Re: If I happen to "disappear'.....

> Today I received an email from a Roy Parker, who I gather used to work with > the ATF. I don't know if he still does. Anyway If anybody was wondering if > current or former ATF agents are persusing RMR, I think now we have some > veidence that they do. > > I normally don't republish personal emails but I thought the readers might > want to see the mindset of the ATF as far as rocket motors and APCP is > concerned, and how it has not chnaged one iota in 7 years. But more > importantly is the fact that everything the ATF wanteed back then, they have > already gotten or will soon get. > > You guys are fighting the wrong battle.?? Congress created the > definition of explosives that ATF has to by law use.?? APCP is an > explosive the world around and no amount of bullshit posturing can > change that classification. > As I told many of you back in the early nineties when I was with ATF > that your best course of action was to work with ATF and develop a > reasonable regulatory program. > > You would be better served to work for a reasonable storage regulation > and a licensing exception that provides for the sale of model rocket > explosive components at properly permitted shoots.?? This would reduce > the regulatory violations for both DOT and ATF to a minimum and improve > the overall safety of your model rocket program. > > comment: > The NPRM Final Rule spells out exactly how the AT wants us to purchase, use > and store motors. They provide 2 avenues: > 1. a Hobby club LEUP and 2. place order to delaer and he delivers onsite and > you use on site.... > > I do not believe that Gary Rosenfield is any better off today after 12 > years of farting into the wind than he was when I drafted this reply to > him in 1994. > > Mr. Gary C. Rosenfield > President, AeroTech, Inc. > 1955 South Palm Street, Suite 15 > Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 > > Dear Mr. Rosenfield: > > This is in response to your letter dated May 5, 1994, to the Bureau of > Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms requesting a clarification regarding > rocket motors that are exempted under 27 CFR 55.141(a)(8).?? The > exemptions contained in 27 CFR 55.141 lists those items specifically > exempted by law in 18 U.S.C. section 845 and those other items that do > not constitute a public safety threat.?? ATF coordinates the definitions > of devices and items exempted with other Federal agencies, including > the Department of Transportation and the Consumer Product Safety > Commission (CPSC). > > We intended to exempt only those items that meet all of the > requirements we listed in our letter to you dated April 20, 1994, > including the requirements of the CPSC.?? We did intend to include in > the exemption the rocket motors that are classified as 1.4S UN 0349, > and that have been assigned a proper shipping name of Articles > Explosives, N.O.S. > > We are currently coordinating with the Federal Aviation Administration > and are closely following the National Fire Protection Association's > (NFPA) development of NFPA standard 1127.?? We also had representatives > attend the Tripoli Sanctioned, Battle Park 94 rocket launch in > Culpepper, Virginia, on May 21 and 22.?? When we have concluded these > activities, we will be better able to address your questions regarding > how the assembly of high-power rockets that contain more than 4 ounces > of propellant will be regulated under the Federal firearms laws > contained in 18 U.S.C. chapter 44 and 26 U.S.C. chapter 53. > Mr. Gary C. Rosenfield > > If you need further technical assistance, please contact Explosives > Enforcement Officer Roy Parker at (202) 927-8030. > > Sincerely yours, > > James L. Brown > Chief, Explosives Division > > Roy Parker > > So I did a google on Roy Parker and found this: > > JOINT STATEMENT ON FEBRUARY 4, 1999 MEETING WITH ATF > > Mark Bundick, NAR President > Bruce Kelly, TRA President > Pat Miller, NFPA Committee on Pyrotechnics > Mike Platt, HPRMADA > > Our thanks to Teresa Ficaretta, Tom Hogue, Bill, O'Brien, Roy Parker, > Mark Waller, and Jim Zammillo of the ATF , with particular thanks to > Mark who arranged the meeting. > > Overview: The ATF has little latitude in the law to provide regulatory > relief to the HPR hobby. They are charged by the Congress via the > National Firearms Act and the Explosives Act to insure that regulated > materials are not used in pathological ways, or diverted from licensed > users of these materials. Changes in regulation of materials must be > based on assurance that any relaxation poses no greater risks than > existing limits relative to pathological use or diversion. It is on > that charge that ATF is bound and on which they are proceeding to > draft the revised regulations. > > 1. AP Propellant Issues - AP propellant mixtures cannot be removed > from the annual list of explosives. The enabling legislation behind > this annual list says "any chemical mixture which may be > explosive.....". The ATF has no latitude to exclude low or > inefficient explosive mixtures, or items which, when used as intended > don't detonate. The Congressional mandate as written in the law > requires regulation of both low and high explosives. They pointed out > to us that many of the items on the annual list are lousy explosives, > but they have no room to change the list without legislative relief > from Congress. > > 2. Propellant Weight Limits - ATF is committed to the 62.5 gram limit > because they believe that limit represents a risk threshold of what > can be safely used and stored by the general public without license. > Their obligations under the law are to regulate any quantity of items > on the annual list, but by regulation, they exempt selected quantities > that don't represent any threat of misuse or increase public safety > risks. Since CPSC established this threshold for general, over the > counter sale, they believe this definition meets their statutory > needs. > > If we wish to change this limit to something higher, we will need to > demonstrate to ATF that increased exempt limits represent no increase > in potential for misuse, or increased public safety risks. NAR and > TRA are carrying on a discussion to determine what sorts of data or > test can be used to argue for an increased limit. > > It was clear that as things stand currently, any motor with assembled > weight over 62.5 grams is to become a regulated device. This has been > a consistent ATF position since the 1996 Huntsville NFPA meeting. > > Also, while the language is yet to be finalized on this limit, we > pointed out that a suggested wording could leave single use G motors > as unregulated, but reloadable G's as regulated. ATF does not want > that to happen, but we were unable to come up with a complete > paragraph that accomplished leaving reloadable G's unregulated. TRA > and NAR will produce suggested wording for ATF use within two weeks. > > remember the infamous Hill AFB rocket motor test with the G and J motors? > Seems the ATF had already made up their mind on the propellant limits. and > why the heck can't we get those test results? > > This became law on 10/10/06. > > 3. Destructive Device Determination - We discovered that rules > relevant to rocketry are actually embodied in two pieces of > legislation, the Explosives Act, which we knew about and the National > Firearms Act (NFA), which we did not. Under NFA, any rocket with more > than 4 ounces of propellant can be considered a destructive device. > ATF counsel strongly suggested we formally petition the Explosives > Technology Branch (ETB) for an exemption, provided under the law, for > sport rockets. Counsel indicated obtaining such an exemption should > not be difficult, but we should do this to further protect our hobby. > NAR and TRA will work to draft, complete and file such a letter with > ETB within the next two weeks. > > So NAR/TRA what ever happened to this exemption? Was this ever pursued? I > still beleive this will be the final nail in the coffin of HPR. Its sorta > like the ATF's "hole card".... > > 4. Criminal Use - ATF data indicated 442 cases where rocket materials > were used in an "incident", a case where property damage, injury or > death occurred. We expect to obtain a detailed compilation of these > incidents, which the ATF was willing to share with us. They > contrasted that number to 140 incident reports involving dynamite over > the same ten year period. ATF believes the magnitude of rocket > related incidents requires them to act. We suggested that 442 > incidents over the volume of material used, literally in the millions, > showed a much less serious problem, but they were not swayed by that > argument. TRA and NAR will review the documentation when it's > supplied, or, if necessary, file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) > Request to obtain it. > > didn't we file the foia and received back a bunch of blacked out pages? > > 5. Garage Storage - All garage storage requests now must be handled as > a variance from published regulations. The Public Safety Branch is > responsible for granting such requests, and will do so provided (a) > the storage application is in conformity with NFPA 1127, and (b) it > has been approved by the local authority having jurisdiction (AHJ), > usually your local fire marshall. Field inspectors do not have the > right to deny your request for a variance, nor are they the proper > office to make a determination on it. We recommend when applying for > an LEUP storage variance, you first clear your storage with the local > fire marshall, then make the variance application. > > ATF intends to codify the indoor storage variance in the upcoming > NPRM, i.e. the new regulations will stipulate NFPA compliance and > local AHJ approval as being adequate for sport rocket storage in > attached garages of single family dwellings. > > If you do not intend to store motors, then you must make alternate > arrangements for storage and indicate those arrangements on your > application. LEUP holders are required to have some provision for > storage per the law, and ATF cannot grant variances to that, i.e. > there is no "non-storage LEUP". Your alternate storage can be with > either another LEUP holder or a licensed dealer. > > However, ATF said sport rocket modelers cannot legally store black > powder and AP motors in the same magazine. Black powder, except for > the specific exemption granted in the law for antique firearms, must > be stored separately from other low explosives. > > how many of you are diverting BP for ejection charges,etc? remember, don't > ask, don't tell... > > Didn't this variance become law? > > 6. On Field Sales - Licensed dealers cannot legally sell motors on > site. You must order motors in advance, and can have them delivered > to you, but the transaction must be consummated in the dealer's > business location indicated on his license. The reasons for this are > embedded in legislation restricting gun dealer sales to a fixed > premises that can be inspected. Dealers can take orders to forward to > their place of business and fill them from there, but cannot execute > the trades on the field. ATF indicated relief on this front would > have to come from legislation, and asking for such a change for sport > rockets would result in the gun dealer community asking for equal > treatment. As a result, we don't think we can obtain any relief on > this item, and strongly urge you to order motors for delivery in > advance. > > Dealers may legally sell at a site only if ATF has granted them an > additional license listing that location as a place of business. > Dealers interested in the details of this approach should contact > either their ATF office or HPRMADA > > How does the above jive with dealers who take phone orders and then deliver > for use on site? > > 7. Sport Rocket LEUP - ATF was quite amenable to creating this class > of license, generally in line with the elements of the position paper, > i.e. lower fee, specifically for sport rocket use, etc. > > DOA > > 8. Foreign National Participation - Our discussion of foreign > nationals resulted in ATF correcting our understanding. The term used > is "non-resident", i.e. they mean anyone not a resident of a > particular state. Thus the regulation is much broader than we > thought. There seems to be little relief in store for non-LEUP holder > to obtain regulated material. > > SEA ACT prohibited persons category expanded > > 9. NPRM Scope and Timing - The proposed scope of the Notice of > Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) encompasses more than sport rocketry > issues. ATF also intends to revise some other definitions, storage > issues for other users, etc. Because of this breadth of items, we > expect a 90 day comment period to be applied. ATF plans to complete > its work and internal reviews within 90 days; the proposed NPRM would > then be reviewed by Treasury staff, a process of unknown duration. > Only after Treasury review would the NPRM be published. Our > associations will kept informed on the progress and publication of the > NPRM. > > ATF suggested we can make our response to the NPRM publication more > effective by asking our members to respond in effective ways. While > you may wish to comment about the relative merits of the law or cite > Constitutional passages, this is not effective. The ATF is required, > with extremely limited staff, to log, read, review, and classify every > response received. If responses don't stick to the relevant items > cited directly in the NPRM, then time is wasted, and the final rule > notice is delayed. We indicated we had no direct control over the > responses, but would suggest to members how they can be more effective > in replying to the NPRM. When it is published NAR and TRA will > suggest how members can better support our positions with suggested > outlines and drafts. > > NPRM 968 is law and parts of it will be dribbling out over the next few > months.... > > 10. Summary - The meeting, 3 1/2 hours long, was cordial, productive > and open. In cases where the law constrains the ATF, those > constraints were made clear to us, and explained fully. In cases > where regulation might be needed, ATF was open to our suggestions, and > in many cases incorporated them. Where we had work to do after the > meeting, that was also made clear. All in all we had a very > productive meeting that set the stage for a clean NPRM publication. > > We obviously do not get everything we wanted, but the door is open for > us to obtain higher propellant weight limit exemptions if we can > provide substantive data to ATF on the risks associated with such > increases. The burden is now on the sport rocketry community once > again to provide the underlying scientific and technical data to back > our case for safe operation. > > Finally, we believe that an open dialog has now been established with > ATF that can result in a better environment for sport rocketry. > Meeting the people involved was helpful, for both sides, and will only > make the job easier going forward. As always, we appreciate our > members' patience and input, and will strive to keep you informed > going forward. > > so WTF happened folks? It appears to me that just about everything the ATF > wanted, they've gotten, > > terry dean > > nar 16158 > > -- > "Old Rocketeer's don't die; they just go OOP"
Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace
Loading thread data ...

Reply to
Alex Mericas

HERE! HERE! *clap* *clap*

Reply to
Darrell D. Mobley

FFL dealers sell guns "in the field" all the time at guns shows.

they call in the required "background checks" via cell phones.

Reply to

Yeah, but that's just guns - which they know and understand the uses and capabilities of. Heaven knows WHAT villainy could be built with "them thar rockets what we use."

Reply to
Scott Schuckert

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.