L2 Motors

I had a LEUP but I let it expire because I spent the last two years moving frequently. I am wondering if any on-site motor dealers will
sell me L2 motors (yes, I'm an L2 with NAR) to use that day at the launch site. Larry Lobdell Jr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
According to the regs, noone without a LEUP can have motors with more than 62.5g of propellant. According to the regs, motors can only be sold out of the vendor's place of business, but can be delivered to a launch site, etc., if the transaction was completed at the place of business.
Vendors need to track who gets what, just as you would be required to track what you get. You can call them JBGT's but the regs are all written.
You are asking for a list of vendors who sell motors illegally. If anyone replies with names, you'll be reading about those vendors in the Washington Post in a month or two.
My two cents.
Tom K

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The 62.5g threshold has never made it into the regs, has it? It went out for comment but so far is still pending.
Wasn't part of the Judge's ruling that fully assembled motors are PADs and thus exempt from storage and licensing requirements? IIRC the BATFE said they planned to "fix" that through the rulemaking process but so far have not.
Thomas Koszuta wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alex,
You'r right. 62.5g never was in the published regs. According to the published regs, ALL APCP motors are Low Explosives. The only place I've seen 62.5g published (I have not searched that extensively) is in the "Rocketry FAQ" on the BATFE website. 62.5g is cited as a policy.
--
Tom Koszuta
Western New York Sailplane and Electric Flyers
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alex Mericas wrote:

Not quite. As near as I can tell, he simply stated that ATF's proclamation that the PAD exemption as stated in the 1994 letter was not properly altered by notice and comment. It doesn't really matter as the language of that letter is really quite limited:
"The Court finds that the variance between the pronouncements in the ATF's April 20, 1994 and December 22, 2000 letters, with respect to the applicability of the PAD exemption to sport model rockets, squarely fits into the scenario discussed by the District of Columbia Circuit in Alaska Professional. Here too, an agency sought to reverse the applicability of an exemption without notice and comment. Thus, before the ATF could altered its earlier interpretation of the applicability of the PAD exemption, it was required to undertake notice-and-comment rulemaking as required by the APA and the OCCA. Because the ATF failed to do so, the Court concludes that its December 22, 2000 pronouncement regarding the applicability of the PAD exemption to sport model rockets was not in compliance with the OCCA and the APA."
Excerpt from the 1994 letter: "The Aerotech products which have been classified by the Department of Transportation as a flammable solid 4.1 or as explosives 1.4c, which are within the 62.5 grams limit contained in NFPA 1122 and conform to the requirements of model rocket motors set forth in 16 CFR section 1500.85(a)(8)(ii), would meet ATF requirements for exemption under 27 CFR part 55, section 141(a)(8)."
16 CFR 1500.85(a0(8)(ii) Contain no more than 62.5 grams (2.2 ounces) of propellant material and produce less than 80 newton-seconds (17.92 pound seconds) of total impulse with thrust duration not less than 0.050 second.

A Texas dealer claims that his local ATF agents have stated that he can conduct business at the field. Which is par for the course with the ATF. One person tells you one thing, another tells you something else.
In any case, I see nothing in 18 USC Chapter 40 that limits transactions to the "place of business".
What the law does say is:
------------------------------------------------- 843. Licenses and user permits ...
(b) Upon the filing of a proper application and payment of the prescribed fee, and subject to the provisions of this chapter and other applicable laws, the Attorney General shall issue to such applicant the appropriate license or permit if ... (3) the applicant has in a State premises from which he conducts or intends to conduct business; -------------------------------------------------
This doesn't look to me like it limits you to conducting "business" from just the one location. For that matter I, as an applicant, must have said premises even for a user permit. Can I only purchase regulated materials at _my_ premises?
The ATF might have issued a ruling to this effect but if they did I can't find it and neither can some of their field agents.
The explosives laws and regulations strike me as being poorly written. With redundancies, ambiguities, and other problems that could keep lawyers employed for a lifetime. Perhaps that was the real purpose. :-)
The regs also have nothing on this mythical 62.5 gram limit. There is something in NPRM 968 but it isn't final yet and therefore unenforceable. The ATF keeps saying they will publish the final rule but they haven't yet. In the April combined federal agenda they claimed it would be published in May. (This year!) There is also some question as to the authority of the ATF to issue such an exemption.
The ATF regulations (and federal law) actually have _no_ exemption for any rocket motor. Unless you look to the PAD letter. Which the ATF has argued was "inartfully drafted" and not what they really meant.

--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Schultz wrote:

Yes but didn't the NAR/TRA legal team go back for clarification? From the Joint Message of April 24, 2004
"On April 22, 2004, Judge Reggie Walton agreed with NAR/TRA's interpretation of his recent order our court case. Judge Walton said that the 1994 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) exemption granted to hobby rockets as "propellant actuated devices" (PADs) remains valid.
This means that unless and until BATFE properly promulgates a rule rescinding the 1994 PADs exemption, fully assembled rocket motors (regardless of weight) are propellant actuated devices under the law and are exempt from regulation by BATFE. "
There was also a letter to the ATF saying we interpreted the Judges ruling that the PAD exemption had no weight limits. The ATF did not formally respond (AFAIK) except to start the rule making process.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alex Mericas wrote:

Yes, the "Urgent Motion for Early Status Conference" at http://www.tripoli.org/documents/batfe/UrgentMotionforEarlyStatusConference.pdf
But they did not get what they wanted. Hmmm. I seem to have left the judges order from that conference off of my web site. Easily corrected:
http://home.earthlink.net/~schultdw/regulation/Court%2010-19-04%20order%20from%20early%20status%20conference.pdf
That is pretty long. If it gets truncated or otherwise mangled, try:
http://home.earthlink.net/~schultdw/regulation /
which will give you a file directory. Pick the 10-19-04 court order.
NAR and TRA engaged in wishful thinking about the scope of the April 2004 decision. The judge never said what exemption was in place, just that the 2000 letter constituted an improper rule making. He deliberately avoided declaring assembled rocket motors to be PAD's:
"7 Because the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement regarding the applicability of the PAD exemption violates the OCCA and APA's notice and comment requirement, it need not address whether sport model rockets are in fact PADs." -- page 20

It is difficult to reconcile this view of things with the results of the November hearing.
Alas, no document is available from the 22 April conference. There is a notice of transcript filed but it is not available over the internet.

--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Vendors are being very cautious these days. The last launch I was at I had to preorder the motor and make sure I burn it at the launch, otherwise I had to return the reload.
My guess was this allowed the vendor to claim he was in "control" of the material and never transferred it to a non LEUP holder.
jd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thomas Koszuta wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am not saying you are right or wrong but I find it interesting that in the most recent NAR Member Guidebook (March 2006) it states on page 63:
"The regulatory status of HPR motors is in a state of flux. At the time of printing, motor reload kits consisting of propellant grains weighing 62.5 grams or less are not regulated as explosive articles, and both assembled and single-use motors are classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs) and are therefore exempt from explosive regulations."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
larry:
your best bet would to contact potential vendors for the launch you are going to and enquire there.
terry dean
--
"Old Rocketeer's don't die; they just go OOP"


"Larry Lobdell Jr." < snipped-for-privacy@afo.net> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.