VICTORY!!!

[troj]

But 1.4 is an "Explosives" moniker... And it seems the ruling is that APCP is not an explosive?

ATF classifications and DOT classifications are two totally different animals.

-Kevin

 

[bobkrech]

But 1.4 is an "Explosives" moniker... And it seems the ruling is that APCP is not an explosive?

Warren

BATFE Purchase, Possession, and Storage requirements, or lack thereof, have absolutely nothing to do with DOT and UN shipping requirements for commercial shipments of hazardous materials. Those regulations are designed to protect first responders and the general public in case of a transportation accident.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showpost.php?p=14952&postcount=15

Bob

 

[georgegassaway]

I personally hope NAR and TRA continue the current certification process so that we can self regulate ourselves and not be seen as hap hazard. If you certify, then you should be allowed the privledges to purchase and store your motors safely.

The NAR and TRA had the HPR cert Process for years before the BATF stuck their noses into things. It was in conjunction with the NFPA. So, even if the BATF went away 100%, that would still not impact HPR certs (well, not the process. Any parts added thru the years to also comply to BATF should be removed as no longer applicable).

I am not so sure we will see vendors quickly selling HPR motors to people without LEUP's and a means of storage (if shipped rather than on-site purchase). The way I read the message that Trip Barber sent out to NAR members (and I presume the same by Ken Goode to TRA members), changes like that would fall into the "confrontational" category they are urging members (and by extension, vendors) NOT to do. I will quote bit of it at the end of this.

Give some time for them to figure out where we really stand and what will be the best ways to go regarding transitioning to what we THINK (and hope) we have won. Do not go hounding vendors to sell HPR motors this week to people they clearly could not sell to a week ago.

- George Gassaway

"TRA President Ken Good and I will be consulting with our legal counsel over the next several days on exactly what we have to do next to ensure that BATFE complies with this order, and to determine what recourse they might try to pursue to continue this battle (i.e. by trying to redraft their rule) with what likelihood of success. They will not give up and will not go away easily. Please do not do anything confrontational with any BATFE agent, do not tear up your LEUP, and do not remove material from any magazines yet, until we know exactly where we stand legally. We will issue a joint statement on what is next and what you should do as soon as we sort it out; this may take a few days."

 

[wickball]

Bravo, George! Good call!! Certification program has to stay intact.

wick

 

[Pantherjon]

Also for your Black Powder!

Unless it is for your antique guns! *wink wink**nudge nudge*

 

[Pantherjon]

So here is the big question - which online vendors are now selling HPR reloads without the need for a LEUP???

Wildman is!

 

[terryg]

So here is the big question - which online vendors are now selling HPR reloads without the need for a LEUP???

My thoughts exactly! Its been a long dry spell, bring on some victory sales!

 

[Reed Goodwin]

Wahooooo!!! I'll be recerting L1 soon then. I should probably get working on a bigger, simpler rocket for the cert. Ahhh, nothing like incentives to build more rockets...
Reed

 

[dlhjake]

TRA list has the results of the consult w/legal counsel ... excerpt:

(...content removed at the request of the person who was quoted, who asked that this information not be posted beyond in public forums...)

"TRA President Ken Good and I will be consulting with our legal counsel ...."

 

[georgegassaway]

TRA list has the results of the consult w/legal counsel ... excerpt:

(...information removed at content originator's request that it not be reposted...)

Thanks for posting that.

EDIT - well, I do not know why that info was treated like it was Top Secret and had to be deleted. Here is a somewhat similar quote from the latest joint NAR/TRA statement Trip Barber posted less than 30 minutes ago (7:12 CDT) on the NAR Sections list and direct NAR member e-mail:

First, we should assume that the judge's decision "vacating", or rendering null and void, the BATFE regulation of APCP will not take effect until the period for appeal by the BATFE has passed without their filing an appeal. This will be approximately 60 days from now. However, even if an appeal is filed, it is possible for the Court's judgment to be in effect and BATFE regulation to be nullified while the appeal is pending. We will advise you if this is this is the case.

People should not go jumping the gun, including motor dealers. Or people hassling motor dealers to sell without LEUP's and without storage until this becomes official and a reasonable transition can be made.

- George Gassaway

 

[troj]

People should not go jumping the gun, including motor dealers. Or people hassling motor dealers to sell without LEUP's and without storage until this becomes official and a reasonable transition can be made.

Agreed.

As soon as the opinion came out, I turned to my wife and said "I'm not rushing to take stuff out of storage, or get rid of paperwork, as I'm sure the ATF will try to appeal."

Besides, it's just a fire hazard sitting in my house, if it were here. If I ever bring the stuff home, it'll be in flame-resistant storage.

-Kevin

 

[Warren]

Warren

BATFE Purchase, Possession, and Storage requirements, or lack thereof, have absolutely nothing to do with DOT and UN shipping requirements for commercial shipments of hazardous materials. Those regulations are designed to protect first responders and the general public in case of a transportation accident.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showpost.php?p=14952&postcount=15

Bob

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.

 

[Uncrichie]

TRA list has the results of the consult w/legal counsel ... excerpt:

(...content removed at the content originator's request that it not be reposted...)

Yea Baby, this sure would have been nice to know at the release of the victory article. Woulda saved alot of keyboarding huh!

 

[davel]

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.

There are various definitions of "explosive" used throughout the rules/regulations/codes/laws. Some of them more inclusive than others. The various definitions do not have to be congruent. The definition of an explosive as it concerns what the BATFE can regulate is different than the definition of explosive when it comes to charging someone with a crime, is different than the definition of explosive as used to determine shipping hazards.

 

[Peartree]

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.

It is (sadly) not at all uncommon for two federal departments to have vastly differing definitions for the same thing. For example, clergy persons are defined by Social Security as being self employed and are therefore required to pay both the employers AND the employees contributions. At the same time, the IRS insists that clergy persons CANNOT be self employed and therefore cannot deduct the business expenses that all other self employed persons can normally deduct.

It's the government.

Fouled up is normal.

 

[dlhjake]

My bad ...

TRA list has the results of the consult w/legal counsel ... excerpt:

(...content removed at the request of the person who was quoted, who asked that this information not be posted beyond in public forums...)

 

[troj]

My bad ...

Woohoo!

An admission of guilt!

Does that mean we can perform a public flogging?

-Kevin "getting the tar to a nice rolling boil"

 

[bobkrech]

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.

Warren

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.

Bob

 

[davel]

.... APCP.... While it does not detonate (react at a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound in the material), it does deflagrate (burn rapidly).

Didn't we just spend 9 years getting the court to tell the BATFE that APCP does not deflagrate? Unless you also want to say that bond paper also deflagrates.

APCP is indeed a hazardous material for shipping purposes, but seems to me the reason has more to do with it containing it's own oxidizer - able to sustain combustion even with the lack of external oxygen - and perhaps it's energy density, than anything to do with it's burn rate.

 

[dlhjake]

On the advice of my lawyer, I rescind my previous post, and hereby deny any wrongdoing.

Woohoo!

An admission of guilt!

Does that mean we can perform a public flogging?

-Kevin "getting the tar to a nice rolling boil"

 

[jadebox]

Didn't we just spend 9 years getting the court to tell the BATFE that APCP does not deflagrate? Unless you also want to say that bond paper also deflagrates.

Yes, APCP burns rather slowly, but quickly produces a lot of gas (*insert your own joke here*). That's what makes it a good rocket propellant.

Back on topic, it's my understanding that the DOT classifies materials based on how they need to be handled, not necessarily on what they really are. The classification of APCP (or any other material) as a certain category of "explosive" by the DOT doesn't mean that the material is actually an explosive. It just means that APCP needs to be handled during shipping the same way as other materials in the same classification (which includes some explosives).

-- Roger

 

[davel]

it's my understanding that the DOT classifies materials based on how they need to be handled, not necessarily on what they really are.

Yup. Pyrodex is shipped as Smokeless Powder, but there is not a bit of nitrocellulose in it.