ATF status report

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

David Schultz - 26 Dec 2005 17:22 GMT

The ATF submitted yet another status report to the court just before the
15 December 2005 status hearing. You can read it here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~schultdw/regulation/BATFE%2012-9-05%20status%20report.pdf

According to this report, the ATF submitted a draft version of the final
model rocket motor rule (the exemption at 27 CFR 555.141 included as
part of NPRM 968) on 28 February 2005. It was forwarded to the OMB on 9
November for review under EO 12866. I find the submission to OMB at
least a little bit interesting. If you don't remember, NPRM 968 has a
statement in it by the ATF stating that OMB review was not required:

"V. How This Document Complies With
the Federal Administrative
Requirements for Rulemaking

A. Executive Order 12866

We have determined that this
proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined in E.O.
12866. Therefore, a Regulatory
Assessment is not required."

The new and improved definition of a Propellant Actuated Device (PAD)
was apparently finished on 26 January 2005 but it was held up pending
review of the model rocket rule.

So according to this status report, both the final model rocket motor
rule and the proposed PAD rule should hit the Federal Register soon. I
noticed that the status report made no mention of the proposed change to
federal law that would give the ATF authority (which they apparently now
lack) to add exemptions:

http://www.ime.org/files/GovtAffairs/ATF-ExplosivesExemptionProposal-Hastert-Che
ney-081605.pdf

Neither of these proposed changes has gained any support from Congress.

Signature

David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/

"Ahh Fuji! Why is it always monkeys? Why couldn't I be attacked by
crazed super models?" - Ron Stoppable

Reply to this Message

shockwaveriderz - 26 Dec 2005 21:23 GMT

seems the BATFE is slowly but surely getting all their ducks in a row....
the wheels of the federal bureaucracy do grind slowly but surely.....

what concerns me is the re-defination of the Toy Propellant Device in NPRM
968...

The USPS allows model rocket motors to be shipped as TPD... I assume that
once the TPD is gone, the USPS will then have to alter its shipping rules to
include model rocket motors per DOT ? Perhaps this would be a good time to
approach the USPS and see if we could get some of form of consumer blanket
mailing rule?

Perhaps its time for the NAR/TRA to go back before the DOT and define a
Large Model Rocket motor? Then perhaps we could get USPS shipping approval
for model rocket motors up to 62.5 g instead of the current 30g?

Does the BATFE by law(?) have to publish responses to all 1600 comments? or
at least a sizeable number of them?

So once the newly defined PAD un-exemption is published as a NPRM, we need
to also do a good job of responding.

According to the 12/31/04 NAR Financials spreadsheet, NAR members had
donated $215K since Jan 99 to Dec 2004. Assuming that the entire $215 was
applied to Legal expenses, then the NAR General fund picked up $43K. The
NAR spent $258K on Legal expenses during that same time frame. If we assume
that the TRA spent the same amount(50/50) , then $516K has been spent by
both the NAR/TRA not including 2005.

shockie B)

> The ATF submitted yet another status report to the court just before the
> 15 December 2005 status hearing. You can read it here:
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> Neither of these proposed changes has gained any support from Congress.

Reply to this Message

David Schultz - 27 Dec 2005 00:06 GMT

> seems the BATFE is slowly but surely getting all their ducks in a
> row.... the wheels of the federal bureaucracy do grind slowly but
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Large Model Rocket motor? Then perhaps we could get USPS shipping
> approval for model rocket motors up to 62.5 g instead of the current 30g?

If you read the USPS rules you will see that they are quite specific in
what they will allow to be mailed and it never refers to the ATF
regulations.

DOT already has two model rocket motor numbers:

NA0323, 1.4S
NA0276, 1.4C

1.4S is currently limited to 30 grams and 1.4C to 62.5 grams.

Only items classified as NA0323 (or UN0454, also 1.4S) can be shipped.

See page 26 of:

http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf

> Does the BATFE by law(?) have to publish responses to all 1600 comments?
> or at least a sizeable number of them?

I don't know. I can't see anything in the Administrative Procedures
(Title 5, Chapter 5 of the United States Code) that requires them to do
anything with the comments. Perhaps there is another section of law that
covers this but I am not aware of it.

> So once the newly defined PAD un-exemption is published as a NPRM, we
> need to also do a good job of responding.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> shockie B)

Signature

David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/

"Ahh Fuji! Why is it always monkeys? Why couldn't I be attacked by
crazed super models?" - Ron Stoppable

Reply to this Message

tai fu - 27 Dec 2005 00:35 GMT

I must have been under a rock... so what's going on now? all I am getting is
that rocket motors are considered PAD in the new ruling?

It wouldn't matter in Taiwan anyways, can't get any motors here... I don't
know what the law said but I bet if I made my own rocket motor and shot it
off the government wouldn't care.... there's like no government here.
Fireworks are technically illegal but people shoot them all the time (and
those election idiots would control a scooter with one hand and holding a
firework in the other hand and shoot it off in that manner... I am surprised
that it didn't catch some clothes on fire cause I was looking down and it
almost hit me!)

Taiwan is a totally lassie-faire country (you know it means "leave alone" in
French)
--
TAI FU

Reply to this Message

Model Forum / General / Rockets / December 2005

ATF status report