Rocketjunkie
Addicted to APCP
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 5,500
- Reaction score
- 1,859
Bring the motor. Get the BP and igniter at the launch.
I would recommend arranging to buy motors on the US side.@Steve Shannon any word form your lawyer friend?
there are two local schools looking to fly in the US soon (Shake down flights / test flights) and they want to be sure they wont get hassled at the border..
Okay, so Daniel forwarded to me his (and Dr. Wogz') correspondences with ATF and Customs. In both cases the official answer is that motors which use explosive propellants must comply with the three conditions in the exemption in Section 555.141, but APCP motors (APCP only - containing no other regulated explosive materials) are exempt because of the lawsuit.
Also, due to a lawsuit years ago, all motors that only consist of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) are exempt (regardless of size). Anything else is a regulated explosive material and would require a Federal Explosives License or Permit (FEL/P) to import.
This seems pretty clear to me.
Steve
I received your below inquiry. The short answer is that some rocket motors are exempt from the Federal explosives regulations, while others are not. There is an exemption for certain rocket motors (listed below). If the subject rocket motors meet all three requirements, they would be exempt from the Federal explosive laws and regulations. Also, due to a lawsuit years ago, all motors that only consist of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) are exempt (regardless of size). Anything else is a regulated explosive material and would require a Federal Explosives License or Permit (FEL/P) to import.
27 CFR § 555.141 Exemptions.
(a) General. Except for the provisions of §§ 555.180 and 555.181, this part does not apply to:
(10) Model rocket motors that meet all of the following criteria -
(i) Consist of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant, black powder, or other similar low explosives;
(ii) Contain no more than 62.5 grams of total propellant weight; and
(iii) Are designed as single-use motors or as reload kits capable of reloading no more than 62.5 grams of propellant into a reusable motor casing.
Thanks, but I just hope we can get some kind of clarity in a way that’s favorable to our use. I’m not holding my breath (well, maybe I am a little). ATF has repeatedly said that they’re limited by legislation and I understand that. It’s great to be involved early on in the process, possibly helping draft our tiny portion of the “proposed rule making” before the NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making).
Seems like it would be useful to get CFR § 555.141 Exemptions (b) amended to explicitly allow BP to be used for "sporting and recreational purposes" in the recovery system deployment devices of model or High Power rockets.We should be able to help make the exemption less confusing but we cannot change regulations in any way that conflicts will legislation. Legislation is where BP and igniters are specifically addressed.
That would be a fantastic change. There is not reason for me to have different rules for rockets and hunters or reenactors.Seems like it would be useful to get CFR § 555.141 Exemptions (b) amended to explicitly allow BP to be used for "sporting and recreational purposes" in the recovery system deployment devices of model or High Power rockets.
I bet my senator, Ted Cruz, would understand that and be willing to tack an amendment to accomplish that onto something.
Seems like it would be useful to get CFR § 555.141 Exemptions (b) amended to explicitly allow BP to be used for "sporting and recreational purposes" in the recovery system deployment devices of model or High Power rockets.
I bet my senator, Ted Cruz, would understand that and be willing to tack an amendment to accomplish that onto something.
Not much else to say. Schumer had some photo-ops of himself with large MPR or maybe low-end HP rockets. I guess they were showing how dangerous these things were.We tried the legislative route with Mike Enzi almost 20 years ago. Chuck Schumer deliberately blocked it, not allowing it to leave committee (as I recall - @prfesser was involved and might be able to shed more historical light.)
I’m sorry I didn’t make this clear. Maybe this will help.Remember the context of the original post: That is to get clarification on what is allowed to be brought into the US..
Is it any amount of APCP allowed? only 62.5g of it? None at all? It is vague (despite being "in leagaleese").. And as we've seen, no one has a definite answer, only interpretations / assumptions..
Enter your email address to join: