This is from a specialized list and I have omitted recipient names to protect the innocent.
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003
I e-mailed Ben Russell of TRA who as I understand it is the focal point for EX in TRA and he states in part: "TRA does not require you have a LEUP as we do not consider ourselves to be an enforcement agent of BATF. However, I guess the local club could decide that they require you to have one."
Therefore TRA illegally requires you to have an LEMP to makem otors (if you are Irvine or Kosdon) for commercial sale (which ATF itself does not), AND does NOT require a LEMP for TRA-EX (home brew propellants) even though they are "manufacturing" by any definition of law or regulation.
"Manufacturing" for your own use is not the same as "manufacturing" for commercial resale. Because a person makes a few motors a year for their own use does not make them a motor manufacturer. Likewise, a person who scratch builds a few rocket kits for themselves, does not make them a rocket kit manufacturer, even though they are "manufacturing" that kit from raw materials.
Simple stuff Jerry.
There has been recent talk of certifying your motors on the TRA list. I'm convinced that there is no current "conspiracy" on this matter, only your unwillingness to get a LEMP, and EX numbers. If you do that, like all of the other certified manufacturers did, I believe that your motors would be certified post haste.
Even current TMT stated that they would like to certify your motors as well as Kosdon, but until you two get your permits in order, they'd rather not be party to an illegal transaction when they accept motors for testing.
I consider you a brilliant motor maker. I just wish you'd get over your stubbornness on this issue so that we can all fly your motors, and stop hearing about this subject every day.
It's the government. It doesn't have to make sense.
There is chat from NAR about my existing valid EX numbers which TRA does not recognize as valid for totally unjustifiable reasons.
Soeven if Iillegally got a LEMP (again after TRA refused to recognize it BTW),they wouldclaimthe valid EX numbersarenotvalid.
Neither basis for refusal is legal.
"But" erases all that preceeds it.
So you wish I would just violate the law, go against the NAR/TRA lawsuit which has merit and just comply with one illegal act so I can be refused for yet another arbitrary one? Gee thanks.
I am a "brillliant motor maker" for a reason. I am compliant and legal and right.
For the benefit of the future, I pray he never does "get over" it, and keeps the issue hot Hot HOT, until the organizations change that require such wrongful and self-defeating stipulations.
This mentality of "just willingly walk into the shackles" is what got the hobby in the jam it is in.
You are requesting he do something that is not right. I believe most of
*you* out there KNOW he is right on this, but still you want to go the wrong way on this issue, because you don't want to deal with it. This has more to do with than mere "stubbornness".
Just how stupid is it to say, "you can't certify a rocket motor unless it is officially classified as an explosive; and since it MUST be an explosive, you MUST have an LEMP."
From 27 CFR 55.11, "Propellant Actuated Device. Any tool or special mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant charge."
This definition is what is referred to in 27 CFR 55.141(a)(8)
55.141 exemptions (a) (8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.
From this, it is commonly understood that as long as the PAD are manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purpose, they are exempt from treatment as explosives per 27 CFR and other laws. There is no size or volume limitation on what is exempted.
See
formatting link
page 10 (page 62 of the "Orange Book")
Who must meet storage requirements? All persons who store explosive materials must store them in conformity with the provisions of Subpart K of the regulations, unless the person or the materials are exempt from regulation. [18 U.S.C. 842(j), 845; 27 CFR 55.29, 55.141, 55.164,
55.201(a)]
Note the reference to 55.141.
Now if you have an opposing cite, do not be a PUSSY. Post it.
There are 2 interpertations of PAD. If that's not obvious to you, then I can understand why you can't complete a simple paperwork trail to certify some motors.
Good. Then we don't have to hear about it anymore?
There is only one common man or literal reading. The one ATF is forced to follow as evidenced by noenforcement actions for any versions of "interpretations."
Well, call me stupid then because APCP has been officially classified as an explosive by the ATF since the 70's.
I'm not saying that it is right. In fact, I support Jerry's position on this just as easily as you. How much easier it would be if we could get the ATF to agree that our motors are PADs.
All I'm saying is that making anything for your own use does define you as a manufacturer. If my wife sews me a new shirt, does that make her a clothing manufacturer?...No.
You cannot equate every amateur rocketeer as a manufacturer. Nonetheless, I do know several amateurs that have gotten LEMP's and even one who is pursuing EX numbers.
Would I rather take Jerry's stance and consider it all exempt under PAD?....Absolutely! Unfortunately, if he wants to be taken seriously as a motor manufacturer, he needs to do what all the other motor manufacturers are currently doing, otherwise that puts him at a serious disadvantage. By choosing not to, he also chooses his own fate.
I sincerely hope that we do get a ruling in favor of Jerry's PAD position. Right now, you take your chances on that. If they lock me up for it, Jerry will be my first phone call, providing that I'm not taken to Guantanamo Bay. :)
But ONLY under 45 micron. Check the facts. DOT classes it as 1.1D as well.
The other stuff is 5.1.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if both NAR and TRA are clueless on this as well (despite my web pages and rmr posts and letters to NAR on the topic).
No you don't. NAR and TRA refuse to let you. I WANT to be the crash test dummy. I was doing it legally for 30 years BEFORE TRA decertified my motors for totally unrelated and illegal reasons.
I had TRA certified motors till 2000.
Guantanamo Bay is the only way they could prevail, so it is nearly assured.
Think of it this way. I am WILLING to do it, so why not let TRA and NAR risk sending Jerry to jail?
That fact that they are PADs is immutable until congress removes or changes that definition.
It is the weakness and fear (or laziness) out there in the industry and hobby as a whole who will Allow the ATF to skew the definition, and the hobby out of place.
If the hobby does not use the definition fiercely, they stand the chance of losing it, and it truly is the final say. It is not even something that has to be obtained... it is already codifed.
The only differences are frequency, and scope of use. Legally, manufacturing anything one to few times per year for self use usually does not constitute a "manufacturer".
Your statement of "it all exempt" may not be exactly correct, but to the extent that the defintion lends freedom, DO IT.
Thankfully, he does not.
How about, if the hobby and industry do not, they are choosing their fate?
How is it that issues get so twisted that the ones who don't truly use the law to it's full potential are the ones everyone else must yeild to?
It isn't Jerry's PAD position... it is the LAW as currently codified. It is everyone's code (which unfortunately few realize).
Probably a best action... as a lawyer is going to be of little help unless they fly rockets, and understand the laws and regs that pertain to it, or are assisted by those who do... hence JI, or JW, or JC, or... (hey, there is a pattern here...).
No, I can make a million explosives and not be a manufacturer. If I sell one, or put on a for profit show in which I have made a single explosive, I'm a manufacturer.
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.