APPLETON, Wisconsin USA -- From an on-line discussion group posting comes information related to BATFE cracking down on registration and enforcement of explosives regulations with regard to the pyrotechnics industry.  At the Pyrotechnics Guild International Convention in Appleton, Wisconsin held earlier this month, the BATFE was there with a surprise for attendees who had brought fireworks to display.

The convention, usually attended by 1500 to 2000 people, is an opportunity for individuals who enjoy fireworks to get together and play for a week with their favorite aerial displays.  There are nightly displays that include materials that you would never see at your typical 4th of July display. One of the highlights for many members is the competition events where members bring the devices that they have built themselves to enter into competition with other members.

The Pyrotechnics Guild has always maintained a good relationship with the BATFE. Convention organizers provide approved magazines so that attendees can store the fireworks they have manufactured once they arrive on-site.  This year, the BATFE had a surprise waiting for members who arrived to place their fireworks in the magazine. It was best described as "Papers please?"

Anyone who was carrying fireworks was asked to show either their Low Explosives Users Permit or Low Explosives Manufacturers Permit. Those who had the proper paperwork were allowed to store their fireworks without further delay. However, for those who did not have their paperwork, they were reminded that they had "just committed a felony."

The "felony" they had committed was transporting explosives across state lines without a license or permit. "Violators" had their identification and addresses recorded and probably "can expect a visit from their local BATFE agents once they get home." No one was cited and everyone was allowed to use their fireworks in open shooting or competition, but everyone was told that next year the BATFE would not be so forgiving.

So what is different now than before?  Primarily that even though a manufacturing license is not needed to manufacturer explosives for your own use, on your own property, according to BATFE a permit is required if you manufacture an explosive and transport it off your property or across a state line.

08-29-2006 10:15 PM  #1
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	This is NOT good. If we don't get some relief via the TRA/NAR lawsuit, this is going to have widespread implications for the hobby.

08-30-2006 12:36 AM  #2
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 2146	I don’t see any vestige of a bone that ATFE is throwing the hobby here. They claim they don’t want to destroy the hobby, but they have made it virtually illegal to fly anything over a G motor without a LEUP. Had ATFE allowed the 62.5 gram Easy Access classification to stand, I would feel otherwise. The 62.5 gram process was at the end of it's power range, since you can only stack so many grains of a certain diameter. Beyond a certain length-to-diameter ratio, it just doesn't work. Even the Form 5400.4, which allowed non-licensed individuals to purchase motors from in-state dealers, has been gutted by the Safe Explosives Act of 2003 and is now earmarked for use as a reporting form for use with the new “Limited Users Permit” along with a “coupon” (and no more than six times during the life of the limited permit!). What is this coupon deal? It sounds like “gas rationing” coupons from the 40’s. The overly-restrictive interpretation the ATFE is putting on the current state of regulatory affairs will ultimately kill the high-power hobby. It is important that fliers all over the country continue to support the NAR/TRA lawsuit fund even if we have to go on to appeal beyond October. It is not time to get glib in our interpretation of the where we stand with this lawsuit. It is absolutely imperative that we win.

09-17-2006 12:08 PM  #3
Boogeyman Certified Level One   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 24	It is an odd group, perhaps the rockets remind them of their inadequacies in certain dark places. Jealousy. Envy. Rage! I can see them frothing at the mouth trying to rid the planet of these........representations. If they were in the private sector they would be on food stamps. Rocketry should be based on two simple rules: Register as a flier with a private science agency (perhaps NASA or an other agency) for $100 for a lifetime if using anything other than BP motors. Any changes of address could be updated by website. Secondly, agreement that all propellant would be stored in ammo can type steel cases when being transported. Period. You screw up, you pay. No fingerprints. No dishonest, childish agency involved. No ridiculous rules. All are registered. FAA rules still stand......any deviant acts with a rocket, the fuel, the ignitors etc etc are already covered by state or federal law. This is not difficult. This 'agency' only makes it look difficult. The atf could go back to doing......whatever it is they do, and the higher ups wouldn't look so assinine to their agents. B

09-17-2006 01:20 PM  #4
QuickBurst Certified Level Three TRA   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 45	Quote: This is NOT good. If we don't get some relief via the TRA/NAR lawsuit, this is going to have widespread implications for the hobby. When TRA/NAR wins the lawsuit, and I believe they will. It won't change the igniter situation. Igniters will still be on the list of explosives. APCP will be removed, igniters will not. There is a way out. The manufacturer of said igniters must prove that his/her compound is not an explosive. This can be done by an independent testing facility. Submit the proof to the ATF and ask for approval. Once it is determined that the igniter compound (pyrotechnic) is not an explosive, the ATF no longer has jurisdiction. Understand that the ATF position is that any and all pyrotechnic is assumed to be an explosive, until proven otherwise. This is called "Burden of Proof" and burden of proof is the responsibility of the manufacturer. This is the route QuickBurst has in mind. The ATF has stated verbally that they will accept the results (I will be asking for this ruling in writing tomorrow morning). I have made contact with a testing facility (recommended by the ATF) to do the required testing. They have agreed to provide an estimate for the work, once this estimate is "in hand" I will make the decision, go or no go. The decision will be based on economics, is it affordable? Is there potential for a return in future sales? After all QuickBurst is supposed to be a business. This solves the problem with QuickBurst. The other pyrotechnic manufacturers will need to fend for themselves.

09-17-2006 10:28 PM  #5
LaneKG New Member   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 3	I'd be glad to make a donation toward the testing Dave. OK? I think a few others in our club would also. Thanks, Greg

09-17-2006 10:44 PM  #6
kgholloway New Member   Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 6	Dave, I wish you luck in getting your ignitors tested. I seem to recall, however, that motor manufacturers are forced to accept DOT Type "C" or "B" Explosive classification for their motors/reloads because the testing needed to have them declared as being a "Flamable Solid" costs approximately $10,000 per each size/type. Ken Holloway

09-17-2006 10:48 PM  #7
QuickBurst Certified Level Three TRA   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 45	Quote: I'd be glad to make a donation toward the testing Dave. OK? I think a few others in our club would also. Thanks, Greg This would be a great help, and I can't thank you enough. I'll know more when I have a price in hand.

09-17-2006 10:53 PM  #8
QuickBurst Certified Level Three TRA   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 45	Quote: Dave, I wish you luck in getting your ignitors tested. I seem to recall, however, that motor manufacturers are forced to accept DOT Type "C" or "B" Explosive classification for their motors/reloads because the testing needed to have them declared as being a "Flamable Solid" costs approximately $10,000 per each size/type. Ken Holloway I was told the testing could be done "minimal". I furnished the formula, he studied it a short while and told me he didn't think there would be any problem. As far as price goes I did not hear a number this high. He wouldn't commit to anything with out more time to study it. All he said was that extensive testing ran somewhere around 5 to 8 K. He said my deal would not be that high. All I can do is wait.