> As far as I can tell, the exemption status of the Pro38's is fuzzy.
> The original ATF exemption was for motors classified by the DOT as Class
> C "Toy Propellant Devices". This exemption became problematic in the
> early 90's when the DOT revamped their regulations to bring them into
> line with the United Nations hazardous materials designations. As part
> of that, the toy propellant device definition vanished. The ATF
Provisions for using old classifications of explosives 49 CFR 173.53
Where the classification system in effect prior to January 1, 1991, is
referenced in State or local laws, ordinances or regulations not
the transportation of hazardous materials, the following table may be
compare old and new hazard class names: Current Classification Class
to Jan 1, 1991
Division 1.1 Class A explosives
Division 1.2 Class A or Class B explosives
Division 1.3 Class B explosives
Division 1.4 Class C explosives
Division 1.5 Blasting Agents
Division 1.6 No applicable hazard class
> exemption vanished completely (by mistake?) in 1998. The ATF has been
ATF does NOTHING by mistake. They were the FIRST to see the above
language translating ALL 1.4.anything to exemption by reference.
A reg change to list a narrow set of UN numbers.
Let's fix that in THIS NPRM 968 comment period as I have stated before
and here is your ammunition. You're welcome.
> saying since 1994 or so that only motors with less than 62.5 gram
> assembled weight are exempt.
NOT by law or even writren rule. Only by "intention to change the rule
in the future".
> This is a lie because that rule has never
> (until now) been through the required regulatory process.
Exactly right and that FACT should be brought up in NPRM 968 in a way to
ask WHO said this (actual name), who approved its restatement (actual
names), who published it (actual names) and what penalties exist as THEY
would persue for fraud on explosives laws under color of authority. Ask
the hard questions. The mo-fo's deserve it.
> Right now
> there are only two defensible positions: 1) No rocket motors are exempt.
> Even Estes. 2) Class C toy propellant devices are exempt.
> Aerotech has documents from the DOT showing designations for their "Easy
> Access" reloads as Class C "toy propellant devices" so they are exempt.
> Aerotech has to jump through "inner packaging" hoops to get them a 1.4C
> Pro38's do not have a designation as a toy propellant device by the DOT.
> Pro38's are shipped as a fully assembled (almost) motor. Just slide into
> a motor tube. How they got a 1.4C classification for this I do not know.
Expensive tests errortech had no inclination or cash to perform.
> You could make a case that Pro38's are regulated now.
> Oddly, Pro54's are classified as 1.4C as well but at least one vendor
> requires a LEUP for purchase.
That is a STUPID voluntary effort that should be RESCINDED immediately.
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com