Re: BATF Stuff...

Do you expect us to believe your "BIG FINE" was a cost benefit to rocketry, in any form??

ROTFLMAO..

Fred

It was a FAR lower cost and neutral to the industry at large.

The NAR/TRA suit is a HUGE cost and potentially a HUGE buttfuck to the industry.

If only they would fixate on the obvious, we would be fine. 27 CFR

1. It really is that simple.

Jerry

except that it would take a simple rule revision to eliminate your exemption which they do not recognize anyway.

the judge has already essentially ruled that they are allowed to determine what a PAD is making YOUR 27 CFR whatever a moot issue.

what say you ?

Yes.

Common sense led me to that conclusion, and my conclusion was confirmed on the TRA list.

And apparently good news is "processed" much quicker. Is that not true?

Where is NPRM 968? In a black hole or dead?

The responses to that were intense and killer.

Jerry

Good news requires less processing. Why is that so hard to understand?

Why do you "make up" excuses for actions you are not party to, in the loop of, or experienced in?

Jerry

Yeah. When you've been found guilty or in violation as many times as Jerry, then you are an expert.

david:

actually the toy propellant device exemption still exists, NPRM 968 has not become final( and therefore law) , so it actually completely changes the definition of the original toy propellant exemption, which was synonmous with model rocket motor.....

the 1994 "AT Letter" definition from the ATF is "rulemaking" on their part and is not final nor law...yet. The Toy Propellant exemption still reigns supreme until that time ..

keep in mind that AT sells so-called EZ access(H-J) as TPD......

This is a quote from Bob Kaplow, somewhere in the last 10 years:

"What is referenced on page 35 of the Orange Book, 55.141 Exemptions (a) General (7) is certain class C explosives as defined by the US DOT 49CFR173.100. The particular section relevant to us is (u) "Toy Propellant Devices". As long as a model rocket motor is DOT certified as a Toy Propellant Device, it is exempt from BATF regulation. This covers all Aerotech, Apogee, Estes, FSI, Kosdon, MRC, NCR, Quest, et. al. rocket motors regardless of propellant chemistry. AT Easy Access reloads happen to have DOT Toy Propellant Device classification, thus are exempt from regulation.

To remove "Toy Propellant Devices" from the exempt list would end the hobby of model rocketry as we know it today. No one would be allowed to sell, buy, store, or fly ANY model rocket without an LEUP.

shockie B)

I have bad news for you. The toy propellant device exemption at 27 CFR

Go to

When the brilliant BATF finally got around to changing their regulations to match, they included the UN numbers for consumer fireworks but left out anything for model rocket engines. (They also left off toy caps for cap guns.)

The BATF sent a letter to Aerotech stating that this was a mistake. The toy propellant device exemption is now in a sort of limbo. It is no longer on the books but the BATFE sort of pretends that it is.

More details on this on the regulations page of my web site.

In case you didn't notice, when Aerotech changed hands to RCS they had to get new DOT paperwork. The old paperwork included the Class C toy propellant device language and the new does not. What effect will this have? I don't know.

But there are currently no exemptions in the regulations explicitly for rocket motors. All we have is the PAD exemption and it is limited by the 1994 letter to items that pass CPSC muster. No more than 62.5 grams propellant, under 80 N-s total impulse, and pre-assembled.

Good thing the BATFE isn't enforcing that.

Yet.

shockwaveriderz wrote:

What's going on here? That was a post of high informational & factual content.

This is r.m.r. The only posts allowed are either calling someone names, purely speculative posts, or trolls. Please get with program.

Actually I would think good and bad news would require the same time to properly process.

david: it seems we both agree that the DOT TPD disapperaed circa 91-92....I thought (evidently mistakenl;y) that it still existed in CFR 27... was it removed via some NPRM in 1998? If not isn't that another example of illegal rulemaking on the BATFE's part?

Just as the letters in 1994 are illegal.....the Judge seems to me is making a major error in saying that the 1994 BATFE letters to AT mean something: when again the basis of the 1994 BATFe letter was different from the then "current" regulations....

and why is NPRM 968 so intent on totally changing the definition of TPD if TPD doesn't exist anymore?

Ok I understand this as read from your website.......

what I am trying to point out, in their rush to try to fix there error, the BATFE again participated in "rulemaking" via the 1994 letter. The 1994 letter can have no validity or authority IF it is also the result of arbriatry and illegal rulemaking. Should NOT this also be done via some NPRM for it to be LAW?

I didn't know this. I wonder why this is too. SO the AT TPD exemptions for their socalled EZ is no longer valid?

yes, we both know that the BATFE is intend on using the "child" CSPC for model rocket motors

Don't worry. It won't last.

It existed only as a reference to DOT regulations that no longer existed.

It was perfectly legit. At that time the hobby got worked up because this particular NPRM increased the permit fees from $20/$10 to $100/$50. Nobody noticed the little detail hidden away in 55.141.

The judge has never ruled on anything to do with the legitimacy of the 1994 letters. That issue was not raised in the lawsuit.

You can read the GPO web site just as easily as I can. There is no toy propellant device exemption currently. It vanished in 1998. At that time the BATF claimed that they would fix the problem. Instead of being above board with the fix, they tried to slide it by in NPRM 968. Which was supposed to be the result of a review of fireworks related changes having nothing to do with this exemption.

Note that the exemption in NPRM 968 is the BATFE's interpretation of what the old exemption meant. Of course the correct updated version would be to exempt class 1.4 rocket motors or reload kits.

I think that, in the notice for NPRM 968, the BATF noted that they had received proposals to have a blanket exemption for "class 1.4 items" (i.e., parallel to the former exemption for DOT class C materials), but that they refused to implement it. Their excuse was that certain materials (such as blasting caps) might qualify to be _shipped_ as 1.4 based on being packaged in a certain way, but the user might remove them from the protective packaging for storage, so they ought to be subject to the storage requirements for "high explosives".

(One thing I'm wondering... I've never seen any explosives safety manuals or blasting cap product instruction sheets, but wouldn't correct handling of blasting caps include keeping them in the manufacturer's protective packaging until use??)

At any rate, I suspect that BATF is being coy about their real reason for sticking by their sloppy porting job (rather than using what you describe as the "correct updated version")... their actual thought is probably that blasting caps, even if shippable as "1.4", might be considered a "gateway" product, access to which might facilitate the production of illicit "destructive devices", so they want to make sure that nobody can legally buy them without going through the licensee/permittee distribution chain. (They would probably feel like they weren't making the permit system do what they considered it their duty to make it do, if there were a way for anyone to "make anything go bang" without either complying with or violating their regulations, and a blanket exemption for DOT 1.4 stuff would create that sort of "loophole"...)

But this is all conjecture - I've never claimed to be a genuine authority on the Bureaucratic Mindset...

-dave w

Not necessarily. Good news is usually pretty obvious, and doesn't require much (if any) investigation to find out what options are available to us.

The comment was from the IME and it wasn't about exemptions. It was to adopt the UN hazard classification for purposes of storage:

"IME has suggested that ATF convert to United Nations terminology for hazard classifications in determining the appropriate storage for explosive materials." FR Vol 68, No. 19 page 4409

In other words this would allow UN 1.4 items to be stored in low explosive magazines. Note that black powder is UN class 1.1 just like high explosives.

Looking at NPRM 968 again I find it amusing to note that something which is nominally the result of a review of fireworks related regulations has a large number of suggestions from the IME. Who deal with "real" explosives.