire marshalls will be less likely to allow variances for storage if the permittee could now potentially purchase high explosives such as dynamite.

Brian Elfert

No. This rule has no impact on who needs a permit/license. It only effects the marking of imported explosives and class limitations (high/low/blasting/) on permitees.

There are currently 4 types of user permits. (Ignoring the Manufacturer, Dealer, Importer, and Limited permit categories)

Type 33, User of High Explosives Type 34, User of Low Explosives Type 35, User of Blasting Agents Type 54, User of Fireworks (Display)

From this new rule I assume that the types 33, 34, 35, and probably 54 will be rolled into one permit type: User of Explosives

Darn!

Thanks for the info. AKS

much is imported!

Your tax dollars at work. ; )

Randy

It might also give them reason to (significantly) increase the fees.

It's all about killing rocketry.

I think thats why the BATFE removed the cap on user licenses and fees. Imagine a initial up front license cost of say $1000.... how many people can afford that on a yearly basis? another strangle point.

shockie B)

Interesting... you're not supposed to be able to buy high explosives with only a LEUP. I guess the ATF has been so busy harassing rocket hobbyists that they don't have time to regulate the sale of dynamite and other truly dangerous explosives.

That doesn't sound good for us. If the same permit and magazine for low explosives can be used for high explosives, it may be much harder to obtain approval from local AHJs. The ATF may even start applying the same distance requirements for high explosives to all magazines.

The attached garage exemption would probably have to be eliminated, also. That is the only way that many people can get around the distance requirements.

The change only effects class distinctions for permits. It does not change 27 CFR 550.203 which describes what classes of explosives can be stored in which type of magazine.

Right. But you might have a hard time convincing your local fire marshal that you're only going to be buying and storing LE, when you have a permit that allows you to buy HE. I can see the ATF using the same rationale to increase storage requirements. After all, once they give you that permit, there's nothing to stop you buying HE.

Also, many folks would agree to having a special permit created for rocketry materials as a compromise with ATF. (Although the ATF has never shown any interest in compromising before.) This move seems to completely shut off that option altogether. If the ATF feels that separate permits for LE and HE are too much trouble, it's not likely they'd agree to a new permit for rocketry.

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: >

Actually, the ATF said that they would issue a NPRM for a new permit for hobbiests. They made this claim in the final rule that changed the permit fees back in 1998.

"As an alternative to the fee increase, this group proposed that ATF designate a special type of hobby permit for exclusive use by high power model rocket hobbyists which would have a lower fee than that proposed by Notice No. 841. In response to these and other similar comments, ATF will propose in a separate notice of proposed rulemaking to create a separate definition and a lower permit fee for all ``hobbyists'' who receive, transport or ship low explosive materials in the pursuit of recreational or sporting activities."

Of course they will. "It only makes sense."-tm

Jerry