U.S. ROCKETS
U.S. Rockets logo
More power to you!!
Genesis of LMR & HPR.

Regulatory Matters


| Proposed changes |

Propellant is not an explosive, tiny amounts of BP in ejections
are recreational, and igniters are a component of consumer products.
No CA regulations required. FAA and sometimes even DOT regulates it.
That's plenty. Earth to California, please come in . . .


ATF, DOT, other EXEMPTIONS

To avoid "interaction" with alphabet regulators we no longer resell contracted motors. The contractors even provided all the papers for permits they asked for, and they said "no" rather rudely, WITHOUT processing them. "No soup for you." It sure would be handy if citizens had rights. Hmmm.

It is interesting the way rockets are legally exempt from ATF. And how regulators are operating well beyond their charter TODAY. ATF "knowingly and falsely" claimed PADs are not exempt despite 27 CFR 555.141-a-8. CPSC is going after mail order chemical sellers because one of the MANY uses for those chemicals is to make firecrackers which they have TOTALLY banned. Hmmmm. The rules do not allow banning any possible repurposeable "precursor chemical". Oh, wait, what gave them the right to ban firecrackers to begin with? Another regulator, ATF specifically ALLOWS firecrackers for cultural and recreational purposes! Resend the memo!

Put our product in every school interested in improving science and math. Fight the government regulators' fight against its own citizens!




HARD NEWS


"ORDERED that the defendant's [BATFE] decision to
classify APCP as an explosive under
18 U.S.C. 841(d) is VACATED."

Just WINNER Jerry
FINAL FEDERAL COURT ORDER 16 March 2009

"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA and the APA."

Just WINNER Jerry
Court order FEDERAL COURT 19 March 2004 Part 1
Court order FEDERAL COURT 19 March 2004 Part 2


"The problem in this case is that ATFE's explanation
for its determination that APCP deflagrates lacks
any coherence. We therefore owe no deference to
ATFE's purported expertise because we cannot discern
it. ATFE has neither laid out a concrete standard
for classifying materials along the burn-deflagrate-
detonate continuum, nor offered data specific to the
burn speed of APCP when used for its common or
primary purpose. On this record, the agency's
decision cannot withstand judicial review."

Just WINNER Jerry

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT order 10 February 2005




In a monologue with itself, and
ignoring all formal filings made
before and during the action:


Order, Chief Counsel, U.S. DOT Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
April 1, 2004

"It was determined that there is sufficient
information to dismiss the case against U.S. Rockets"





Source: 1-5-11 Daily Press.

Fight the government regulators' fight against its own citizens!

| HOME | CONTACT | SAFETY CODES |


Copyright 1979-2011, U.S. Rockets, all rights reserved!