[Planet News] ATF publishes final rule on model rocket motors

Exactly.
Make no mistake... the control is over the perceived safety level of rocketry, not the explosive power, but the tool of current argument is APCP.
If this is not set right... a testable (and has been tested) non-explosive composition, then the boding is not well for the future.
On the other hand, I would and do still enjoy MODROC, but I don't want to have to become papered and inspected just to enjoy a harmless hobby above that level. Sadly, HP will be limited to the rich and the few. Most of us are lucky to get a couple HP launches off per year. Those extra hurdles just makes it all the more co$tly to even want to deal with it... but that's the whole point, right?
Cheers!
~ Duane Phillips.
writes:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
With the final rule on 62.5 per motor (not per grain) now final, at least in the short term, there seems to be no "easy access" any more.
The proposed rule on PADs seems a logical next step for the BATFE to take, as the lawsuit could go on for some time yet (what ever side loses, will probably appeal).
Anthony Cesaroni wrote:

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

This doesn't match the statement on the BATFE web site, or the 7-Aug federal register publication:
http://www.atf.gov/press/fy06press/081106pad_amendeddefinition.htm
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/E6-13201.htm
"WASHINGTON The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) published a PROPOSED rule in the Federal Register today to clarify that hobby rocket motors are not propellant actuated devices, due to the nature of their design and function. Therefore, hobby rocket motors are not covered by the exemption such devices have from the requirements of Federal explosives law and regulations."
Per the Federal Register, this is yet another PROPOSAL with a COMMENT PERIOD that runs for the next 90 days. I don't see anything there about a final rule. It's a revision to one part of their NPRM from January 2003, and is not a final rule.
And it's yet another example of JBGT arrogance. These folks are domestic terrorists and should be arrested and jailed.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
    S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bob,
One is a final rule:
http://www.rocketryplanet.com/content/view/656/28 /
One is a NPRM:
http://www.rocketryplanet.com/content/view/657/28 /
Two separate CFR publishings by BATFE.
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.