This comment is in response to RIN 1140-AA24 published on 11 August in the Federal Register, Docket ATF 9P, Docket ID ATFE-2006-0041.
I am a member of the National Association of Rocketry and have participated in the hobby since 1995. I have had an ATF user permit since 1997.
This notice purports to clarify the definition of Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs). I fail to see how it clarifies anything. It simply states that one particular item is not a PAD based on the judgment of the ATF.
In arguing that rocket motors are not PADs, the ATF holds up several other items as examples of PADs. The ATF then says: "Additionally, logic dictates that it is necessary that a propellant actuated device contain and be actuated by propellant." before launching into a tortured linguistic analysis of the meaning of "propellant actuated device". Very well, I shall apply these same tests to the items that the ATF has held up as shining examples of such.
The ATF claims that to qualify as a PAD, at a minimum the item must be deemed a "tool", " special mechanized device" or "gas generator system" then proceeds to torture these phrases producing such gems as:
1) "Although some may argue that certain hobby rocket motors are the products of complex design and construction, the hobby rocket motor consists essentially of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) encased by a cardboard, plastic, or metallic cylinder."
This would appear to be an apt description of aircraft slide inflation cartridges and diesel and jet engine starter cartridges. So these items fail this test as well.
2) "The hobby rocket motor cannot be brought within the regulatory definition of propellant actuated device as a 'tool' because it is neither 'handheld' nor a complete 'device' and because it is not a metal-shaping machine or a part thereof."
The cartridges also fail this test.
3) "Further, it cannot be considered to be a 'special mechanized device' because, although clearly designed to serve a special purpose, it lacks the necessary indicia of a mechanized device. Indeed, the hobby rocket motor is in no way reminiscent of a 'mechanism. See id. at 721. Finally, because it has no interacting mechanical or electrical components, the hobby rocket motor cannot be deemed to be a gas generator system."
This also excludes the cartridges.
4) "Because the hobby rocket motor is, in essence, simply the propellant that actuates the hobby rocket, and for the additional reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, the motor itself cannot be construed to constitute a propellant actuated device."
Once again this argument applies equally well to the inflation and starter cartridges prior to their final installation. Yet the ATF claims that the cartridges are PADs.
Thus three of the five items held up by the ATF as examples of PADs fail the very test the ATF is applying to the hobby rocket motor. Perhaps there is some other unstated criteria these cartridges meet that is sufficient to qualify them as PADs. If so, the ATF needs to state what this criteria is and why the hobby rocket motor fails that test as a PAD.
What of the other two examples of PADs?
The ATF in the June 1997 Explosives Newsletter stated: "Once the explosive material has been incorporated into the airbag device, it may be exempted from regulation. In other words, manufacturers of these complete [airbag] devices, must apply for exemption under 27 CFR 55.32 prior to interstate distribution to non-licensees/non-permittees." 27 CFR 55.32 (now 555.32) covers "special explosive devices". This assertion was also repeated in the 2000 edition of ATF P 5400.7, the Orange Book, on page 57.
So in 1997 airbags were deemed not to be PADs but now they are. Perhaps the ATF will also claim that the 1997 newsletter was "inartfully drafted".
So we are left with the nail gun. The nail gun itself contains no explosive materials so it is hard to see why it would need to be exempted from explosives regulations. Perhaps the ATF was instead referring to the propellants used by nail guns.
Nail guns fall into three basic classes based on how they are actuated. Many are powered by compressed air and the second group is powered by the combustion of a flammable gas. Neither air nor flammable gas are on the ATF's list of explosive materials so these devices are obviously not at issue. That leaves the nail guns powered by explosive cartridges. These cartridges also fail all of the tests listed above and therefore cannot be considered as meeting the PAD exemption criteria being argued here. Yet these cartridges are readily available without the need to produce an ATF permit.
So of the examples the ATF provides of PADs, only one appears to meet the criteria laid out in this proposal yet it has been previously declared by the ATF not to be a PAD but a special explosive device. This is at best confusing and at worst disingenuous.
The ATF has said "logic dictates" and then proceeded to explain why hobby rocket motors do not meet the requirements of being deemed a PAD. But these same arguments remove four of the five examples from the class of being a PAD. This is an odd sort of logic.
If the ATF does not also categorize aircraft slide inflation cartridges, nail gun cartridges, and diesel and jet starter cartridges as regulated items along with hobby rocket motors, the ATF is applying their criteria in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
If the ATF had intended to clarify just what is and is not a PAD they have not done so with this proposed rule change. Instead they have simply declared by fiat that one particular item is naughty before their eyes.
This rule change must be dropped and a replacement offered that provides objective tests and criteria for what is and is not qualified as a propellant actuated device.
The ATF has requested comments on how this rule change will effect hobbiests: "The Department welcomes comments on the number of individuals who may be expected to terminate their participation in the use of rocket motors containing more than 62.5 grams of propellant once they become aware that they must comply with the applicable licensing and permitting requirements."
Based on what I saw at a recent club meeting, I estimate that no one who didn't already have an ATF permit will now apply for one but will instead stop using the larger motors. As the ATF is now regulating the motors most frequently used at high power launches this will result in a drastic drop in their use. In addition, people considering getting into the hobby will look at the hurdle imposed by the ATF permit process and choose another hobby. The result will be that in several years almost no one will be using these motors. I cannot see how any of the motor manufacturers and dealers can stay in business in such an environment.
The ATF claims to have provided information to rocket clubs on how they could get permits and allow club members to fly under those permits. This was apparantly a lie as no such information can be found. The ATF appears to have made this up in order to make the 62.5 gram final rule look to be less of a burden.
The ATF in a 1998 final rule claimed that they would create a low cost hobbiests permit but has yet to publish this NPRM as promised.
Given these two instances of the ATF apparantly lying in order to grease their desired rule through in spite of the public comments and common sense, I expect no less for this notice.
In addition, the administration has recently attempted to remove the statutory limitations on permit fees with one report indicating that a ten fold increase was planned. Such an increase would impose an excessive burden on all lawfull users and combined with this and other ATF regulatory efforts, would kill the high power rocket hobby with an attendant loss of jobs at motor manufacturers, dealers, and kit providers.
This rule is simply an effort by the ATF to after the fact change a position clearly stated in a 1994 letter. The ATF purports to clarify the PAD exemption but instead just muddies the waters by claiming hobby rocket motors fail their criteria yet failing to explain how other items the ATF claims are indeed PAD's, yet fail the same tests, qualify. In the light of such confusing rule making, it is impossible to determine if any given item would qualify as a PAD. This rule must be dropped and be replaced by one which clearly defines what is and is not a PAD and that is consistant with current application of the PAD exemption.