Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 46079 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives 

27 CFR Part 555 

[Docket No. ATF 6F; AG Order No. 2829–

2006] 

RIN 1140–AA25 

Commerce in Explosives—Hobby 

Rocket Motors (2004R–7P) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is 

amending the regulations of the Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives (ATF) to clarify that the 

requirements of part 555 do not apply 

to model rocket motors consisting of 

ammonium perchlorate composite 

propellant, black powder, or other 

similar low explosives, containing no 

more than 62.5 grams of total propellant 

weight, and designed as single-use 

motors or as reload kits capable of 

reloading no more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant into a reusable motor casing. 

This final rule is intended to provide 

rocketry hobbyists with guidance to 

enable them to enjoy their hobby in 

compliance with the safety and security 

requirements of the law and regulations. 

The remaining proposals made in 

ATF’s notice of proposed rulemaking 

(Notice No. 968) will be addressed 

separately in a forthcoming rulemaking 

document or documents. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 10, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James P. Ficaretta; Enforcement 

Programs and Services; Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives; U.S. Department of Justice; 

650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20226, telephone (202) 

927–8203. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

ATF is responsible for implementing 

Title XI, Regulation of Explosives (18 

United States Code (U.S.C.) chapter 40), 

of the Organized Crime Control Act of 

1970. One of the stated purposes of the 

Act is to reduce the hazards to persons 

and property arising from misuse and 

unsafe or insecure storage of explosive 

materials. Organized Crime Control Act 

of 1970, Public Law 91–452, § 1101, 84 

Stat. 952 (1970). Under section 847 of 

title 18, U.S.C., the Attorney General 

‘‘may prescribe such rules and 

regulations as he deems reasonably 

necessary to carry out the provisions of 

this chapter.’’ Regulations that 

implement the provisions of chapter 40 

are contained in title 27, Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), part 555 

(‘‘Commerce in Explosives’’). 

Under the law, the term ‘‘explosives’’

is defined as ‘‘any chemical 

compound[,] mixture, or device, the 

primary or common purpose of which is 

to function by explosion.’’ The 

definition states that the term ‘‘includes, 

but is not limited to, dynamite and other 

high explosives, black powder, pellet 

powder, initiating explosives, 

detonators, safety fuses, squibs, 

detonating cord, igniter cord, and 

igniters.’’ See 18 U.S.C. 841(d). 

ATF is required under the law to 

publish an annual list of items that fall 

within the coverage of the definition of 

explosives. Since publication of the first 

‘‘Explosives List’’ in 1971, ammonium 

perchlorate composite propellant 

(APCP) has been classified by ATF as an 

explosive. This classification is based 

upon the statutory definition of 

‘‘explosives,’’ which contemplates that 

items can ‘‘function by explosion’’

either by detonating (dynamite and 

other high explosives detonate) or by 

deflagrating (low explosives, such as 

black powder, pellet powder, and rocket 

propellants, deflagrate, or burn very 

quickly). Because APCP deflagrates 

when confined, it has been classified by 

ATF as an explosive. 

Under the law and its implementing 

regulations, persons engaging in the 

business of manufacturing, importing, 

or dealing in explosive materials are 

required to be licensed. Other persons 

who acquire or receive explosive 

materials are required to obtain a 

permit. Licensees and permittees must 

comply with the provisions of part 555, 

including those relating to storage and 

other safety requirements, as well as 

recordkeeping and theft reporting 

requirements. However, certain 

activities and items have been given 

exempt status under the law (see 

exemptions at 18 U.S.C. 845(a)) and its 

implementing regulations at 27 CFR 

555.141. 

Although APCP is an explosive 

material, ATF currently exempts from 

regulation rocket motors containing 62.5 

grams or less of this and other explosive 

propellants for reasons set forth below. 

Rocket motors that contain more than 

62.5 grams of APCP are subject to all 

applicable Federal explosives controls 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 841 et seq. and the 

regulations in part 555. 

II. Regulatory History 

In 1981, ATF exempted from 

regulation Class C explosives, including 

‘‘common fireworks,’’ and certain other 

explosives designated by United States 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

regulations. Included among the items 

in the DOT regulations that were 

exempted by ATF were ‘‘toy propellant 

devices and toy smoke devices’’ that 

were defined by DOT as items 

‘‘consist[ing] of small paper or 

composition tubes or containers 

containing a small charge of slow 

burning propellant powder or smoke 

producing powder.’’ ATF determined 

that 62.5 grams was the maximum 

amount of propellant that could be 

deemed a ‘‘small charge’’ for toy 

propellant devices as described in 49 

CFR 173.100(u). Subsequently, DOT 

regulations were revised and the term 

‘‘model rocket motor’’ was used to apply 

to items previously described as ‘‘toy 

propellant devices.’’

Between 1996 and 1998, ATF updated 

its regulations (27 CFR 555.141(a)(7)) to 

reflect various DOT revisions. In doing 

so, however, ATF inadvertently 

removed from the subsection all 

language under which ‘‘toy’’ sport 

rocket motors had previously been 

exempted and failed to add language 

documenting the continued exemption 

of motors containing 62.5 grams or less 

of propellant. See 61 FR 53688 (Notice 

No. 841, October 15, 1996); 63 FR 44999 

(T.D. ATF–400, August 24, 1998). 

Despite this administrative error, ATF 

has continued to exempt sport rocket 

motors containing 62.5 grams or less of 

propellant from the provisions of the 

Federal explosives laws and regulations. 

The Safe Explosives Act (SEA), 

enacted in 2002 as Title XI of the 

Homeland Security Act, substantially 

amended the Organized Crime Control 

Act of 1970. In drafting the SEA, 

Congress took into consideration 

existing Federal explosives law and 

regulation, but did not do away with 

ATF’s regulation of rocket motors 

containing more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant, nor did it decide that motors 

containing no more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant should be regulated. Thus, it 

can be argued that Congress acquiesced 

in continuance of the exemption. 

Cammarano v. United States, 358 U.S. 

498, 79 S.Ct. 524, 3 L.Ed.2d 462 (1959); 

Ward v. Commissioner of the Internal 

Revenue Service, 784 F.2d 1424 (9th 

Cir. 1986). This final rule clarifies in the 

regulations ATF’s long-standing policy 

and reflects that, after careful 

consideration, ATF has determined that 

the 62.5-gram threshold is an 

appropriate exemption level. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
46080 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

III. Litigation—Tripoli Rocketry 

Association and National Association 

of Rocketry v. ATF 

In February 2000, the Tripoli Rocketry 

Association (Tripoli) and the National 

Association of Rocketry (NAR) brought 

a cause of action against ATF in United 

States District Court for the District of 

Columbia, alleging that: 

1. APCP does not ‘‘function by 

explosion’’ and, therefore, APCP is not 

an explosive material subject to control 

by ATF; 

2. ATF violated the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) by including 

APCP on the ‘‘List of Explosive 

Materials’’ without subjecting the List to 

‘‘notice-and-comment’’ rulemaking; 

3. Even if APCP is an explosive, sport 

rocket motors are propellant actuated 

devices (PADs) and are, therefore, 

exempt from regulation pursuant to 

section 555.141(a)(8); and 

4. ATF violated the APA and acted 

arbitrarily and capriciously in setting 

the maximum-propellant-weight 

threshold for exempting sport rocket 

motors at 62.5 grams. 

In a subsequent amendment to the 

complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that 

certain kits are designed to enable 

rocket hobbyists to construct rocket 

motors containing more than 62.5 grams 

of propellant by placing multiple 

propellant grains (each weighing 62.5 

grams or less) in a reusable motor 

casing, and that ATF had determined 

that these kits pose the same dangers 

and require the same controls as singleuse rocket motors containing more than 

62.5 grams of propellant and had 

classified them accordingly. According 

to plaintiffs, this classification is invalid 

because ATF did not engage in ‘‘noticeand-comment’’ rulemaking before 

making this determination. 

On March 19, 2004, the district court 

granted partial summary judgment to 

ATF on the issue of whether APCP is an 

explosive. In addition, the court 

concluded that ATF’s determination 

that sport rocket motors containing not 

more than 62.5 grams of propellant are 

not PADs, which was confirmed by ATF 

in a letter dated December 22, 2000, was 

invalid because it was made without 

compliance with the APA. The court 

based its decision on its review of two 

letters issued by ATF in 1994 that 

appeared to take a different position 

from the 2000 letter with respect to the 

applicability of the PAD exemption to 

hobby rockets containing not more than 

62.5 grams of propellant. Finally, the 

court held in abeyance a ruling on the 

remaining counts of the lawsuit pending 

the completion of ATF’s rulemaking 

that, among other things, as reflected in 

this document, will establish by 

regulation ATF’s exemption for rocket 

motors containing no more than 62.5 

grams of APCP, black powder or other 

similar low explosives (Notice No. 968, 

68 FR 4406, January 29, 2003). 

On February 10, 2006, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit determined that 

ATF’s classification of APCP as an 

explosive could not ‘‘be sustained on 

the basis of the administrative record,’’

437 F.3d at 81, and therefore remanded 

the case to the district court in order to 

allow ATF to ‘‘reconsider’’ the 

classification of APCP and offer a 

coherent explanation for whatever 

conclusion it ultimately reaches. Tripoli 

Rocketry Ass’n v. Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 437 

F.3d 75, 84 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The court 

explained that ATF had not ‘‘provided 

a clear and coherent explanation for its 

classification of APCP’’ and did not 

‘‘articulate the standards that guided its 

analysis.’’ Id. at 81. The court did not 

vacate ATF’s designation of APCP as an 

explosive, because it ‘‘was in place long 

before the present litigation.’’ Id. at 84. 

Therefore, APCP remains classified as 

an explosive material and continues to 

be regulated accordingly by ATF. 

On remand, the district court held a 

status conference with the parties on 

April 20, 2006, in which the court stated 

that ATF could pursue its testing and 

reconsideration efforts and work to 

provide a more thorough basis for the 

classification of APCP pursuant to the 

D.C. Circuit opinion. Presently, ATF is 

engaged in the reconsideration process 

and the matter is pending in district 

court. 

IV. Miscellaneous 

The carefully-framed exemption 

embodied in this rule is maintained 

with a view to maximizing ATF’s 

performance of its statutory 

responsibilities within the limits of 

available resources, without 

compromising public safety. If all 

hobbyists and retailers who receive or 

distribute rocket motors containing no 

more than 62.5 grams of explosive were 

required to obtain permits and licenses, 

ATF resources would be stretched 

beyond their limits to ensure 

compliance with regulatory 

requirements and effective 

administration of the existing Federal 

explosives laws. 

Specifically, the legal requirements 

placed upon hobbyists and retailers 

would, in turn, impose an 

unmanageable administrative burden on 

ATF. Industry statistics garnered from 

proprietary manufacturing information 

reflect that in 2004, there were more 

than 1.5 million purchasers of small 

rocket motors. Without the proposed 

exemption, hobbyists seeking permits to 

purchase the motors would undergo 

background checks, submit 

applications, and be subject to 

inspection by ATF. Additionally, based 

upon U.S. Census Bureau and industry 

information, it is conservatively 

estimated that there are approximately 

10,000 retailers, including nationwide 

chain retail stores, as well as hobby, 

game, and toy stores that sell small 

rocket motors. These retailers sell the 

vast majority of their smaller motors to 

children and other hobbyists who use 

these smaller rocket motors exclusively. 

If required to obtain licenses, these 

retailers would be subject to 

requirements similar to those 

enumerated above and would need to 

maintain proper records of receipt and 

distribution of rocket motors. 

In view of the large universe of 

hobbyists who use small rocket motors 

and currently are not required to obtain 

permits—and also in view of the large 

number of currently-unlicensed retailers 

selling small rocket motors, it is 

apparent that to discontinue ATF’s longstanding practice of exempting motors 

containing no more than 62.5 grams of 

explosive material would be to place 

upon ATF an administrative burden that 

would greatly outstrip the agency’s 

licensing, inspection, and enforcement 

resources. An increase from the current 

4,000 Federal explosives licensees to a 

potential 14,000 licensees and an 

increase from 8,000 permittees to a 

potential 1.5 million permittees would 

result in an unmanageable workload for 

ATF’s administrative personnel and 

would hamper the agency’s ability to 

effectively manage the overall regulation 

program with respect to both explosives 

and firearms. For instance, a massive 

increase in license and permit 

applications would undercut ATF’s 

ability to promptly process firearms 

license applications if it became 

necessary to draw upon the firearms 

licensing staff already working at 

capacity. Furthermore, regulating 

motors with no more than 62.5 grams 

would consume these resources even 

though the hobby rockets that use these 

smaller motors have been found to pose 

a relatively small public safety hazard. 

V. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

On January 29, 2003, ATF published 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) soliciting 

comments from the public and industry 

on a number of proposals to amend the 

regulations in part 555 (Notice No. 968, 

68 FR 4406). ATF issued the NPRM, in 

part, pursuant to the Regulatory 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 46081 

Flexibility Act (RFA), which requires an 

agency to review—within ten years of 

publication—rules for which an agency 

prepared a final regulatory flexibility 

analysis addressing the impact of the 

rule on small businesses or other small 

entities. 

Notice No. 968 proposed amendments 

to the regulations that were initiated by 

ATF and amendments proposed by 

members of the explosives industry. 

One proposal initiated by ATF 

concerned an amendment of the 

regulations to clarify the items that are 

exempt from the requirements of part 

555. In particular, ATF proposed to 

amend 27 CFR 555.141 to provide that 

the regulations in part 555 do not apply 

to the importation and distribution of 

model rocket motors consisting of 

APCP, black powder, or other similar 

low explosives; containing no more than 

62.5 grams of total propellant weight; 

and designed as single-use motors or as 

reload kits capable of reloading no more 

than 62.5 grams of propellant into a 

reusable motor casing. This proposal 

mirrored ATF’s long-standing policy, 

which had initially been adopted by the 

agency to give effect to the ‘‘toy 

propellant device’’ exemption that had 

existed in the regulations until 1998. 

Discontinuance of the 62.5 gram or less 

exemption would render it infeasible for 

ATF effectively to administer the 

Federal explosives controls with respect 

to rocket motors, including those that 

pose the most threat to public safety and 

homeland security. Without the 

exemption, all requirements of the 

Federal explosives controls would apply 

to all persons who acquire and store 

hobby rockets, regardless of the amount 

of propellant contained in the motors, 

thereby spreading ATF resources so thin 

that ATF could not ensure compliance 

with regulatory requirements and 

effective administration of the Federal 

explosives law. 

The comment period for Notice No. 

968, initially scheduled to close on 

April 29, 2003, was extended until July 

7, 2003, pursuant to ATF Notice No. 2 

(68 FR 37109, June 23, 2003). ATF 

received approximately 1,640 comments 

in response to Notice No. 968. This final 

rule addresses only the proposal made 

in Notice No. 968 with respect to model 

rocket motors. The remaining proposals 

made in Notice No. 968 will be 

addressed separately in a forthcoming 

rulemaking document or documents. 

VI. Analysis of Comments and 

Decisions With Respect to Model 

Rocket Motors 

Approximately 620 comments 

addressed ATF’s proposal to exempt 

from regulation model rocket motors 

containing up to 62.5 grams of 

propellant. Comments were submitted 

by sport rocketry hobbyists, businesses 

that manufacture or sell hobby rocket 

motors and related products, one sport 

rocketry organization (the National 

Association of Rocketry (NAR)), and 

others. 

In its comments (Comment Nos. 974 

and 1570), NAR stated that it is a ‘‘nonprofit scientific organization dedicated 

to safety, education, and the 

advancement of technology in the sport 

rocket hobby in the United States.’’ The 

commenter further stated that, founded 

in 1957, it is the oldest and largest sport 

rocketry organization in the world, with 

over 4,800 members and 110 affiliated 

clubs. According to the commenter, it is 

the recognized national testing authority 

for safety certification of rocket motors 

in the United States and it is the author 

of safety codes for the hobby that are 

recognized and accepted by 

manufacturers and public safety 

officials nationwide. Thirty-seven (37) 

comments expressed specific support 

for NAR’s position as set forth in its 

comments in response to Notice No. 

968. 

Most commenters addressing the 

proposal argued that ATF should not 

regulate model rocket motors or model 

rocket propellant for reasons discussed 

below. Other commenters expressed 

specific concerns regarding the 

proposed regulation and those concerns 

are also addressed below. 

A. Commenters’ Reasons for Objecting 

to ATF’s Regulation of Model Rocket 

Motors and Model Rocket Propellant 

1. Rocket Motors and Rocket Propellants 

Are Not Explosives 

Under the law, the term ‘‘explosives’’

is defined as ‘‘any chemical 

compound[,] mixture, or device, the 

primary or common purpose of which is 

to function by explosion.’’ The 

definition states that the term ‘‘includes, 

but is not limited to, dynamite and other 

high explosives, black powder, pellet 

powder, initiating explosives, 

detonators, safety fuses, squibs, 

detonating cord, igniter cord, and 

igniters.’’ See 18 U.S.C. 841(d). 

As previously explained, ATF is 

required under the law to publish an 

annual list of items that fall within the 

coverage of the definition of explosives. 

Since publication of the first 

‘‘Explosives List’’ in 1971, ammonium 

perchlorate composite propellant 

(APCP), the propellant used in many 

high-powered rocket motors, has been 

classified by ATF as an explosive. This 

classification is based upon the 

statutory definition of ‘‘explosives,’’

which contemplates that items can 

‘‘function by explosion’’ either by 

detonating (dynamite and other high 

explosives detonate) or by deflagrating 

(low explosives, such as black powder, 

pellet powder, and rocket propellants, 

deflagrate, or burn very quickly). 

Because APCP deflagrates when 

confined, it has been classified by ATF 

as an explosive. 

Approximately 500 commenters 

contended that rocket motors and rocket 

propellants (including APCP) are not 

explosives because they do not 

‘‘function by explosion.’’ In general, the 

commenters argued that rocket motors 

and rocket propellants neither detonate 

nor deflagrate. NAR argued that ATF’s 

authority to regulate, in any manner, 

any form of propellant or rocket motor 

under the Federal explosives law first 

requires a determination that such items 

have as their primary or common 

purpose to function by explosion. NAR 

contended that ATF failed to make the 

required statutory determination for 

rocket motors or APCP in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking. As such, NAR 

concluded that ATF cannot regulate 

rocket motors consisting of APCP as an 

explosive. NAR also argued that ATF 

has failed to recognize that rocket 

motors containing APCP as a fuel source 

do not have as their primary or common 

purpose to function by explosion. 

According to the commenter—

The leading manufacturer of APCP for 

rockets (Aerotech, Inc.) has recently 

explained that the formulation of APCP 

utilized in such rockets consists of between 

40 and 77 percent ammonium perchlorate as 

the oxidizer, with the remainder consisting of 

various supplemental metals such as 

aluminum or magnesium for fuel, various 

other chemicals that serve as burn rate 

catalysts and antioxidants, and a synthetic 

rubber binder. The rubber binder effectively 

passivates the ammonium perchlorate 

rendering the resultant composite nonexplosive. 

NAR disagreed with ATF’s 

determination that rocket motors 

containing APCP function by explosion 

because they deflagrate when ignited. 

As stated in its comment: 

It is widely acknowledged, and accepted 

by ATFE, that the speed of the burn front in 

materials that deflagrate is on the order of 

meters per second (in a detonation reaction 

the velocity is typically more than one 

kilometer per second), whereas the speed of 

the burn front in materials that burn is on the 

order of millimeters per second * * * the 

data relied upon by ATFE to date clearly 

reveals that when APCP is lit the burn front 

propagates on the order of ‘millimeters per 

second,’ which under ATFE’s own concept is 

indicative that APCP ‘burns’ and does not 

‘deflagrate.’


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
46082 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

NAR provided information to support 

its position that APCP burns and does 

not deflagrate. Based on that 

information, NAR concluded that 

‘‘when ignited APCP in rocket motors 

typically burns at a rate of less than 25 

millimeters per second. Accordingly, 

APCP in rocket motors does not 

deflagrate when ignited, and thus ATFE 

cannot classify APCP in rocket motors 

as an explosive.’’

Most commenters expressed views 

similar to that of NAR. The following 

excerpts reflect the commenters’

position: 

If the ATF’s interpretation were correct 

every rocket ever lit would explode on the 

pad every time without fail. Obviously it 

doesn’t do that. Solid Rocket Propellant 

(APCP) is a tried and true, safe technology 

and that is why most of the worlds [sic] 

professional and hobby rockets use it as the 

fuel of choice. (Comment No. 88) 

APCP does not ‘function by explosion.’ It 

functions by combustion * * * It is and has 

been obvious to the professionals in the field 

for several decades that APCP does not 

function by explosion. It does not belong, 

and never has belonged, on the BATFE’s list 

of explosives. (Comment No. 834) 

‘Explosion’ entails either ‘deflagration’ or 

‘detonation’. The generally accepted 

definition for detonation is the propagation 

of the burn front at greater than 1 kilometer 

per second. Deflagration is defined by a burn 

front propagating on the order of meters per 

second. Ammonium Perchlorate Composite 

Propellant (APCP), the most common hobby 

rocketry propellant, generally burns at less 

than 25 millimeters per second, putting it 

well below the definition of both deflagration 

and detonation. Thus, APCP burns; it does 

not explode. (Comment No. 854) 

Their [solid rocket motors] sole purpose is 

to propel a rocket by the ejection of hot, high 

pressure gases produced by the controlled 

combustion of one of more solid monolithic 

propellant grains in a high-pressure 

combustion chamber through an expansion 

controlling orifice device called a nozzle. The 

solid rocket motor/propellant system is 

specifically designed not to explode, and 

therefore is not an explosive, nor is it an 

explosive device, and therefore should not be 

regulated by the BATFE. (Comment No. 895) 

Deflagration is characterized by a subsonic 

burn rate measured in meters per second; 

* * * APCP merely burns at the rate of 

millimeters per second. When confined, and 

should the casing rupture due to overpressure, the remaining unburnt APCP 

typically self-extinguishes. An individual 

could safely ignite one end of APCP, and it 

would burn much like a road flare! The 

inclusion of APCP on the list of regulated 

explosives has no logical basis * * * 

(Comment No. 1071) 

[H]obby rocketry fuel, particularly APCP, is 

not an explosive, either by nature or by 

design. APCP neither detonates nor 

deflagrates. Detonation is characterized by a 

supersonic burn rate, measured in kilometers 

per second. The APCP used in hobby rockets 

cannot be made to detonate by use of a 

blasting cap. (Comment No. 1164) 

ATF has never produced any technical 

studies, tests, or scientific papers to support 

the contention that APCP functions by 

explosion, or even that APCP does detonate 

or deflagrate. (Comment No. 1547) 

Department Response 

Beginning in 2000, the issue of 

classifying APCP as an explosive 

material has been litigated in the United 

States District Court for the District of 

Columbia. See Tripoli Rocketry Ass’n v. 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives, 337 F. Supp. 2d 1 

(2004). After assessing technical and 

legal arguments presented by the 

Government and opposing rocketry 

associations, the district court held that 

ATF’s decision that APCP is a 

deflagrating explosive was permissible. 

Tripoli Rocketry Association v. ATF 

Civil Action No. 00–273 (Mar. 19, 2004). 

As previously stated, in February 

2006, the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the 

district court on this issue because in its 

view ATF had failed to provide a 

sufficiently thorough justification to 

support its classification with a specific, 

articulated standard for deflagration. 

Tripoli Rocketry Assoc., Inc. v. Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives, 437 F. 3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 

2006). However, the court declined to 

set aside the classification, and APCP 

thus remains on the ‘‘List of Explosive 

Materials’’ that ATF is obligated to 

maintain. See Tripoli Rocketry Assoc., 

437 F. 3d at 84. The case was remanded 

to the district court so that ATF may 

reconsider the matter and offer a 

coherent explanation for whatever 

conclusion it ultimately reaches. Id. 

Furthermore, the Court of Appeals 

offered clear guideposts as to the 

characteristics of a classification 

decision that would pass judicial 

review. See, e.g., id. at 81. Accordingly, 

ATF will utilize those guideposts in 

conducting testing of APCP as part of 

the reconsideration process. ATF will 

test and analyze APCP throughout the 

summer and fall of 2006 and submit 

reconsideration results upon 

completion. 

2. Model Rockets/Rocket Motors 

Containing APCP Are ‘‘Propellant 

Actuated Devices’’ and, as Such, Are 

Exempt From ATF Regulation 

Propellant actuated devices (PADs) 

imported or distributed for their 

intended purposes are exempt from 

regulation pursuant to 27 CFR 

555.141(a)(8). The term ‘‘propellant 

actuated device’’ is defined in section 

555.11 as ‘‘[a]ny tool or special 

mechanized device or gas generator 

system which is actuated by a 

propellant or which releases and directs 

work through a propellant charge.’’ In 

applying the regulatory definition, ATF 

has classified certain types of products 

as propellant actuated devices: Aircraft 

slide inflation cartridges, inflatable 

automobile occupant restraint systems, 

nail guns and diesel and jet engine 

starter cartridges. 

Approximately 300 commenters 

contended that model rocket motors 

meet the definition of a PAD and, as 

such, are exempt from ATF regulation. 

Some of the arguments raised by the 

commenters include: 

A rocket motor, fuel grains and rockets are 

comparable to exempted tools such as a nail 

gun with it’s [sic] cartridges and nails. Like 

a nailgun, a rocket motor directs the gases 

generated by a propellant. Just as the nailgun 

and cartridge are used to propel a nail, the 

rocket motor and fuel grains are used to 

propel a rocket vehicle. (Comment No. 331) 

APCP burning inside a rocket motor casing 

produces hot, pressurized gasses which are 

directed out of the nozzle end of the motor. 

These rapidly exiting gasses cause the rocket 

to move in the opposite direction. No 

explosion occurs. Thus an APCP rocket 

motor is essentially a ‘propellant actuated 

device’, a category of devices that is already 

explicitly exempted from regulation. 

(Comment No. 734) 

Until the mid 1990s, the BATFE had 

exempted all APCP rocket motors, regardless 

of propellant weight, because APCP motors 

were considered to be propellant actuated 

devices, which were exempt from BATFE 

permits. APCP rocket motors have not 

changed since then, and Congress has not 

changed its definition of an explosive; 

therefore, the BATFE should never have 

started regulating APCP as an explosive in 

the first place, and should not start regulating 

APCP in the future. (Comment No. 982) 

NAR commented that although the 

Federal explosives law does not 

specifically include an exemption for 

PADs, the legislative history of the law 

clearly intended that such devices 

should be exempt by noting that the 

term ‘‘explosives’’ is not ‘‘intended to 

include propellant actuated devices or 

propellant actuated industrial tools used 

for their intended purpose.’’ According 

to the commenter: 

Congress must have intended that 

propellant actuated devices be exempted 

because their ‘primary or common purpose’

is not to function by explosion but rather is 

to perform useful non-destructive work. 

Rocket motors fit this concept precisely—

their purpose is not destructive, but to 

perform useful work by propelling a rocket. 

NAR stated that a rocket motor serves but 

one function, i.e., to expel gases through its 

nozzle from a burning propellant for the 

purpose of generating the thrust necessary to 

launch the rocket. Based on its nature and 

function, the commenter contended that a 

rocket motor is a propellant actuated device 

that is exempt from regulation because ‘‘it 

qualifies as either a ‘special mechanized 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 46083 

device,’ or a ‘gas generator system,’ if not 

both, and because a rocket motor is both 

‘actuated by a propellant’ and ‘releases and 

directs work’ (i.e., thrust) ‘through a 

propellant charge’ ***’’

Department Response 

ATF’s position is that the term 

‘‘propellant actuated device’’ does not 

include hobby rocket motors or rocketmotor reload kits containing APCP, 

black powder, or other similar low 

explosives. The definition of 

‘‘propellant actuated device’’ in 27 CFR 

555.11 is ‘‘[a]ny tool or special 

mechanized device or gas generator 

system which is actuated by a 

propellant or which releases and directs 

work through a propellant charge.’’ To 

determine the common meanings of 

‘‘tool,’’ ‘‘special mechanized device,’’

and ‘‘gas generator system,’’ it is useful 

to look to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate 

Dictionary (Tenth Edition, 1997) 

(Webster’s). Webster’s defines ‘‘tool’’ in 

pertinent part as: ‘‘a handheld device 

that aids in accomplishing a task; the 

cutting or shaping part in a machine or 

machine tool; a machine for shaping 

metal.’’ Webster’s defines the word 

‘‘device’’ as ‘‘a piece of equipment or a 

mechanism designed to perform a 

special function.’’ For a particular 

device to be a ‘‘special mechanized 

device,’’ Webster’s appears to suggest, it 

would be necessary that it be both 

unique and of a mechanical nature. 

Webster’s defines ‘‘generator’’ as ‘‘an 

apparatus in which vapor or gas is 

formed’’ and as ‘‘a machine by which 

mechanical energy is changed into 

electrical energy.’’ Further, Webster’s 

defines ‘‘system’’ as ‘‘a regularly 

interacting or interdependent group of 

items forming a unified whole.’’ Thus, 

Webster’s may be read to suggest that a 

‘‘gas generator system’’ is properly 

defined as a group of interacting or 

interdependent mechanical and/or 

electrical components that generates 

gas. 

Based on the above definitions and 

conclusions, the Department believes 

that rocket motors, regardless of the 

amount of propellant contained therein, 

cannot be brought within the regulatory 

definition of propellant actuated device. 

Rocket motors are not ‘‘tools,’’ because 

they are neither handheld nor a 

complete device. Nor are they a metalshaping machine or a part thereof. 

Further, they cannot be considered to be 

a ‘‘special mechanized device’’ because, 

although clearly designed to serve a 

special purpose, they lack the necessary 

indicia of a mechanized device. Clearly, 

rocket motors are in no way reminiscent 

of a mechanism since they consist 

essentially only of propellant encased 

by a cardboard, plastic, or metallic 

cylinder. Though such motors may 

include a nozzle, retaining cap, delay 

grain and ejection charge, the rocket 

motor is little more than a propellant in 

a casing, incapable of performing its 

intended function until fully installed, 

along with an ignition system, within a 

rocket. Finally, because rocket motors 

have no interacting mechanical or 

electrical components, rocket motors 

cannot be deemed to be a gas generator 

system. 

For the reasons set forth above, the 

Department does not believe that rocket 

motors of any size should be classified 

as propellant actuated devices. 

On March 19, 2004, the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia issued a memorandum 

opinion in Tripoli Rocketry Ass’n. 337 

F. Supp. 2d 1. In its opinion, the court 

specifically addressed two letters issued 

by ATF, one dated April 20, 1994, and 

the other dated December 22, 2000, in 

which ATF had discussed the 

applicability of the propellant actuated 

device (‘‘PAD’’) exemption to rocket 

motors. See id. at 10–13. The 1994 letter 

gave the impression that ATF had 

exempted sport rocket motors 

containing 62.5 grams or less of 

propellant as propellant actuated 

devices (PADs) under 27 CFR 

555.141(a)(8). The 2000 letter more 

accurately and clearly stated that rocket 

motors did not meet the regulatory 

definition of a PAD, but that rocket 

motors with 62.5 grams or less of 

propellant were exempt from regulation, 

in light of the pre-existing ‘‘small 

charge’’ threshold that has historically 

been in place to exempt ‘‘toy’’ devices. 

The court unambiguously determined 

that ATF’s 2000 letter was at variance 

with its 1994 letter. The court then 

concluded: 

Thus, before the ATF could [have] altered 

its earlier interpretation of the applicability 

of the PAD exemption, it was required to 

undertake notice-and-comment rulemaking 

as required by the [Administrative Procedure 

Act] and the [Organized Crime Control Act of 

1970]. Because the ATF failed to do so, the 

Court concludes that its December 22, 2000 

pronouncement regarding the applicability of 

the PAD exemption to sport model rockets 

was not in compliance with the OCCA and 

the APA. 

The court also explicitly set out the 

controlling 1994 ATF statement on the 

applicability of the PAD exemption in 

its Opinion: 

Of particular significance to the plaintiffs, 

is the statement in the April 20 Letter that 

[t]he exemption at 27 CFR Part 55, section 

141(a)(8) includes propellant-actuated 

‘devices.’ The term ‘device’ is interpreted to 

mean a contrivance manufactured for a 

specific purpose. Under this definition, a 

fully assembled rocket motor would be 

exempt. However, the propellant, prior to 

assembly, would not be exempt. 

Id. (emphasis added). The ATF went 

on to state that 

[t]he AeroTech products which have been 

classified by the Department of 

Transportation as a flammable solid 4.1 or as 

explosives 1.4c, which are within the 62.5 

grams limit contained in NFPA 1122 and 

conform to the requirements of model rocket 

motors set forth in 16 CFR section 

1500.85(a)(8)(ii), would meet ATF 

requirements for exemption under 27 CFR 

Part 55, section 141(a)(8). 

Id. Opinion at 15. 

ATF is currently regulating rocket 

motors in conformity with this ruling, 

exempting from regulation fully 

assembled rocket motors containing no 

more than 62.5 grams of propellant, and 

producing less than 80 newton-seconds 

(17.92 pound seconds) of total impulse 

with thrust duration not less than 0.050 

seconds. This final rule does not 

materially change this state of affairs 

inasmuch as rocket motors containing 

62.5 grams or less of propellant will 

continue to be exempt from regulation. 

However, the final rule does alter ATF’s 

position in that a fully assembled rocket 

motor containing 62.5 grams or less of 

propellant, while still exempt from 

regulation, will not be classified as a 

propellant actuated device under this 

final rule. 

3. The Proposed 62.5-Gram Exemption 

Threshold Is Arbitrary and Lacks a 

Reasoned Basis, Is Unreasonable and 

Unnecessarily Restrictive, and Is 

Inconsistent With Existing Weight 

Limits for Other Explosives 

a. The Proposed 62.5-Gram Limit Is 

Arbitrary and Lacks a Reasoned Basis 

Approximately 120 comments 

objected to ATF’s proposal to exempt 

from regulation rocket motors 

containing 62.5 grams or less of 

propellant, arguing that the proposed 

limit is arbitrary and that ATF did not 

explain the basis for the proposed limit. 

In its comment, NAR stated that the 

agency failed to present any scientific 

basis to support the proposed 62.5-gram 

limit, presented no factual data that 

demonstrates why the proposed amount 

represents a reasonable limit on 

possession of APCP, and offered no data 

or test results as to the relative 

properties of this quantity of APCP. To 

the extent that ATF based its 62.5-gram 

weight limitation on regulations enacted 

by the United States Department of 

Transportation (DOT) or the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the 

commenter argued that ATF failed to 

explain in the NPRM why a weight limit 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
46084 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

created by another Federal agency 

should be applied to ATF’s explosives 

regulations. As stated by the 

commenter: 

What possible bearing does a DOT 

regulation imposing a weight limit on rocket 

motors in order to avoid hazardous 

synergistic effects with other hazardous 

materials, or a CPSC regulation protecting 

children from using rocket motors above a 

specific weight limit have on adults that 

possess and store rockets? 

Several commenters argued that the 

proposed 62.5-gram exemption is not 

based on Federal explosives law, noting 

that the law ‘‘makes no exemptions of 

explosives based on weight except for 

black powder used in antique firearms 

and devices.’’ (Comment No. 88) 

Other commenters raised concerns 

similar to those mentioned above: 

I’d also like to know from whence the 

threshold weight of 62.5 grams was derived. 

This seems to be an arbitrary number since 

the behavior of 62.5 grams of APCP is not 

much different than that of 80 grams. Does 

the Bureau have any scientific basis for this 

figure? (Comment No. 33) 

The 62.5 gram limit * * * has no scientific 

basis. The BATF has no tests or justification 

to show that this 62.5-gram limit (which is 

inherited from old shipping regulations) has 

any rational meaning in this situation. 

(Comment No. 325) 

The 62.5 gram limit is arbitrary * * * It 

has no technical basis as to what may or may 

not constitute a hazard to the public. 

(Comment No. 327) 

ATFE has focused on a 62.5 gram limit 

without showing the reasoning behind this 

number. ATFE has quoted (in the past) other 

agencies’ use of a 62.5 gram unregulated 

limit, such as DOT and CPSC, for ATFE’s 

unregulated limit. However, the absence of 

technical data does not support ATFE’s 

reasoning. (Comment No. 864) 

ATFE has failed to present any scientific 

basis to support the 62.5 gram limit. ATFE 

presents no factual data that demonstrates 

why this amount represents a reasonable 

limit on possession of this non-explosive 

material. (Comment No. 974) 

The proposed change in exemptions for 

model rocket motors introduces an arbitrary 

limit of 62.5 grams per motor or reload kit. 

This limit has no basis in scientific data. The 

proposed rule implies that a single rocket 

motor of 62.5 grams of propellant is safe, but 

one with 62.6 grams is unsafe. Two motors 

with 62.5 grams of propellant are safe, but 

one with 62.6 grams is unsafe. One thousand 

motors with 62.5 grams of propellant is safe, 

but a single motor with 62.6 grams is unsafe. 

ATFE is obviously not concerned with safety 

issues related to the total amount of APCP 

stored since there is no limit on the total 

number of motors or reloads stored, as long 

as no single motor exceeds 62.5 grams. 

(Comment No. 1033) 

[A] total weight limit of APCP such as 40–

50 pounds would address the individual 

who, without a permit, would be able to 

obtain as many motors containing 62.5 g or 

less as he wants. For example, the proposed 

arbitrary 62.5g limit would not stop 

somebody from having 1000 motors each 

containing 62.5 g for a total of 62.5 kg (137.5 

pounds!) of APCP. (Comment No. 1170) The 

ATFE gives no explanation or justification 

why 62.5 gram is an appropriate limit. I 

notice that my state (New Jersey) regulations 

do not require a permit for owning and 

storing up to 220 pounds (100,000 grams!) of 

rocket propellant; likewise no permit is 

required for owning and storing up to 50 

pounds of black powder * * * ATF is basing 

the 62.5 gram limit on the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission limit, which was set as a 

limit for children handling rocket motors. 

This limit for requiring permits is arbitrary 

and excessive and has not been demonstrated 

by the ATFE as being appropriate. (Comment 

No. 1230) 

The proposed limit of 62.5 grams is 

without substantiation. Why not higher? Why 

not lower? What is the technical reason that 

a higher limit would be problematical? * * * 

Rocket motors containing less than 62.5 

grams of propellant comprise only a small 

part of the hobbyist rocket spectrum. 

(Comment No. 1626) 

Department Response 

The Department has considered the 

comments and disagrees with the 

arguments suggesting the exemption 

from regulation should be higher than 

62.5 grams. 

The origin of the 62.5-gram limit is 

found in regulations covering devices 

that are in the nature of toys. In 1981, 

ATF exempted from regulation, under 

27 CFR 55.141(a)(7), ‘‘[t]he importation 

and distribution of fireworks classified 

as Class C explosives and generally 

known as ‘common fireworks,’ and 

other Class C explosives, as described 

by U.S. Department of Transportation 

regulations in 49 CFR 173.100(p), (r), (t), 

(u) and (x).’’ One of these DOT 

subsections, 49 CFR 173.100(u), listed 

‘‘toy propellant devices and toy smoke 

devices’’ as Class C explosives and 

described them as ‘‘consist[ing] of small 

paper or composition tubes or 

containers containing a small charge of 

slow burning propellant powder or 

smoke producing powder.’’ It also 

provided that ‘‘these devices must be so 

designed that they will neither burst nor 

produce external flame on functioning 

* * *.’’ In construing its regulation, 

ATF determined that 62.5 grams was an 

appropriate ceiling for what could be 

considered a ‘‘small charge’’ of 

propellant for these ‘‘toy’’ devices, a 

determination that was in keeping with 

guidelines published by the National 

Fire Protection Association and with 

regulations promulgated by the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission’s 

(CPSC’s) predecessor organization at the 

request of both the National Association 

of Rocketry and Estes Industries. CPSC 

applies its 62.5-gram exemption in such 

a manner as to prohibit the sale of some 

rocket motors to children, by regulating 

propellant weight and energy output. 

The Department believes it is 

appropriate, whenever possible, for 

Federal agencies to regulate 

commodities in a consistent manner. 

ATF is charged with safeguarding the 

public from dangers associated with 

explosives that are misused, criminally 

diverted or improperly stored. Public 

safety would no doubt be increased 

were ATF to apply regulatory controls 

to all sport rocket motors. However, 

ATF has rationally crafted an exemption 

from its explosives controls for sport 

rocket motors containing small amounts 

of explosive material and for other 

devices that are in the nature of toys 

(e.g., toy plastic or paper caps for toy 

pistols, trick matches, and trick noise 

makers). ATF has drawn the line for 

exemption at 62.5 grams of propellant 

because this amount represents a 

reasonable balance between ATF’s goal 

of allocating its resources in the most 

efficient and effective manner and its 

goals of maintaining public safety. ATF 

believes that rockets utilizing motors 

containing 62.5 grams of propellant or 

less have a shorter range that is less 

likely to allow use as a weapon against 

a particular target without detection. In 

addition, rockets powered by motors 

containing no more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant have less power to cause 

significant damage when used against a 

target. As discussed in more detail 

below, the Department believes that 

rocket motors containing more than 62.5 

grams of propellant pose a significant 

threat to public safety because they can 

be modified for use as weapons. 

ATF has conducted testing of the 

performance characteristics associated 

with rockets powered by motors 

containing 62.5 grams or less of APCP 

and of the performance characteristics 

associated with rockets powered by 

motors containing more than 62.5 grams 

of APCP. Although many of the results 

of this testing are classified, the testing 

showed clearly that to raise the 

exemption threshold beyond 62.5 grams 

would pose an increased threat to 

public safety and homeland security. 

In conclusion, the exemption of 

rocket motors containing 62.5 grams or 

less of propellant is consistent with 

ATF’s congressional mandate to reduce 

the hazard arising from misuse and 

unsafe storage of explosive materials 

while not unduly or unnecessarily 

restricting or burdening law-abiding 

citizens in their lawful use of 

explosives. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 46085 

b. The Proposed 62.5-Gram Limit Is 

Unreasonable and Unnecessarily 

Restrictive 

Approximately 190 comments 

maintained that the proposed 

exemption threshold is unreasonable 

and too restrictive for adult sport 

rocketry hobbyists and the commenters 

recommended that the threshold be 

increased. Several commenters 

proposed various upper limits for APCP 

in rocket motors, with one commenter 

suggesting that the exemption threshold 

be increased to 1,000 pounds. Following 

are excerpts from some of the 

comments: 

The 62.5 gram limit proposed by the ATF 

is based on the regulations of the consumer 

product safety commission * * * These 

regulations allow any motor less than 62.5 

grams to be sold to the general public and to 

be used by unsupervised minors to fly toy 

rockets. However, large rocket motors cannot 

be purchased by the general public * * * It 

should be possible to allow responsible 

certified adults to buy and use the larger 

hobby rocket motors that are controlled by 

the certification process of the TRA and NAR 

without adding ATF regulation. (Comment 

No. 69) 

This proposal to exempt only rocket 

motors with no more than 62.5 grams 

propellant is too strict. Rocket motors 

currently conforming to this requirement are 

only suitable for model (low-power) rockets, 

which are considered by many adults to be 

essentially toys or entry level projects. Adults 

are interested in certifying in and taking on 

the many challenges of high-power rocketry, 

requiring higher total impulses, and thus, 

rocket motors with more propellant. 

(Comment No. 128) 

I urge you to reconsider the 62.5 gram 

hobby/amateur rocketry exemption limit as 

unreasonable and at the very least increase 

the limit for APCP to 7800 grams [17.2 

pounds] with a motor diameter not-to-exceed 

98mm, the size and amount of APCP 

necessary to make an ’N’ -class motor which 

is the highest used with any frequency by 

hobby and amateur rocketeers. (Comment No. 

326) 

Within the Tripoli Rocketry Association, 

there are currently 3072 individuals who are 

on record as being certified to use motors 

containing more than 62.5 grams of APCP 

* * * Increase the exemption to include 

motors containing up to 40 pounds of 

propellant. This is equivalent to the largest 

rocket motor that can be flown under NFPA, 

Tripoli Rocketry Association and National 

Association of Rocketry rules. (Comment No. 

819) 

[T]he selection of 62.5 grams of APCP as 

the upper limit of what is permitted for 

unrestricted access * * * does not even 

come close to satisfying the needs of rocket 

hobbyists * * * the large majority of highpower rocket flyers would have their needs 

served if an exemption were granted to allow 

them to acquire and use rocket motors that 

contained up to 2,800 grams [6.17 pounds] of 

APCP without the need for a permit. 

(Comment No. 924) 

Department Response 

APCP is an explosive material. By 

nature, explosive materials present 

unique safety hazards. Accordingly, 

they are regulated by law and very few 

categories of explosive materials are 

expressly exempted in any way from the 

law’s requirements. Therefore, it cannot 

be said that ATF’s regulatory stance 

with respect to rocket motors containing 

APCP or other explosive materials is 

unreasonable or unnecessary. Indeed, 

ATF’s long-standing policy to exempt 

from regulation motors containing 62.5 

grams or less of propellant reflects the 

agency’s desire to accommodate the 

interests of rocketry hobbyists and to 

balance those interests with important 

public safety and homeland security 

concerns. As noted previously, in view 

of their inherent dangers, very few types 

of explosive materials are exempted in 

any way from the Federal explosives 

controls administered by ATF. 

Some commenters suggested that the 

exemption be extended to 40 pounds, 

17.2 pounds or 6.17 pounds. However, 

unrestricted commerce in motors 

containing APCP in these amounts 

would present a significant risk to 

public safety and homeland security. By 

regulating motors with more than 62.5 

grams of propellant, terrorists, felons, 

and other prohibited persons will be 

prevented from gaining access to large 

motors that could pose an increased 

threat and that could be more readily 

adapted for terrorist or other criminal 

purposes. APCP can be used to make a 

very effective pipe bomb or other 

improvised explosive device that could 

be used for criminal or terrorist 

purposes. Furthermore, motors 

containing more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant can be used to power rockets 

capable of carrying large warheads 

containing either explosives or other 

noxious substances. Rockets powered by 

motors containing more than 62.5 grams 

of propellant can be directed at targets 

from a great distance, avoiding detection 

and apprehension of persons who 

would use them for criminal or terrorist 

purposes. Likewise, the proposed 

exemption is reasonable because it is 

comparable to other regulations and 

exemptions from other agencies 

addressing low explosives. 

A commenter points out that 

‘‘responsible certified adults’’ should 

have access to larger hobby rocket 

motors for lawful purposes. Such 

certification refers to procedures 

required by rocketry associations, which 

are not imposed upon hobbyists who are 

not members of the specific associations 

and which have no application 

whatsoever to terrorists or criminals 

who might seek to gain access to large 

rocket motors for nefarious purposes. 

ATF does not believe that voluntary 

procedures are sufficient to safeguard 

public safety and homeland security. In 

order to responsibly implement the 

Federal explosives laws, the exemption 

established by this final rule will 

impose mandatory controls on all 

persons seeking to acquire rocket motors 

containing more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant and, in this regard, will 

among other things require that persons 

acquiring such large motors undergo a 

background check and obtain a Federal 

permit. 

c. The Proposed 62.5-Gram Limit Is 

Inconsistent With Existing Weight 

Limits for Other Explosives 

In general, the regulations at 27 CFR 

555.141(b) specify that the requirements 

of part 555 do not apply to 

commercially manufactured black 

powder in quantities not to exceed 50 

pounds if the black powder is intended 

to be used solely for sporting, 

recreational, or cultural purposes in 

antique firearms. 

Approximately 30 commenters 

maintained that a similar exemption 

should be established for rocket motors 

containing APCP. In its comment, NAR 

stated the following: 

[N]otwithstanding ATFE’s proposal to limit 

the exemption for rocket motors containing 

62.5 grams or less of APCP * * * elsewhere 

in its explosives regulations ATFE 

establishes higher weight limits for arguably 

similar materials * * * ATFE permits an 

individual that possesses an antique firearm 

to purchase up to 50 pounds of black powder 

for use in that firearm without obtaining an 

ATFE-issued permit or storing the material in 

an ATFE-approved magazine * * * Those 

ATFE exemptions are not conditioned upon 

whether the bullet to be used in the antique 

firearm contains a specific quantity of black 

powder or whether, by design or intent, the 

individual will use one or more bullets at the 

same time in the antique firearm. 

Other commenters argued that APCP 

is less of a public safety hazard than 

black powder, due to its significantly 

lower burn rate and non-explosive 

nature and, as such, should also be 

exempt from regulation. Some of their 

arguments are set forth below: 

[T]he best solution to regulating hobby 

rocket motors * * * would be a parallel to 

the exemption for black powder * * * while 

I would feel vastly safer having 50 pounds of 

APCP around the house than I would having 

50 pounds of black powder (because APCP is 

inherently much safer to handle and store, 

compared to black powder), I think most 

educational and hobby and rocketeers don’t 

need 50 pounds of propellant on hand * * * 

an exemption for a total weight limit of 20 

pounds * * * of propellant would be 

equitable and reasonable. (Comment No. 325) 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
46086 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

My understanding is that gun enthusiasts 

are allowed to own and transport as much as 

50 pounds of black powder. A similar rule for 

rocketry makes better sense. In fact, it is easy 

to argue that rocket users should be allowed 

to have more total mass than gun owners 

because the black powder used in guns is in 

powder form which is much more flammable 

than the pellet form used for rockets. 

(Comment No. 142) 

APCP is far less dangerous than Black 

Powder for which there exists an exemption 

of 50 lbs for antique firearms collectors. For 

rocketry, I believe an exemption on the order 

or [sic] 100–200 lbs would be very 

reasonable. This amount * * * would allow 

small business in the industry and the 

majority of the consumers to function 

unburdened and within very safe limits. 

(Comment No. 806) 

I understand that antique gun owners do 

not need a LEUP [low explosives user permit] 

to purchase, or are required to use a 

explosives magazine to store, up to 50 

pounds of Black Powder propellant (which 

unlike APCP is very explosive). I have a hard 

time understanding why I can store 50 

pounds of very explosive Black Powder in 

my closet if I’m an antique gun hobbyist but 

I can’t store 3 ounces of APCP non-explosive 

rocket propellant if I’m a rocketry hobbyist. 

I propose that rocket hobbyist[s] be given the 

same 50 pound exemption * * * (Comment 

No. 1444) 

BATFE’s proposal to impose a weight limit 

of 62.5 grams of APCP in rocket motors in 

order for the exemption of 27 CFR 

55.141(a)(7)(v) to apply is wholly 

inconsistent with existing weight limits for 

other explosives. It is well-established that 

loose black powder poses a significantly 

greater hazard than chunks of APCP, in its 

easier ignitability, rapid burn rate even when 

unconfined, and its sensitivity to static 

electricity. Yet, the regulations permit up to 

50 pounds of black powder to be stored 

without restriction. (Comment No. 1537) 

Department Response 

Congress determined that any person 

may purchase commercially 

manufactured black powder in 

quantities of 50 pounds or less, solely 

for sporting, recreational, or cultural 

purposes for use in antique firearms or 

antique devices without complying with 

the Federal explosives laws. Congress 

enacted this exemption as part of the 

original 1970 Act, although the 

exemption initially allowed the 

acquisition of only five pounds of black 

powder. In 1975 the exemption was 

increased to 50 pounds, again by the 

Congress. Accordingly, the commenters 

who refer to the black powder 

exemption as one created by ATF are in 

error. 

The comparison between the black 

powder exemption and the exemption 

for certain model rocket motors is a poor 

one. The Department’s regulatory 

authority lies within the sound 

discretion of the Attorney General, 

consistent with the scope of his 

authority under 18 U.S.C. chapter 40 

and the Administrative Procedure Act. 

It is being exercised in this final rule in 

the Attorney General’s best efforts to 

give voice to Congress’s intention that 

the Federal explosives controls be 

administered in such a way as to 

balance the need to prevent the misuse 

of explosives with the need for persons 

to have access to explosives for lawful 

purposes without undue regulation. It is 

significant that the exemption for black 

powder was increased in 1975 through 

legislation, rather than by regulation. 

Accordingly, the commenters’

comparison of the proposed regulatory 

exemption to the statutory exemption 

for black powder is not persuasive and 

will not result in a change in the final 

rule. 

4. Model Rocket Motors, Propellants, 

and Model Rockets Are Not a Threat to 

Homeland Security 

Approximately 45 commenters argued 

that model rocket motors and 

propellants, as well as model rockets, do 

not pose a threat to homeland security 

and should not be regulated by ATF. 

Other commenters (approximately 50) 

contended that the proposed regulation, 

if adopted, might actually jeopardize 

homeland security. The commenters 

argued that requiring sport rocketry 

hobbyists to obtain a Federal permit 

would result in an increase in the 

number of people with access to 

explosives. Following are excerpts from 

some of the comments: 

ATFE’s concern with hobby rocket 

propellants such as Ammonium Perchlorate 

Composite Propellant is misplaced. It is 

simply not effective as an explosive for 

destructive purposes * * * Neither is it a 

credible terrorist threat as a missile against 

aircraft. Hobby rockets do not have guidance 

systems. The subtleties of the physics of 

dynamic stability, the vagaries of the wind, 

and available launch systems simply do not 

allow an unguided rocket to be aimed 

accurately against any target as small as an 

aircraft. Since terrorists can presumably 

acquire guided military rockets on the black 

market, the weaponization of hobby rocket 

motors is not credible. (Comment No. 91) 

Simple analysis of the attributes of sport 

rockets would make it abundantly clear that 

they are wholly unsuited to the tasks sought 

by terrorists: 

• Sport rockets are unguided. 

• Sport rockets have very limited range 

(only a few can reach 10,000 feet; most go no 

higher than 2,000 to 3,000 feet) and are 

highly susceptible to adverse weather 

conditions * * * 

• Payloads are minimal at best * * * 

• Rockets are not easy to setup and launch 

unobtrusively * * * 

• Substantial modifications would be 

necessary to turn a sport rocket, even a large 

one, into a weapons delivery system * * * 

(Comment No. 269) 

Requiring rocket hobbyists to obtain an 

explosives permit is counterproductive to 

security, as it means that thousands of 

hobbyists who normally would never have a 

need for real explosives would now be 

permitted to obtain them. (Comment No. 301) 

Possession of an LEUP may encourage 

otherwise disinterested persons to obtain real 

explosives. I believe that an increased 

number of people having access to true 

explosives will have an adverse and 

significant impact on public safety. 

(Comment No. 740) 

A terrorist or other illicit user has many 

explosives available to them and wouldn’t 

logically use amateur rocket propellants 

because they are relatively expensive (as 

compared to fertilizer and fuel oil, gasoline, 

gunpowder, lpg [liquefied petroleum gas], 

propane, etc.). (Comment No. 849) 

Given all of the readily available 

unregulated materials that are available to a 

terrorist, the BATFE’s approach to the 

regulation of APCP is by this analysis a waste 

of taxpayer’s time and money. If large 

numbers of APCP-based IEDs [improvised 

explosive devices] were being encountered 

by law enforcement, there might be a cause 

of action * * * IEDs are typically 

constructed of far more commonly available, 

less expensive, and unregulated materials 

* * * (Comment No. 1622) 

Department Response 

The Department has considered the 

comments regarding the threat posed by 

sport rocket motors. For the following 

reasons, motors with more than 62.5 

grams of propellant present very real 

security and public safety risks. Rocket 

motors containing large amounts of 

APCP can power rockets more than 

30,000 feet into the air, frequently 

requiring high-power rocketry hobbyists 

to obtain waivers from the Federal 

Aviation Administration prior to a 

launch. These large rocket motors could 

also be used to power rockets carrying 

explosive or noxious warheads miles 

downrange into a fixed target. 

Commenters state that sport rockets are 

unguided, not easy to set up, and have 

a limited range. These are, in fact, some 

of the reasons ATF has maintained an 

exemption for small sport rockets with 

62.5 grams or less of propellant. 

However, rockets using more than 62.5 

grams of propellant are capable of stable 

flight over a fairly long range (one mile 

or greater). A willing, determined 

criminal or terrorist could assemble a 

weapon that utilizes a large rocket 

motor and launch such a device at a 

populated area, stadium, or 

transportation center in a matter of 

minutes from a distance sufficient to 

avoid detection. In addition, 

commercially available software can 

calculate launch parameters to fire a 

rocket horizontally or at an angled 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 46087 

trajectory. Rockets can be utilized to hit 

fixed targets, such as buildings, or be 

shot into populated areas with a 

reasonable degree of accuracy. Likewise, 

a rocket being used as a weapon could 

be launched from the bed of a truck, 

thereby making the launch site and any 

evidence of the launch mobile. The 

longer the range of the rocket, the 

greater the likelihood that the persons 

using them for criminal purposes would 

succeed in their attack and evade 

detection and apprehension. Finally, 

APCP could be used as an explosive 

filler in a pipe bomb or other 

improvised explosive device. For 

purposes of homeland security and the 

global fight against terrorism, all of 

these factors must be taken into account. 

The potential for terrorist or criminal 

misuse of rocket motors containing 

APCP or other propellant explosive is, 

of course, only one side of the equation 

when balancing homeland-security 

needs against the ability of law-abiding 

citizens to participate in hobby rocketry 

activities. The Department is fully aware 

that hobbyists have a legitimate and 

lawful desire to acquire explosive 

materials in pursuit of their recreational 

activities. In keeping with Congress’s 

intention, ATF has maintained a longstanding exemption from the Federal 

explosives controls for hobby rocket 

motors containing 62.5 grams or less of 

low explosive materials. This exemption 

covers more than 90 percent of all 

rocket motors that are sold to hobby 

rocketry enthusiasts and encompasses 

all rocket motors that can lawfully be 

possessed without a license or permit or 

complying with the other requirements 

of Federal law. Under this final rule, a 

Federal permit will be required for 

persons purchasing motors containing 

more than 62.5 grams of propellant and 

reload kits designed to enable the 

assembly of motors containing more 

than 62.5 grams of propellant per motor. 

Again, establishing the exemption level 

at no more than 62.5 grams of propellant 

mitigates the burden on rocketry 

enthusiasts while addressing the threat 

to public and homeland security 

presented by larger motors. 

Even if this rule results in more 

permits being issued to rocketry 

hobbyists, the Department does not 

believe that this requirement will result 

in such permittees using the permit to 

acquire other types of low explosives. 

There is no evidence to indicate that 

rocketry enthusiasts are interested in 

acquiring explosives other than those 

contained in rocket motors, and 

associated components. Even if rocketry 

enthusiasts choose to use their Federal 

explosives permit to acquire other types 

of explosives, only persons with no 

criminal record or other prohibiting 

factors will be issued a permit. In 

addition, all permittees must 

demonstrate their ability to store the 

explosives they acquire in accordance 

with the regulations in 27 CFR part 555. 

Accordingly, even if the commenters are 

correct, the acquisition of other types of 

explosive materials by rocketry 

enthusiasts will not pose a threat to 

public safety. For this reason, the 

Department does not believe these 

comments warrant a change in the 

proposed rule. 

5. ATF Does Not Need To Regulate 

Model/Sport Rocketry 

Approximately 100 commenters 

maintained that there is no need for 

ATF to regulate the model/sport 

rocketry hobby. Some commenters 

argued that the hobby is already subject 

to the requirements of many other 

governmental authorities at the Federal, 

State, and local levels. Other 

commenters stated that the hobby is also 

subject to the rules and regulations of 

non-governmental organizations, 

including the National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA), NAR, and the 

Tripoli Rocketry Association. In its 

comment, NAR stated the following: 

[R]ocket motors themselves as well as their 

operation are specifically regulated by a 

variety of other government authorities. 

Specifically, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (‘DOT’) regulates the storage, 

transport, containerization, and sale of rocket 

motors used by the hobbyists * * * the U.S. 

Federal Aviation Administration (‘FAA’) 

regulates launches, flight locations, airframe 

composition, rocket weight, and requires 

various governmental notifications * * * the 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(‘CPSC’) regulates the hobby by prohibiting 

minors from purchasing motors and 

propellants used in high-powered sport 

rockets * * * Local and county ordinances 

as well as state regulations address fire 

protection issues and launch locale 

restrictions. The hobby is also extensively 

monitored for compliance with codes 

promulgated by the National Fire Protection 

Association, which are incorporated by 

reference into many state laws. 

Other commenters expressed similar 

views: 

Sport rocketry is subject to many, many 

regulatory agency rules and regulations 

including those of the Department of 

Transportation, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, and local and national Fire 

Marshalls [sic]. Government regulations 

notwithstanding, sport rocketry is also 

directed by self regulation from national 

organizations concerned with the safety and 

promotion of sport rocketry. (Comment No. 

15) 

The existing National Fire Protection 

Association rules on rocketry provide 

adequate rules for safety in the use of hobby 

rocket propellant, and no further rules are 

necessary by the Federal government. 

(Comment No. 852) 

Regulation of rocket motors is unnecessary. 

The high power rocket motor industry and 

the National Association of Rocketry and the 

Tripoli Rocketry Association already do a 

good job regulating access to high power 

rocket motors. (Comment No. 1439) 

Department Response 

Government agencies tailor their 

regulations to facilitate their specific 

mission. For instance, DOT regulations 

are primarily designed to ensure the safe 

transportation of explosive materials. 

ATF’s regulations, on the other hand, 

are designed to prevent the diversion 

and criminal misuse of explosives and 

also to ensure that explosives are safely 

and securely stored. Therefore, although 

there are numerous agencies and 

organizations involved in the regulation 

of explosives, ATF’s regulations are 

necessary to accomplish its specific 

mission. 

In addition to Government agencies, 

ATF is aware of the self-regulation 

efforts of rocketry clubs and 

organizations. This self-regulation is 

laudable. However, it does not, nor can 

it, provide a mechanism to ensure that 

persons prohibited under Federal law 

from acquiring explosives are denied 

access to large rocket motors. Voluntary 

club regulation and certification provide 

some oversight of club members, but 

this final rule will govern all persons, 

including potential terrorists, felons, or 

illegal aliens. Moreover, it will apply to 

all sellers of rocket motors containing 

more than 62.5-grams of explosive 

material as well as to sellers of reload 

kits designed to enable the assembly of 

motors containing more than 62.5 grams 

of explosive material. 

6. The Proposed Regulation Is Not 

Necessary or Justified for Correction of 

a Demonstrated Public Safety Issue 

Several commenters objected to the 

proposed rule, contending that ATF 

does not need to regulate model rocket 

motors or propellant because model 

rocketry is a safe hobby, both in terms 

of personal injury and homeland 

security. Following are excerpts taken 

from some of the comments: 

[I]n the well over 250 million flights in the 

many decades that the hobby has existed, 

there have been a grand total of zero fatalities 

(yes, zero) due to rocketry. * * * Given the 

exemplary safety record of rocketry as a 

hobby, what possible reason can there be for 

regulating the motors we use? (Comment No. 

30) 

I have flown over 5000 rockets in my years 

in the hobby and watched over 25,000 others 

fly, including many large rockets that this 

regulation would cover. I have never seen 

anyone seriously injured by a rocket, nor 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
46088 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

have I ever seen one that was used as a 

weapon or explosive device or that could 

have been used as an effective weapon* * * 

Several million adults and young people 

build and fly model rockets each year 

without danger to public safety; the hobby is 

safer than any outdoor sport. (Comment No. 

49) 

The ATFE has no need to regulate rocket 

motors, since they pose little risk to the 

public. According to the most recent data 

published on the ATFE web site referencing 

the comprehensive list of materials used in 

explosive and incendiary devices since 1991, 

APCP is not listed in the construction of even 

one device. (Comment No. 797) 

The consumers who use APCP rocket 

motors have done so for decades with an 

unprecedented safety record, a record that is 

far better than that of (for example) any highschool sporting activity. Those consumers 

have pursued their activities under the 

watchful eye of the Department of 

Transportation * * * and the Federal 

Aviation Administration * * * Commercial 

consumer rocket motors are certified via 

rigorous test by one or more organizations 

* * * Additional regulations to an alreadyhighly-regulated activity will not provide 

additional safety, when that safety has 

already been realized. (Comment No. 834) 

Sport Rocketry * * * has one of the best 

safety records of all hobbies during the past 

50 years. There have been no major injuries 

or property damage when conducted 

according to the rules established by the 

National Association of Rocketry and the 

Tripoli Rocketry Association. (Comment No. 

1008) 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges the 

efforts of many within the rocket 

hobbyist community to promote safety; 

however, this final rule is designed not 

simply to promote safety among rocket 

hobbyists but rather to promote the 

safety of all persons, including persons 

who potentially could be targets of 

terrorist or other attacks involving 

rockets powered by large APCP rocket 

motors. 

Access to large unregulated amounts 

of APCP poses a threat to homeland 

security and U.S. transportation systems 

because the explosive material could be 

used against U.S. buildings, 

transportation centers, or metropolitan 

areas. The rocket motors themselves are 

essentially packets of explosives that 

can be modified or used in such a 

manner as to create an effective weapon 

or explosive device. APCP would make 

an effective filler for a pipe bomb or 

other improvised explosive device. 

Permitting, licensing, and recordkeeping 

requirements make the explosive less 

attractive and less available to 

prohibited persons. All explosive 

materials present some safety hazard 

and this regulation serves to limit the 

hazards presented by unregulated use, 

possession, and storage of APCP. 

In a post-September 11 environment, 

the Department believes it would be 

irresponsible to allow unregulated 

access to large quantities of explosive 

materials, particularly in configurations 

that can power the flight of large rockets 

capable of being outfitted with large 

warheads. Despite the safety efforts of 

NAR and Tripoli, the Department 

believes the potential acquisition and 

criminal and terrorist use of rocket 

motors containing more than 62.5 grams 

of propellant poses an unacceptable 

risk. Accordingly, the Department 

believes this rule is essential to protect 

the public and safeguard homeland 

security. 

7. The Proposed Amendment Violates 

the Federal Explosives Law 

Section 1101 of the Organized Crime 

Control Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91–452, 

Title XI, October 15, 1970) states, in 

part: 

It is not the purpose of this title to place 

any undue or unnecessary Federal 

restrictions or burdens on law-abiding 

citizens with respect to the acquisition, 

possession, storage, or use of explosive 

materials for industrial, mining, agricultural, 

or other lawful purposes, or to provide for 

the imposition by Federal regulations of any 

procedures or requirements other than those 

reasonably necessary to implement and 

effectuate the provisions of this title. 

Three commenters argued that the 

proposed amendment relating to model 

rocket motors violates the Federal 

explosives law because it imposes 

undue and unnecessary restrictions and 

burdens on the public. Following are 

excerpts from some of the comments: 

[The proposed rule] is in fact in direct 

violation of this Section* * * [it] appears to 

be designed specifically to impose undue and 

unnecessary Federal restrictions and burdens 

on law-abiding citizens who have been 

enjoying an exciting yet safe and educational 

hobby. When one considers that those 

citizens * * * have over the last forty years 

the most extraordinary safety record that 

might be imagined, and have not only 

presented no danger to the public, but in fact 

have provided significant public benefit both 

economic and educational, it is clear that any 

attempt to impose additional restraints and 

regulations is not in the best interests of the 

public. (Comment No. 834) 

BATFE regulation of hobby rocketry 

violates the direction of Congress by placing 

unnecessary federal restrictions and burdens 

on law-abiding citizens with respect to the 

acquisition, possession, storage, and use of 

APCP and other materials necessary to 

pursue the lawful hobby of rocketry. Most 

hobbyists will be unable to meet the storage 

requirements for a LEUP [low explosives user 

permit], and will be unable to acquire motors 

containing greater than 62.5 grams of 

propellant. (Comment No. 934) 

[T]here is no way to argue that the 

proposed changes regarding rocket motors 

would be in keeping with the spirit of section 

SEC. 1101 of the law. Requiring an LEUP to 

purchase and store hobby rocket motors will 

end the sport for many who currently enjoy 

flying rockets. Especially with the 

requirements imposed not only by the 

application, but the need to have a storage 

magazine for a non-explosive material is 

burdensome at best, and prohibitory for the 

majority fliers. The cost of the permit and 

magazine represent a substantial outlay and 

will certainly cause many to abandon the 

hobby. (Comment No. 1521) 

Department Response 

These comments appear to be based 

on the misconception that the final rule 

would ‘‘impose’’ the requirements of 27 

CFR part 555 on rocket motors 

containing more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant. The Department’s view is 

that this characterization of the rule is 

incorrect. The Department’s position is 

that APCP is properly classified as an 

explosive and, in the absence of an 

exemption, the requirements of 27 CFR 

part 555 apply to all rocket motors, 

regardless of the quantity of propellant. 

As stated above, the final rule formally 

implements ATF’s long-standing policy 

of exempting from part 555 rocket 

motors containing 62.5 grams or less of 

propellant. If this exemption did not 

exist, the consequences outlined in the 

comments, if accurate, would be more 

pronounced because there would be no 

exemption whatsoever for hobby rocket 

motors of any size. 

The primary purpose of the Federal 

explosives law, as expressed by 

Congress, is to protect interstate and 

foreign commerce and to reduce the 

hazards associated with the misuse of 

explosive materials. Therefore, this goal 

is the basis for all regulatory action 

undertaken by the Department. The 

Department regulates only to the extent 

that it is ‘‘reasonably necessary to 

implement and effectuate the provisions 

of this title.’’ The Department has 

considered the submitted comments. 

However, it does not believe that the 

proposed amendment exceeds the scope 

of the law. 

As previously discussed, APCP does 

not generally function by detonation, 

but by deflagration. Therefore it has 

been classified as a low explosive 

pursuant to ATF’s implementing 

regulations. The Department must strike 

a balance between its obligation to 

regulate APCP and Congress’s intent to 

avoid unnecessarily burdening industry, 

mining, agriculture or other lawful users 

of explosives. The proposed amendment 

comports with the congressional intent 

in that the exemption allows for the 

unregulated, lawful use of an explosive 

in an amount that is unlikely to 

endanger interstate or foreign commerce 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 46089 

or the public at large. Therefore, the 

limitation within the exemption is 

reasonable. 

The legislative history for Title XI 

references items that are not intended to 

be regulated by the Federal explosives 

laws and provides guidance to the 

agency with regard to how to implement 

exemptions. Specifically, the Judiciary 

Committee of the United States House of 

Representatives stated in its report that 

‘‘the term ‘explosives’ does not include 

fertilizer and gasoline, nor is the 

definition intended to include 

propellant actuated devices or 

propellant actuated industrial tools used 

for their intended purposes.’’ (See H.R. 

Rep. No. 91–1549, at 35 (1970), 

reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4007, 

4041.) Therefore, it appears that 

Congress considered the impact of the 

law on industry and other lawful users, 

yet did not limit ATF’s mandate to 

regulate APCP, even when used by lawabiding hobbyists. Since 1970, Title XI 

has been amended a number of times. 

However, Congress has never added to 

the laws any additional exemptions 

related to hobbyists or APCP. (See Pub. 

L. 93–639, section 101, 88 Stat. 2217 

(1975); Pub. L. 104–132, Title VI, 

section 605, 100 Stat. 1289 (1996); Pub. 

L. 107–296, Title XI, Subtitle B, section 

1112(e)(3), Subtitle C, section 1126, 116 

Stat. 2276, 2285 (2002).) The 

Department notes that very few 

explosives are given any sort of 

exemption from the Federal explosives 

controls and that, in exempting motors 

containing 62.5 grams or less of 

propellant, ATF is, indeed, following 

Congress’s mandate to balance the rights 

of law-abiding citizens to have access to 

explosives with the important safety 

and security concerns at issue. 

Most recently, Congress addressed the 

ongoing serious threat posed by 

terrorists who seek to attack America on 

its own soil. In enacting the Safe 

Explosives Act, Congress took into 

consideration the fact that terrorists 

have used explosives to attack the 

World Trade Center in 1993, destroyed 

the Murrah Federal Building in 

Oklahoma City in 1995, attempted to 

detonate a ‘‘shoe bomb’’ on an aircraft 

in 2002, and planned to detonate a 

‘‘dirty bomb’’—a mixture of common 

explosives and radioactive materials, in 

a United States metropolitan area in 

2002. (House Report No. 107–658; 107th 

Cong. 2d Session Sept. 17, 2002). 

Congress took steps to prevent further 

attacks against Americans and enacted 

legislation that requires all persons 

acquiring explosives to obtain a permit 

from ATF. 

The legislative history for the Safe 

Explosives Act indicates Congress’s 

concern with terrorist use of explosives 

and indicates that the Department 

should implement the provisions of the 

Federal explosives laws with homeland 

security as a paramount concern. The 

regulatory amendment embodied by this 

final rule, establishing a limited 

exemption for rocket motors containing 

62.5 grams or less of explosive material, 

is consistent with the purposes of Title 

XI and the Safe Explosives Act. It 

balances the needs of legitimate lawabiding rocketry enthusiasts against the 

need to prevent acts of terrorism using 

explosives and it represents one of the 

very few instances in which an 

exemption from the Federal explosives 

controls has been deemed appropriate, 

either by Congress, the Department of 

the Treasury, or the Department of 

Justice. 

8. The Proposed Regulation Fails To 

Recognize the Economic Effects on 

Small Businesses as Required Under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 605(b)) requires an agency to give 

particular attention to the potential 

impact of regulation on small businesses 

and other small entities. Approximately 

200 commenters contended that the 

proposed rule, if adopted, would result 

in reduced participation by sport rocket 

hobbyists which, in turn, would have a 

negative effect on small businesses. 

AeroTech, Inc. is a manufacturer and 

supplier of composite propellant rocket 

motors, as well as a supplier of midpower rocket kits and related products. 

In its comment (Comment No. 799), the 

manufacturer contended that the 

proposed rule would have a significant 

impact on small businesses—

AeroTech is a small business with 10 

employees, and derives approximately 50–

60% of its revenue from rocket motors that 

would be regulated under the proposed rule. 

It is expected that revenues from the sale of 

these motors will be drastically reduced as a 

result of hobbyists unwilling or unable to 

comply with the licensing and/or storage 

requirements mandated by the proposed rule. 

This would have a devastating effect on the 

ability of AeroTech to remain in business. 

AeroTech is aware of dozens of other small 

businesses that will be adversely affected by 

the proposed rule to a greater or lesser extent. 

In its comment, NAR stated that it 

maintains a database of manufacturer 

contact information for the sport 

rocketry hobby and from that database 

it estimates that, at any given time, there 

are 200 commercial entities providing 

support to model rocketeers nationwide 

in the form of materials, parts, motors, 

and launch accessories. According to 

the commenter, assuming that each such 

manufacturer realizes annual sales of 

$50,000 to the hobby, those commercial 

entities provide an annual economic 

benefit to the U.S. economy of 

approximately $10 million. Based on its 

information, NAR stated that AeroTech 

estimates a loss of 30 to 40 percent of 

its market as a result of the proposed 

regulations. NAR went on to state that 

‘‘[a]ssuming a similar drop in sales will 

occur for all other manufacturers 

supplying the rocketry hobby, NAR 

estimates that the annual small business 

economic impact resulting from the 

NPRM is approximately $4 million.’’

Following are excerpts from other 

commenters who also argued that the 

proposed regulation would have a 

significant impact on small entities: 

To the extent that new regulations are 

imposed, making the purchase of such 

motors [motors exceeding 62.5 grams of 

propellant] more difficult, the vast majority 

of these adults currently enjoying the hobby 

will stop. The dollars spent on high-power 

rocketry products will mostly stop * * * the 

small-business distributors and hobby shops 

that rely upon these products will also 

quickly give up and close, as such small 

businesses focus their efforts and receive 

most of their sales from high-power rocketry. 

(Comment No. 1417) 

[O]ur * * * hobby evolved into Total 

Impulse Rocketry. It’s just a very small 

business that makes recovery harnesses and 

harness protectors for the high power 

rocketry market. If the proposed rules 

concerning the 62.5 gram limit on motors go 

into effect, many of our fellow rocketeers will 

be unable to meet the storage requirements 

and will drop out of the hobby * * * Our 

business and many others just like us will be 

severely impacted or forced to close our 

doors due to the resulting decrease in sales. 

(Comment No. 1436) 

[T]he [proposed] exemption for model 

rocket motors will have a significant impact 

on my business. I design and manufacture 

model rocket kits. The rockets made from 

these kits use these [greater than 62.5 grams 

propellant] motors. A[t] least half my 

customers will be required to obtain a license 

in order to continue using the kits they have 

already purchased. It is unlikely that they 

will buy any more kits in the future. Many 

of them will find the licensing process more 

trouble than it is worth and * * * in some 

cases [will] get out of the model rocket hobby 

entirely. This will lead to a significant drop 

in sales. (Comment No. 1449) 

There is an entire industry built up around 

the manufacture and distribution of APCP 

motors—and also larger hobby rocket kits, 

parachutes, and electronic devices to fly as 

payloads and flight instrumentation. I 

maintain that not only the rocket motor 

manufacturers would be hurt by this 

[proposed] regulation, but also the distibutors 

[sic] and small businesses that depend on 

selling the larger rocket kits and other 

materials that we buy to fly our rockets* * * 

The people that manufacture and sell these 

other parts (mostly small businesses) would 

also feel a huge financial impact. (Comment 

No. 1613) 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
46090 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Department Response 

The commenters’ contention that the 

proposed rule, if adopted, will have a 

negative effect on small businesses is 

based on their assumption that there 

will be reduced participation in the 

hobby by sport rocket hobbyists. Many 

commenters argued that the permitting, 

storage, and other requirements for 

rocket motors containing more than 62.5 

grams of propellant are overly 

burdensome for the average sport rocket 

hobbyist and, as such, many will choose 

to leave the sport. In that regard, NAR 

stated the following: 

It has been estimated that approximately 

3000 individuals currently participating in 

the rocket hobby will stop doing so, and 

hundreds more potential new participants 

will decline to get involved, as a direct result 

of ATFE’s positions reflected in the 

NPRM* * * . NAR estimates membership in 

its various sections across the country will 

decline anywhere between 10 and 80 percent 

(and the Tripoli Rocketry Association 

estimates a 40 percent decline in 

membership). 

These comments appear to be based 

on the misconception that the final rule 

would ‘‘impose’’ the requirements of 27 

CFR part 555 on rocket motors 

containing more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant. The Department’s view is 

that this characterization of the rule is 

incorrect. The Department’s position is 

that APCP is properly classified as an 

explosive and, in the absence of an 

exemption, the requirements of 27 CFR 

part 555 would apply to all rocket 

motors, regardless of the quantity of 

propellant. As stated above, the final 

rule formally implements ATF’s longstanding policy of exempting from part 

555 rocket motors containing not more 

than 62.5 grams of propellant. If this 

exemption did not exist, the 

consequences outlined in the 

comments, if accurate, would be more 

pronounced because there would be no 

exemption whatsoever for hobby rocket 

motors of any size. 

The Department disagrees with the 

commenters’ assertion that the proposed 

rule, if adopted, will result in significant 

reduction in participation by sport 

rocket hobbyists which, in turn, will 

have a negative effect on small 

businesses. By contrast, the result of the 

exemption would be to lessen the 

burden of complying with requirements 

of the Federal explosives laws and to 

encourage participation in sport 

rocketry. Without the exemption, all 

rocket motors and all persons who 

acquire them would be required to 

comply with the permit, storage, and 

other requirements of Federal law. 

Likewise, without the exemption, all 

retailers, hobby, game and toy stores 

that distribute and store rocket motors 

containing not more than 62.5 grams of 

explosive would be obligated to obtain 

Federal explosives licenses and comply 

with all regulatory, recordkeeping and 

inspection requirements. As stated 

previously, APCP has been regulated 

under the Federal explosives controls 

since 1971. Thus, requirements to 

comply with the law when acquiring, 

transporting, selling or storing nonexempt rocket motors is nothing new, 

and many persons who have acquired 

non-exempt motors without obtaining a 

Federal permit and who fail to store 

them properly have committed a crime. 

Moreover, a number of commenters 

indicates they have acquired large 

rocket motors and transported them 

across State lines for rocket shoots 

without obtaining a Federal license or 

permit. Such transportation violates 

Federal law now and violated the law 

prior to enactment of the Safe 

Explosives Act. Again, the exemption 

embodied by this final rule is intended 

to provide some relief to rocketry 

enthusiasts while taking into account 

the clear mandate of Congress that 

explosives be effectively regulated. 

Moreover, the burden of complying 

with the law and regulations for nonexempt rocket motors can be minimized 

through participation in rocketry clubs. 

Comments indicate that a significant 

number of rocket hobbyists belong to 

such organizations. ATF has recently 

advised rocket clubs that, if they hold a 

valid Federal explosives user permit, 

they may sponsor rocket launches and 

provide rocket motors to club members. 

A club ‘‘member,’’ as defined under the 

club’s bylaws establishing club 

membership, may participate in the 

rocket launch without having an 

individual permit so long as the member 

is not prohibited under Federal law 

from possessing explosives. With 

respect to storage, ATF has advised 

rocketry clubs that any unused rocket 

motors must be stored in either a club 

magazine or that the club must arrange 

for storage with another licensee or 

permittee (contingency storage). 

Under this procedure, sport rocketry 

hobbyists may continue to participate in 

rocket launches using rocket motors 

containing more than 62.5 grams of 

explosive propellant without having to 

obtain an individual Federal permit or 

explosives magazine to store their rocket 

motors. All members of the club can 

share in the cost of a single permit and 

storage magazine, reducing the cost to 

an insignificant amount. Additionally, 

this final rule will allow retailers such 

as toy and game stores and hobby shops 

to continue to sell smaller rocket motors 

without obtaining a license, maintaining 

records applicable to distribution of 

explosives, or being subject to ATF 

inspection. Accordingly, the 

Department does not anticipate that the 

rule will cause a significant reduction in 

participation by rocket hobbyists or 

have a significant impact on small 

businesses. 

9. The Proposed Regulation Is a 

‘‘Significant Regulatory Action’’ Under 

Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866, a 

Federal agency must determine whether 

a regulatory action, which includes 

notices of proposed rulemaking, is 

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget and the analytical requirements 

of the executive order. The executive 

order defines ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ in part, as one that is likely to 

result in a rule that may have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more or adversely affect in a material 

way the economy, a sector of the 

economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or state, local or tribal 

governments or communities. In Notice 

No. 968, ATF stated that the proposed 

rule was not a significant regulatory 

action and, therefore, a Regulatory 

Assessment was not required. 

Thirty commenters did not agree with 

ATF’s assessment and contended that 

the proposed regulation, with respect to 

hobby rocket motors, is a significant 

regulatory action. NAR stated that the 

proposed exemption would 

‘‘significantly reduce the market for 

rocket motors containing APCP because 

rocketeers will be unwilling or unable to 

purchase such items.’’ According to the 

commenter, it has been estimated that 

approximately 3,000 individuals 

currently participating in the sport 

rocketry hobby will stop doing so and 

many more potential new participants 

will decline to participate in the hobby. 

The commenter went on to state the 

following: 

NAR estimates membership in its various 

sections across the country will decline 

anywhere between 10 and 80 percent (and 

the Tripoli Rocketry Association estimates a 

40 percent decline in membership)* * * In 

addition, manufacturers, distributors and 

retailers of rocket motors containing APCP 

will not only suffer the financial impact 

associated with less purchases by rocketeers, 

but in addition they will be unable or 

unwilling to economically comply with 

ATFE’s regulations and remain in business. 

In its comment, NAR provided 

information relating to local economics, 

small businesses, and magazine cost 

requirements. Based on that 

information, the commenter estimated 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 46091 

that the total impact of the proposed 

regulation on those participating in the 

sport rocketry hobby, as well as those 

benefiting from the hobbyists’

participation, exceeds $23 million. 

Other commenters also argued that 

the proposed regulation is a significant 

regulatory action: 

[T]he NPRM will adversely impact the 

entire hobby rocketry industry because of 

network effects. By diminishing the high 

power sector of the hobby, overall cash flows 

to vendors of mid-power and low-power 

rockets will be reduced. This will cause a 

contraction in the entire industry as high 

power vendors go out of business and can no 

longer serve other sectors of the hobby. Midpower and low-power flyers will thus have 

less choice and product availability. 

(Comment No. 882) 

Sport rocketry is unique in that your 

proposed rules will apply not only to the 

vendors that provide motor reloads and 

supplies to the hobby but also to most of 

their customers. A majority of the members 

of both national sanctioning bodies of sport 

rocketry * * * fly motors containing APCP 

grains over 62.5g. More than half of all 

motors currently available will become 

regulated* * * All of the companies that 

manufacture and sell APCP motors and 

supplies * * * are relatively small 

businesses and any further impact will put 

most of these companies out of business. 

(Comment No. 1321) 

I normally fly rockets in a three state area 

* * * so I would need to purchase the more 

expensive LEUP at $100. In addition[,] the 

meets where I fly my rockets do not typically 

have vendors on the site, so I would have to 

purchase a type 4 magazine ($200) so that I 

could purchase them ahead of time and to 

store them. I would not be able to store the 

magazine in my garage since it is less the 

[sic] 75 feet from the living quarters of my 

neighbor, so I would have to build a storage 

shed at a cost of at least $1500. This would 

bring my total cost to comply with the new 

proposed regulation to $1800. I typically only 

fly two or three high power models per year 

at a cost of less than $100. The effect of the 

new [proposed] regulation would force me to 

spend 18 times what I normally spend on 

these motors. (Comment No. 1424) 

Based on the costs to comply with 

proposed storage requirements, user permits 

and local launch impacts, I estimated the 

total impact of the [proposed] regulation on 

the rocketry community would exceed $20 

million annually. (Comment No. 1527) 

The impact on individual hobbyist[s] and 

to the hobby industry could be devastating 

economically, if the proposed rule’s go into 

effect* * * it would force many of the 

current participants to drop out due to the 

excessive requirements forced on the hobby. 

Many of the small businesses would not be 

able to stay in business also due to the added 

requirements. Hundreds of hobbyist[s] and 

their family’s travel * * * each year * * * 

to regional or national launches. National 

launches bring thousands of dollars into the 

local economy around the launch. This 

[proposed] regulatory action will have 

significant economic impact on both sport 

rocketry enthusiasts and APCP motor 

manufacturers and vendors. (Comment No. 

1653) 

Department Response 

As stated previously, the result of this 

final rule will be to mitigate the impact 

of the Federal explosives law on sport 

rocketry. A strict reading of the statute 

without the establishment of a 

regulatory exemption would result in a 

far greater economic impact on rocketry 

hobbyists. Moreover, the Department 

maintains that the proposed rule with 

respect to model rocket motors is not a 

significant regulatory action and will 

not have a significant economic impact. 

The commenters’ assertion that the 

proposal will have a significant impact 

on the economy is based on their 

assumption that there will be a 

reduction in participation by rocketry 

hobbyists. 

NAR estimated that the total impact of 

the proposed regulation on those 

participating in the sport rocketry 

hobby, as well as those benefiting from 

the hobbyists’ participation, exceeds 

$23 million. The Department believes 

that this figure is excessive and 

unrealistic. NAR’s estimate is based, in 

part, on its contention that 3000 

individuals currently participating in 

the rocketry hobby will stop doing so. 

However, as explained in the preceding 

section, the Department believes that 

most rocket hobbyists will continue to 

participate in the sport, whether 

through rocketry clubs or otherwise. 

Additionally in this regard, it bears 

noting that this final rule merely 

formalizes ATF’s existing (and longstanding) policy of exempting rocket 

motors containing no more than 62.5 

grams of explosive material. 

NAR’s estimate is also based on its 

contention that ‘‘a minimum of 6,000 

rocketeers will be forced to obtain a 

permit from the ATFE [approximately 

$200] and to purchase a storage 

magazine for his/her rocket motors 

[approximately $300] in order to comply 

with the proposed regulations contained 

in the NPRM.’’ The Department also 

finds this figure to be excessive. As 

explained earlier, the comments 

indicate that many rocketeers belong to 

a rocket club. ATF has advised rocket 

clubs that if they obtain a Federal 

permit and provide storage for the 

rocket motors, the individual club 

members would not have to obtain a 

permit or purchase an explosives 

magazine to store their rocket motors. 

Accordingly, the Department believes 

that only a small percentage of 

rocketeers will be purchasing explosives 

magazines, relying instead on shared 

storage facilities of rocketry clubs. 

NAR also argued that the 6,000 

rocketeers would need to purchase two 

1⁄2-inch diameter locks for their 

explosives storage magazine, at a cost of 

$2,500. Based on NAR’s estimate, the 

total cost of the locks for 6,000 

magazines would be $15,000,000. 

However, 1⁄2-inch diameter locks are not 

required under the current regulations. 

The cost of a 3⁄8-inch diameter lock, 

which is the type of lock currently 

required by regulation, is approximately 

$28. 

NAR further estimated that the total 

impact of the proposed regulation on 

local economics and small businesses to 

be approximately $8.8 million annually. 

Again, this figure is based on NAR’s 

contention that the proposed rule, if 

adopted, will result in a significant 

reduction in participation by model 

rocket hobbyists. As explained above, 

the Department believes that adoption 

of the proposed rule will result in only 

a small number of rocket hobbyists 

leaving the sport. 

B. Commenters’ Concerns Regarding 

ATF’s Proposal Relating to Model 

Rocket Motors and Model Rocket 

Propellant 

1. Adoption of the Proposed Rule Will 

Result in Overly Burdensome Federal 

Requirements for Sport Rocketry 

Hobbyists 

If the proposed amendment is 

adopted, model rocket motors 

containing more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant and reload kits that can be 

used in the assembly of a rocket motor 

containing more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant will be subject to the 

permitting, storage, and other 

requirements of Federal explosives law 

and the regulations in part 555. 

Approximately 150 commenters argued 

that the compliance requirements for 

rocket motors containing more than 62.5 

grams of propellant are overly 

burdensome for the average sport rocket 

hobbyist and, as such, many will choose 

to leave the sport. The following is a 

representative sample of the 

commenters’ views: 

The cost of a storage magazine is very 

prohibitive to the average rocket hobbyist 

and is way out of proportion to the cost of 

the motor being stored. For example, an 

H128W motor from Aerotech Inc. * * * has 

a retail cost of $12.50. * * * this motor 

would be regulated and the hobbyist must 

store it in a type 4 low explosives magazine. 

The least expensive type 4 magazine that I 

have been able to find is one offered * * * 

for $194.95 plus a shipping cost of $25.00. 

This is a total cost of at least $219.95 to store 

a $12.50 motor. (Comment No. 69) 

Subjecting rocket motors containing more 

than 62.5 grams of propellant to BATFE 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
46092 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

explosives regulations would be onerous and 

burdensome. In addition to the cost of the 

permit, fingerprinting and background 

checks, there is also the problem of storage. 

BATFE would require APCP and other hobby 

rocketry materials to be stored in an 

explosives magazine far from any building or 

road. For most people this is a physical 

impossibility * * * (Comment No. 331) 

The BATF requirements for permitting & 

storage cannot be met by a majority of these 

hobbyists, since they do not have access to 

a BATF-approved magazine, nor can they 

meet the BATF requirements for having such 

a magazine on their premises. (Comment No. 

812) 

Most model rocket hobbyists are not going 

to be willing to go through the process of 

obtaining a Low Explosives User Permit 

(LEUP) to be able to continue to use the 

APCP rocket motors * * * The paperwork 

effort and intrusive nature of the permitting 

process (background check including 

photographs, fingerprints, and interviews) 

and recordkeeping requirements * * * will 

cause most amateurs to drop out of the 

hobby. (Comment No. 954) 

Under the new proposed regulations * * * 

model rocketry hobbyists, educators, and 

students will have to obtain an BATFE 

permit to buy a consumer rocket motor. Even 

the simplest permit under the law will 

require the hobbyist to be subjected to a 

background check by the BATFE, which 

includes fingerprints, photographs and 

interviews. The law also requires permit 

holders to keep records that can be inspected 

by BATFE agents. Since these records will 

most likely be kept in the permit holder’s 

home, it will open their home to a visit by 

the BATFE. The response by many 

Americans to these new restrictions will be 

to drop out of rocketry * * * (Comment No. 

1544) 

A significant, and debilitating for the 

hobby, side effect of the proposed rule * * * 

is that storage will be required for all but very 

small APCP motors. Storage requirements 

will cause this hobby to wither over the next 

few years as older rocketeers leave the hobby 

and new enthusiasts find the regulatory 

hurdles far too steep to clear. Many, likely 

most, hobbyists will not be able to secure 

storage for their motors * * * (Comment No. 

1614) 

Department Response 

These comments appear to be based 

on the misconception that the final rule 

would ‘‘impose’’ the requirements of 27 

CFR part 555 on rocket motors 

containing more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant. The Department’s view is 

that this characterization of the rule is 

incorrect. The Department’s position is 

that APCP is properly classified as an 

explosive and, in the absence of an 

exemption, the requirements of 27 CFR 

part 555 would apply to all rocket 

motors, regardless of the quantity of 

propellant. As stated above, the final 

rule formally implements ATF’s longstanding policy of exempting from part 

555 rocket motors containing 62.5 grams 

or less of propellant. If this exemption 

did not exist, the consequences outlined 

in the comments, if accurate, would be 

more pronounced because there would 

be no relief at all for hobby rockets. 

The Department recognizes that some 

individuals wishing to obtain a Federal 

explosives license or permit may not be 

able to do so based solely upon the 

individual’s inability to meet the storage 

requirements stipulated under 27 CFR 

part 555, subpart K. The Department 

also recognizes that some individuals 

may feel that the Federal licensing and 

permitting requirements are too 

intrusive and may decide to discontinue 

their participation in rocketry rather 

than obtain a Federal explosives license 

or permit. The exemption recognized in 

this final rule should make it easier for 

hobbyists to comply with the law, and 

the Department notes there are a 

number of resources and alternatives 

available to rocket motor enthusiasts 

which will likely prevent any drastic 

drop in participation. 

Off-Site Storage: The Department 

believes that many individuals will 

continue to participate in the sport 

because ATF has approved, in certain 

circumstances, the storage of explosive 

materials at a location other than the 

premises address recorded on the 

permit or license. Off-site storage of 

explosive materials is permitted so long 

as the applicant, licensee, or permittee 

notifies ATF of the storage location. 

This location must be in compliance 

with the tables of distances 

requirements in the regulations, and the 

magazine must be in a location that can 

be visually inspected once every seven 

days. 

Contingency Storage: Participation 

may not depreciate as dramatically as 

projected by rocket hobbyists because 

ATF will allow industry members to 

have contingency storage. Upon 

approval from ATF, contingency storage 

allows an individual to arrange to have 

his explosive materials stored at the 

premises of another Federal explosives 

licensee or permittee. Approval is 

generally granted to an applicant so long 

as the magazine is located so it is 

readily accessible to all individuals 

utilizing the magazine and the applicant 

has written approval from the owner of 

the magazine. 

Contingency storage could allow 

several hobbyists to pool their resources 

to obtain a single magazine in which to 

store explosives and to obtain an 

acceptable location to place their 

magazine. In addition, some licensees 

and permittees have already rented out 

space in their magazines to provide a 

location for an applicant’s contingency 

storage. Each of these options is a viable 

way in which contingency storage might 

be utilized for those who cannot obtain 

a location to store explosive materials. 

Storage by Variance: Along with offsite and contingency storage, hobbyists 

can apply for a variance from the storage 

regulations. Variances may be available 

to applicants who are able to support a 

means of storing the explosive materials 

in a manner substantially equivalent to 

the requirements outlined in the 

regulations. For instance, ATF may 

approve a variance for the storage of 

rocket motors inside attached garages. 

Those individuals meeting certain 

conditions outlined in the variance, 

such as a requirement to provide proof 

of approval from State or local officials, 

may continue to store rocket motors at 

their licensed premises. 

Clubs: Membership in a ‘‘rocketry 

club’’ will also limit the need for 

individual permits thereby reducing the 

regulatory obligations imposed on 

individual hobbyists. ATF has informed 

rocketry clubs that club members can 

participate in club shoots without 

having to obtain their own Federal 

explosives license or permit. The club is 

the entity responsible for obtaining the 

Federal explosives license or permit, for 

obtaining the approved storage locations 

and magazines, and for ensuring that 

club members do not fall into any of the 

prohibited persons categories. The 

individual club member may then 

receive explosive materials on behalf of 

the club while participating at launches 

under the appropriate club supervision. 

Students/Educators: Finally, the sport 

will not see a dramatic loss in the 

participation of students and educators 

at public schools and public universities 

as they will continue to be exempt from 

the requirements of obtaining a Federal 

explosives license or permit pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. 845(a)(3) and 27 CFR 

555.141(a)(3). The law and its 

implementing regulation exempt the 

transportation, shipment, receipt, or 

importation of explosive materials for 

delivery to any agency of the United 

States or to any State or political 

subdivision thereof. This exemption 

allows public schools or public 

universities to obtain rocket motors of 

any size without a license or permit. 

These institutions must, however, 

continue to comply with all storage 

requirements for explosive materials 

and cannot knowingly allow a 

prohibited person to receive or possess 

explosive materials. 

2. The Wording of the Proposed 

Regulation Effectively Bans All Reload 

Kits 

The proposed regulation limits the 

exemption for motor reload kits to those 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 46093 

‘‘capable of reloading no more than 62.5 

grams of propellant into a reusable 

motor casing.’’ Several commenters 

argued that the proposed wording 

effectively bans all reload kits for 

reusable motor casings, even those using 

62.5 grams or less of propellant. The 

following excerpts were taken from the 

comments: 

After all, it is physically possible to take 

several reload kits, each intended to be used 

in a motor containing 62.5 grams or less of 

propellant, and to combine them into a larger 

motor. Thus, by the wording of this proposed 

‘exemption’, you are effectively banning all 

reload kits. (Comment No. 30) 

[T]he term ‘capable of reloading more than 

62.5 grams into a single casing’ could be 

interpreted to eliminate all reloadable rocket 

motors. If a reloadable rocket motor was 

designed to use one and only one 10 gram 

APCP slug, with this wording, this reload kit 

could still be considered subject to regulation 

as the BATFE could determine that someone 

could create a motor casing to accommodate 

7 of this fictional slug, making a motor with 

70 grams total propellant weight. In addition, 

many commercial rocket motors that are used 

safely at high power rocket launches are 

composed of multiple 62.5 gram or less slugs. 

This wording would regulate all of those 

motors. (Comment No. 286) 

It will always be theoretically possible for 

someone to take the propellant grains from 

several reload kits intended for use in a 

motor casing containing 62.5 grams or less of 

propellant, and place all of them into a larger 

motor casing. Because there is no practical 

way to prevent this possibility, all reload kits 

are ‘capable’ of reloading more than 62.5 

grams of propellant into a reusable motor 

casing. (Comment No. 749) 

The way the proposed change is worded, 

it would regulate all reloadable motors, 

regardless of size, since someone could 

always produce a case capable of holding say 

13 chunks of 5 grams each. Most of my 29mm 

reload kits are under 62.5g, but they could be 

loaded into a very long 29mm casing that 

they are not designed to be used in. Even a 

case of 13mm reload slugs could be crammed 

into a 54mm casing. It wouldn’t work, but 

would be over 62.5g and thus regulated by 

this rule. (Comment No. 889) 

You only need to look at this 

hypothetically to see the problem of this rule: 

If a consumer had 63 kits, each weighing 

only 1 gram, they could possibly be 

assembled in a reload casing. So even 1 gram 

of ammonium perchlorate composite 

propellant would not be exempt. (Comment 

No. 1195) 

Department Response 

The Department has reviewed the 

comments that claim that the regulation 

effectively bans all reload kits. The 

Department does not believe that this 

concern is warranted or valid. First, the 

rule does not ‘‘ban’’ rocket motors or 

reload kits. Rather, the rule allows 

persons to acquire without regulation 

rocket motors containing 62.5 grams or 

less of propellant and reload kits 

designed to enable the assembly of 

motors containing 62.5 grams or less of 

propellant. Rocket motors and reload 

kits exceeding these parameters may 

still be lawfully acquired by obtaining a 

Federal permit and complying with the 

storage, recordkeeping, and other 

provisions of the law and regulations. 

Thus, using the term ‘‘ban’’ to refer to 

this final rule is inappropriate and 

misleading. 

Presently, ATF is aware of only a 

small number of commercially available 

reload kits that contain propellant 

modules designed to be combined to 

exceed the 62.5-gram total propellant 

weight within a single sport rocket 

casing. In these kits, the individual 

propellant modules each contain 62.5 

grams of propellant or less; however, the 

kits are subject to the permitting/ 

licensing and storage requirements of 

the Federal explosives law because they 

are designed to be stacked together 

within a re-usable casing designed to 

hold more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant. There are other reload kits 

on the market that are designed solely 

to be used in the assembly of rocket 

motors that contain no more than 62.5 

grams of propellant per assembled 

motor. These reload kits will remain 

exempt under this final rule. 

Many of the scenarios offered by 

commenters refer to hypothetical 

possibilities as opposed to actual 

products used or available to rocket 

hobbyists. For instance, ATF is unaware 

of any rocket casing that accepts seven 

10-gram slugs of APCP, resulting in 70 

grams of total propellant weight. 

However, if such a kit were to be 

designed it would be subject to 

regulation. 

ATF recognizes that reload kits can 

provide rocketry enthusiasts with a costeffective means to enjoy their hobby. 

Accordingly, ATF has included within 

the scope of the 62.5-gram exemption 

reload kits that are designed to enable 

the assembly of motors containing 62.5- 

grams or less explosive material. 

Hobbyists and manufacturers of rocket 

motors should, however, be aware that 

this final rule does not provide a 

‘‘loophole’’ affording exempt treatment 

for reload kits (e.g., the AeroTech ‘‘Easy 

Access’’ kit) that, although containing 

propellant modules no larger than 62.5 

grams, are designed to allow more than 

one of these propellant modules to be 

combined in a fully assembled motor 

containing a total of more than 62.5 

grams of propellant. Logic dictates that 

if single-use motors containing more 

than 62.5 grams are not exempt under 

this final rule, reload kits designed to 

enable the assembly of such motors 

must also be subject to regulation. 

3. The Proposed Regulation Limits the 

Scope of the Exemption to ‘‘Importation 

and Distribution’’

The wording of the proposed 

regulation limits the exemption to 

‘‘importation and distribution.’’ Several 

commenters contended that the 

proposal is too restrictive and that 

rocket motors containing 62.5 grams or 

less of propellant should be exempt 

from all of the requirements in part 555. 

One commenter, NAR, pointed out that 

the current language in 27 CFR 

555.141(a)(7) includes importation, 

distribution, and storage. The 

commenter went on to state the 

following: 

[T]he NPRM has dropped the reference to 

‘storage’ from the introductory text for 

exemptions in Section 55.141(a)(7). To the 

degree that the deletion was purposeful, 

ATFE has severely limited its exemptions by 

requiring compliance with storage 

requirements even where compliance with 

importation and distribution requirements is 

not necessary. Clearly such a result 

represents an unnecessary and undue burden 

on many retail establishments distributing 

and selling these items. To the degree the 

deletion was inadvertent, the reference to 

‘storage’ should be re-inserted when the final 

rule is issued. 

Other commenters raised similar 

concerns: 

The exempted materials should be 

considered non-explosive for all legal 

purposes, not just importation and 

distribution * * * rocket hobbyists need to 

be free to buy, sell, ship, store, transport, and 

use rocket propellants, and the 

manufacturers and dealers need to be free to 

make, buy, ship, store, transport and sell 

them. (Comment No. 30) 

The current language of 27 CFR 

555.141(a)(7) explicitly exempts storage as 

well. Requiring storage for these items [rocket 

motors containing up to 62.5 grams of 

propellant] will impose a significant burden 

on the entire supply chain and make 

thousands (millions?) who currently possess 

these items criminals. (Comment No. 1330) 

Department Response 

The Department has reviewed the 

comments that question the exclusion of 

storage from the exemption language. It 

was not the intention of the proposed 

rule to impose storage requirements on 

hobby rocket motors containing 62.5 

grams or less of propellant. Historically, 

ATF’s policy has been to exempt the 

smaller rocket motors from all 

regulations applicable to other 

explosives. This final rule was intended 

to clarify that long-standing policy. 

Therefore, in this final rule, the 

language has been revised to clarify that 

the designated rocket motors are exempt 

from all the requirements of 27 CFR part 

555. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
46094 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

4. Increased Regulation of Model Rocket 

Engines Will Limit the Availability and 

Drive Up the Already High Price of 

Rocket Motors 

Several commenters contended that 

many hobby rocketry enthusiasts will 

leave the hobby if the proposed 

regulation is adopted, resulting in 

limited availability of rocket motors and 

higher prices for them. Excerpts from 

some of the comments follow: 

As a result of members leaving the hobby, 

these [proposed] regulations will have a very 

significant negative economic impact on the 

companies that manufacture, distribute, and 

sell hobby rocket motors. Prices will rise for 

these motors since demand and volume will 

be significantly reduced. Higher prices will 

hurt the average hobbyist * * * (Comment 

No. 69) 

By imposing limits that only allow less 

than 62.5 grams of ‘total’ propellant, 

rocketeers, who are not currently permitted, 

will be unable to purchase and fly the vast 

majority of mid to high power rockets * * * 

This will in turn lower the demand for these 

types of motors and will in turn drive the 

prices up for those of us that have the ability 

to purchase, store and use * * * those 

manufactures [sic] and businesses that 

provide these products * * * will have to 

lower their inventory levels, manufacturing 

component commitments, and raise their 

prices overall just to stay in business at a 

reduced revenue level. (Comment No. 896) 

A majority of hobbyists can not * * * and 

many will not * * * qualify for a LEUP; 

those hobbyists have stopped purchasing 

rocket motors * * * Almost overnight the 

few small dealers and manufacturers have 

seen their small profit margins disappear. As 

demand drops, prices will rise to the point 

where the typical hobbyist will not be able 

to afford it. (Comment No. 1536) 

A reduction * * * in participation would 

also negatively impact those who keep going 

with the hobby. As with any other consumer 

product, as rocket motor production 

increases, prices decrease. Unfortunately, the 

opposite is also true and the remaining 

consumers of APCP rocket motors would be 

forced to bear the added cost. This will also 

result in decreased participation. (Comment 

No. 1607) 

Department Response 

The Department has considered the 

commenters’ concerns about potentially 

inflated costs associated with high 

power rocket motors. These comments 

appear to be based on the 

misconception that the final rule would 

‘‘impose’’ the requirements of 27 CFR 

part 555 on rocket motors containing 

more than 62.5 grams of propellant. The 

Department’s view is that this 

characterization of the rule is incorrect. 

The Department’s position is that APCP 

is properly classified as an explosive 

and, in the absence of an exemption, the 

requirements of 27 CFR part 555 apply 

to all rocket motors, regardless of the 

quantity of propellant. As stated above, 

the final rule formally implements 

ATF’s long-standing policy of 

exemption from part 555 rocket motors 

containing not more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant. If this exemption did not 

exist, the consequences outlined in the 

comments, if accurate, would be more 

pronounced because there would be no 

relief for hobby rockets at all. 

Moreover, the Department does not 

believe the concerns outweigh the safety 

and homeland security threats that 

would be posed by the unregulated sale 

of large rocket motors. Additionally, the 

concern is not supported by facts. 

Federal controls applicable to rocket 

motors containing more than 62.5 grams 

of propellant and on reload kits 

enabling persons to construct motors 

containing more than 62.5-grams of 

propellant are reasonable in scope. The 

controls were applicable to motors 

containing more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant prior to the proposed rule. 

Therefore, any perceived shift in market 

prices associated with this proposal is 

simply a result of hobbyists coming into 

compliance with ATF’s long-standing 

policy and with the expanded 

permitting requirements imposed by 

Congress under the Safe Explosives Act. 

Likewise, ATF has not been provided 

with any information to support the 

contention that affected hobbyists are 

quitting their hobby due to the cost of 

compliance. 

In fact, the Department has identified 

a number of resources and alternatives 

that will reduce the regulatory 

obligations of individual hobbyists. 

These alternatives should limit any 

projected decrease in the number of 

hobby participants thereby lessening the 

overall impact on the commercial 

market. 

5. Subjecting Rocket Motors Containing 

More Than 62.5 Grams of Propellant to 

Permitting and Storage Requirements 

Would Be Onerous and Burdensome 

Approximately 80 commenters argued 

that subjecting rocket motors containing 

more than 62.5 grams of propellant to 

the permitting and storage requirements 

of Federal explosives and regulations 

would be unduly burdensome. The 

commenters expressed concern 

regarding the costs associated with 

obtaining a Federal permit, e.g., 

fingerprinting and background check, 

and the problems involved in providing 

proper storage for the rocket motors. 

The following excerpts represent the 

views of most commenters: 

The regulations you proposed in this 

NPRM will eliminate my ability to 

participate in high power hobby rocketry. All 

of the rocket motors I have used in the past 

few years and those I prefer to use would be 

regulated under this proposed regulation. In 

order to continue to use them, I would be 

required to obtain a * * * low explosives 

user permit * * * Since I currently live in 

a multiple family dwelling, I would not be 

eligible to have a magazine for motor storage, 

a requirement to obtain a low explosives user 

permit, and thus would not be able to fly 

motors above your proposed 62.5 gram limit. 

(Comment No. 286) 

[M]ost of us do not have the required 

storage facilities for our motors. Current 

storage requirements are an outbuilding 100 

feet from any other building. And if we can’t 

store our motors * * * I don’t know how we 

are going to fly. (Comment No. 732) 

All High Power flyers will have to obtain 

a permit to continue their sport under the 

proposed regulations. The lower cost 

intrastate [limited] permit is useless in many 

states where there are no High Power Motor 

retailers. The full LEUP is the only viable 

option under the proposed regulations and 

the economic impact can be severe. The 

increase in the permit fee is a very small part 

of the increase. The requirement for storage 

is where virtually all of the expenses are. 

(Comment No. 895) 

Storage is the most burdensome part of the 

regulatory requirements for individuals to 

meet. Many people who engage in model 

rocketry live in homes which are not able to 

meet the storage requirements (such as 

Townhouse[s], Apartments and areas of cities 

where homes are located close together). 

(Comment No. 969) 

Subjecting rocket motors containing more 

than 62.5 grams of propellant to BATFE 

explosives regulations would be onerous and 

burdensome. In addition to the cost of the 

permit, fingerprinting and background 

checks, there is also the problem of storage. 

BATFE would require APCP and other hobby 

rocketry materials to be stored in an 

explosives magazine far from any building or 

road. For most people this is a physical 

impossibility * * * ‘Contingent storage’ via 

a second party is not a solution either, as it 

is often unavailable. (Comment No. 1034) 

Department Response 

The Department objects to 

characterization of this rule as 

‘‘subjecting’’ rocketry hobbyists to 

requirements of the law. As stated 

previously, this rule merely clarifies 

ATF’s long-standing policy exempting 

certain rocket motors containing 62.5 

grams or less of propellant from the 

requirements of part 555. Without this 

exemption, rocketry hobbyists would be 

required to obtain a Federal permit and 

abide by all the requirements of the law 

and regulations for all rockets and 

reload kits. 

In addition, the Department contends 

that the time and costs of obtaining a 

‘‘user permit’’ (UP) or a ‘‘limited 

permit’’ for users of rocket motors or 

reload kits containing more than 62.5 

grams of APCP, as well as the cost of 

obtaining an approved storage 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 46095 

magazine, do not impose an excessive 

burden on individuals. 

In amending regulations to implement 

provisions of the Safe Explosives Act 

(Federal Register, March 20, 2003, 68 

FR 13777), ATF estimated the time and 

cost for 20,000 unlicensed individuals 

to obtain a ‘‘limited permit.’’ ATF 

estimated that the total amount of time 

it would take an individual to complete 

a Federal explosives license or permit 

application is approximately 1.5 hours. 

The time spent on inspecting the 

qualification documents, business 

premises, and storage magazines is 

approximately 2 hours. 

ATF also estimated the total cost 

imposed on an individual applying for 

a ‘‘user permit’’ or a ‘‘limited permit.’’

First, there would be the cost of each 

permit, which is $25 per year for a 

‘‘limited permit’’ and $100 for 3 years 

for a LEUP. The cost of photographs for 

an individual was estimated at $1.50; 

fingerprints for individuals were 

estimated at $10.00. ATF estimated the 

cost for the time it would take to 

complete the application as $19.50, 

based upon a mean hourly wage of $13. 

Finally, ATF estimated the total cost for 

the time spent by the individual during 

an ATF application inspection at $34, 

based upon a mean hourly wage of $17. 

Based on these figures, ATF was able 

to conclude that the total cost and 

amount of time spent on applying for a 

Federal explosives permit would be an 

estimated $90.00 to $164.50 and 3.5 

hours per applicant. The Department 

contends that this amount of time and 

cost is not disproportionately 

burdensome, especially when 

considering the benefits to public safety 

and security. 

The Department does recognize that 

the cost of a storage magazine is 

significant when compared to the cost of 

a single rocket motor. However, most 

rocket motor enthusiasts store more 

than a single rocket motor in a 

magazine. In addition, there are 

alternative means of storing rocket 

motors. Contrary to the views expressed 

by some commenters, contingency 

storage is a viable option for hobbyists. 

Contingency storage would allow 

several hobbyists to pool their resources 

together to obtain a single magazine to 

store explosives and to obtain an 

acceptable location to place their 

magazine. It also allows individuals 

who might otherwise be prohibited from 

storing at their licensed location, 

possibly due to State or local 

requirements, to store in a magazine at 

a location provided by another licensee 

or permittee. 

Furthermore, rocketry enthusiasts 

may join or form rocketry clubs. These 

clubs are responsible for obtaining all 

appropriate licenses or permits, as well 

as storage. The club members may incur 

the cost of membership dues, but as 

members they may participate in their 

hobby without having to individually 

comply with storage, licensing, or 

permitting requirements. Sharing the 

cost of compliance will dramatically 

reduce the cost and burden to any 

individual club member. 

6. The Proposed Regulation Places an 

Undue Burden on Adult Sport Rocketry 

Hobbyists 

Approximately 110 commenters 

expressed a concern that the proposed 

regulation places an undue burden on 

adult rocketry hobbyists because most 

adults in the hobby use motors that 

contain more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant. Following are excerpts from 

some of the comments: 

The point I am trying to make here is it [is] 

the adults that drive the hobby. 

Approximately 56% of all consumer hobby 

rocket motors sold are above the 62.5 gram 

propellant weight exemption proposed by the 

ATFE. If this rule is enforced most adults 

participating in the hobby will drop out. Few 

parents will want to be subjected to paying 

for an explosive permit fee, background 

checks, fingerprinting, and possible ATF 

inspections. (Comment No. 769) 

The proposed 62.5-gram propellant weight 

limit in the NPRM will have detrimental 

effects on the hobby. It will subject about 

5000 high power rocket flyer hobbyists in the 

United States to a series of regulations that 

will stifle the growth and adult participation 

in this hobby. Many current adult flyers that 

were involved with this hobby as middle and 

high school students have returned to this 

hobby because of the high power aspects. 

(Comment No. 801) 

[M]ore than 90 percent of the rockets that 

I currently fly contain between 125 and 1000 

grams of APCP * * * Most of the individuals 

involved in high-power rocketry devote the 

greater part of their efforts to flying rockets 

that use more than 62.5 grams of propellant. 

There are currently approximately 5,000 such 

individuals certified by NAR and/or TRA 

who routinely fly rockets that fall into this 

category. (Comment No. 924) 

While most minors fly these types of 

motors [under 62.5 grams propellant weight] 

the majority of adult hobbyists do not * * * 

The 62.5g rule was made by CSPC to protect 

minors from injury. I agree that this threshold 

is a good limit for minor[s], but for minors 

only. (Comment No. 999) 

Although most of the rocket motors burnt 

are not affected by this [proposed] regulation, 

it is often the adults who are burning the 

larger motors that coordinate the launches for 

the younger generation. Placing this 

unnecessary burden on them will drive them 

out of the hobby * * * (Comment No. 1008) 

Department Response 

These comments appear to be based 

on the misconception that the final rule 

would ‘‘impose’’ the requirements of 27 

CFR part 555 on rocket motors 

containing more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant. This characterization of the 

rule is incorrect. The Department’s 

position is that APCP is properly 

classified as an explosive and that, in 

the absence of an exemption, the 

requirements of 27 CFR part 555 apply 

to all rocket motors, regardless of the 

quantity of propellant. As stated above, 

the final rule formally implements 

ATF’s long-standing policy of 

exempting from part 555 rocket motors 

containing not more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant. If this exemption did not 

exist, the consequences outlined in the 

comments, if accurate, would be more 

pronounced because there would be no 

relief for hobby rockets at all. 

ATF as well as other Federal agencies, 

including the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission and the Department of 

Transportation, have long considered 

rocket motors containing no more than 

62.5 grams of propellant to be exempt 

from Federal regulations. For years, 

many rocketry enthusiasts had also 

accepted this threshold, obtaining user 

permits for interstate transfers of rocket 

motors containing more than 62.5 grams 

of propellant. It was only after the SEA 

was enacted in 2002, with its 

requirement for licenses or permits on 

intrastate purchases, that the rocketry 

groups began to contend that the 62.5- 

gram threshold was too burdensome. 

The 62.5-gram threshold was based on 

the historical acceptance of this amount 

of explosive material as suitable for 

‘‘toys.’’ Anything above this amount 

cannot reasonably be classified as a toy. 

As explained previously, a result of this 

exemption is the mitigation of the 

burden of complying with the law for 

rocket motors that do not pose a 

significant threat to public safety and 

homeland security. The fact that most of 

the rockets containing propellant in 

excess of 62.5 grams are acquired by 

adults is irrelevant. The Department 

believes that limiting the exemption to 

motors at or under the 62.5-gram 

threshold is reasonable and necessary to 

prevent unregulated access to dangerous 

quantities of explosives by criminals 

and terrorists-most of whom are adults. 

7. The Limited Permit Is Not Practical 

for Sport Rocketry Hobbyists 

The Federal explosives law requires 

that all persons receiving explosives on 

and after May 24, 2003, obtain a Federal 

permit. A ‘‘user permit’’ is necessary 

only if the holder transports, ships, or 

receives explosive materials in interstate 

or foreign commerce. The fee for a user 

permit is $100 for a three-year period 

and $50 for each three-year renewal. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
46096 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

The ‘‘limited permit’’ authorizes the 

holder to receive explosive materials 

only within his State of residence on no 

more than 6 separate occasions during 

the one-year period of the permit. The 

fee for an original limited permit is $25 

for a one-year period and $12 for each 

one-year renewal. 

Fifty-five commenters argued that the 

limited permit is not a viable option for 

sport rocketry hobbyists, citing various 

reasons: 

‘Limited’ permits cannot be used by most 

hobby racketeers [sic], as dealers are out of 

state and the ‘Limited’ permit is restricted to 

resident in-state purchases. Rocketeers must 

get a LEUP [limited explosives user permit] 

costing $100. (Comment No. 323) 

The use of the ATF’s new limited [permit] 

* * * while a step in the right direction will 

not serve most users largely because most of 

us currently need to order supplies out of 

state, as there are a limited number of 

vendors nationwide and very few of us have 

the luxury of an in state vendor. (Comment 

No. 737) 

The ‘limited’ permit proposed by ATFE is 

useless or of limited usefulness for the vast 

majority of rocket flyers, as it only allows a 

maximum of 6 purchases per year, and only 

allows in-state purchase and use. Most rocket 

clubs hold launches at least monthly (some 

much more often), and there simply are no 

dealers of high power rocket motors in most 

states. Most high power rocket motor sales 

are done through dealers in other states, 

either by mail order, or from dealers who 

travel to launch events held in other states. 

Also, rocket flyers frequently travel to launch 

events held in other states. (Comment No. 

749) 

The limited permit has very limited 

usefulness because it does not allow fliers to 

fly out of state, it unrealistically limits motor 

purchases, and it causes problems for 

transportation and storage. (Comment No. 

778) 

The new six purchases per year intrastate 

limited permit is of little use, since most 

hobbyists do not have both a launch site and 

dealer in their home state. (Comment No. 

840) 

Department Response 

Commenters pointing out the 

limitations of the Limited Permit fail to 

recognize the benefits of this rule to 

sport rocketry. This rule clarifies ATF’s 

long-standing policy exempting certain 

rocket motors containing 62.5 grams or 

less of propellant from the requirements 

of part 555. Without the exemption, all 

persons acquiring rocket motors would 

be required to obtain a permit and 

comply with all other requirements of 

Federal law. 

An alternative to the limited permit is 

the user permit (UP), which allows for 

unlimited interstate purchases of 

explosive materials for a period of up to 

three years. The UP also permits those 

individuals attending out-of-state 

launches to purchase rocket motors 

interstate, or to transport explosive 

materials from state to state. The UP is 

useful in instances in which there are 

no model rocket motor dealers in the 

hobbyist’s state, since it allows the 

hobbyist to purchase non-exempt rocket 

motors outside of his state of residence 

and receive the motors in his own state 

as long as the purchase complies with 

other Federal, State, or local laws. The 

cost of the UP is only slightly higher 

than the cost of a limited permit. The 

limited permit application fee is $25 per 

year with a renewal feel of $12 per year. 

The full price of a UP for 3 years is $100 

for the initial three-year permit 

(averaging out to $33.33 per year), with 

a renewal fee of $50 every three years 

thereafter (average of $16.67 per year). 

8. Sport Rocketry Hobbyists May Not Be 

Able To Comply With State and Local 

Requirements 

Approximately 40 comments 

contended that under the proposed 

regulation rocketry hobbyists would 

need to obtain permission from State 

and local authorities to store rocket 

motors containing more than 62.5 grams 

of propellant. The commenters argued 

that obtaining such permission is often 

difficult or impossible in many areas. 

The following excerpts are 

representative of the commenters’

concerns: 

BATFE regulation of hobby rocket 

materials would also require users to get the 

permission of state and local authorities for 

storage of ‘explosives’—something that is 

often difficult or impossible in many areas. 

In some cases, users would be required to 

undergo training in the use and storage of 

high explosives. (Comment No. 333) 

Many, likely most, hobbyists will not be 

able to secure storage for their motors 

because APCP has been misclassified as an 

explosive and, quite naturally, most cities are 

reluctant to allow storage of explosives in a 

residence. (Comment No. 824) 

Most of the hobbyists I know cannot meet 

storage requirements because they live in an 

apartment or condominium or live in a city 

that won’t allow ‘explosives’ to be stored in 

a residential area, and therefore most of them 

cannot get a permit. (Comment No. 1065) 

Department Response 

The statutory criteria for issuance of 

a Federal explosives license or permit 

do not require applicants to comply 

with or certify compliance with 

requirements of State or local law. The 

only aspect of Federal regulation that is 

conditioned upon compliance with 

State and local law is ATF’s granting of 

storage variances. As stated in ATF 

Ruling 2002–3, Indoor Storage of 

Explosives in a Residence or Dwelling 

(approved August 23, 2002), ATF will 

approve variances to store explosives in 

a residence or dwelling upon certain 

conditions including, but not limited to, 

receipt of a certification of compliance 

with State and local law, and 

documentation that local fire safety 

officials have received a copy of the 

certification. ATF has issued numerous 

variances permitting storage of 

explosive materials, particularly APCP, 

in a residence or dwelling. 

9. ATF’s Definitions and Classifications 

of Explosives Are Not Consistent With 

Those of Other Federal Agencies and 

International Agreements 

Several comments argued that there 

should be some consistency among 

Federal agencies with respect to the 

definitions and classifications of 

explosives. Following are some of the 

arguments raised by the commenters: 

[T]he definitions and classifications [of 

explosives] should agree with other federal 

agencies and international agreements such 

as the United States Department of 

Transportation, the Bureau of Explosives, 

and UN standards. Ammonium perchlorate, 

and rocket motors definitions and 

classifications should be regulated by * * * 

[ATF] as it has been by the United States 

Department of Transportation, the Bureau of 

Explosives, and UN standards in the BOE–

600 Hazardous Materials Regulations of the 

Department of Transportation since around 

WW 1. (Comment No. 907) 

The APCP formulations in the geometric 

configurations available to the hobby 

rocketry community do not meet the U.S. 

Government specified characteristics of low 

explosive materials when evaluated by 

approved U.S. Government explosive testing 

laboratories and by the Department of 

Defense (DOD). (Comment No. 1044) 

The Department of Transportation has 

labeled APCP as a flammable solid and has 

granted an emergency revision to DOT 

exemption DOT–E 10996 that allows the 

shipment of articles covered by the 

exemption (certain rocket motors and reload 

kits normally classified as division 1.3C 

explosives). (Comment No. 1052) 

It seems odd to me that two different 

branches of government choose to have such 

differing opinions on the same substance. I 

believe that the definition of ‘toy propellant 

devices’ use[d] by DOT [is] more accurate 

when talking about hobby rocket motors. 

(Comment No. 1362) 

[I]t appears that BATFE is backing off from 

its early laudable efforts to coordinate its 

regulations with those of other governmental 

and quasi-governmental regulatory bodies. 

For example, BATFE specifically declines to 

recognize or adopt even portions of NFPA 

codes * * * BATFE has in the current NPRM 

eliminated several helpful references to UN 

codes, and * * * BATFE is proposing to 

adopt definitions of terms and regulatory 

limits that are different from, and will 

inevitably interfere or even conflict with, 

those used by FAA and DOT. (Comment No. 

1622) 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 46097 

Department Response 

The Department has considered the 

comments regarding differing 

classifications and definitions used by 

other Government agencies. However, it 

does not believe the proposed 

amendment would result in 

inconsistency among Government 

agencies because different Federal 

statutes serve different purposes. 

APCP, being a deflagrating propellant, 

is considered an explosive and 

classified under ATF regulation as a 

‘‘low explosive.’’

The National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) has adopted a 

definition of ‘‘explosives’’ that is the 

same as the statutory definition set forth 

in 18 U.S.C. 841(d). ‘‘Explosives’’ as 

classified in 18 U.S.C. 841(d) are ‘‘* * * 

any chemical compound[,] mixture, or 

device, the primary or common purpose 

of which is to function by explosion; the 

term includes, but is not limited to, 

dynamite and other high explosives, 

black powder, pellet powder, initiating 

explosives, detonators, safety fuses, 

squibs, detonating cord, igniter cord, 

and igniters.’’ Moreover, the NFPA’s 

classification of ‘‘low explosives’’ is 

consistent with that in 27 CFR 

555.202(b). In its ‘‘Fire Protection 

Handbook,’’ NFPA has included 

propellants in its listing of ‘‘types of 

explosive,’’ and states that black 

powder, smokeless powder, and solid 

rocket fuels fall into the category of 

‘‘low explosives/propellant.’’

Furthermore, in its ‘‘Code of High Power 

Rocketry,’’ NFPA uses the same criteria 

for the storage of rocket motors that 

mirror the requirements of the table of 

distances for low explosives that are 

addressed in 27 CFR part 555. 

DOT classifications sometimes differ 

from ATF because the two agencies use 

different standards to make their 

explosives classifications. DOT uses 

standards that are based primarily on 

the controls for the transportation, 

storage, packaging, and shipping safety. 

For example, when packaging will 

reduce the likelihood of mass explosion, 

DOT will assign a ‘‘lower’’ hazard 

classification (triggering less stringent 

transportation requirements). DOT’s 

standards are such that the same 

explosive material can be classified 

differently in different circumstances, 

based solely upon its packaging. ATF’s 

classifications are static and are based 

upon the material itself, not the safety 

of its packaging. Likewise, the United 

Nations (UN) uses classifications for 

explosives that are designed to ensure 

the harmonization of transportation of 

hazardous materials in global 

commerce. These classifications serve to 

facilitate commerce while maintaining 

safety standards that can be adhered to 

throughout the world. This goal differs 

significantly from that of ATF. ATF’s 

classifications are designed to maximize 

public safety and protect interstate and 

foreign commerce against interference 

and interruption from the misuse of 

explosive materials. Therefore, although 

there are some distinctions in 

classification among Federal agencies, 

they should not be viewed as 

inconsistencies. 

10. The Proposed Exemption Would Not 

Apply to Rocket Motors Containing 

Multiple Segments up to 62.5 Grams of 

Propellant Each, but Whose Total 

Combined Weight Is More Than 62.5 

Grams 

One commenter (Comment No. 18) 

expressed concern that the proposed 

regulation would not exempt rocket 

motors containing multiple segments 

having no more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant each, but whose total 

combined weight in the motor is more 

than 62.5 grams. The commenter 

contended that the proposed exemption 

should apply to all model rocket motors 

whose segment weight is less than 62.5 

grams, regardless of the number of 

segments, citing various reasons 

including: The proposed rule does not 

make sense—there is no difference 

between purchasing or selling three 

separate motors each containing 62.5 

grams of propellant and one motor 

reload with three segments, each 

weighing 62.5 grams; a 62.5 gram per 

segment exemption is self-limiting, i.e., 

it becomes impracticable from a physics 

point of view for rocket motors to have 

more than a certain number of segments 

that are limited to 62.5 grams, and; the 

proposed exemption will encourage 

clustering of smaller motors to achieve 

the effect of a larger motor-this is not a 

good practice because it relies on 

simultaneous ignition of the motors. 

Department Response 

All reload kits and propellant 

modules that can be used only in the 

assembly of rocket motors that contain 

a total of no more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant per assembled motor are 

exempt from regulation under this final 

rule. This exemption applies to singleuse motors containing 62.5 grams or less 

of explosive material and to reload kits 

that are designed solely to create motors 

containing 62.5 grams or less of APCP 

per assembled motor. The range and 

power of rockets powered by the smaller 

rocket motors would not be as useful to 

terrorists or other criminals in 

constructing weapons designed to serve 

as delivery systems for explosive, 

chemical, or biological weapons. An 

individual purchasing larger rocket 

motors may assemble a large rocket 

motor that is capable of carrying 

explosive warheads or other dangerous 

payloads long distances. 

The Department believes that the 

regulation of single-use motors 

containing more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant and reload kits and 

propellant modules designed to enable 

the assembly of such large motors can 

protect public safety by preventing the 

misuse of these motors. Also, the 

Department has determined that this 

threshold affords a reasonable balance 

between the need to prevent terrorists 

and other criminals from acquiring 

explosives and the legitimate desire of 

hobbyists to have access to explosives 

for lawful use. 

11. The Proposed Exemption Does Not 

Appear to Include Bulk Packs of Rocket 

Motors 

One commenter (Comment No. 59) 

inquired whether the proposed 

exemption applied to bulk packs of 

rocket motors where each motor 

contains no more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant. The commenter stated that 

he purchases bulk packs of rocket 

motors for his students who are in a 

model rocket club. He explained that 

the bulk packs usually contain 24 

motors and that each individual motor 

contains 5.6 grams of propellant, 

resulting in a total propellant weight of 

134 grams (5.6 × 24). Because the total 

weight of the bulk pack exceeds 62.5 

grams, the commenter is concerned that 

bulk packs of rocket motors would not 

be included in the proposed exemption. 

Department Response 

As stated previously, any person 

purchasing explosives, including nonexempt rocket motors, for use at a 

public educational institution, is 

exempt from the permit provisions of 

the Federal explosives laws. State and 

local institutions would be required to 

store rocket motors in compliance with 

the law and regulations and could not 

knowingly allow prohibited persons to 

receive or possess explosive materials. 

Persons purchasing rocket motors for 

a private school would not be exempt 

from the permit requirements of the law. 

However, if the ‘‘bulk packs’’ referred to 

by Comment No. 59 are non-stackable, 

fully-assembled single-use motors, each 

of which contains no more than 62.5 

grams of propellant, then such ‘‘bulk 

packs’’ would fall within the exemption 

of the regulations, no matter how many 

motors are contained in the package. 

Accordingly, the commenter’s concerns 

are misplaced. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
46098 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

12. The Proposed Regulation Should Be 

Amended To Include Other Explosives 

As indicated, many commenters 

argued that the proposed regulation is 

too restrictive and would have a 

negative effect on hobby rocketry. 

Approximately 175 comments 

recommended specific changes to the 

proposed regulation. For example, many 

commenters stated that the proposed 

regulation should be revised to exempt 

from regulation model rocket motors 

consisting of ammonium perchlorate 

composite propellant, black powder, or 

non-detonable rocket propellant and 

designed as single-use motors or as 

reload kits, as well as commercially 

manufactured black powder in 

quantities not to exceed two pounds, 

safety and pyrotechnic fuses, quick and 

slow matches, electric matches and 

igniters when used in model rocket 

motors. This suggestion is similar to the 

proposals contained in Senate Bill 724, 

introduced during the 108th Congress 

by Senator Michael Enzi. 

Other commenters argued that there 

should be an exemption for black 

powder in small quantities, e.g., two 

pounds, for use in model rocket ejection 

systems, i.e., to deploy the parachute. 

Two commenters recommended that the 

proposed regulation be revised to 

exempt model rocket motors designed 

as single use and reload kits consisting 

of APCP, black powder, or other similar 

propellant purchased for hobby and 

educational use by persons (and 

organizations) who have successfully 

completed the certification processes 

offered by the National Association of 

Rocketry, Tripoli Rocketry Association, 

or similar organizations. 

Two other commenters suggested that 

the proposed regulation should be 

revised to exempt any size rocket motor 

or propellant reload, except those 

materials which present such a hazard 

of accidental explosion as to be suitable 

for classification as ‘‘UN Class 1 

Division 1.1 or 1.2 Hazardous 

materials,’’ or any material used as a 

propulsive or explosive charge in a 

rocket that qualifies as a ‘‘destructive 

device’’ as defined in 18 U.S.C. 

44.92(a)(4)(iii). One commenter 

recommended that the proposed 

regulation be revised to exempt model 

rocket motors classified by the 

Department of Transportation as Class 

1.4 explosives, since United Nations 

hazard Class 1.4 replaces the former 

Class C explosive designation. Another 

commenter stated that the proposed 

regulation needed to be revised to 

clarify the phrase ‘‘or other similar low 

explosives.’’ The commenter stated that 

it was not clear whether the word 

‘‘similar’’ means similar in chemical 

composition, method of operation, or 

similar in ability to lift large payloads. 

Department Response 

The Department has considered the 

comments that request the proposal be 

amended. Based upon the present 

language of Federal explosives law, the 

Department does not believe that the 

proposed regulation should be amended 

in the manner suggested by the 

commenters. 

ATF is familiar with the commenters’

proposed language that seeks to 

establish additional exemptions: Model 

rocket motors consisting of ammonium 

perchlorate composite propellant, black 

powder, or non-detonable rocket 

propellant and designed as single-use 

motors or as reload kits, as well as 

commercially manufactured black 

powder in quantities not to exceed two 

pounds, safety and pyrotechnic fuses, 

quick and slow matches, electric 

matches and igniters when used in 

model rocket motors. This suggestion 

mirrors language in Senate Bill 724, 

introduced by Senator Michael Enzi in 

March 2003. The bill was not enacted 

and will have to be reintroduced before 

Congress may consider it. The 

Department believes that expanding the 

current exemption, even for the sole 

purpose of hobby rocketry, will harm 

homeland security by providing 

terrorists and other criminals with 

unrestricted access to rocket motors 

containing large amounts of explosive 

material. The Department believes this 

to be an unnecessary and unacceptable 

risk in the current security environment. 

Moreover, allowing exemptions only for 

fuses and igniters, as opposed to nonexempt rocket motors, would be 

impossible to implement, as the same 

types of fuses and igniters are used for 

both large and small rocket motors, as 

well as commercial explosives and 

blasting operations. Additionally, there 

would be no mechanism to ensure that 

only rocketry hobbyists or others with 

lawful intentions will be able to avail 

themselves of the exemption. If the 

exemption were to be expanded as 

suggested by the commenters, it would 

become very easy for terrorists or other 

criminals to acquire large rocket motors, 

fuses, igniters, and other materials for 

use in bombs and/or for use in rockets. 

The proposal to include an exemption 

for up to two pounds of black powder 

for use in model rocket ejections is not 

being adopted in this final rule. As 

explained previously, the exemption for 

black powder was enacted by Congress 

and not as a regulatory exemption. The 

Department declines to add this 

exemption to the final rule. 

Accordingly, the Department 

recommends that commenters on this 

issue seek legislation. 

The Department also believes it is 

unnecessary to revise the language in 

the regulation to clarify the meaning of 

‘‘or other similar low explosives.’’ In the 

context of this regulation, this language 

refers to rocket propellants classified as 

low explosives that perform in a similar 

manner to those specifically listed as 

low explosives, i.e., ammonium 

perchlorate composite propellant and 

black powder. To the extent the 

commenter is suggesting that the 

Department list each and every low 

explosive propellant that could 

conceivably be used in rockets, the 

Department believes this would create 

an unnecessarily lengthy regulatory 

exemption that would not improve its 

clarity. It is not the purpose of the 

regulations to address each and every 

chemical compound that might be used 

in a rocket motor and that performs in 

a manner similar to those explosives 

listed in the regulation. The propellants 

that are specifically listed are those 

currently used in commercially 

available rocket motors. It is 

unnecessary to list each and every 

possible low explosive that may be used 

now or in the future as rocket 

propellants. Any person wishing a 

determination on a particular rocket 

propellant and whether it fits within the 

exemption may submit a written request 

for a letter ruling to ATF’s Arson and 

Explosives Programs Division. 

The purpose of the Federal explosives 

controls, as expressed by Congress, is to 

‘‘protect interstate and foreign 

commerce against interference and 

interruption by reducing the hazard to 

persons and property arising from 

misuse and unsafe or insecure storage of 

explosive materials.’’ In 2002, with the 

enactment of the Safe Explosives Act, 

Congress also extended ATF’s 

permitting authority to require all 

persons wishing to obtain explosives to 

obtain permits thereby allowing ATF to 

perform background checks on all 

applicants. The legislation sought to 

ensure proper handling and storage 

procedures and prevent mishandling 

and misuse of explosives. House Report 

No. 107–658 107th Cong. 2d Sess. Sept. 

17, 2002. The Department believes the 

controls imposed by this final rule are 

reasonable and consistent with the 

purposes of the 1970 Act and the 

congressional intent expressed with 

passage of the SEA. 

VII. Request for Hearings 

Fifteen (15) comments requested that 

ATF hold public hearings on the 

proposed regulations set forth in Notice 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 46099 

No. 968. Most commenters contended 

that holding public hearings would 

provide the explosive and model 

rocketry industries an opportunity to 

present additional information 

regarding the complex proposals made 

in the proposed rule. They further stated 

that such hearings would provide other 

interested parties, including model 

rocket hobbyists, an opportunity to 

present their views ‘‘and allow time for 

BATFE to respond to our questions.’’

Generally, ATF’s public hearings are 

conducted to permit the public to 

participate in rulemaking by affording 

interested parties the chance to present 

oral presentation of data, views, or 

arguments. After careful consideration, 

the Director has determined that the 

holding of public hearings with respect 

to the model rocket proposal is 

unnecessary and unwarranted. First, 

while the Director acknowledges that 

the proposals made in Notice No. 968 

were numerous and complex, this final 

rule addresses only the proposal relating 

to model rocket motors. In addition, 

most commenters who addressed the 

model rocket motor proposal expressed 

similar views and raised similar 

objections and concerns. As such, the 

Director believes that the holding of 

public hearings would not produce any 

new information on this issue. Finally, 

contrary to the views expressed by the 

commenters, the purpose of a public 

hearing is to afford the public the 

opportunity to participate in rulemaking 

by presenting data, opinions, etc. It is 

not the proper forum for responding to 

interested parties’ questions. 

A determination as to whether 

hearings will be held on the remaining 

proposals in Notice No. 968 will be 

made by the Director at a later date. 

How This Document Complies With the 

Federal Administrative Requirements 

for Rulemaking 

A. Executive Order 12866 

This rule has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ section 1(b), Principles of 

Regulation. The Department of Justice 

has determined that this rule is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

accordingly this rule has been reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. However, this rule will not have 

an annual effect on the economy of $100 

million, nor will it adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health, or 

safety, or State, local or tribal 

governments or communities. 

Accordingly, this rule is not an 

‘‘economically significant’’ rulemaking 

as defined by Executive Order 12866. 

This final rule is deregulating in 

nature. It merely clarifies ATF’s longstanding position that hobby rocket 

motors containing 62.5 grams or less of 

explosive propellant are exempt from 

regulation. The exemption is intended 

to mitigate the impact of compliance 

with Federal law by allowing persons 

who acquire and store motors 

containing 62.5 grams or less of 

propellant to continue to enjoy their 

hobby on an exempt basis. The 62.5- 

gram exemption threshold covers the 

vast majority (more than 90 percent) of 

all rocket motors acquired and used by 

hobbyists in the United States. Thus, 

persons dealing in or acquiring motors 

containing no more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant will not be subject to the cost 

of obtaining a Federal license (e.g., an 

initial fee of $200 for obtaining a 

dealer’s license for a 3-year period; $100 

renewal fee for a 3-year period) or 

permit (an initial fee of $100 for 

obtaining a user permit for a 3-year 

period; $50 renewal fee for a 3-year 

period). Moreover, because of the 

exemption for rocket motors containing 

62.5 grams or less of propellant, such 

persons are not subject to the storage 

requirements of Federal explosives law 

and regulations for their rocket motors. 

Without the 62.5 gram exemption, a 

typical rocket motor otherwise would be 

required to be stored in a type 4 

magazine (costing approximately $300) 

because of the explosives contained in 

the motor. The cost for two 3⁄8-inch 

diameter shackle locks for the storage 

magazine is approximately $56. 

Retailers who distribute the rockets 

will also avoid certain obligations that 

apply to the regulated explosives 

industry, such as storage standards, 

recordkeeping requirements, licensing 

and inspection by ATF. 

Rocket motors containing more than 

62.5 grams of propellant will continue 

to be regulated by ATF. ATF estimates 

that approximately 300 individuals 

currently participating in the rocketry 

hobby will stop doing so as a result of 

the final rule. ATF further estimates that 

approximately 60 rocketry hobbyists 

who use rocket motors containing more 

than 62.5 grams of explosive propellant 

will obtain a Federal permit and 

purchase a type 4 explosives magazine, 

while an additional 100 rocketry clubs 

will obtain a Federal permit and obtain 

an explosives magazine. ATF estimates 

that the total impact of the final rule is 

approximately $606,000. This figure is 

based on an examination of local 

economics, small businesses, and 

magazine and permitting requirements, 

as discussed below. 

Local Economic Analysis 

Based on historical data, NAR 

estimates that there are 1,000 model 

rocket launches annually, typically for a 

period of two days per launch, with 

each launch attracting 30 flyers. The 

commenter stated that an additional 60 

participants would attend each launch 

as supporters, family members, or 

spectators. As a result of the proposed 

regulation, ATF estimates that there 

would be 10 percent fewer people 

attending each launch. Therefore, based 

on an average cost for meals and 

lodging, ATF estimates that the local 

economic impact associated with the 

proposed rule would be approximately 

$480,000 annually. 

Small Business Analysis 

In its comment, NAR stated that it 

maintains a database of manufacturer 

contact information for the rocketry 

hobby. From that database, the 

commenter estimates that, at any given 

time, there are 200 commercial entities 

providing support to model rocketeers 

nationwide in the form of parts, 

materials, motors, and launch 

accessories. Assuming each such 

manufacturer realizes annual sales of 

$50,000, NAR stated that those 

commercial entities provide an annual 

economic benefit to the U.S. economy of 

approximately $10 million. ATF does 

not anticipate the significant drop in 

participation that NAR assumes. As 

previously explained, the permitting 

and storage requirements are not so 

burdensome or expensive as to drive a 

large number of participants out of the 

hobby. 

ATF estimates that the final rule will 

result in a drop in rocket motor and 

other rocketry-related sales of .5 

percent, resulting in an annual small 

business economic impact of 

approximately $50,000. 

Magazine and Permitting Cost 

Requirements 

ATF estimates that 60 additional 

rocketry hobbyists and 100 rocketry 

clubs will obtain a permit from ATF and 

purchase a storage magazine for their 

high-power rocket motors. ATF 

estimates the permitting costs for the 

hobbyists and the rocketry clubs to be 

approximately $19,200, including the 

fee and photo and fingerprinting 

services. The cost of 160 type 4 

explosives magazines is approximately 

$48,000 and the cost of two 3⁄8-inch 

diameter locks ($56) for the 160 

magazines is $8,960. Collectively, for 

the 160 affected individuals/rocketry 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
46100 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

clubs, the economic cost to comply with 

the permitting and storage requirements 

is approximately $76,160. 

B. Executive Order 13132 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the 

National Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, the Attorney General has 

determined that this regulation does not 

have sufficient federalism implications 

to warrant the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

C. Executive Order 12988 

This regulation meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 605(b)) requires an agency to 

conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis 

of any rule subject to notice and 

comment rulemaking requirements 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. The Attorney General has 

reviewed this regulation and, by 

approving it, certifies that this rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. This rule clarifies ATF’s longstanding policy exempting certain 

model rocket motors from the 

requirements of part 555. The rule 

provides an exemption from the 

requirements of part 555 for model 

rocket motors consisting of ammonium 

perchlorate composite propellant, black 

powder, or other similar low explosives; 

containing no more than 62.5 grams of 

total propellant weight; and designed as 

single-use motors or as reload kits 

capable of reloading no more than 62.5 

grams of propellant into a reusable 

motor casing. 

Without the exemption, all retailers, 

hobby, game and toy stores that 

distribute and store rocket motors 

containing not more than 62.5 grams of 

explosive would be obligated to obtain 

Federal explosives licenses and comply 

with all regulatory, recordkeeping and 

inspection requirements. 

The Department believes that the final 

rule will not have a significant impact 

on small businesses. The 62.5-gram 

exemption threshold covers the vast 

majority (more than 90 percent) of all 

rocket motors acquired and used by 

hobbyists in the United States. Thus, 

persons dealing in or acquiring motors 

containing no more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant will not be subject to the cost 

of obtaining a Federal license (e.g., an 

initial fee of $200 for obtaining a 

dealer’s license for a 3-year period; $100 

renewal fee for a 3-year period) or 

permit (an initial fee of $100 for 

obtaining a user permit for a 3-year 

period; $50 renewal fee for a 3-year 

period). Moreover, because of the 

exemption for rocket motors containing 

62.5 grams or less of propellant, such 

persons are not subject to the storage 

requirements of Federal explosives law 

and regulations for their rocket motors. 

Without the 62.5 gram exemption, all 

rocket motors containing explosive 

material would be required to be stored 

in a type 4 magazine (costing 

approximately $300) with adequate 

locks (costing approximately $56). With 

the exemption, only motors with more 

than 62.5 grams of propellant must be 

stored in compliant magazines and 

appropriately secured. 

The Department estimates that 

approximately 300 high-power rocketry 

hobbyists currently participating in the 

sport will stop doing so as a result of the 

final rule. Based on the comments, this 

figure represents approximately three 

percent of the total number of rocketry 

hobbyists who use rocket motors 

containing more than 62.5 grams of 

explosive propellant. 

The Department believes that the 

impact on small businesses as a result 

of reduced participation in the rocketry 

hobby will be minimal. In its comment, 

NAR estimated that at any given time 

there are 200 commercial entities 

providing support to model rocketeers 

nationwide in the form of parts, 

materials, motors, and launch 

accessories. Assuming each such 

manufacturer realizes annual sales of 

$50,000, NAR stated that those 

commercial entities provide an annual 

economic benefit to the U.S. economy of 

approximately $10 million. As a result 

of the final rule, the Department 

estimates a drop in sales of .5 percent 

for small manufacturers supplying the 

rocketry hobby. Accordingly, the 

Department estimates the annual small 

business economic impact resulting 

from the final rule to be approximately 

$50,000. 

E. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 251 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This 

rule will not result in an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more; a major increase in costs or prices; 

or significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule does not impose any 

new reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

Disclosure 

Copies of the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM), all comments 

received in response to the NPRM, and 

this final rule will be available for 

public inspection by appointment 

during normal business hours at: ATF 

Reference Library, Room 6480, 650 

Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20226, telephone (202) 

927–7890. 

Drafting Information 

The author of this document is James 

P. Ficaretta; Enforcement Programs and 

Services; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 555 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Authority delegations, 

Customs duties and inspection, 

Explosives, Hazardous materials, 

Imports, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Safety, 

Security measures, Seizures and 

forfeitures, Transportation, and 

Warehouses. 

Authority and Issuance 

■ Accordingly, for the reasons discussed 

in the preamble, 27 CFR part 555 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 555–COMMERCE IN 

EXPLOSIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for 27 CFR 

part 555 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 847. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 46101 

■ 2. Section 555.141 is amended by 

adding new paragraph (a)(10) to read as 

follows: 

§ 555.141 Exemptions. 

(a) * * * 

(10) Model rocket motors that meet all 

of the following criteria—

(i) Consist of ammonium perchlorate 

composite propellant, black powder, or 

other similar low explosives; 

(ii) Contain no more than 62.5 grams 

of total propellant weight; and 

(iii) Are designed as single-use motors 

or as reload kits capable of reloading no 

more than 62.5 grams of propellant into 

a reusable motor casing. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 7, 2006. 

Paul J. McNulty, 

Acting Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 06–6862 Filed 8–10–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD01–06–102] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; R. Ozzie Wedding 

Fireworks Display, Manchester By The 

Sea, MA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone for 

the R. Ozzie Wedding Fireworks display 

on August 12, 2006 in Manchester By 

The Sea, MA, temporarily closing all 

waters in the vicinity of Manchester Bay 

and Manchester Harbor within a four 

hundred (400) yard radius of the 

fireworks barge located at approximate 

position 42°50.00′ N, 070°47.00′ W. This 

zone is necessary to protect the 

maritime public from the potential 

hazards posed by a fireworks display. 

The safety zone temporarily prohibits 

entry into or movement within this 

portion of Manchester Bay and 

Manchester Harbor during its closure 

period, unless authorized by the Captain 

of the Port, Boston, MA. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. 

EDT on August 12, 2006 until 10:15 

p.m. EDT on August 12, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket CGD01–06–

102 and are available for inspection or 

copying at Sector Boston, 427 

Commercial Street, Boston, MA, 

between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chief Petty Officer Paul English, Sector 

Boston, Waterways Management 

Division, at (617) 223–5456. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

We did not publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 

regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the 

Coast Guard finds that good cause exists 

for not publishing an NPRM because the 

logistics with respect to the fireworks 

presentation were not presented to the 

Coast Guard with sufficient time to draft 

and publish an NPRM. Any delay 

encountered in this regulation’s 

effective date would be contrary to the 

public interest since the safety zone is 

needed to prevent traffic from transiting 

a portion of Manchester Bay and 

Manchester Harbor during the fireworks 

display and to provide for the safety of 

life on navigable waters. 

For the same reasons, the Coast Guard 

finds, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that 

good cause exists for making this rule 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. The 

zone should have a minimal negative 

impact on vessel transits in Manchester 

Bay and Manchester Harbor because 

vessels will be excluded from the area 

for only one and one quarter hours, and 

vessels can still safely operate in other 

areas of Manchester Bay and 

Manchester Harbor during the event. 

Background and Purpose 

The Ozzie Family is holding a 

fireworks display to celebrate a 

wedding. This rule establishes a 

temporary safety zone on the waters in 

the vicinity of Manchester Bay and 

Manchester Harbor within a four 

hundred (400) yard radius of the 

fireworks barge located at approximate 

position 42°50.00′ N, 070°47.00′ W. This 

safety zone is necessary to protect the 

life and property of the maritime public 

from the potential dangers posed by this 

event. It will protect the public by 

prohibiting entry into or movement 

within the proscribed portion of 

Manchester Bay and Manchester Harbor 

during the fireworks display. 

Marine traffic may transit safely 

outside of the zone during the effective 

period. The Captain of the Port does not 

anticipate any negative impact on vessel 

traffic due to this event. Public 

notifications will be made prior to and 

during the effective period via marine 

information broadcasts and Local Notice 

to Mariners. 

Discussion of Rule 

This rule is effective from 9 p.m. EDT 

on August 12, 2006 until 10:15 p.m. 

EDT on August 12, 2006. Marine traffic 

may transit safely outside of the safety 

zone in the majority of Manchester Bay 

and Manchester Harbor during the 

event. Given the limited time-frame of 

the effective period of the zone, and the 

actual size of the zone relative to the 

amount of navigable water around it, the 

Captain of the Port anticipates minimal 

negative impact on vessel traffic due to 

this event. Public notifications will be 

made prior to and during the effective 

period via Local Notice to Mariners and 

marine information broadcasts. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this rule to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory evaluation is unnecessary. 

Although this rule will prevent traffic 

from transiting a portion of Manchester 

Bay and Manchester Harbor during this 

event, the effect of this rule will not be 

significant for several reasons: Vessels 

will be excluded from the area of the 

safety zone for only one and one quarter 

hours; although vessels will not be able 

to transit the area in the vicinity of the 

zone, they will be able to safely operate 

in other areas of Manchester Bay and 

Manchester Harbor during the effective 

period; and advance notifications will 

be made to the local maritime 

community by marine information 

broadcasts and Local Notice to 

Mariners. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule will affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES