[Planet News] AeroTech Statement on New ATF Regulations Effective October 10, 2006

AeroTech Information Release Dated: 10/3/06
CEDAR CITY, Utah USA -- On October 10, 2006 new regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will take effect. The new rules limit the propellant weight of rocket motors and reload kits that are permitted to be sold without federal licensing and storage requirements. On that date only those rocket motors "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" will be exempt. A copy of the ATF final rule may be downloaded in PDF format from the AeroTech website.
The bottom line for AeroTech consumers and dealers is that all rocket motors and reload kits containing more than 62.5 grams assembled propellant weight may not be sold to anyone who does not possess an ATF explosive permit or license. This includes all AeroTech "Easy Access" and "Restricted Access" reloads as well as the G33J reload kit for the RMS-29/40-120 motor. In addition, AeroTech/RCS will no longer be permitted to sell these products to dealers who do not possess the necessary ATF dealer license.
As you may be aware, the ATF was sued by the National Association of Rocketry (NAR) and the Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA) in February of 2000, challenging, among other issues, the ATF's authority to regulate Ammonium Perchlorate composite propellant (APCP). A hearing is currently scheduled for October 17, 2006 (one week after the new regulations take effect) to decide the final outcome of this litigation.
It is possible that on that date U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton (D.C.) will vacate the ATF's decision to regulate APCP. This would render the ATF's regulations no longer applicable to purchases of APCP motors and reload kits of any size. Should that occur, AeroTech will issue another communication to its customers and dealers explaining the judge's decision and its ramifications.
AeroTech Consumer Aerospace is a division of RCS Rocket Motor Components, Inc., Cedar City, UT.

Planet News wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
This will really screw Aerotech and other engine dealers. Time to do alot of praying although I don't know where this is going.

I agree this isn't good, but all the dealers I know of have been acting for the past 1-2 years like Easy Access is gone already. So this really only affects your personal stash.
-- David
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
I still can't believe that our respective organizations, and our very expensive legal team weren't in court on 12-August asking for an injunction against this rule until the legal case that has dragged on for years has been settled. The inaction borders on malpractice.
What were they thinking?

according to Mark Bundick over on NARSections, we have 6 years to file suit against ATF on the 62.5g limit.... If on oct 17 APCP is declared a non-explosive, the 62.5 g limit for APCP rocket motors becomes moot....thats if we win....
BP and other "low explosives" rocket motors would still be restricted to the 62.5 g limit....
and is Oct 17 really the final final date? If the ATF loses, can/will they appeal? Will they get an injunction? if we lose can/will we appeal? as the stomach turns...... the plot thickens.....
terry dean

More than likely the ATF will ask for more time to "study" the burn rate data and proceed with the PAD rule.
shockwaveriderz wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

shockwaveriderz wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
What is NARSections, and can any NAR member access it? Larry Lobdell Jr. NAR 58331 SR

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
It's a Yahoo Group for NAR Section officers.

  Quoted Text Here  
Who says we'll even get a ruling on 17-Oct? The JBGTs will drag this along for several years if necessary. meanwhile the motors that we've used for L1 and L2 to get people INTO the hobby will be unavailable in 4 days. The hobby as we know it may be dead by the time the judge finally issues a favorable ruling in the case.
That's why we need an injunction NOW. THE JBGTs have nothing to lose and everything to gain by dragging this case on forever. Get an injunction now, and thye lose that advantage.

What would you base your injunction on? Illegal or improper rule making? Doubt that will work. Likelyhood we'll win on the remaining counts? Perhaps, but you have to show why an injunction is so critical that it can't wait until the next schedule hearing - 10 days later. Irreparable harm? Why now? Why more than in May 2003? The ATF has claimed all along that they consider the 62.5g limit valid. They've also said it is possible for non-permit holders to participate in flights. And how is this different from the LAST time we asked for an injunction with the VERY SAME Judge on the VERY SAME issue? Well for one, the ATF now has completed their rule making process.
The only way we're going to rid the hobby from regulation is to get Congress to act. What are the chances of THAT happening?
Bob Kaplow wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
One of the things we've claimed in the suit is that the BATF didn't follow their own rule making process. I doubt the court would look favorably on us if we started complaining now that they have followed the process.
-- Roger

I would state that they still didn't follow the rule making process, in that all of the commentary was met with the bureaucratic equivalent of "we don't care -- neener, neener, neener."
David Erbas-White
Roger Smith wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:30:06 -0500, Alex Mericas
  Quoted Text Here  
How about bargaining in bad faith? They KNEW the ruling was coming down soon, which might make the whole thing a wasted effort... yet they went ahead and did it ANYWAY. They behave as though the judge is going to rule in their favour, so why bother changing our procedures?

Len Lekx wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
The ATF doesn't bargain. Hasn't for the 12 years I've been following this. So good or bad faith doesn't mean anything.
But if you feel strongly, go ahead and find a lawyer to file for an injunction yourself. That's your right. The legal team who knows the case and the Judge and has filed for injunctions before has recommended against it.
I saw the handwriting on the wall three years ago. I hope for the best but I'm prepared for the worst.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Okay - poor choice of wording. :-)
  Quoted Text Here  
Actually... it's not, since I'm not a US citizen.
And at any rate, I'm working to get myself 'legal'. I have most of the paperwork complete to make a 'Relief of Disability' application. Assuming that it's approved, the next step is my non-storage LEUP application...

On 4 Oct 2006 12:53:28 -0500, kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
They're thinking that will be irrelevant after 10/17 so why bother.

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:01:46 -0400, Phil Stein
  Quoted Text Here  
It is not just 7 days, so why bother? It is the principle of the thing. Even if it were only one day, that still forces many sport rocketeers to deplete their stocks of affected motors and grains, or to purchase a LUEP and storage if they are so lucky to be able to obtain one. An induction SHOULD be obtained, until the issues are fully resolved in court.

Alan Jones wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I'd prefer an injunction...
David Erbas-White

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I'm about as worried about the principle as our leadership is. If you have the spare change, maybe you fund a suit over prinicples. After you're done with that, get and induction and after that, get an injunction.
Phil

Phil Stein wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Has it been said anywhere that on 10/17 a ruling WILL be announced? Not here or ROL, or other forums newsgroups by "Internet lawyers", but I mean by NAR, TRA and the legal team?
All I can see, it's just another "status" hearing, and while a ruling might occur, it could also be another "non event" as far as a ruling.