Regulatory issue

Can anyone tell me if igniters, specifically First Fire, First Fire Jr and Copperheads are restricted access?

That Sir, is the $64,000 question.

Previously, the BATFE did not regulate igniters that shipped with motors, even though they were regulated if sold separately, and some other igniters based on some unknown criteria that only the BATFE knew about (i.e. Estes igniters). Then we won the law suit and APCP is no longer regulated. It now sounds like the BATFE is now going to start regulating igniters that are shipped with motors, but I have not heard anything definitive from the BATFE or anyone else. I would love to hear the answer to your question, but I'm not holding my breath.

as far as i know, you have to have a BATF license to purchase ematches and pyrogen igniters not shipped with a motor.

r1dermon said:

as far as i know, you have to have a BATF license to purchase ematches and pyrogen igniters not shipped with a motor.

Click to expand...

Ive had enough of the ATF between here and Pyro U. Im glad my dad has a type 34 soon to be 24

Ben

r1dermon said:

as far as i know, you have to have a BATF license to purchase ematches and pyrogen igniters not shipped with a motor.

Click to expand...

Just had my friendly ATF inspection. My agent instructed me that there is no exemption for ematches included with motors. They have to be logged and treated as low explosives.

In the past the ATF has not regulated igniters included with or sold for use with non-regulated rocket motors. If they are doing anything differently now, our NAR and Tripoli leaders should be made aware of this change so they can discuss it with our legal counsel.

-- Roger

jderimig said:

Just had my friendly ATF inspection. My agent instructed me that there is no exemption for ematches included with motors. They have to be logged and treated as low explosives.

Click to expand...

"ematches included with motors"
?



I didn't know "ematches" came with motors......

I think there are some first fire type igniters with some reloads and copperhead igniters with others....

It is all rather strange isn't it?

What is the difference between an igniter that comes in a G reload kit I can buy at the local HobbyTown, and an igniter that supposedly has to be kept in a "Low explosive magazine"

MaxQ said:

"ematches included with motors"
?



I didn't know "ematches" came with motors......

I think there are some first fire type igniters with some reloads and copperhead igniters with others....

It is all rather strange isn't it?

What is the difference between an igniter that comes in a G reload kit I can buy at the local HobbyTown, and an igniter that supposedly has to be kept in a "Low explosive magazine"

Click to expand...

CTI motors ship with either an E-match or a dipped E-match as an igniter.

The reason I pose the question is this.... I tried to place an order with Al's Hobbies for some Aerotech "F" reloads in the 29mm hobby class and a pack of First Fire Jrs. I've ordered these items from various vendors in the past without so much as a poo poo, while regulation was still in litigation I might add. I was told by them that I needed to provide a copy of my LEUP and sign a waiver( providing my ss#, NOT!). I informed them that the law suit had been setteled; this is how they replied:

" Hi Troy, according to the BATFE, Firstfire, Firstfire Jr., Copper Head are all restricted access. The agents were in here and had me locker them all. If you would like to argue with them I will give them your number. If you are referring to the law suit, propellant was removed from the list not IGNITERS.

The reason they are restricted is because of the UN number they were issued by DOT. That UN number makes them restricted just like the ones from Quick Burst. If you are able to get them from someone else that does not require a LEUP for them, fine. But I must and will follow the law."

I new E-matches and thermite were regulated but stock igniters? Sounds to me like the BATFE is trying to back door the law suit outcome. Thoughts?

stantonjtroy said:

Sounds to me like the BATFE is trying to back door the law suit outcome. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Give that man the kewpie doll!

The "enforcement"/rule that was used previously was that igniters that came with motors were exempt, and that igniters that were sold separately were regulated. Never mind trying to figure it out, or where it says that in the statutes, that's just what they were doing.

If they are now trying to regulate all igniters (with kits or separate), that constitutes a change in their self-made rules without offering an opportunity for public comment. That is against the law.

However, you could spend quite a while sitting in jail, after your job and family are gone, waiting for someone to sort this mess out in court. Funny thing about a tyrannical agency out of control, with no checks or balances in place; you still have to salute them...or else.

powderburner said:

The "enforcement"/rule that was used previously was that igniters that came with motors were exempt, and that igniters that were sold separately were regulated.

Click to expand...

Igniters used for exempt (or non-regulated) motors were not regulated. That makes sense. Only igniters used for igniting "explosives" were regulated.

If the ATF is now attempting to regulate igniters used for non-explosives, then it's another example of "arbitrary and capricious" behavior on their part.

-- Roger

<according to the BATFE, Firstfire, Firstfire Jr., Copper Head are all restricted access...>

Copperheads....

Imagine that..

There is no such thing as an unregulated igniter. Unless you have self manufactured it for your own use.

Period.

Just because some manufacturers get away with selling igniters to non permittees, doesn't mean its legal. It only means the AHJ's choose to ignore it. They can change thier mind at the drop of a hat .... and often do.

jadebox said:

Igniters used for exempt (or non-regulated) motors were not regulated. That makes sense. Only igniters used for igniting "explosives" were regulated.

If the ATF is now attempting to regulate igniters used for non-explosives, then it's another example of "arbitrary and capricious" behavior on their part.

-- Roger

Click to expand...

quickburst said:

There is no such thing as an unregulated igniter. Unless you have self manufactured it for your own use.

Period.

Just because some manufacturers get away with selling igniters to non permittees, doesn't mean its legal. It only means the AHJ's choose to ignore it. They can change thier mind at the drop of a hat .... and often do.

Click to expand...

What I said was generally correct. Generally, the ATF has not regulated igniters used for non-regulated motors. We know the ATF has, however, failed to follow their own rules and acted arbitrarily in the past (failing to follow their own rulemaking procedures and their treatment of you and your products are two examples).

You seem to insist that the ATF should (or legally could) regulate anything labelled an "igniter" - including Estes and Quest igniters. That's something that wouldn't be good for any of us, of course, and it simply isn't logical. The only igniters that should be regulated under the law are those that are used to ignite expolsives. That's certainly the intent of the law and it's what should guide the ATF's actions.

Just because the law says that the definition of explosives includes "igniters" doesn't mean that everything called an igniter should be regulated. I'm sure there are laws and regulations concerning "apples." But, those laws don't affect iPods.

In the past, the ATF has generally ignored things called igniters that weren't used to ignite explosives. That makes sense. If they decide now, however, to regulate our use of igniters it will be a change made without any formal rule-making or notice. Hopefully, we'll soon recover most of our legal fees from the lawsuit and have a "warchest" on-hand to fight any new "arbitrary and capricious" actions by the ATF.

-- Roger

quickburst said:

There is no such thing as an unregulated igniter.

Click to expand...

This is most likely how the statutes were/are written. Heck, you probably have the most painful familiarity with this nonsense.

But in the past, government officials have not quite enforced such an absolute rule. They seem to have allowed igniters (that were sent out by motor manufacturers along with the motors) to be handled without restrictions. That pattern, that repeated and demonstrated practice effectively sets a pattern and a detailed definition for how the law is to be enforced. These people claim to have the authority to make these rules, and they effectively have done so by the years-old practice on not putting any restrictions on igniters that shipped with motors. They continue to allow Estes to ship igniters by the zillions without requiring every 2nd grade science class to file for a LEUP.

To change now, without having the required public hearings and without offering a period for public opinion and input, goes directly against the very process that these guys themselves have spelled out. (Not to say that they still can't try to pull it off, being the only 500 lb. gorilla in the game.)

What I want to know is this: Since there is NO official, legal, or specific technical definition of what an "igniter" is, what it is made of (chemically or otherwise), or how it is made, why can't we call our devices initiators, or triggers, or starters, or anything besides igniters?

Seems to me that we could cleanly sidestep the whole stupid situation.

I don't think the ATF or anybody else needs to regulate our igniters. the truth is, it doesn't matter what I think, all igniters are regulated weather I approve or not.
See:
https://www.quickburst.net:2082/fro...e/dabach/public_html&file=Letter From ATF.pdf

In the past the ATF ignored igniters that were supplied with un regulated motors. They can also choose not to ignore them.

"You seem to insist that the ATF should (or legally could) regulate anything labeled an "igniter" - including Estes and Quest igniters."
I didn't write the law, Don't shoot the messenger. Estes, Quest, Aerotech and all other manufacturers of igniters do not have an exemption, because there ain't one. It doesn't exist.

"and it simply isn't logical."
Who's logic? Well thats amazing! Imagine that, kind of sounds like the ATF's stand on APCP doesn't it.

"The only igniters that should be regulated under the law are those that are used to ignite explosives."
The Estes igniter is commonly used to set off explosives. From hearsay, it's number one.

"Just because the law says that the definition of explosives includes "igniters" doesn't mean that everything called an igniter should be regulated. I'm sure there are laws and regulations concerning "apples." But, those laws don't affect iPods."
You are correct. However igniters that are manufactured by legal means must be classified by DOT if you are going to ship them. An independent lab must be contracted to do the testing, if your compound tests as an explosive, than thats what it is ... an explosive. Estes, Aerotech and Quest have done the required testing and this is documented. The legal DOT name is "igniter". The DOT classification "Igniter" must appear on the outside of each package. This also applies to those that are allowed to ship USPS Surface only. If these packages are not labeled correctly then the shipper is in violation of federal law. You can't call your igniter a motor lighter, or an ejection charge lighter and get away with it, not for long anyway.

"If they decide now, however, to regulate our use of igniters it will be a change made without any formal rule-making or notice."
Notice has existed for a long time, there is nothing to file. The law that regulates Igniters is a federal law, the ATF had nothing to do with it, other than being forced to enforce it.

I only state the facts here. If you choose to believe that I'm against all manufacturers of igniters that are not required to follow the law, then go ahead and believe it. The question was asked, and I answered it. I also answered it correctly. Hide your head in the sand if you choose, or know the facts. If the ATF is ignoring igniters it's their choice, if they decide to enforce existing law then they will. What you or I think about it is irrelevant.

jadebox said:

What I said was generally correct. Generally, the ATF has not regulated igniters used for non-regulated motors. We know the ATF has, however, failed to follow their own rules and acted arbitrarily in the past (failing to follow their own rulemaking procedures and their treatment of you and your products are two examples).

You seem to insist that the ATF should (or legally could) regulate anything labelled an "igniter" - including Estes and Quest igniters. That's something that wouldn't be good for any of us, of course, and it simply isn't logical. The only igniters that should be regulated under the law are those that are used to ignite expolsives. That's certainly the intent of the law and it's what should guide the ATF's actions.

Just because the law says that the definition of explosives includes "igniters" doesn't mean that everything called an igniter should be regulated. I'm sure there are laws and regulations concerning "apples." But, those laws don't affect iPods.

In the past, the ATF has generally ignored things called igniters that weren't used to ignite explosives. That makes sense. If they decide now, however, to regulate our use of igniters it will be a change made without any formal rule-making or notice. Hopefully, we'll soon recover most of our legal fees from the lawsuit and have a "warchest" on-hand to fight any new "arbitrary and capricious" actions by the ATF.

-- Roger

Click to expand...

"But in the past, government officials have not quite enforced such an absolute rule. They seem to have allowed igniters (that were sent out by motor manufacturers along with the motors) to be handled without restrictions. That pattern, that repeated and demonstrated practice effectively sets a pattern and a detailed definition for how the law is to be enforced. These people claim to have the authority to make these rules, and they effectively have done so by the years-old practice on not putting any restrictions on igniters that shipped with motors. They continue to allow Estes to ship igniters by the zillions without requiring every 2nd grade science class to file for a LEUP."
Selective enforcement.


"To change now, without having the required public hearings and without offering a period for public opinion and input, goes directly against the very process that these guys themselves have spelled out. (Not to say that they still can't try to pull it off, being the only 500 lb. gorilla in the game.)"
They have only changed enforcement. Nothing else, the law prohibiting igniters was in existance a long time ago.



"What I want to know is this: Since there is NO official, legal, or specific technical definition of what an "igniter" is, what it is made of (chemically or otherwise), or how it is made, why can't we call our devices initiators, or triggers, or starters, or anything besides igniters?"
DOT defines "Igniter". ATF enforces the law. Two different authorities. Calling your pistol an "enforcement tool", doesn't change the fact that its a pistol. If someone calls an igniter a motor starter and manages to get into trouble with it. The ATF won't need to hire Sherloc Holmes to figgure it out.

powderburner said:

This is most likely how the statutes were/are written. Heck, you probably have the most painful familiarity with this nonsense.

But in the past, government officials have not quite enforced such an absolute rule. They seem to have allowed igniters (that were sent out by motor manufacturers along with the motors) to be handled without restrictions. That pattern, that repeated and demonstrated practice effectively sets a pattern and a detailed definition for how the law is to be enforced. These people claim to have the authority to make these rules, and they effectively have done so by the years-old practice on not putting any restrictions on igniters that shipped with motors. They continue to allow Estes to ship igniters by the zillions without requiring every 2nd grade science class to file for a LEUP.

To change now, without having the required public hearings and without offering a period for public opinion and input, goes directly against the very process that these guys themselves have spelled out. (Not to say that they still can't try to pull it off, being the only 500 lb. gorilla in the game.)

What I want to know is this: Since there is NO official, legal, or specific technical definition of what an "igniter" is, what it is made of (chemically or otherwise), or how it is made, why can't we call our devices initiators, or triggers, or starters, or anything besides igniters?

Seems to me that we could cleanly sidestep the whole stupid situation.

Click to expand...

quickburst said:

IIn the past the ATF ignored igniters that were supplied with un regulated motors. They can also choose not to ignore them.

Click to expand...

Not legally.

I didn't write the law, Don't shoot the messenger. Estes, Quest, Aerotech and all other manufacturers of igniters do not have an exemption, because there ain't one. It doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

There apparently doesn't need to be one.

Who's logic? Well thats amazing! Imagine that, kind of sounds like the ATF's stand on APCP doesn't it.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point.

The Estes igniter is commonly used to set off explosives. From hearsay, it's number one.

Click to expand...

That's absolutely not true. Estes igniters are commonly used to ignite model rocket motors.

"Just because the law says that the definition of explosives includes "igniters" doesn't mean that everything called an igniter should be regulated. I'm sure there are laws and regulations concerning "apples." But, those laws don't affect iPods."
You are correct. However igniters that are manufactured by legal means must be classified by DOT if you are going to ship them. An independent lab must be contracted to do the testing, if your compound tests as an explosive, than thats what it is ... an explosive.

Click to expand...

The DOT classification is used to determine shipping requirements. Our APCP motors fall into the explosives category under DOT regulations because they must be shipped using the same requirements as some explosives. But, they are explosives.

Notice has existed for a long time, there is nothing to file.

Click to expand...

Again, not true. The ATF has not published any proposed rule changes for review.

The law that regulates Igniters is a federal law, the ATF had nothing to do with it, other than being forced to enforce it.

Click to expand...

Again, the explosives laws apply to explosives. If I name my rock band "Igniter" it won't be subject to the explosives laws.

What you or I think about it is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

That's true. I'm not suggesting anyone take on the ATF alone. I've asked that the NAR and Tripoli stand up to support you specifically. You have been subjected to "arbitrary" behavior by the ATF and we need to do something about it.

I'm on your side. I have a LEUP even though there is only one vendor I buy from that requires it right now - Quickburst.

-- Roger

jadebox said:

Igniters used for exempt (or non-regulated) motors were not regulated. That makes sense. Only igniters used for igniting "explosives" were regulated.

If the ATF is now attempting to regulate igniters used for non-explosives, then it's another example of "arbitrary and capricious" behavior on their part.

-- Roger

Click to expand...

Don't call them igniters. Call them motor starters, motor lighters, initiators or something else. There is no ATFE definition of "igniter", so it's a viable solution.

Garoq said:

Don't call them igniters. Call them motor starters, motor lighters, initiators or something else. There is no ATFE definition of "igniter", so it's a viable solution.

Click to expand...

"Marklar"

Garoq said:

Don't call them igniters. Call them motor starters, motor lighters, initiators or something else. There is no ATFE definition of "igniter", so it's a viable solution.

Click to expand...

My agent wasn't sure if my particular matches were regulated during my inspection. He requested the MSDS from the manufacturer and informed me yes they are. Don't know what was the trigger in the MSDS.

The problem is that some explosives can be initiated by just about any means. I mean you can set off black powder with a hammer. Or just piece of nichrome wire if you get it hot enough. Or a shell primer from any ammunition reload supplier. But does that mean that those products should be regulated? Just because they are being used outside their designed purpose? Certain devices are purpose made to initiate an explosion, like blasting caps for instance. I can understand those being regulated for sure.

Garoq said:

Don't call them igniters. Call them motor starters, motor lighters, initiators or something else. There is no ATFE definition of "igniter", so it's a viable solution.

Click to expand...

Gary

You are dead wrong. Calling an igniter an initiators is child's play. Do you label your igniter shipments as initiators, motor starters or motor lighters? Do you suggest that your dealers label igniter shipments as initiators, motor starters or motor lighters? I don't think so.

In fact you and your dealers are regulated by USPS for ground shipments. The packages must be labeled as required by your letter of authority. You might take a moment and review it, I found it on your site here: https://tinyurl.com/yzfhju4

As you can see the packages must contain the description "Igniters". Packaging requirements are clearly defined. So I'm assuming its an igniter until you open the box, then by some sort of magic they become initiators, motor starters or motor lighters. The idea is ludicrous.

Show me where it says you can mail igniters under the name initiators, motor starters or motor lighters. Your igniters are classified as "Igniters, 1.4S, UN0454".

Why do you care anyway? Afraid someone will make you abide the law?

I'm on your side. I have a LEUP even though there is only one vendor I buy from that requires it right now - Quickburst.

I appreciate your support, I was trying to inform ... not offend. It is a touchy subject with me.

quickburst said:

I'm on your side. I have a LEUP even though there is only one vendor I buy from that requires it right now - Quickburst.

I appreciate your support, I was trying to inform ... not offend. It is a touchy subject with me.

Click to expand...

I understand. It's frustrating for all of us. But, you've been caught right in the middle of things.

-- Roger

David,

Rather than continue a flame war, may I suggest that you give me a call and we can discuss this issue in detail. My number is (435) 865-7100 X105.

For others reading this thread, just because one agency defines something as 'X' doesn't mean that another agency can't call it 'Y'. For example, the DOT defines APCP as an "explosive", even though it is no longer an explosive under ATFE regulations.

USPS also calls Toy Propellant Devices "explosives", does that mean they are "explosives" under ATFE? Hmmm...

A little more gas on the fire.
I'm going to play semantics here but what the hay, that's done in court rooms every day.
First. Does the BATFE have the authority to enforce Dept of TRANSPORTATION regulations.
Second. In the strictest sense an igniter is not an explosive. An explosive is by definition a chemical compound. An igniter is a device. Chemical and Electro/Mechanical. Not to say it can't be regulated but perhaps with a permit, like a firearm (also a devise) but not with a LEUP.
I wonder; is it an issue of being regulated and having to obtain some form of registeration that bugs us OR paying a rediculous fee for a LEUP and having to endure inspections of overkill storage facilities for the use that WE THE HOBBY ROCKET COMMUNITY use these materials? Personally, I can accept some form of regulation. As long as it's in proportion to the activity being persued. That's just the nature of the world we live in. Not should be, but IS. But the idea that what we do should be catagorized with and regulated like a demolition facility is obsurd. The BATF is just looking to flex some muscle and they're pissed that they lost the judgement. It's idotic for government officials to go after educators and hobbysts by retreating behind that BS battlecry of "It's the law and we're just doing our job." Before anyone slams me I KNOW it is, in fact, the law. My issue is the rediculous and eratic manner in which the "LAW" is being interpereted and enforced. Didn't we just fight a lawsuite over this very issue?
Heck man, I just want to fly rockets!
Here endeth the rant.
FWIW

stantonjtroy said:

A little more gas on the fire.
I'm going to play semantics here but what the hay, that's done in court rooms every day.
First. Does the BATFE have the authority to enforce Dept of TRANSPORTATION regulations.
Second. In the strictest sense an igniter is not an explosive. An explosive is by definition a chemical compound. An igniter is a device. Chemical and Electro/Mechanical. Not to say it can't be regulated but perhaps with a permit, like a firearm (also a devise) but not with a LEUP.
I wonder; is it an issue of being regulated and having to obtain some form of registeration that bugs us OR paying a rediculous fee for a LEUP and having to endure inspections of overkill storage facilities for the use that WE THE HOBBY ROCKET COMMUNITY use these materials? Personally, I can accept some form of regulation. As long as it's in proportion to the activity being persued. That's just the nature of the world we live in. Not should be, but IS. But the idea that what we do should be catagorized with and regulated like a demolition facility is obsurd. The BATF is just looking to flex some muscle and they're pissed that they lost the judgement. It's idotic for government officials to go after educators and hobbysts by retreating behind that BS battlecry of "It's the law and we're just doing our job." Before anyone slams me I KNOW it is, in fact, the law. My issue is the rediculous and eratic manner in which the "LAW" is being interpereted and enforced. Didn't we just fight a lawsuite over this very issue?
Heck man, I just want to fly rockets!
Here endeth the rant.
FWIW

Click to expand...

Troy

Igniter cord, igniter and initiating tube systems have been on the BATFE explosives list for a long time. This is the current list.

https://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-31179.pdf

There is however a conflict in that by other statutes, model rocketry and model rocket motors are exempt from BATFE regulation, and by default this clearly must also extend to model rocket motor igniters since to claim otherwise would IMO negate this statute.

BATFE does not have a right to enforce DOT regulation as long as the motors are in commerce (while under common carrier control) provided the material has been properly shipped, however from the time of delivery onward, I'm sure they would claim the right to seize the igniter and potentially prosecute the possessor if they did not have an explosives license.

While it may be semantics, I would claim that model rocket motor igniters are exempted from BATFE control by 16 CFR Sec. 1500.85 (a) (i) Such devices (A) Are designed to be ignited electrically and are intended to be operated from a minimum distance of 15 feet (4.6 m) away;...

You can't ignite a model rocket motor without some kind of igniter and the use of an electrically actuated igniter is mandated by this statue, so I don't see an argument for BATFE to claim control over igniters for model rocket motors.

I would a extend the argument to include all APCP rocket motor igniters since by court decree APCP has been declared a non-explosive material. I would claim that an igniter that actuates the initiation of a non-explosive device containing a non-explosive material should not be classified as an explosive device.

But I'm not a lawyer.

Bob