In article firstname.lastname@example.org, Jerry Irvine
at email@example.com wrote on 4/8/05 10:40 AM:
That's bogus, and has nothing to do with the "DOT, CPSC, NFPA and the
national user groups", other than incorrect and inflammatory reporting by
I'm offering the following for the benefit of users and dealers who are
finding themselves under attack from the ATF...I have received two calls
today from individuals (a dealer and a consumer) who appear to be targets of
a recent "crackdown" by their ATF inspectors.
The ATF did not regulate or attempt to regulate non-detonable rocket motors
of any size and in any manner prior to 1994 (see "ATF Communiqué 4-25-94").
The original ATFE exemption at 27 CFR 55.141 (a) (7) allowed "Toy Propellant
Devices" (an old DOT classification that applied to all AeroTech 62.5 gram
per grain and smaller reload kits) to be sold without permits and with no
restrictions on intended use (such as when used together in a multiple grain
motor). See "ATF Exemption Paper Trail". Not to mention the "Propellant
Actuated Device" exemption at 27 CFR 55.141 (a) (8), with NO weight limits.
In 1994, the ATF began to express a view that its rocket motor-related
exemptions only applied to motors containing less than 62.5 grams of
propellant. Eventually they denied that the "Propellant Actuated Device"
exemption ever applied to rocket motors at all. That left the "Toy
Propellant Device" exemption as the only one that applied to rocket motors.
In 1998, the ATF re-wrote the "Toy Propellant Device" exemption to replace
the old Class A, B & C DOT terminology with the new UN standard.
Unfortunately, the ATF inadvertently left out the equivalent UN numbers for
hobby rocket products that were previously exempted. AeroTech notified the
ATF of this error (see "A-T to J. Zamillo 11-4-99") and the ATF responded
stating that they had made a mistake and that they would "amend the
regulations to reflect this exemption". See "Letter From ATF 1-13-99". The
ATF even sent a memo to all their division directors stating that:
"no enforcement action is to be taken regarding the importation,
distribution, and storage of the following explosives...
2. Model rocket motors classified by the U.S. Department of Transportation
at 49 CFR 172.101 as UN0349, UNO351, UN0471, NA0276, or NA0323; consisting
of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant, black powder, or other similar
low explosives; containing no more than 62.5 grams propellant weight; and
designed as single use motors or as reload kits."
See "ROL ATF News 1-21-99". The UN numbers listed included all AeroTech
model rocket motors and reloads and all "Easy Access" high power reload
Things remained fairly stable until August of 2002, when the ATFE published
an "opinion" in their newsletter that asserted that multiple 62.5 gram grain
motors were now regulated:
"ATF does exempt from control sport rocket motors and rocket-motor reload
kits containing small amounts of APCP or other similar explosives, however
this exemption applies only to rocket motors containing up to 62.5 grams of
propellant and to rocket motor reload kits whose contents cannot be utilized
to produce a rocket motor whose total propellant weight is more than 62.5
grams. The 62.5-gram exemption does not extend to reload kits that can be
used to create motors containing more than 62.5 grams of propellant or to
propellant modules of any weight that are not part of an exempted reload
"In the near future, ATF will engage in rulemaking to solicit comments
on the continuing use of the 62.5- gram exemption threshold. Persons having
specific inquiries regarding ATF¹s regulation of sport rocket motors should
contact the Public Safety Branch in ATF Headquarters."
ATF "policy" is not law. Clearly the ATF is breaking federal law by
inferring that any "policy" is law, as determined by the judge presiding
over the NAR/Tripoli vs. ATF lawsuit (see the "Memo of Opinion 6/24/02" by
Judge Reggie Walton), without observing the statutory notice-and-comment
period. The fact that the ATFE has initiated rulemaking proposing to
restrict its rocket motor exemptions to 62.5 grams loaded weight (see below)
is ample proof that the earlier exemptions do not restrict the total motor
It is also DOT "policy" to require new facilities of the holder of an
EX-number to be inspected, or product made there tested, or both, prior to
shipment of any product manufactured in the facilities. You can search all
day in 49 CFR...but that is not a law either.
In January of 2003, the ATFE published a proposed rule (NPRM), including a
new exemption for "model rocket motors", written in a manner to restrict the
exemption to those motors that have a loaded weight of no more than 62.5
"(v) Model rocket motors consisting of ammonium perchlorate composite
propellant, black powder, or other similar low explosives; containing no
more than 62.5 grams of total propellant weight and designed as single use
motors or as reload kits capable of reloading no more than 62.5 grams of
propellant into a reusable motor casing."
This was the first time that the ATF made an effort to legally change the
rocketry-related exemptions. From our perspective, the fact that the ATFE
has initiated rulemaking proposing to restrict its rocket motor exemptions
to 62.5 grams loaded weight is proof that the earlier exemptions do not
restrict the total motor weight.
The NPRM is still in the comment evaluation phase and is not yet law. There
is no estimate when the process will be completed, especially in light of
the ongoing litigation between the ATF and the national user organizations.
This link makes reference to ATF and specifically your nationally
distributed display ads coining the terms "easy access"-sm and
"restricted access"-sm which were used to refer BY NAME to BATFE
There are no such terms in 27 CFR or BATFE parlance and never were.
Further per your own admission today per 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 ALL rocket
motors of any mass are exempt.
Thus those display ads "poked a sharp stick in the eye of the ATF".
snip of excellent and highly useful references put into an executive
In article firstname.lastname@example.org, Jerry Irvine
at email@example.com wrote on 4/8/05 1:53 PM:
The link is anecdotal and proves nothing.
Yes, but the paper trail is not as bulletproof as the a-7 exemption.
Nope, "Easy Access" was simply a way for AeroTech to differentiate those
high power products that ATF representatives admitted were UNREGULATED under
the a-7 exemption during the 1994 NFPA meeting in SLC. They fully understood
the concept. In fact they stated that they would only have an issue with it
if someone were trying to "make an 'O' motor out of 62.5 gram grains". We
told them that a 'J' motor was probably the practical limit and they had no
objection to that.
If the ATF didn't like the ads (and I've seen no direct evidence to prove
that claim) then I'd say we were double-crossed.
You will come around to the truth, eventually. :)
No, you're right. It is more so.
Here's the law that shows that:
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
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.
Thereby buying into and adding to the KNOWN confusion.
How can you deny that?
Therefore you openly admit to FORSAKING 27 CFR 555.141-a-8, thus making
you even more evil than I have proffered and proven.
The HUGE expenses of the lawsuit prove my point.
If only "anecdotally".
You and TRA clearly led the way INVITING ATF into HPR.
You by having your vendors require ATF permits for transfer of ANY goods
(contrary to law), and TRA for demanding ATF permits prior to motor cert
(contrary to law).
Both were AFFIRMED as unnecessary by a judge when deciding a lawsuit on
Here's the JUDGE's words verifying it.
"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."
Here is the court order that is from:
If you wouldn't define "truth" in your own image (idolotry) you might
find yourself pointing your open mind in yet another direction and
allowing yourself to be convinced of others' views on some topics.
Such as reducing (self-imposed) rules limiting consumer access.
I hope we --can-- agree we could all do with 4x as many customers.
No one invited the ATF.
What law? There's no law that says they can't do that. Nor is it clear
that manufacturers and vendors of PADs are exempt from ATF permits
either. As you've been told before, the ATF requires permits for
manufacturers of other materials that have exemptions, such as
smokeless powder and BP.
That's only a fraction of the story, as you well know. Here's some more
"ORDERED, that the plantiffs' request for the Court to (1) order the
ATF to recognize sport rocket motors as propellant actuated devices and
(2) order that the Question and Answer sheet currently posted on the
ATF's website either be removed or revised are DENIED. It is further
ORDERED, that the parties shall proceed with the litigation of this
case as previously scheduled by the court."
That's from the October 2004 ruling.
We won't find out the rest of story until the lawsuit is fully
You for got not having to drop off film, then remember to pick it up.
My wife and I have rolls of film that are over 18 months old that we
keep forgetting to take in to get developed. Don't have that problem
since we went digital in late February.
If you're moving to an SLR, it's also easier to learn -- I can take a
picture, check the result, adjust settings, and keep going doing that
until I get the results I want. With film, I have to write down
detailed notes, get it developed, then check.
Since much of what I do is electronic anyway, I also don't have to scan,
or pay someone to do it for me.