[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render the ATF's regulations no longer applicable to purchases of APCP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.
Reply to
Planet News
Loading thread data ...
This will really screw Aerotech and other engine dealers. Time to do alot of praying although I don't know where this is going.
Reply to
Kurt
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?
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
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
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
More than likely the ATF will ask for more time to "study" the burn rate data and proceed with the PAD rule.
shockwaveriderz wrote:
Reply to
Alex Mericas
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.
Reply to
Alan Jones
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.
Reply to
AZ Woody
10/17 is a status hearing. I wouldn't hold my breath for a final decision on that date. In the past the ATF has used these hearings to ask for more time.
AZ Woody wrote:
Reply to
Alex Mericas
Why would anyone expect the court to grant an injunction? The ATF has been allowed to enforce existing rules through this entire 7 year case. The defendant is typically given the benefit of the doubt, you know the whole "presumption of innocence" thing.
Phil Ste> > >>>>> 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. >> >>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? > > > They're thinking that will be irrelevant after 10/17 so why bother.
Reply to
Alex Mericas
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
Reply to
Phil Stein
It hasn't been said for ceretain but they are hoping. They've also said there's a good chance that there won't be. This hearing on 10/17 is when ATF is supposed to have their data showing APCP should be classified as an explosive.
Phil
Reply to
Phil Stein
Either way, I can't find fault with them waiting a week to see how things turn out and then go from there.
Someone else with a big legal budget said - it's the principle. My priniciples have waited this long. A little more time won't hurt.
Phil
Reply to
Phil Stein
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.
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
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:
Reply to
Alex Mericas
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
Reply to
David

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.