ROL NEWS--AeroTech Announces Certification of Three New Reload Kits

City, County, State and Federal legal requirements, that's what else.

Your waste byproducts are not facts, that's why.

Phil, stop thinking and responding as a reasonable person would; your confusing "Big Fine recipient" with factual information.(:-)

Fred

Phil Ste>

How many new manufactures have started, post JI cert removal in

Fred

The manufacturer/dealer-license requirements, like the user-permit requirements, are _both_ within the section of the regulations from which "Propellant Actuated Devices" are exempt.

-dave w

Nice! A stamp of approval from you're biggest fan. 8-)

Maybe because an organization is free to make their own requirements. There is nothing illegal about it.

I don't agree that manufacturing PADs makes you automatically exempt you from needing a LEMP. I'd offer to ask about it but, I know how you get when someone tries to help & the outcome isn't quite what you were hoping for.

The many motor manufacturers Dave was refering to, are paying me to waste Jerry's time on RMR. That way they have less competion in the

What about the point in time where you have what are considered explosives that are not yet made into PADs?

Of course that doesn't change anyones rules so the answer doesn't matter.

Can you show where the regulations might say otherwise? The exemptions at 55.141 etc. appear to be effective with respect to the entirety of part 55?

Why should we need to ask the BATF something that the judge already said?

(The BATF probably wouldn't admit that the ruling exempts us anyway: not that they'd be _trying_ to stonewall us, but they're just not psychologically _capable_ of talking like that, especially not in any sory of official statement!)

-dave w

So, AT has new reloads...BFD! Not one of them fits AT standard motor casing/closure units. That means one must buy all new equipment if one wants to use them. Oh boy, am I ever excited! What I need is more variety in the standard 29mm unit that I use. What I don't need is yet another piece of proprietary hardware. C'mon folks, lets make the hobby more accessible and less expensive.

If the BATF wants manufacturers of exempt devices to put "explosives paperwork" on the active ingredient during manufacture, let them get a court ruling to that effect. (How would that work... you mix the propellant, log it into inventory as "explosives", cast the motor grains, and log it out of inventory as "explosives consumed in production of exempt devices"?)

The one situation where something like this might apply would be if the propellant were something that you were buying as a generic explosive material. (There ws a parallel example in the Q+A section of at least one edition of the orange book: If you're buying flash powder - an "Explosive Material" - and using it to make "black cat" or "lady finger" firecrackers - which are exempt "Consumer Fireworks" - you would not need a license to make and sell the firecrackers, but you would need a user permit to buy the flash powder from a licensed manufacturer or dealer.)

I think the critical distinction is that the propellant of a sport rocket motor never enters commerce except as part of the exempt device. (It's not like anyone buys a material that is already "composite propellant" in bulk and then machines it into individual motor grains - it is in the course of the casting and curing operations that the propellant, as such, comes to exist in the first place.)

-dave w

The 29mm and 38mm loads are simply new casing lengths for the 29mm and 38mm RMS High Power series. If you already have 29/180 or 38/240 motor sets you can use the same closures. The redline I motor fits the J350 casing.

By "standard 29mm unit", are you referring to the 29/40-120 "consumer" motor (G64, F52, etc)?

The G79 and G61 appear to be "regulatory specials"... they hold 62.5 grams or less, each, and take the same grains as the longer 29mm and 38mm motors. (Note that, of late, the grains have been shipped separately bulk-packaged from the motor-specific inert-parts kits...)

-dave w

I'm not sure it's just an availability issue, or if any specs are tighter. IIRC they used to be, but that may have changed. I'll make a note to bring this up at the NAR meeting, and request that TRA certified motors be granted contest approval status. There's no good reason not to.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

That never blocked their contest approval. What took them off the list is when Tim suddenly stopped making them, and there was ZERO distribution channel backlog to carry competitors through the contest year.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

No because I stopped reading that crap. Neither anything I've read nor the judge said materials are exempt when being made into PADs.

Anyway that doesn't change TRA or NARs rules so in Jerry's case, who cares?

That's not what the judge said but, if Jerry wants me to I'll try to contact the judge & the ATF for him.

The rules SHOULD change to align with the LAW.

Fuck you.

The industry at large is in alignment with my sentiment.