Don't these require HAZMAT shipping?

the rocketry show
SilicdyneTRF
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I believe they require Hazmat; I wouldn't buy them. I also notice they offer 2-year accident protection for $4.99. Hmm....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There was a post a while back about the F series motors. Hobby Lobby online doesn’t charge hazmat for them either. Perhaps there was a change in the hazmat requirements
 
FWIW, I've purchased G80 and other larger SU motors from Supreme Hobbies by way of Amazon, before I knew about the significance of Hazmat shipping. There were no extra fees charged that I saw. I suspect that the vendor is unaware of their requirement, or perhaps dodging it.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0083LH4OS/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, my question remains. If I buy them, and they offer free shipping, may I assume that they are eating the HAZMAT cost, legally, I mean? Obviously, there is really no such thing as "free" shipping. "Free shipping" means the vendor is covering the shipping cost, rather than passing it on to the buyer. If the shipping cost is $7.99 plus $28.50 HAZMAT, then the vendor is eating the $36.49. Why would I, as the buyer, be responsible for the shipper not obeying the law if they do not pay the HAZMAT fee?
 
Bat-mite said:
So, my question remains. If I buy them, and they offer free shipping, may I assume that they are eating the HAZMAT cost, legally, I mean?
Click to expand...

Since complying with USPS shipping rules is shipper's responsibility, I don't see why you need to worry.
If the price is attractive, buy the item.

Bat-mite said:
Why would I, as the buyer, be responsible for the shipper not obeying the law if they do not pay the HAZMAT fee?
Click to expand...

You are not.

Seller/shipper has the contractual relationship with the shipping company (of his choice).
Same as in case of the package going missing. You can't even initiate an investigation with the shipping company - only the party that paid for the shipping services can.

a
 
Bat-mite said:
So, my question remains. If I buy them, and they offer free shipping, may I assume that they are eating the HAZMAT cost, legally, I mean? Obviously, there is really no such thing as "free" shipping. "Free shipping" means the vendor is covering the shipping cost, rather than passing it on to the buyer. If the shipping cost is $7.99 plus $28.50 HAZMAT, then the vendor is eating the $36.49. Why would I, as the buyer, be responsible for the shipper not obeying the law if they do not pay the HAZMAT fee?
Click to expand...
Why not support somebody who does things properly, and avoid any Jeopardy of the illegal shipments. Too many illegal shipment accidents will lose privileges to ship. Everyone knows that there's no way these shippers are eating the cost of shipping when it typically cost more than the product retail.

PS: hazmat fee is $33 this year

Sent from my Pixel XL using Rocketry Forum mobile app
 
A friend of mine even called several sellers of HPR motors and asked them why they weren't shipping HAZMAT. Some were simply small shops completely ignorant of the regs while others were clearly skirting their responsibilities to undercut those who shipped legally. The shipper will always be the responsible party but in my mind if someone knows it's wrong for them to ship non-hazmat and orders from them anyway, they are part of the problem.


Tony
 
I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine a good one could drag the recipient into the case based on us knowing the shipping is improper prior to placing the order. This is from a law book under USPS hazmat violation. I suspect part A would be based on knowing they are going to not ship properly on cost alone:
(2)Knowing action.—A person acts knowingly for purposes of paragraph (1) when—

(A)

the person has actual knowledge of the facts giving rise to the violation; or

(B)

a reasonable person acting in the circumstances and exercising reasonable care would have had that knowledge



Sent from my Pixel XL using Rocketry Forum mobile app
 
tbonerocketeer said:
I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine a good one could drag the recipient into the case based on us knowing the shipping is improper prior to placing the order. This is from a law book under USPS hazmat violation. I suspect part A would be based on knowing they are going to not ship properly on cost alone:
(2)Knowing action.—A person acts knowingly for purposes of paragraph (1) when—

(A)

the person has actual knowledge of the facts giving rise to the violation; or

(B)

a reasonable person acting in the circumstances and exercising reasonable care would have had that knowledge



Sent from my Pixel XL using Rocketry Forum mobile app
Click to expand...

That being said, ignorance of the law is no excuse either. You can get in trouble either way. That's why Eggtimer Rocketry doesn't sell LiPo batteries to go with our kits... there's a bunch of shipping regulations surrounding them and we just don't want to deal with it. There's also a lot of other places to get them.
 
Thanks, everyone. I will not buy from them. Hobby Lobby, 40% off coupon, one blister pack per visit.
 
Interestingly another popular company was fined by DOT for shipping motors with igniters preinstalled for a military contract if I recall correctly. Paid like $15k or something like that. Owner is still in business but since it was not the consumer part of the company no one seemed to notice. So it wasn’t just Jerry.


Tony.
 
manixFan said:
Interestingly another popular company was fined by DOT for shipping motors with igniters preinstalled for a military contract if I recall correctly. Paid like $15k or something like that. Owner is still in business but since it was not the consumer part of the company no one seemed to notice. So it wasn’t just Jerry.

Tony.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges.. One was unintended technical violation and the other was a gross violation based on deception... But I'm sure you know that...:grin:
 
Frederocket said:
Apples and oranges.. One was unintended technical violation and the other was a gross violation based on deception... But I'm sure you know that...:grin:
Click to expand...
I don't have the DOT document in front of me and don't recall the exact details. But shipping motors with ignitors installed actually seems far worse than mislabeling a box of fairly inert motors 'model rocket parts'.

I'm not sure how shipping motors with ignitors installed is an unintended 'technical' violation. Seems like a pretty egregious error to me. And how do you know it was unintended?


Tony

ps: I'm not trying to minimize the mis-labeling of motors, from my prior post I clearly believe we should follow the rules. But sometimes affinity for one party and an abhorrence for another colors one's interpretation of what happened.
 
Last edited:
Bat-mite said:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00G4DSDEC/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

These incur HAZMAT, no?
Click to expand...
Yes. Hobbylinc.com also ships 29mm Estes BP motors improperly without hazmat (but do ship via 3rd class ground at least). Why hazmat? Because they're so incredibly dangerous to first responders in a fire whereas a big old box full of these aren't (because their lobby actually has clout and says so):

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0009XCKGA/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

415tZMBIiPL.jpg


https://www.amazon.com/dp/WORTHINGTO/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

51ZKx%2B%2BGFRL._SL1000_.jpg


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B016T42AIA/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

51nyrtw06VL._PIcountsize-2,TopRight,0,0_AA500SH20_.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aerosol Paint is an ORMD "other regulated material, domestic". Even though it is a hazardous material ( chemical, and pressurized) its a special exemption since it is not expected to pose a danger to the public in the event of an accident. HazMat laws are about protecting the public, not generating revenue. The canistered propane and MAP gas may fall under this category as do almost all aerosol products and rifle and pistol ammunition ( iirc on ammo, up to certain ammounts).
 
rharshberger said:
Aerosol Paint is an ORMD "other regulated material, domestic". Even though it is a hazardous material ( chemical, and pressurized) its a special exemption since it is not expected to pose a danger to the public in the event of an accident. HazMat laws are about protecting the public, not generating revenue. The canistered propane and MAP gas may fall under this category as do almost all aerosol products and rifle and pistol ammunition ( iirc on ammo, up to certain ammounts).
Click to expand...
HOW does that contradict my statement about LOBBIES? It doesn't.

"It is not expected to pose a danger to the public in the event of an accident" is a laughably bogus claim. That's the BOUGHT exemption. Here's my challenge on that: which would you rather stand next to, a bonfire with ONE pack of "hazmat shipping required" Estes 29mm motors in it or a full box of any of the items I identified above which do not require hazmat fees to ship?
 
manixFan said:
I don't have the DOT document in front of me and don't recall the exact details. But shipping motors with ignitors installed actually seems far worse than mislabeling a box of fairly inert motors 'model rocket parts'.

I'm not sure how shipping motors with ignitors installed is an unintended 'technical' violation. Seems like a pretty egregious error to me. And how do you know it was unintended?


Tony

ps: I'm not trying to minimize the mis-labeling of motors, from my prior post I clearly believe we should follow the rules. But sometimes affinity for one party and an abhorrence for another colors one's interpretation of what happened.
Click to expand...

It was unintended and carless shipping practices by the certified shipper, along with carless quality assurance practices and poor training of shipping folks that resulted in the $15,000.00 fine. Violations happens to many authorized hazmat shippers and almost always results in substantial fines when caught during the shipping process or identified by the receiving hazmat receiver for storage or immediate usage. Failure to report the discrepancy by the authorized hazmat receiver is a violation of DOT regulations and can/almost always result in substantial fines for them also.

On the other hand, as in the case of "Big Fine": If you are not a DOT authorized hazmat shipper, not shipping under DOT authorized shipping classifications/UN numbers assigned to you and your business, you are in much deeper Do-Do, if you decrepitly ship hazmat. Big Fine is fortunate he only received a administrative fine and was not also criminally prosecuted, an option DOT left on the table and did not pursue. How do I know all of this? For several years I worked for a major aircraft manufacture as a Hazmat Specialist and company auditor and in addition, was somewhat involved with this case, although not as a representative of the company I worked for, although it was during the time of this incident. If you are really interested, it's out there on the internet and my name is clearly mentioned in the DOT final administrative judgment.

I can not speak, as to hazmat shipping correctness of the subject matter the OP speaks about without additional facts, other than to say, "it doesn't sound like all of the t's are crossed and I' are dotted, at a minimum"..

Now, back to our regular scheduled programming...:wink:
 
Last edited:
BTW, you can get Estes E and F motors at AC Supply for 40% off. They do charge hazmat but if you buy enough you can get the cost down to 'sales tax' amounts.
 

Similar threads

D
HAZMAT Shipping Update.
2 3
Replies
78
Views
5K
jsdemar
jsdemar
mtnmanak
PSA - Fun with shorter Amazon links
Replies
2
Views
389
mtnmanak
mtnmanak
P
Estes Goblin $14 shipped
Replies
27
Views
2K
n3tjm
n3tjm
B
Heads up if you rent a car online and buy the insurance, and they don't have a car for you.
Replies
9
Views
924
BABAR
B
M
Wanted Estes A8-3 and/or A10-3T Engines
Replies
28
Views
2K
troj
troj

Latest posts

Back
Top