You forgot the loophole in this law... the permit holder can supervise the use of regulated material and simply log it as having been expended. Officially the material hasn't been sold or transferred, it's merely been used.
We've already gotten at least some rulings in our favor.
removes this
_If_ they ever do that, which remains to be seen. NPRM 968 has major flaws and may never be finalized. In addition, there is still the exemption for Propellent Actuated Devices, plus TRA/NAR are pursuing the legality of APCP's classification as an explosive.
Here's a better idea: Just go to a launch and fly some rockets instead of handwringing and worrying about what "might be". The government isn't swooping down on launches in their big black helicopters, busting people for flying H motors.=20
It's not that simple. For individuals buying motors, they need to know what the dealer's policies are, and dealers have to set policy based on the level of perceived risk. A dealer who has the local ATF agent barking down his snorkle is likely to take a very conservative approach.
I think the best advice is for individuals to consult their dealer, and attend their local club launches.
So Jerry, were you fined $40k for going by the regs "as written" when you shipped motors labled as "model aircraft parts"? Or was your fine a result of deliberately violating the regs "as written"? Knowing the answer to this would help us to determine how much risk is involved with following your advice.
Please note, I do NOT believe that any individual flyers have to worry about this, but manufacturers and dealers do. They're the ones who are most at risk, and have the most to lose, if "going by the regs as written" means violating DOT or ATF policy.
Ray thinks there is such a thing as a loophole simply because he has heard the term used on mass media whose sole purpose is to tease and misdirect you sufficiently to keep you watching. MUST KEEP WATCHING.
Jerry
It worked for Bruce Kelly too :)
Were all those TRA board votes and demands WRT HPR magazine "Loopholes" too?? :)
I would expect the BATFE to take a very dim view of any dealer that has a large number of items listed in his records as "expended" instead of sold.
The BATFE stated in their November status report to Judge Walton that they had decided (on 22 March 2004) to issue a final rule on the 555.141 exemption separate from the rest of NPRM 968. They claimed that this final rule would be ready for internal review by the DOJ and OMB by Feb. 2005.
See:
formatting link
So it appears to me that they are serious about issuing a final rule. They appear to not care that they bungled the process and are perfectly willing to let anyone who is willing to spend a pile of money on lawyers challenge it. But they aren't going to back down now.
"(7) The importation and distribution of fireworks classified as Class C explosives and generally known as ``common fireworks'', and other Class C explosives, as described by U.S. Department of Transportation regulations in 49 CFR 173.100 (p), (r), (t), (u) and (x)."
Does anyone have a copy of DOT codes from that period? (I tried to look those subsections up in the current DOT codes a while back, but it appeared that the section numbering had got rearranged since the ATF code constructed that reference...)
What "other class C explosives" were described in subsections (p), (r), (t), (u), and (x)? Could these descriptions have reasonably been construed to include something that is now shipped as a "class 1.4C rocket motor"?
The DOT rules underwent a major reorganization when they "harmonized" their hazardous materials regulations with UN standards in the early 90's. You will have go to a library that is a federal repository, like I did, and look up their copy on microfiche.
I thought I made a copy of that page but I can't seem to locate it at the moment. Working from memory, a couple of the letters had no entry. I don't know if these ever had a definition because I didn't dig that far back into the files.
"Toy propellant devices consist of small paper or composition tubes or containers containing a small charge of slow burning propellant powder. These devices must be so designed that they will neither burst nor produce external flame except through the nozzle on functioning. Ignition elements, if attached, must be of a design examined by the Bureau of Explosives or the Bureau of Mines, and approved by the Director, OHMT."
I am a little fuzzy on what the other entry was. I think it was for explosive car alarms or perhaps just common fireworks.
Possibly, which is why some dealers have more restrictive policies than others. On the other hand, the dealer doesn't _have_ to be the person on record as having expended the motor -- you could have several LEUP holders at a launch, purchasing motors and supervising their use.
The ATF claims lots of things. Until it happens, I see no reason for anyone to act as if it already is upon us. Even if it is as inevitable as you seem think, I'd still prefer to fight it and put it off for as long as possible. If the only choices are "screwed now or screwed later", I'll take "later"!
That is the opposite of what you said when you justified TRA demanding ATF permits since 1994 by board vote, for manufacturer/dealers.
That is the opposite of what you said when you justified vendors (resellers) asking for ATF permits from consumers for known exempt goods as a means to (ineffectively) "appease the ATF".
Then why do you participate in attacking the only vendors willing to actually, in reality, do it?
It seems that Ray is taking two opposing positions on the same issues: there's the sort of thing he said above, but then he turns around and says stuff about how "ATF's position changed, and they started telling people that HPR motors weren't exempt" and that "an agency's own interpretation of its regulations is valid" unless proven otherwise by a court.
I think Ray's position is quite schizoid: he genuinely believes in traditional American notions of "vigilance in the defense of liberty against tyranny" and all that: just don't ask him to Get in Trouble with The Police...
Hint for you, Ray: In any struggle for the defense of liberty, we will _always_ be at risk of being perceived as "terrorists", "rebels", "criminals", "malicious hooligans", and any other nasty mames that the Powers That Be want to call us: we'll need to have a thick skin about such accusations, accepting them as a known hazard of a necessary task.
We won't get anywhere if we let ourselves be inhibited by the worry of the government telling us that we're in trouble: we need to be more worried about how we can force the government to notice that _it_ is in trouble with _us_!
jerry, that should not be a problem for you. According to you, 90%-95% of rocketeers are "lone rangers" who are neither TRA or NAR members. What's that, like 50,000 flyers? What's stopping you from selling your "born unregulated PADs" to them?
NFPA-1122. It is a NAR/TRA centric system. The CONSUMER market is what we are talking about here. Not say institutional sales. No permits are required to sell to MIL for example.
When I say A is broken and you say, just try B, I get it.
But I am saying A is radically and unnecessarilly broken. Fix it.
Not you of course, you are helpless. But the folks with the aurthority to make tangible change, the NFPA Sport Rocket caucus for example, read rmr or get reports.
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.