MR motor sources

regardless of the status of NPRM 968, the BATFE was acting as if it were law, citing that as APCP was on the explosives list it must be placed in acceptable storage in any quantity.

this was not FUD .. this is an eyewitness account of an actual incident

"ATFE Requires Storage For APCP Motors & Reloads Under 62.5 Grams" at

May 14, 2003 - The ATFE is apparently not observing their self proclaimed exemption for APCP motors and reloads under 62.5 grams. While the 62.5 gram exemption is not law, the ATFE in their public statements has claimed that they always have and are continuing to exempt APCP motors and reloads under 62.5 grams from ATFE permit and storage requirements.

Mr. Drake Damerau, NEPRA president (NAR Section 614) found out the hard way that the ATFE is not observing the 62.5 gram exemption. Mr. Damerau applied for an ATFE permit and when the ATFE agent came over to his house to go over the paperwork, Mr. Damerau showed the agent his APCP motors including an Aerotech "Easy Access" J350. The ATFE agent discussed Mr. Damerau's motors with other ATFE agents and the agent told Mr. Damerau that the weight of the propellant does not matter. APCP is on the ATFE Explosives List and all APCP motors and reloads have to be in an approved storage magazine regardless of propellant weight. Mr. Damerau was told by the ATFE to make immediate arrangements to put his motors in a storage magazine or the ATFE would confiscate them.

- iz

David wrote:

So, Jerry is wrong then when he says that 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 is the law?

It seems to me that the law is what the government (including the ATFE) enforces and is upheld by the courts - not what makes sense or what we wish it to be.

the ARSA site provided evidence (eye-witness account) that this is how the BATFE behaves (that their word is our law)

IMO this was one of many incidents where a BATFE field office was acting autonomously. I think they are confused and upset, and decided to use scare tactics to pressure people into conforming to a policy they would like to see codified, but clearly was not (and still is not). I believe they were/are under internal pressure from their leadership to flex their muscles, and while individual agents think it is an absurd waste of their time, they have their careers and families to think about.

People were/are really nervous about BATFE agressiveness, and the threat of penalty was/is severe. And the BATFE is a bully, who bluffs. How far would they carry such a bluff? I don't know, but I am not aware of any arrests made over the issue.

John was demonstrating how the BATFE had run amock, and we were not immune to harrassment even from their 62.5 g hammer. I believe that demonstration was based on fact and not FUD.

I think the BATFE leadership is deranged in this matter, and both their policy and their actions are correspondingly incoherent. I think John has made a similar observation

Current ATFE *regulations* require no such thing, and I don't believe John thinks they do. BATFE uses their creative (or destructive is more apropo) interpretation of the regulations to rationalize a requirement that does not exist, but which they act as if it did.

Note that the webpage cited says "ATFE Requires Storage For APCP Motors & Reloads Under 62.5 Grams". It does not say "ATFE Regulations Require ..."

- iz

David wrote:

David,

I am not aware of any 62.5g exemption codified in law. I believe that the original proposal was sufficiently ambiguous to allow motor manufacturer to offer an "Easy Access" line of RMS, and that the BATFE devised NPRM 968 in acknowledgement of, and to resolve this ambiguity.

HOWEVER,

IF the APCP listing in the Explosives List has validity, (which is arguably NOT and consequently a subject of the TRA/NAR vs BATFE suit)

AND

rockets and their materials are not exempt as Propellant Actuated Deviced (as the BATFE would have us believe, despite their own previous statements to the contrary)

THEN

all APCP requires a LEUP regardless of size, as the BATFE contends.

I don't believe any of these criteria are met, and the BATFE is unilaterally abusing their license to interpret the regulations (in defiance of legal definitions established by Congress). Hence SB 724 to settle this once and for all (and in consideration of the safety and security issues that come into being over the past decade or so.)

I do not personally believe that a judge and jury will rule in favor of the BATFE prosecuting a case against a rocketeer possessing "Easy Access" motors. But most vendors and many rocketeers are understandably choosing to error on the side of caution.

- iz

no, Jerry is quite right ... as the BATFE have themselves agreed in the past

the problem arises, for one, from the BATFE's more reason creative reinterpretation of what qualifies as a propellant actuated device

will a Judge support their license to autonomously and unilaterally making such a reinterpretation?

will (s)he do so with repect to their equally creative reinterpretation of what constitues and explosive (despite Congress' clear definition)?

in the end, what matters whether or not we have our lives disrupted and reputations damaged by the consequence of a Judge and Jury upholding the BATFE positions

in this we agree

hence the lawsuit and legislative initiative - to manage that risk

- iz

David wrote:

David,

I relayed your ARSA webpage errata to JW, and he sent this note of appreciation

- iz

I'm sure David isn't, but apparently the leaders of the ATF are.

David,

I relayed your ARSA webpage errata to JW, and he sent this note of appreciation

go fish

- iz

GCGassaway wrote:

Yep, I was there. ;-) He said that there is no 62.5 gram exemption written in any regulation. He also produced a letter stating that the weight of 62.5 grams included the total weight of the assembled motor.

For me, I have no choice in having to have a LEUP. There are no vendors that will sell me certified HPR motors without one. Sure, I could buy USR motors (by the pallet), or make uncertified motors, but then I can't fly them at my own launches. (NAR insurance)

-- Drake "Donning my asbestos suit, readying for the flames" Damerau

NEPRA President NAR Section 614 NAR 79986 L3 Remove "My Shorts" to reply

Point!

The law is read literally. With all its faults.

Examples of faults? NFPA-1122,1125,1127.

Yes.

With hard PROOF.

Am curious as to whome provides insurance policies to EX individuals like J.Irvine, assuming he has a policy in place?

Kooch

Joel. phx

There's a whole nonNAR nonTRA club on the East coast. Not sure who insures them, but that would be good place to start.

Joel. phx

Any independent broker can issue you such a policy. Just the cost is prohibitive without the plan I have installed.

I do not "believes that the current ATFE regulations REQUIRE all APCP rocket motors over 62.5g to be stored according to ATFE regulations.", do you?

So if Wickman, TRA, NAR, Countdown Hobbies, Hangar11, or Masgnum, or anyone else say or act otherwise they are doing so in direct contravention of the law.

The NAR reply to the points and authorities in summary judgement affirm this in no uncertain terms.

I absolutely agree the website if it says that NEEDS to be corrected immediately.

Propose a specific correction please.

Thank you.

Jerry