Motors > 62.5

I know it has been hashed out alot about motors over 62.5 grams. But hear is my question. I just had a warrenty claim with Aerotech and they sent me 2-H180's never asking if i had a permit. which I don't . But yet to buy the same motor from their Dealer I need a permit in most cases. So am I breaking any laws by recieving these motors without a permit ? Or are the dealers not following the law ? Where does the paper trail have to start ? With the manufactor or with the Dealer ?
On the front of the box is a sticker that says Toy Propellant Devices, and it was sent US mail surface. Took 7 days to get from Ut to Pa

  Quoted Text Here  
> Or are the dealers not following the law ? > Where does the paper trail have to start ? With the manufactor or with > the Dealer ?
I am in the same situation, & I've concluded God only knows for sure. Ask 10 people and get 12 opinions.
However, I am fairly certain that the NPRM making 62.5g the rule is not yet in effect. But dealers are either covering themselves by acting as if it is, or have been told (in error) by the ATFE that they cannot sell motors >62.5g to anyone without a permit.

Ed wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I think that about sums it up...
-dave w

  Quoted Text Here  
Agreed. Suicide and murder.

Weather or not you need a permit depends on the dealer you're getting the goods from. Some require permits, some don't. It's a crappy situation that we have been forced to deal with. I had to have a permit holder get an H-180 for me, so be happy you have them! (and burn 'em!) :-)
-- Joe Michel NAR 82797 L1
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
Nor is one needed.
  Quoted Text Here  
NOT need. Ask. Say no. If they refuse to legally sell to you file a complaint with them formally.
  Quoted Text Here  
Nope. Not any federal laws.
  Quoted Text Here  
Correct. See above.
  Quoted Text Here  
Manufacturer. Anytime an item is logged improperly it can and MUST be logged out. Then it can be sent to you. During the time period this situation is being corrected there will be alot of logging out of motors and loads from magazines nationwide.
  Quoted Text Here  
ATF has one set of rules (LEUP) DOT has yet another set of rules (Toy Propellant Devices) USPS has yet another set of rules (mailability) We have not even begun to discuss state or local yet.
You are fine. Order more.
Jerry

what Ed said is correct, the STATUS QUO essentially remains in effect until NPRM968 becomes law, or we lose or win the lawsuit...
My only question is how Aerotech gets away with mailing H180's through the mail......
anybody care to explain that me? go ahead I dare you to.......
shockie B)
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
mail......
Because the individual grain weight falls under or at the USPS Limit. Ive gotten I200's from Magnum before.
-Tim

Very good, Tim, I see you have been paying attention....
To go into more detail, Aerotech has a letter from the Las Vegas,Nevada Manager of Business Mail entry dated 7/27/93 which allows mailing the following reload kits:
EX-9305148 EX-9305149 EX-9305150
see here:
http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/customersite/resource_library/RegulatoryDocuments/USPS/USPS_Letter7-27-93.pdf
This Aerotech document will clue you in to what those EX numbers apply to:
http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/customersite/resource_library/RegulatoryDocuments/DOT/EX-9305148_9_50-5_27_93.pdf
So thats how Aerotech/Dealers can legally mail Easy Access motors thru the US Mail......
This concludes todays leson on mailing HPR motors...
shockie B)
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
That's legal. Each grain is 30g or less just like a SU F21.
  Quoted Text Here  
I probably have the cite on my website under USPS
Jerry

<< My only question is how Aerotech gets away with mailing H180's through the mail... >>
I don't recall the details, but they cleared it with the USPS so what's the problem?

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
There is always a group or club with an axe to grind willing to "recheck the credentials" of a supplier for the sole purpose of harassment and trying to find a nit.
That is an unfortunate fact.
Jerry

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Jerry, got a question - what was the original deal with the formation and breakup of "Powertech"? From reading between the lines on RMR these past few years, it appears that this was some sort of attempt at a partnership between you, Frank K, and Chuck R - why did it seem like a good idea at the time, and why did it turn out not to be?
I get the impression that the left-over resentments from that affair, whatever it was, are fairly close to the root of the grudges and acrimony that have been poisoning relationships between some of the major players in the HPR community since some time in the early 90's (and probably led to some blown opportunities to establish a sounder relationship with the BATF) - there's got to be some kind of story there, but one I've never seen clearly related. (It's like "the elephant in the middle of the room that nobody is talking about" or something...)
-dave w

  Quoted Text Here  
I am not actually ready to go into much detail on that.
However in general 8 guys all except me not in the consumer rocket business at the time of startup. I put in 80% of the money and they failed to deliver on 70% of promised money and 90% of promised labor.
The precipitating act of breakup was when a couple of them "went into without authorization or business purpose" two sites and took all of the rocket assets they wanted (one a Powertech storage facilty and one a U.S. Rockets facility. None of this was purchased by them, owned by them except through a partnership which had planned purposes and uses for the material and at NO time were they ever authorized to take material off USR property.
Then they went into business for themselves. All withoout notice, quitting the partnership or folowing any of the agreed to exit strategies. They ripped off the company and sold the goods with no permits whatsoever I might add.
So the bottom line after 10 years of litigation was they get $30k and I get $5.3m and they have to return the stuff.
I'll never see it.
  Quoted Text Here  
One partner Charles E Rogers was at the heart of the scam to claim I was in violation of FAA by NEVER filing a waivier, AND alleged I advertised 25,000 foot waivers which is false, and flew a rocket to about 25,000 feet by presenting a 13000 foot estimate to the RSO. The flight was cool, the FAA was fine, but knowing full well he bragged about flying to 25k at a 15k waiver site he had to do SOMETHING, right?
The something was not just let it be, no. He had to frame me as the perp.
FAA laughed it off as a hoax seeing my stack of waivers in their desk, but that did not dissuade Tripoli or Rogers. They removed me for "not filing FAA waivers ever".
Even at the BOD meeting I went to they were still claiming the same shit 12 years later. I did my time, I wanted to be reinstated as promised after 3 years or more. Nope Rogers REFUSED to produce the report on which I was removed despite 30 days notice before the hearing to produce the document.
It is a sham club run by sham people with sham goals and aspirtations. And they achieve them.
  Quoted Text Here  
Me too. The behind the scenes shenanigans definitely involve actual crimes and felonies so I try to not post evidence of that by those folks.
Proof my own grudge has limits.
Jerry
  Quoted Text Here  

I never said there was a problem....I was just curious to see if anybody knew how they were legally able to ship easy access motors via the usps... and Tim knew... shockie B)
  Quoted Text Here  

The main reason I brought this up was because I wanted everybody to see the significance of what the current definition of "Toy Propellant Device(s) " mean to Rocketry..
Anybody remember NPRM968 ? Well there was a section of NPRM 968 that effectively "gutted" the original definition of Toy Propellant Device......the definition that model rocket and easy access motors have been designated, so that they can be mailed...... See, it all becomes clear now, gutting the definition of Toy Propellant device by the BATFE in NPRM968 is an effort by the BATFE to close off all potential loopholes that we might use to define what a rocket engine is.....
Does anybody see the significance of Aerotech getting the USPS to designate Easy Access Motors as Toy Propellant devices? The significance is that if an HIJ Easy Access motor can be defined as a Toy Propellant Device, then same size or larger motors may also be able to be defined a such as long as the Propellant slugs are no larger than 62.5g....Now do you see how important this definition is? and why the BATFE wants to redefine it ..
And it also points out why in an earlier post I recommended that the NAR/TRA through the NFPA process define model rocket motors as 113 or 125 gr.... and then redefine HPR motors to be motors above this 113/125 g limit....then we could create 113/125 g propellant slugs for motors and they would still be able to be classified as Toy Propellant devices....
shockie B)
  Quoted Text Here  

shockwaveriderz wrote: > The main reason I brought this up was because I wanted everybody to > see the significance of what the current definition of "Toy > Propellant Device(s) " mean to Rocketry.. > > Anybody remember NPRM968 ? Well there was a section of NPRM 968 that > effectively "gutted" the original definition of Toy Propellant > Device......the definition that model rocket and easy access motors > have been designated, so that they can be mailed...... See, it all > becomes clear now, gutting the definition of Toy Propellant device by > the BATFE in NPRM968 is an effort by the BATFE to close off all > potential loopholes that we might use to define what a rocket engine > is..... > > Does anybody see the significance of Aerotech getting the USPS to > designate Easy Access Motors as Toy Propellant devices? The > significance is that if an HIJ Easy Access motor can be defined as a > Toy Propellant Device, then same size or larger motors may also be > able to be defined a such as long as the Propellant slugs are no > larger than 62.5g....Now do you see how important this definition is? > and why the BATFE wants to redefine it .. >
Actually, the USPS is allowing Aerotech to ship rocket motors that are classified as NA0323 (UN 1.4S) by the DOT. It just so happens that some of the Aerotech reloads have been classified as NA0323 by the DOT. 29mm and under. No 38mm reloads make the cut.
The old DOT "toy propellant device" classification also included motors in the 30 to 62.5 gram range. These are now 1.4C and are not shippable by USPS under any circumstances.
Now the interesting thing is that it would appear that HPR reloads do not meet the additional requirements (basically the NFPA/CPSC definition of a model rocket motor). How Aerotech managed to sweet talk the USPS into allowing the reloads to be shipped I have no idea.
> And it also points out why in an earlier post I recommended that the > NAR/TRA through the NFPA process define model rocket motors as 113 or > 125 gr.... and then redefine HPR motors to be motors above this > 113/125 g limit....then we could create 113/125 g propellant slugs > for motors and they would still be able to be classified as Toy > Propellant devices.... > > > shockie B) >

david: actually the USPS is allowing Aerotech to ship UN351 UN 1.4C see : http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/customersite/resource_library/RegulatoryDocuments/DOT/EX-9305148_9_50-5_27_93.pdf
shockie B)
  Quoted Text Here  
I think you may be mistaken here david..... see this: http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/customersite/resource_library/RegulatoryDocuments/USPS/USPS_Letter7-27-93.pdf
  Quoted Text Here  

The document you reference is a DOT classification document. How does it say that these items can be shipped via USPS?
It doesn't.
But another document does reference these EX numbers. It has the problem of being quite old plus not exactly letting 1.4C be shipped.
http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/customersite/resource_library/RegulatoryDocuments/USPS/USPS_Letter7-27-93.pdf
This letter (dated 1993) allows the shipment of reload kits (not specified) with certain EX numbers. Until recently these EX numbers also covered the reload kits with 30 gram and under propellant grains. Why did Aerotech decide to get new EX numbers for "HPR Lite"? The only good reason is for USPS shipping purposes.
The 1993 USPS letter states: "Postal regulations generally permit the mailing of hazardous materials that fall within the smallest quantity grouping regulated by (DOT)."
The USPS letter then quotes what is basically the definition of a model rocket motor. Do not be fooled by the mention of 62.5 grams here. The controlling limit is the requirement (read USPS publication 52) that the motor MUST be UN 1.4S AND NA0323 (model rocket motor) or UN0454 (igniters). It would appear that Pub. 52 has been updated since 1993 to make its language more clear than "smallest quantity grouping".
See the USPS letter to Aerotech on Aerotech's application to ship "Redline" propellants and other more recent USPS letters.
http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/customersite/resource_library/RegulatoryDocuments/USPS/usps_red_appr_6-19-01.pdf
"The other two Aerotech redline products (EX-0104078 and EX-0103055) that contain more than 30 grams of propellant material may NOT be placed in the mail under any circumstances."
Seems pretty clear to me.
The 1993 USPS letter seems to have been superseded by other letters from the USPS and should probably be removed or be clearly marked as being for historical purposes only.
shockwaveriderz wrote: > david: > actually the USPS is allowing Aerotech to ship UN351 UN 1.4C see : > http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/customersite/resource_library/RegulatoryDocuments/DOT/EX-9305148_9_50-5_27_93.pdf > > shockie B) >