Question about APCP storage

If it turns out Jerry is right and we use this PAD exemption does that
only effect the commerce of APCP? Do we still have to store APCP since
it is on the explosives list?
TP
Reply to
Tim Fuentes
Loading thread data ...
Well, the storage requirements are in part 55 (now 555), along with the permit requirements... the whole "part" falls under the scope of the various exemptions given at section 141.
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
What makes you think the PAD exemption has anything to do with Jerry?? TRA/NAR have also championed the PAD exemption, and it was part of their lawsuit. It was the ATF that said motors were not PADs, and it took a court ruling to change that.
Reply to
RayDunakin
So they're ready to certify his and Kosdon's motors now that they're not enforcing federal law?
Joel. phx
Reply to
Joel. Corwith
Equally as important, it was Gary Rosenfield who first got them to state that they were PADs.
-Kevin
Reply to
Kevin Trojanowski
Seems even the letter from the NAR/TRA BOT/BOD says' "fully assembled rocket motors".
Not Reload kits, nor the process of making a "fully assembled rocket motor". Seems this all means nothing to users of reload kits, EX folks, manufacturing folks, or DOT restrictions
Why is this such a difficult concept? The message that Bunny posted states this specifically!
Here are the exact words from Bunny's letter:
"fully assembled rocket motors are propellant actuated devices under the law and are exempt from regulation by BATFE."
It DOES NOT say "along with the parts/chemicals/igniters, prior to assembly are exempt!"
"fully assembled" = SU only. And then when you obtain them "assembled".
The ONLY thing this seems to do is that the 62.5g limit on "fully assembled rocket motors" goes away until the BATFE jumps through the proper hoops. Not that there are many SU motor with
Reply to
AZ Woody
Granted, as is doesn't restrict "user assembled", but it does restrict reload kits, as they are not assembled rocket motors..
So you do an RMS motor, and is it a PAD during the time it takes to put the assembled motor into a bird until it's burned!
But when you by the parts, and until it is assembled, it's not a PAD, and still requires whatever the BATFE is saying. After it's burned, it's not a PAD either... just junk to dispose of, and a case to be cleaned!
So, with the ruling, the BATFE can not hassle you if your are holding an assembled RMS in your hand, but they can if you're putting it together!
I think for the matter of discussion, the ruling does little for reload kits, and really only applies to SU motors.. Sorry, but if I need a LEUP to by a reload, I'm no better off than before the ruling!
Reply to
AZ Woody
That's the ticket.
Not entirely. A dealer can assemble the reload for you, hand you the assembled motor, and you're good to go.
Or, your buddy with a LEUP can buy the reload, babysit you while you assemble it, or assemble it for you, and you're good to go.
This is a HUGE deal.
-Kevin
Reply to
Kevin Trojanowski
As far as chemicals, it doesn't need to. The chemicals to make APCP are unregulated, thus exempt. Also, ATF does not require LEMP's when making APCP for your own use.
Mike Fisher
Reply to
Mfreptiles
Here's my take:
A "fully assembled rocket motor" is a PAD, just as a nailgun loaded with cartridges is a PAD. The cartridges are exempt, even when they are not loaded in the nailgun, and even though, by itself, a cartridge is NOT a PAD! I think we should treat reloads just the same as nailgun cartridges.
Reply to
RayDunakin
But that's just personal opinion. What we need is legal guidance. It would be best if everyone were to contact an attorney to determine their legal standing regarding reloads, wouldn't it? Say, maybe we could form a group and have everyone chip in. That sure seems like a valuable investment considering the risk, don't you think? Wonder where we could find a good lawyer in this matter...
Joel. phx
BTW, a nail gun is a propellant actuated industrial tool.
Reply to
Joel. Corwith
Let's see here, I work at a prominent law firm.....
I'll try to ask sometime this week. Personally I view the reload as a component of the PAD since the reload is designated for the PAD casing/closure use only and the fact that a casing/enclosure is just a piece of metal.
Ted Novak TRA#5512
Reply to
nedtovak
Well, no name dropping,.. ;)
I think we agree. Congress exempted 'propellant actuated industrial tools' to cover propellant for propellant actuated fastener installers. The bammer itself is not regulated (not explosive) so there's no need to 'exempt' it. Propellant for a PAD whether a complete assembly or pre-formed components intended for that assembly would be exempt as well [personal opinion].
Joel. phx
Reply to
Joel. Corwith
BUT....does the BATFE require a person to have a LEUP when they make APCP for their own personal use?. Thats what I want to know.... I assume you are quoting from that ARSA news item...? in
formatting link
"This is in response to your e-mail dated November 12, 2003, in which you requested a determination as to whether your manufacturing of rocket propellant (ammonium perchlorate in rubber/poly butadiene) for your own use is allowed under the Limited Explosives User Permit 27 CFR, Part 555."
This above seems to me to be saying, "Hey I already have LEUP so can I manufacturer for my own use APCP under a LEUP? "
So this news item is totally misleading. It should have asked, "Do I need an LEUP to manufacturer for my own personal use, APCP propellant?"
Another example of ARSA misdirection......
shockie B)
shockie B)
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
Then write to Inspector Gene Baker of the BATFE and ask. He has told non-commerce fireworks manufacturers (amateurs) that federal permits are not required. At this point why would anyone believe anything but the horse's mouth?
First page Orange book: "Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations PART 55 -- COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES"
Are you participating in "commerce" when you perform EX?
Joel. phx
"but so far as we have been informed, Federal permits/licenses are still required only for those "engaged in the business" of manufacturing, importing, buying or selling, and using display fireworks, and not for those making them solely for personal enjoyment rather than in the furtherance of economic activity. "
Reply to
Joel. Corwith
So does this mean that I can make ALL the BP and APCP that I want as long as I don't sell and or distribute it in anyway? And I don't need an LEUP for either?
I don't understand Joel thats why I brought this up. In that ARSA news article they ask if a LEMP is required while basically stating that they have a LEUP? Isn't that the way you read that? Or am I missing something in the translation of that article?
Maybe its just a "BATFE" thing, in that on one hand they want to regulate APCP as an explosive such that you can't purchase it without an LEUP, but on the other hand they will allow you to make as much as you want as long a its not in commerce?
shockie B)
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
For legal advise you need to seek out the advice of council. To me the letter on ARSA as well as the Orange book Q&A indicate that you do not need an LEMP for any quantity of manufacture for personal use (NOTE: storage rules {may} still apply). However, will you put your butt on the line with a letter which isn't addressed to you from some website? I would submit that if none of these organizations are going to support amateur activities, the least that is needed is for each member to cover themselves addressing use,manufacture, and/or storage of explosive material. Local laws will vary and having council familiar with local, state and federal regulations is the only way to go.
The Q&A only refers to commercial activities. Question 30: Q-What activities are covered by licenses and permits? A-Licenses allow persons to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials. Any individual or business entity intending to engage in any of these activities must first obtain a license. "
to me indicates that if you are not 'engaged in the business', you do not require a license (even LEUP).
That is the way I read it. The answer on the LEMP is not dependent on the LEUP (as it appears to me).
The laws governing the BATFE fall under "Part 55 COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES". As you put it, it IS just a BATFE thing because their rules are based (supposed to be based?) on those laws. If you're buying motors, you are engaged in commerce. If you're making them for your own use, you are not.
Joel. phx
Now I'm starting to wonder about the homebrew industry which is restricted in the amount they can make for personal use. Is that in the law, or have they come up with a rule that you can only possibly consume xx amount, such that after that it would -have- to be for "commerce".
Reply to
Joel. Corwith
Well thats interesting as here in the state of Kentucky Black powder in any amounts is not considered an explosive.... SO I suppose that if I make my own BP if small quantities( for example perhaps an OZ at a time max) for my own personal use in ejection charges for example, then I will not require a LEUP....
shockie B)
Reply to
shockwaveriderz

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.