Notice of public hearing regarding the astronomic increase in Colorado explosive permit fees.

DENVER, Colorado USA — As American hobby rocketry enthusiasts continue to await a decision on the "explosive" nature of ammonium perchlorate composite propellants, hobbyists in Colorado are finding out that the wait is going to cost them dearly, to the tune of $450 per year.

During the 2008 Colorado legislative session, the state statute regarding explosives use in Colorado was changed by the passage of Colorado Senate Bill 051-08, allowing the state's director of the Division of Oil and Public Safety to establish application fees for explosives permits by rule.

According to the bill, fees for three year state explosives permits would be raised "to cover the increased costs of blasting oversight and enforcement." Colorado doesn't recognize the difference between high and low explosives, so every application would have to know about high explosives and pass an exam on the subject matter.

The Division of Oil and Public Safety had originally scheduled a public hearing for Wednesday, June 18th at 9:00AM at their Denver office regarding the change to the permit fee increases.  Another hearing was scheduled for July 11th at 9:00AM, and was postponed.  No indication of when the hearing will be rescheduled has been forthcoming.

Colorado is unique in that they require three separate permits for explosives: a use permit, a purchase permit and a storage permit. A "Type I" permit allows you to use explosives, while a "Type II" permit allows you to purchase explosives.  To store them, you need a "Type III" permit.  You can't get a purchase permit without a use permit, and you can't get a storage permit without a use and purchase permit.  So to store rocket motors, you would need to get all three permits, but only after you have secured your federal explosives permit.  Don't forget the state exam, which doesn't require any additional fees, but it's there nonetheless.

Prior to the recent change in legislation, all three permits would run you $25 each, for a total of $75 for three years, or just $25 per year.  If the current change in legislation is approved, the Type II permit, the purchase permit, would increase from $25 for three years to $1200 or $400 per year, while the other two remain unchanged, costing the holder of all three permits $450 per year or a total of $1350.

According to a document from the Colorado Division of Oil and Public Safety Explosives division, the amount of the fee change was "negotiated" with a group of affected parties consisting of members of the International Society of Explosives Engineers (ISEE), but somehow the fact that rocket motors are considered by the federal government to be "explosives" escaped the people who were setting the prices, even though rocket motors are mentioned in the law.  Rocket motors with less than 62.5 grams of propellant are exempt.

Documents: 2005 Colorado State Explosives Law (488KB Microsoft Word Document)

07-24-2008 05:23 PM  #1
tmacklin Certifiable   Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 170	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick This is almost as bad as running an independent pharmacy in Texas.

07-24-2008 05:50 PM  #2
Mick Kelly Certified Level Two   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 75	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Missouri is also jumping on the band wagon with the “Missouri Blasting Safety Act” Working closely with the BATFE. The law requires those intending to use explosives in the state of Missouri to register with the Division of Fire and Safety prior to using explosives in the state. There is a $200.00 initial fee for this Explosive User Registration Application. What is going on? The Judge needs to get off his butt and make a decision or we are going to be regulated out of existence by every organization that can sink it’s teeth into us. Mick Kelly

07-24-2008 06:19 PM  #3
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 4553	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Quote: There is a $200.00 initial fee for this Explosive User Registration Application. Not only that, but a $500 annual reporting fee, plus $1.15/ton of explosives detonated.

07-24-2008 06:59 PM  #4
jrcoxx www.rinconrocketry.com   Joined: Nov 2006 Posts: 197	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Wow, that really hurts. Is there anyway that NAR and TRA can help? Next week they are going to have an Alcohol permit process. a) you need a permit to buy alcohol b) you need a permit to drink alcohol c) you need a permit to store the alcohol What if you just have an Alcohol Learner's Permit and drink on site? To the Colorado flyers, I am sad to hear of your impending restrictions and emphasize with your grief. John

07-24-2008 07:10 PM  #5
SpartaChris Certified Certifiable   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 171	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Quote: Missouri is also jumping on the band wagon with the “Missouri Blasting Safety Act” Working closely with the BATFE. The law requires those intending to use explosives in the state of Missouri to register with the Division of Fire and Safety prior to using explosives in the state. There is a $200.00 initial fee for this Explosive User Registration Application. Mick Kelly So if there were an LDRS in Missouri, then so long as the BATFE claims that APCP is an explosive, everyone who was planning on attending would have to pay $200 to come fly?

07-24-2008 07:30 PM  #6
UhClem Certified Level Three   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 203	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick The limitation of 62.5 grams on the rocket motor exemption is bad enough but adding the additional requirement of 17.92 lb-sec or less is just too much. While this has no effect on Estes black powder motors, there are other manufacturers (in other states of course) that produce rocket motors with less than 62.5 grams of propellant but more than 17.92 lb-sec of total impulse. 17.92 lb-sec ~ 80 N-s No G motors without expensive state permits.

07-24-2008 09:29 PM  #7
markkoelsch Level Two   Joined: Jul 2007 Posts: 230	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick That is truely ludicrous, but not unexpected. I do believe the day is coming where most states will enact this type of garbage. I know I certainly cannot afford that, and I would be out of the hobby. This has always been an expensive hobby, but I guess that is the intent...drive most folks out of the hobby. Mark Koelsch

07-24-2008 11:55 PM  #8
TheHeebrewHammer Certified Level Two   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 43	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick There's nothing like legislating a hobby out of existence. Creates more security that way.

07-25-2008 12:19 AM  #9
UncleVanya If pigs had fins...   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 4071	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick I'm confused. Type I says "individual" and only seems to be 75.00 - but Type II says Company. What am I misunderstanding?

07-25-2008 01:21 AM  #10
mrtidy New Member   Joined: Dec 2007 Posts: 3	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Quote: I'm confused. Type I says "individual" and only seems to be 75.00 - but Type II says Company. What am I misunderstanding? My understanding is that Type III requires Type I & II; therefore, you either do all ($450) or nothing.

07-25-2008 07:36 AM  #11
UhClem Certified Level Three   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 203	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Quote: I'm confused. Type I says "individual" and only seems to be 75.00 - but Type II says Company. What am I misunderstanding? "(E) Type I permittee limitations: (1)A Type I permit shall be limited to possession and control of explosives while authorized by the Type II permittee(s) for whom the Type I permittee is employed or otherwise associated."

07-25-2008 07:48 AM  #12
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 4553	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Quote: I'm confused. Type I says "individual" and only seems to be 75.00 - but Type II says Company. What am I misunderstanding? What David said. Type I is use. Type II is purchase. Type III is storage. What do you want to do? II requires I, III requires I & II. Please bring your selections to the checkout counter.

07-25-2008 08:01 AM  #13
Johnnie Certified TRA Level III   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 449	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Quote: What David said. Type I is use. Type II is purchase. Type III is storage. What do you want to do? II requires I, III requires I & II. Please bring your selections to the checkout counter. This is funny, yet so NOT funny, that it is scary (said with a nervous laugh). Tough situation for the fliers in Colorado...

07-25-2008 10:26 AM  #14
TheHeebrewHammer Certified Level Two   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 43	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Does this mean the end of LDRSes in Hartzel?

07-25-2008 11:34 AM  #15
shockwaveriderz Model Rocket Historian   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 40	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick so much for Jerry's response over in the other posting that there aren't any state "Leup" requirements. Just so there'r no misunderstanding, I'm using "Leup" here in a generic sense. terry dean

07-25-2008 12:33 PM  #16
denverdoc Hall Monitor   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 3200	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Quote: Does this mean the end of LDRSes in Hartzel? I'm afraid Hartsel may have seen it's last LDRS--but for entirely different reasons. Hard to get big waivers with the increased air traffic into Denver int'l. The subject comes up every so often, as there are other venues, notably the Pawnee site just south of Cheyenne. Not sure many here would favor it, given that we fly on public land, and enjoy really good relations with the forestry dept. The two three day launches held annuallyare very well attended, and now with the good chance that we will continue to get windows to 35K, may become even more popular. Personally I feel that would be at the comfortable limits of the site, as we have only a relatively small strip to park on.

07-25-2008 01:14 PM  #17
gregm Stupid should be painful!   Joined: May 2007 Posts: 179	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick At what point are regulations like these going to drive normally law abiding citizens to knowingly break the law? Does anyone really doubt this is the direction the ATF is headed??? Once the lawsuit is lost there isn't much to stop them. Quote: I'm afraid Hartsel may have seen it's last LDRS This is really a shame as it was a lot of fun flying there!!

07-25-2008 01:20 PM  #18
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1418	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Quote: so much for Jerry's response over in the other posting that there aren't any state "Leup" requirements. Just so there'r no misunderstanding, I'm using "Leup" here in a generic sense. terry dean Well it was just added There was already something like that in CA and IL and a couple others. AT was given a parting shot from NV that they "should have had" a $20,000 explosives license or something. These are all blasters things. The materials at issue do not detonate. There needs to be common sense FORCED on the government since it refuses to install itself. When it gets to the point model rocket launch controllers are referred to by state and federal investigators as "detonators", we have a big problem. That started happening 10 YEARS ago. Jerry

07-25-2008 01:45 PM  #19
WillCarney Certified Level Three   Joined: Oct 2007 Posts: 73	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Over regulation is tough. I mentioned to the NAR president several times that a better way than the law suit was to pursue a congressional exemption for rocket motors, igniter's and BP use for rocketry hobbyists. However he thought the law suit was the answer. Unfortunately he did not address the issue of igniter's and BP use which are not covered in the current law suit in which the BATFE are stepping up enforcement of. Why should antique gun owners be allowed to have 50lbs of BP with out a LEUP but I have to have one and store all my BP in a magazine? Not fair to be sure. Not to mention the igniter issue. Like the NRA we should pursue a congressional exemption for APCP, igniter's and BP use for the hobby of rocketry. You can't just ask for APCP, it's all regulated. William

07-25-2008 02:05 PM  #20
Loopy NAR Level 1   Joined: Dec 2007 Posts: 226	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Quote: Over regulation is tough. I mentioned to the NAR president several times that a better way than the law suit was to pursue a congressional exemption for rocket motors, igniter's and BP use for rocketry hobbyists. However he thought the law suit was the answer. Unfortunately he did not address the issue of igniter's and BP use which are not covered in the current law suit in which the BATFE are stepping up enforcement of. Why should antique gun owners be allowed to have 50lbs of BP with out a LEUP but I have to have one and store all my BP in a magazine? Not fair to be sure. Not to mention the igniter issue. Like the NRA we should pursue a congressional exemption for APCP, igniter's and BP use for the hobby of rocketry. You can't just ask for APCP, it's all regulated. William We tried that before and were stomped down harshly by Schumer/Lautenberg, remember?

07-25-2008 05:05 PM  #21
The Fatman Level 3 wannabe   Joined: Jul 2008 Posts: 4	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Correct me if I'm wrong. Even if you purchase your motor from an on launch site vendor, you would still need a type 1 correct?

07-25-2008 05:36 PM  #22
shockwaveriderz Model Rocket Historian   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 40	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Over on TRF I asked where was the NAR/TRA when this winding its way through the legislative process. And one response was well how would they know? Which is a valid question. I notice there are at least 4 NAR sections and 2 TRA prefectures (it appears one prefecture is also one of the NAR sections previously mentioned). So did anybody in any of these clubs know this was coming? Was anything done about it? I was just wondering if G motor would have been included in this legislation if the NAR/TRA had been aware and had some input into the process. This isn't about laying blame at anybodies doorstep. terry dean

07-25-2008 05:37 PM  #23
The Fatman Level 3 wannabe   Joined: Jul 2008 Posts: 4	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Reading 3.5.1(4) anyone attending a launch would be required to have a Type 1. What about minors attending. Can AP motors be used if minors are present? I don't see an age requirement for permits, but do you really think some 10 year old kid would get one?

07-25-2008 05:46 PM  #24
denverdoc Hall Monitor   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 3200	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick The assumption so far has been that this only applies to LEUP holders, who are required to purchase an additional state license. If this is not in compliance with fed regs, then yes, one would need the permit. This is not a new law per se but an amendment to existing statute, which besides the fee bump, gived the director of Oil and Public safety the teeth to enforce it. At least that's my read. And yes several key local members have been trying to attend the public hearings.

07-25-2008 05:50 PM  #25
gregm Stupid should be painful!   Joined: May 2007 Posts: 179	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Quote: I don't see an age requirement for permits, but do you really think some 10 year old kid would get one? Sure a 10 year old could get one. Probably terrorists too. Got to be loop holes in there somewhere so it only affects law abiding citizens. ROFLMAO Sorry, couldn't resist!

07-25-2008 05:58 PM  #26
UhClem Certified Level Three   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 203	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Quote: Reading 3.5.1(4) anyone attending a launch would be required to have a Type 1. What about minors attending. Can AP motors be used if minors are present? I don't see an age requirement for permits, but do you really think some 10 year old kid would get one? 3.3 Revocation, Suspension, or Denial of Permits. (A) The Division of Oil and Public Safety shall not issue a permit to any individual, corporation, company, firm, partnership, association, or state or local government agency who: (1) Is under twenty-one years of age;

07-25-2008 06:22 PM  #27
Steve_Shannon Super Moderator   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 2434	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Quote: Reading 3.5.1(4) anyone attending a launch would be required to have a Type 1. What about minors attending. Can AP motors be used if minors are present? I don't see an age requirement for permits, but do you really think some 10 year old kid would get one? Reading the CFRs is not always easy, but prohibited persons may not have permits or have explosives distributed to them. Under 21 years of age is one category of prohibited person. 27 CFR 555.26(7)(d)(1): (d) Distribution to prohibited persons. No person may knowingly distribute explosive materials to any individual who: (1) Is under twenty-one years of age; That does not mean explosives cannot be used if minors are in attendance. Neither does it mean that 18-20 year olds may not use motors, but someone who is not a prohibited person must possess the motor in accordance with the rules.

07-25-2008 06:37 PM  #28
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 4553	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick Quote: The assumption so far has been that this only applies to LEUP holders, who are required to purchase an additional state license. That's probably an invalid assumption then, since only motors with less than 62.5 grams of propellant and 80Ns are exempt. Every other high power rocket motor flown in the state would fall under this law, as would the flier. The "assumption" is that it applies to LEUP holders because every individual in the state who purchases explosives must not only comply with state requirements of 051-08, but must also comply with federal law by having a federal permit as well. So to say it only applies to LEUP holders is partially true, but this applies to more than current LEUP holders — it applies to people who under federal law should start by getting a LEUP.

07-31-2008 11:23 AM  #29
final_strike New Member   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 4	Re: Senate Bill 051-08 cuts Colorado hobbyists to the quick I moved to Hybrids two years ago and I have not looked back.