AeroTech Information Release 10/3/06

[Garoq]

AeroTech Information Release

10/3/06

AeroTech Statement on New ATF Regulations Effective October 10, 2006

On October 10, 2006 new regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will take effect. The new rules limit the propellant weight of rocket motors and reload kits that are permitted to be sold without federal licensing and storage requirements. On that date only those rocket motors "containing no more than 62.5 grams of total propellant weight, and 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" will be exempt. A copy of the ATF final rule may be downloaded in PDF format from the AeroTech website.

The bottom line for AeroTech consumers and dealers is that all rocket motors and reload kits containing more than 62.5 grams assembled propellant weight may not be sold to anyone who does not possess an ATF explosive permit or license. This includes most AeroTech “Easy Access” and “Restricted Access” reloads as well as the G33J reload kit for the RMS-29/40-120 motor. In addition, AeroTech/RCS will no longer be permitted to sell these products to dealers who do not possess the necessary ATF dealer license.

As you may be aware, the ATF was sued by the National Association of Rocketry (NAR) and the Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA) in February of 2000, challenging, among other issues, the ATF’s authority to regulate Ammonium Perchlorate composite propellant (APCP). A hearing is currently scheduled for October 17, 2006 (one week after the new regulations take effect) to decide the final outcome of this litigation.

It is possible that on that date U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton (D.C.) will vacate the ATF’s decision to regulate APCP. This would render the ATF’s regulations no longer applicable to purchases of APCP motors and reload kits of any size. Should that occur, AeroTech will issue another communication to its customers and dealers explaining the judge’s decision and its ramifications.

 

[n3tjm]

Hopefully our lawyers are smart enough to present an empty rocket motor and ask the atf agent to make the motor function (since its "not" a propellant actuated devide, obviously "something else" makes it propell a rocket)

Also... igniters are not explosive... they burn way slow to meet that definition too.

I hope things work out...

 

[Chilly]

I'm still not clear on the ramifications for igniters and BP ejection charges. Will they still be legally sold with 62.5g reloads for the 29/40-120 and 29/120 casings?

 

[Garoq]

Originally posted by Chilly
I'm still not clear on the ramifications for igniters and BP ejection charges. Will they still be legally sold with 62.5g reloads?

Yes. They are considered part of the motor.

 

[Gus]

Gary,

Thank you for the communication.

Am I correct in my understanding that unless judge Walton vacates the order, my just-attained level 1 certification is useless unless I also obtain a LEUP?

 

[cjl]

No, as you can still fly hybrids.

 

[Stizzealth]

If another company's igniter sales have been shut down for a while, what about AT? I heard that igniters now have to be stores in a seperate LEUP magazine. Does that mean igniters will still be shipped with reloads?

 

[n3tjm]

was talking to a good friend of mine, who is a professional rocket scientist (whom chims in on this forum all the time). Igniters are not explosive. They do not function by explosion. They burn to slowly to be qualified as explosive. Its as if the ATF is saying... you can have as many motors as you want, just can't ignite them .

Donald, think the G33 is bad... try the F22 . I seen several Mustangs prang with that motor... weird, but true. I even pranged a rocket with it... but that was my fault. It was back when I just got started flying RMS and I overestimated the F22.

 

[Donaldsrockets]

Originally posted by n3tjm
was talking to a good friend of mine, who is a professional rocket scientist (whom chims in on this forum all the time). Igniters are not explosive. They do not function by explosion. They burn to slowly to be qualified as explosive. Its as if the ATF is saying... you can have as many motors as you want, just can't ignite them .

Excellent point Doug

All I can say is that we MUST win this lawsuit or HPR will most likely be all said and done.

1. People will drop out of the hobby because they want nothing to do with having to get a federal permit.

2. Newcomers will be like, "Gee, that seems so cool, how do I get involved". I'm pretty sure that they're not going to like it when you say "Um, first, you have to get a federal explosives permit to buy the motors". I'm sure they would probably say "Never mind".

3. People will try for a LEUP and get turned down (either by the ATF and/or their local fire marshall) and then give up in despiration.

4. People couldn't afford $300+ for a suitable Type IV magazine.

I will apply for a LEUP if required because I enjoy HPR enough to make all the hassles worthwhile.

 

[Garoq]

Originally posted by Stizzealth
If another company's igniter sales have been shut down for a while, what about AT? I heard that igniters now have to be stores in a seperate LEUP magazine. Does that mean igniters will still be shipped with reloads?

The "other company", from what I understand, was shut down because they did not have an ATF manufacturing license. AeroTech/RCS has a manufacturing license.

AeroTech motors and reloads will continue to ship with igniters. They are a necessary part of the motor or reload.

 

[Garoq]

Originally posted by Gus
Gary,

Thank you for the communication.

Am I correct in my understanding that unless judge Walton vacates the order, my just-attained level 1 certification is useless unless I also obtain a LEUP?

Not necessarily. In addition to hybrids, the ATF believes that if clubs obtain a permit, individual members can use regulated motors as "employee possessors" without having to obtain their own licenses.

 

[Garoq]

Originally posted by Donaldsrockets
Regulating a G33 is really insane, that motor couldn't propel a typical rocket to a target.

The G33 will likely be replaced with an RMS version of the G38FJ with <62.5 g.

 

[loopy]

Originally posted by garoq
The G33 will likely be replaced with an RMS version of the G38FJ with <62.5 g.

Ooohhhh....I really like that idea...

Hopefully this will all be moot in another two weeks. If not, I think there are ways around it. We don't need to jump to conclusions one way or the other, I think.

 

[shreadvector]

THANK YOU.

That will end years worth of confusion for those who are newbies or who cannot understand the various limits. if only all the limits were the same (or gone)....

https://home.flash.net/~samily/stuff/HPR_metric8.pdf

Originally posted by garoq
The G33 will likely be replaced with an RMS version of the G38FJ with <62.5 g.

 

[shockwaveriderz]

[Igniters are not explosive. They do not function by explosion. They burn to slowly to be qualified as explosive. [/B]

hmmm I smell another nar/tra vs BATFe lawsuit, unless of cousre we lose the present lawsuit on apcp not being explosive..?

terry dean
nar 16158

 

[shockwaveriderz]

Originally posted by garoq
Not necessarily. In addition to hybrids, the ATF believes that if clubs obtain a permit, individual members can use regulated motors as "employee possessors" without having to obtain their own licenses.

Gary this is all fine and dandy, but this is not is any way written in stone; its just comments that the ATf placed in the NPRM 968 Final Rule to make them seleves lok good. How do we get this into the actual law itself ? what the ATf gives us on 1 day can be taken away on day 2 if they so desire.

"The SEA, enacted on November 25, 2002, expanded the ATF’s
authority to license the intrastate manufacture, purchase, and use of explosives. The SEA also expanded the categories of “prohibited persons” that should be denied access to explosives.2 To protect public safety, the ATF is required to conduct background checks on the owners and
officers of companies that make or sell explosives (licensees), as well as on those companies’ employees who have access to explosives as part of their work (Employee Possessors).

Implement procedures to ensure that all Employee Possessor
applicants receive a thorough background check.

www.usdoj.gov/oig/testimony/0510/final.pdf
www.boomershoot.org/ExplosivesHandlerForm.pdf

This is not law right? Its an internal ATF regulation decsiion?

It appears to me that if 1 individual has a LEUP and wants to act as the CLub LEUp, he has to provide the Employee Processor qiestionaire to any person that he might allow to use explosives, and then send it into the BATFE so that a background check can be done on that person.



terry dean
nar 16158

 

[tquigg]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all of the employees listed have to be fingerprinted as well?

 

[shockwaveriderz]

tim, don't know but heres the ATf FAq:

4. ABC Fireworks Company holds an ATF permit, and hires temporary employees to assist in setting up a show.


b. Does ABC need to report volunteers (e.g. Jaycees, Rotarians, municipal firefighters) used to assist in setting up the show?

No. The volunteers are not ABC employees. ABC is not required to report such persons on the EPQs.

The volunteers are subject to the prohibited persons categories, however. ABC cannot use volunteers who ABC knows are prohibited persons.

Furthermore, the volunteers’ possession of the fireworks is lawful only under the following circumstances:

i. ABC must have lawfully received the fireworks pursuant to a valid Federal permit or license, the exception in section 845(a)(3), or other a ppropriate exception;

ii. An authorized ABC employee receives and possesses the fireworks used in the show in the scope of his employment and on behalf of ABC;

iii. The volunteer’s possession is under the direction or control of the authorized ABC employee; and, iv. ABC has no knowledge that the volunteer is a prohibited person.



7. May a model rocket permittee allow friends to assist in setting up a model rocket containing Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (APCP) or other explosive?

Yes. As long as the persons providing assistance are not otherwise prohibited from possessing explosives, they may assist the permittee and do not need to be reported as employee possessors.

However, their assistance is only lawful under similar circumstances as those described in 4b.


The above ATf scenario seems to indicate that Club LEUP's or a person with a LEUP ascting for the club can allow non-LEUP persons to use explosives.

But whats troublesome about the above, is, its NOT written into LAW. The ATF can disavow the above scenario anytime it wants to. right? Its not worth the paper its written on. Its allows individual ATF branches to make their own determination of what the above means, so we are back where we started from: inconsistent enforcement.


do you trust the ATF on the above? I don't..


terry dean
nar 16158

 

[tquigg]

Jeez... I'll sure be glad when this stuff is done once and for all

Sometimes I feel like the director of a Three Stooges movie, you know?

 

[shreadvector]

https://members.aol.com/Al5010/sounds/wise.wav

Originally posted by tquigg
Jeez... I'll sure be glad when this stuff is done once and for all

Sometimes I feel like the director of a Three Stooges movie, you know?

 

[n3tjm]

Originally posted by garoq
The G33 will likely be replaced with an RMS version of the G38FJ with <62.5 g.

When we win the lawsuit, I hope you don't discontinue the G33. I love that motor, just hard to get 3 seconds of black smoke.... drool

Oh, another motor I miss is the F14.... favorite motor in my Initiator and Arreaux....

 

[Garoq]

Originally posted by tquigg
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all of the employees listed have to be fingerprinted as well?

No, they just run a background check.

 

[Garoq]

Originally posted by shockwaveriderz
Gary this is all fine and dandy, but this is not is any way written in stone; its just comments that the ATf placed in the NPRM 968 Final Rule to make them seleves lok good. How do we get this into the actual law itself ? what the ATf gives us on 1 day can be taken away on day 2 if they so desire.

As I said, "the ATF believes..."
YMMV.

 

[tquigg]

Thanks for the clarification Gary. I figured you would know

 

[mpraska]

Originally posted by Donaldsrockets
Excellent point Doug

All I can say is that we MUST win this lawsuit or HPR will most likely be all said and done.

1. People will drop out of the hobby because they want nothing to do with having to get a federal permit.

2. Newcomers will be like, "Gee, that seems so cool, how do I get involved". I'm pretty sure that they're not going to like it when you say "Um, first, you have to get a federal explosives permit to buy the motors". I'm sure they would probably say "Never mind".

3. People will try for a LEUP and get turned down (either by the ATF and/or their local fire marshall) and then give up in despiration.

4. People couldn't afford $300+ for a suitable Type IV magazine.

I will apply for a LEUP if required because I enjoy HPR enough to make all the hassles worthwhile.

Being involved in rocketry for just a few months I tend to agree with the above statement. I'm not sure if all this hassle is worth it. If the outcome is not favorable to the rocketry world (well just those here in the ol USA) I may either stay at LP or MP. Not as exciting but I can't afford the magazine - permit fees and buying motors. But whats next if they win? Regulating MP motors - maybe LP also......what started off as a great hobby now has me wondering if I should have gotten involved or not....

Guess I'll wait and see what happens in a couple weeks - and I am suppose to be going for my L1 at the end of the month......

 

[mpraska]

After writing I see that hybrids are not regulated so maybe I can still enjoy this wonderful hobby and not have the feds breathing down my neck!

Mike

Now I just have to school up on hybrids LOL

 

[Garoq]

Originally posted by mpraska
After writing I see that hybrids are not regulated so maybe I can still enjoy this wonderful hobby and not have the feds breathing down my neck!

Mike

Now I just have to school up on hybrids LOL

So out of curiosity, how many of you would rather fly unregulated J & K hybrids than be required to obtain LEUPs for the equivalent solids?

 

[brianc]

Originally posted by garoq
So out of curiosity, how many of you would rather fly unregulated J & K hybrids than be required to obtain LEUPs for the equivalent solids?

oo-oo-oo me-me-me!!! Please bring'em back! Whatever the outcome from the judge.

 

[cjl]

I know I would...

I would LOVE to have Aerotech hybrids back

 

[mpraska]

I would say that I would almost definatly be going to hybrids - I feel that if the feds loose they will find another way to try and regulate somehow. They are like a dog with a BIG bone - won't give up.....