POCATELLO, Idaho USA — First it was the ride to the launch site that became illegal for experimental (or research) motors.  Now it is the availability of chemicals in which to transport.  A decision handed down in the civil lawsuit against Firefox Enterprises, Inc., brought by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), will have serious effect on amateur and experimental rocketeers nationwide.

On December 6, 2006, U.S. District Court Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill issued a ruling that directed Firefox and CPSC to negotiate a mutually acceptable plan for the enforcement of regulations and applicable law which CPSC has the authority to enforce.  The precedent set in this case will affect similar suppliers of the chemicals used in the manufacture of amateur rocket motors.

Firefox has been a source of pyrotechnic chemicals for amateur rocketeers for years, supplying the various oxidizers and fuels necessary to combine in the appropriate percentages in which to create various rocket fuels.  Whereas hobby rocketry enthusiasts are more commonly affected by the governmental oversight of ATF due to the use of commercially manufactured propellant, CPSC's case against Firefox is unique in that none of the chemicals it sells is considered an explosive. 

Therein lies the twist: there is a difference between the ATF and the CPSC.  Firefox is not regulated by the ATF.  ATF regulations and the federal Explosives Control Act only apply to the commerce and storage of explosives, of which the ATF publishes a list annually.  Nothing that Firefox sells is found on the List of Explosives. 

And, nothing Firefox sells meets the definition of an explosive.  The company merely sells individual chemicals that can be combined to make a chemical composition that meets the definition of an explosive.  Therefore, because Firefox is not in the business of distributing explosives or explosive materials, the ATF does not regulate Firefox.  As such, Firefox does not need an ATF dealer's permit to operate its business.

On the other hand, the CPSC was created by Congress to reduce or eliminate injuries to consumers caused by dangerous and/or hazardous products.  The regulations that CPSC is applying in the Firefox case are defined in three sources:  1) Federal Hazardous Substance Act (FHSA) at 15 U.S.C. 1261 et seq., 2) the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPS Act) at 15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq., and 3) the regulations of the CPSC at 16 C.F.R.  1500 and 1507. 

The judge has set a deadline of January 15, 2007 for CPSC and Firefox to reach an agreement on which chemicals and supplies are to be limited in sales to individuals who do not possess an ATF Explosives Manufacturer's Permit.  While it is possible that this deadline could be extended an additional 30 to 90 days, the judge has stated that if the government and Firefox fail to reach an agreement, he will make the decision for them.

The government's case is asking that the following items be restricted in sales:

“Not sell, give away, or otherwise distribute any chlorate compound, magnesium metal, permanganate compound, peroxide compound, zirconium metal, or any chemical listed at 16 C.F.R. § 1507.2 to any recipient who does not possess a valid manufacturing license for explosives issued by the ATF;"

Not sell, give away or otherwise distribute any of the following chemicals for which the particle size is finer than 100 mesh (or particles less than 150 microns in size) to any recipient who does not possess a valid manufacturing license for explosives issued by the ATF: aluminum and aluminum alloys, magnalium metal, magnesium/aluminum alloys, titanium and titanium alloys, or zinc metal;

Not sell, give away or otherwise distribute any of the following chemicals in an amount greater than one pound per year per recipient to any recipient who does not possess a valid manufacturing license for explosives issued by the ATF:  antimony and antimony compounds, benzoate compounds, nitrate compounds, perchlorate compounds, salicylate compounds or sulfur;

Not sell, give away or otherwise distribute any fuse in an amount greater than 25 feet per year per recipient who does not possess a valid manufacturing license for explosives issued by the ATF.”

In addition, the CPSC called for extensive record keeping (photocopies of drivers licenses and, if applicable, ATF licenses for all recipients, as well as detailed invoices maintained for at least seven years) and requires Firefox’s agreement to provide those records to CPSC at any time on demand. 

"Oxidizers" as defined includes: ammonium nitrate, potassium chlorate, potassium perchlorate, potassium nitrate, sodium chlorate, sodium perchlorate, sodium nitrate, barium nitrate, strontium nitrate, potassium permanganate.

"Fuels" as defined includes: aluminum, aluminum alloys, magnesium, magnesium-aluminum alloys, antimony sulfide or trisulfide, potassium benzoate, sodium benzoate, sodium salicylate, sulfur, titanium, zinc, zirconium, or zirconium hydride.

The impact of this decision will weigh heavily in the fireworks community, where the vast majority of participants are not holders of federal ATF explosives permits.  Firefox and similar competitors are suppliers of hobby-oriented quantities to hobby-oriented users.  The stifling restrictions being forced upon the fireworks community will mean that companies like Firefox will simply go out of business.

In the rocketry community, it is now obvious why the ATF's position with regard to amateur rocket motor making has appeared at odds with logic: it is perfectly legal for you to mix and cast your own motors as long as they are for your own use and not for resale without an explosives permit.  It is also perfectly legal for you to fire the same motor on your property without an explosives permit.  But it is not legal for you to transport your creation to an approved launch site without an explosives permit.

And now?  Thanks to the CPSC lawsuit and Judge Winmill, after January of 2007, you may not have any sources left to purchase the materials necessary to make your amateur motors.  Unless, of course, you want to become licensed with the federal government as an manufacturer of explosives. 

Source: http://www.skylighter.com/skylighter_info_pages/article.asp?Item=90

12-22-2006 09:57 AM  #1
Aphyle Hot HCl and rubber @ AM   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 112	What kind of... So, does this represent a Liberal Activist Court or a Conservative Activist Court? In all seriousness, this will impact the teaching of chemistry from middle school up, at a time when we are making all sorts of noise about needing better science education and getting more students interested in science careers! I guess we don't need to worry about chemistry teachers getting what they need. Firefox first, Fisher Scientific next. Could this also impact the experimentatino with and production of nanomaterials? We really do need some congressional oversight on this whole issue of what is or is not an explosive. Clearly, the one branch of government has a very narrow view of what explosives are (see also the article on the KNO3-sugar rockets), and another branch is looking for definitions. Write your new representatives! Aphyle

12-22-2006 10:27 AM  #2
ken487 New Member   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 3	CPSC ruling Now the question is "Will we be required to get a manufacturers permit to make our EX motors?" Atf does not require it but it looks like the CPSC will. Ken

12-22-2006 12:26 PM  #3
UhClem Certified Level Three   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 166	After reading the court opinion, I must say that Firefox shot themselves in the foot and deserved to lose this case. The remedy sought by the CPSC is excessive but Firefox has little choice now.

12-22-2006 12:41 PM  #4
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	Quote: Now the question is "Will we be required to get a manufacturers permit to make our EX motors?" Atf does not require it but it looks like the CPSC will. Not to "make" the motors, but apparently you will need a manufacturer's permit to purchase the materials to "make" them. I mean, how many EX motors can you make with the permit-free 16oz of oxidizer? The result for ATF is that there is nothing to regulate if you can't purchase the materials to make them. In the fireworks enforcement, CPSC is also looking to regulate purchases of tube longer than 10". What would happen if that were applied to the rocketry community?

12-23-2006 05:46 PM  #5
jderimig Certified Level Two   Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 76	Not sure if this is a Firefox loss I am not sure that this is just a loss for Firefox. Wasn't there a motion by CPSC for summary judgement to throw out the Firefox suit? Apparently that was not granted either so the CPSC lost too. So apparently the CPSC is not going to get what they want either. However it is a loss in the sense that it sure seems that there will be some new regulations around the sale of at least fine powdered metals on a vendor by vendor basis.

12-24-2006 08:51 PM  #6
Rocket Flier Certified Level Three   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 145	Quote: In the fireworks enforcement, CPSC is also looking to regulate purchases of tube longer than 10". What would happen if that were applied to the rocketry community? You are mistaken. They are attempting to regulate tubes that are 10" -and shorter-. Suggesting you will need an LEUP to buy an Estes motor tube. And what makes you think they are not going to apply everything they apply to components to rocketry?

12-25-2006 07:53 PM  #7
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	Quote: You are mistaken. They are attempting to regulate tubes that are 10" -and shorter-. Suggesting you will need an LEUP to buy an Estes motor tube. And what makes you think they are not going to apply everything they apply to components to rocketry? You are correct! That is just *blatant* stupidity. How is a 5" tube supposed to be illegal, but a 10" tube is supposed to be legal? So you buy a 10" tube and cut it in half. If this isn't the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. Oh wait. It's the government. It doesn't have to make sense.