Model Forum / General / Rockets / December 2006

NO regulation is by the ATF?
Oh that's right.  Model rocket APCP is regulated as an explosive, which it
isn't, by the ATF.

NO is regulated because it is an abused drug.

You want bitch about something regulated, try to buy
pseudophedhoweverinthehellitsspelled for those winter sniffles.

Beg to differ, Woody. I purchase industrial nitrous from a welding supplier.
It contains no odorant properties, and is essentially identical to medical
nitrous, just comes in a tank without a flow-limiting valve. There is a
requirement for locked storage, weekly inventory, and a discharge record,
but that's it.

I grant that I had to dance a bit to establish my bona fides (copies of my
rocketry cards & driver's license, and a statement of intended use). At this
point I simply call and ask them to order a new tank... they don't keep the
industrial product on hand, only medical. A few days later and I'm good to
go.

Oh, yeah.... $2/lb

Kevin OClassen

PS> that's N20, not NO

What the heck are you trying to say?  "on site ematches"?

What's your cert level and for how long?    Let me guess "I few a C5 once!"

I had trouble with those and a Gwiz.  The Gwiz checked out on the bench, but
not at the pad.  Back at the bench, it was beeping just fine again.  When
someone else reported having the same trouble with his, I ditched them for
ematches.  Newton's third sells something similar.

<snip>

You shouldn't.  You should stop telling people what you don't know like you
do know.

We use pyrodex in small arms.  It is a component of ammunition.  We buy it
without a permit because it is exempt.

Nothing in the exemption states it has to be used as a component of
ammunition to be exempt.

Don't tack that label on me.  I am after the same thing all rocketeers
want, more freedom with less oversight.  But I also do not want to run
afoul of the regulatory agencies either.  Believe me, asking for clear,
concise delineation of the law is a whole lot cheaper than what a 4-7
year legal battle would cost should you be found in violation.

The explosive's list clearly lists "potassium nitrate explosives".

The ATF has taken the position that any oxy/fuel mix is an explosive.

We'll see if our representatives challenge this position.

We'll have to wait and see what Scott has to say about the ATF's comments on
commercial explosives.

I believe the answer is yes.  The original law passed by Congress
states Black Powder is exempt when only used in antique firearms.
However, no matter what you buy it for, if an agent asks what you
intend to use it for, you would simply answer - to be used in antique
firearms.   They would have to see you using it for another purpose to
have a case against you.  On a practical basis, that is not going to
happen.

I think this incident with Scott Fintel has been blown way out of
proportion.   The ATFE position has been for years that any
oxidizer/fuel mix is an explosive.   They added the "potassium nitrate
explosive mixture" and "ammonium nitrate explosive mixture" to the
Explosives List a few years ago.  Were they correct in doing so?  Of
course.   Take out potassium nitrate and ammonium nitrate from the
phrases and what do you get?  Explosive mixture.   Any explosive
mixture is by definition an explosive as it is defined as an explosive
in the description.   What is the significance of the "potassium
nitrate explosive mixture" and "ammonium nitrate explosive mixture"
being on the Explosive List?  None!  The only thing that is significant
is what specifically is a "fill in the blank" explosive mixture".

Scott called me on the phone a few days ago about the incident.  He
flew a large sugar propellant rocket motor and someone living around
the launch area called the sheriff.  The sheriff then called the ATFE,
which is how they got into the loop.   The ATFE was now on the hook to
do something.  So, they tell Scott he needs an ATFE permit, but they
are not going to prosecute.  He then asks for clarification on the
classification of sugar propellant as a potassium nitrate explosive
mixture.  It comes down from ATFE HQ in Washington that yes, sugar
propellant is a potassium nitrate explosive mixture.

Folks, what else could the ATFE say.  If the ATFE says, "No, sugar
propellant is not an explosive even though it contains a fuel and
oxidizer", what do you think will happen to their case with TRA/NAR?
Right out the window it goes.   TRA/NAR lawyers would be on that like
hair on a gorilla.  What is more revealing is the lack of prosecution
of Scott by the ATFE.   Do you think the ATFE is not prosecuting out of
the goodness of their heart?  Of course, not.  They know they have no
case.   The only reason the ATFE even added the "potassium nitrate
explosive mixture" and "ammonium nitrate explosive mixture" to the
Explosives List was to scare amateur rocketeers in applying for ATFE
permits when they do not need them.   Guess what?  It is working,
because people are panicking.

The courts have already ruled that the ATFE cannot arbitrarily add
things to the Explosives List without test data to back it up.   That
is where the lawsuit is right now.   The ATFE had to provide APCP burn
rate data and a rationale for classifying it as an explosive.  Where is
the ATFE data for sugar propellants?  It doesn't exist.  Where was the
procedure and public comment period for adding sugar propellants to the
explosives list?  No procedure and no public comment period.   Sugar
propellant is not on the explosives list as proper procedure were not
followed for adding it to the list.  That says nothing of the burn
rates for sugar propellant, which would be low like APCP.  So even if
they follow proper procedures at a later date, sugar propellant will
not met the requirements for being on the Explosives List.

John Wickman