True, but now we have a Federal Judge issuing an opinion (precedent) that APCP is not an explosive, and another branch of government that currently has it classified as an explosive.
I'm just saying that there is room there for a classification change from the DOT that could benefit manufacturers and vendors.
There is a clear distinction between the right to purchase, possess and use APCP versue the requirement to maintain public safety when shipping APCP or other hazardous material in commercial transport.
The BATFE decision is simply a right of purchase, possession and use without a license issue. It basically means that the BATFE has no right to regulate the sale and possession of APCP because it is not an "explosive" material under the BATFE definitions. (Please note I purposely did not include storage as this can be controlled by other Federal, State and local regulations.)
Regardless and independent of the court decision, APCP is and always will be a hazardous material from a chemical standpoint. While it does not detonate (react at a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound in the material), it does deflagrate (burn rapidly). Any propellant that deflagrates is for safety purposes classified technically (worldwide) as a Class 1.3/1.4 low explosive. The reason for this classification is that if you confine it, it will continue to react and generate hot, high pressure gas until the container in which it is being confined ruptures (explodes). The container fragmentation hazard is the most danger aspect of transporting the material, followed by the fire hazard.
When we use APCP in a rocket motor, the purpose of a APCP motor casing is to generate thrust by confining the combustion of the APCP in a controlled manner within the motor casing. The conversion of the chemical energy release in the form of hot, high pressure gas is performed by the exhaust nozzle in which the random kinetic energy of the hot high pressure gas is converted in a directional high velocity high energy flow by the gasdynamic process of expansion to generate thrust. The properly designed rocket motor (a device or article in technical lingo) will not explode in transportation if packaged properly and thus only represents a fire hazard in the event of a transportation hazard.
It does not mean that an article containing APCP can not explode. If you purposely do not vent a thick walled metal container full of APCP and you have a manner or method of igniting it, you have made a bomb, and that is an explosive device (article) because by leaving out the nozzle (vent) you have purposefully decided to make a bomb. A bomb was and still is illegal to possess without a license and was and still is subject to BATFE regulation and control. If anyone decides to go into the bomb making business using APCP, I and everyone else here would certainly contact the police and the BATFE to make sure that this nut doesn't harm anyone. If that individual were to ship an explosive device and the vehicle was involved in an accident, the accident scene would be extremely hazardous for first responders and firefighters, because they are trained to handle fires, no one can safely handle detonating bombs.
You can drive down the highway in the US, or fly in an airplane above the US safely because DOT regulates the methods of transportation of hazardous materials within the US, and you wouldn't want it any other way.