1878 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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 478 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Arms and ammunition, 

Authority delegations, Customs duties 

and inspection, Domestic violence, 

Exports, Imports, Law enforcement 

personnel, Military personnel, Penalties, 

Reporting requirements, Research, 

Seizures and forfeitures, and 

Transportation. 

Authority and Issuance 

■ Accordingly, for the reasons discussed 

in the preamble, 27 CFR part 478 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS 

AND AMMUNITION 

■ 1. The authority citation for 27 CFR 

part 478 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 847, 

921–931; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h). 

§ 478.71 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 478.71 is amended by 

removing ‘‘of Industry Operations’’ in 

the first sentence. 

§ 478.72 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 478.72 is amended by 

removing ‘‘of Industry Operations’’ in 

the fifth sentence and by removing 

‘‘Director of Industry Operations’’ in the 

sixth sentence and adding in its place 

‘‘Director’s’’. 

§ 478.73 [Amended] 

■ 4. Section 478.73 is amended by 

removing ‘‘of Industry Operations’’ 

wherever it appears. 

§ 478.74 [Amended] 

■ 5. Section 478.74 is amended by 

removing ‘‘of Industry Operations’’ in 

the fourth sentence. 

§ 478.76 [Amended] 

■ 6. Section 478.76 is amended by 

removing ‘‘of Industry Operations’’ 

wherever it appears. 

§ 478.78 [Amended] 

■ 7. Section 478.78 is amended by 

removing ‘‘of Industry Operations’’ in 

the last sentence. 

Dated: January 7, 2009. 

Michael B. Mukasey, 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. E9–527 Filed 1–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives 

27 CFR Part 555 

[Docket No. ATF 10F; AG Order No. 3032– 

2009] 

RIN 1140–AA24 

Commerce in Explosives—Amended 

Definition of ‘‘Propellant Actuated 

Device’’ (2004R–3P) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives, Department of 

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 

term ‘‘propellant actuated device’’ does 

not include hobby rocket motors or 

rocket-motor reload kits consisting of or 

containing ammonium perchlorate 

composite propellant (‘‘APCP’’), black 

powder, or other similar low explosives. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 

13, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James P. Ficaretta; Enforcement 

Programs and Services; Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives; U.S. Department of Justice; 

99 New York Avenue, NE., Washington, 

DC 20226, telephone: 202–648–7094. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

ATF is responsible for implementing 

Title XI of the Organized Crime Control 

Act of 1970 (codified at 18 U.S.C. ch. 

40) (‘‘Title XI’’). One of the stated 

purposes of that Act is to reduce the 

hazards to persons and property arising 

from misuse and unsafe or insecure 

storage of explosive materials. Under 

section 847 of title 18, United States 

Code, 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 27 CFR part 555 (‘‘Commerce in 

Explosives’’). 

Section 841(d) of title 18, United 

States Code, sets forth the definition of 

‘‘explosives.’’ ‘‘Propellant actuated 

devices,’’ along with gasoline, 

fertilizers, and propellant actuated 

industrial tools manufactured, 

imported, or distributed for their 

intended purposes, are exempted from 

this statutory definition by 27 CFR 

555.141(a)(8). 

When Title XI was enacted by 

Congress in 1970, the Judiciary 

Committee of the United States House of 

Representatives specifically considered 

and supported an exception for 

propellant actuated devices. H.R. Rep. 

No. 91–1549, at 64 (1970), as reprinted 

in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4007, 4041. 

Neither the statute nor the legislative 

history defines ‘‘propellant actuated 

device.’’ In 1981, however, ATF added 

the following definition of ‘‘propellant 

actuated device’’ to its regulations: 

‘‘[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.’’ 27 CFR 555.11. 

In applying the regulatory definition, 

ATF has classified certain products as 

propellant actuated devices. These 

products include aircraft slide inflation 

cartridges, inflatable automobile 

occupant restraint systems, nail guns, 

and diesel and jet engine starter 

cartridges. 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(‘‘NPRM’’) 

On August 11, 2006, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice proposing to amend the 

regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to 

clarify that the term ‘‘propellant 

actuated device’’ does not include 

hobby rocket motors or rocket-motor 

reload kits consisting of or containing 

ammonium perchlorate composite 

propellant, black powder, or other 

similar low explosives. See Commerce 

in Explosives—Amended Definition of 

‘‘Propellant Actuated Device,’’ 71 FR 

46174 (Aug. 11, 2006) (‘‘Notice No. 

9P’’). ATF engaged in rulemaking with 

regard to this issue because on March 

19, 2004, the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia found 

that ATF has in the past advanced 

inconsistent positions regarding the 

application of the propellant actuated 

device exemption to hobby rocket 

motors. ATF issued two related letters 

in 1994 that could be interpreted as 

taking the position that a fully 

assembled rocket motor would be 

considered a propellant actuated device 

if the rocket motor contained no more 

than 62.5 grams (2.2 ounces) of 

propellant material and produced less 

than 80 newton-seconds (17.92 pound 

seconds) of total impulse with thrust 

duration not less than 0.050 second. 

Prior to assembly, the letters observed, 

the propellant, irrespective of the 

quantity, would not be exempt as a 

propellant actuated device. 

The 1994 letters are confusing in that 

they can be interpreted to intertwine the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1879 

separate and distinct issues of the 

‘‘propellant actuated device’’ exemption 

found in section 555.141(a)(8) and the 

long-standing ATF policy exempting 

rocket motors containing 62.5 grams or 

less of propellant that has its roots in 

the exemption then found at 27 CFR 

55.141(a)(7). Had these 1994 letters been 

drafted to reflect accurately ATF’s 

interpretation of the regulations in 

existence at the time, they would have 

indicated that sport rocket motors were 

not propellant actuated devices for 

purposes of the regulatory exemption 

found in section 55.141(a)(8), but 

instead that motors containing 62.5 

grams or less of propellant were exempt 

from regulation pursuant to the 

exemption for ‘‘toy propellant devices’’ 

then found at section 55.141(a)(7). 

Although the ‘‘toy propellant device’’ 

exemption was removed from the 

regulations and, due to administrative 

error, was not replaced as intended with 

a specific reference to the 62.5-gram 

threshold, ATF continued to treat hobby 

rocket motors containing 62.5 grams or 

less of propellant as exempt from 

regulation as clearly set forth in a 2000 

letter to counsel for the National 

Association of Rocketry and the Tripoli 

Rocketry Association, Inc. The 

Department notes that the 

administrative error mentioned above, 

relating to the 62.5-gram exemption 

threshold for hobby rocket motors, has 

been corrected and was the subject of 

another rulemaking proceeding. See 

Commerce in Explosives—Hobby 

Rocket Motors, 71 FR 46079 (Aug. 11, 

2006). That final rule specifically 

provided an exemption for model rocket 

motors that: (1) Consist of ammonium 

perchlorate composite propellant, black 

powder, or other similar low explosives; 

(2) contain no more than 62.5 grams of 

total propellant weight; and (3) 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. 27 CFR 

555.141(a)(10). 

To remedy any perceived 

inconsistency and to clarify ATF’s 

policy, the proposed rule set forth an 

amended regulatory definition 

specifically stating that hobby rocket 

motors and rocket-motor reload kits 

consisting of or containing APCP, black 

powder, or other similar low explosives, 

regardless of amount, do not fall within 

the ‘‘propellant actuated device’’ 

exception and are subject to all 

applicable federal explosives controls 

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

regulations in 27 CFR part 555, and 

applicable ATF policy. As proposed, the 

term ‘‘propellant actuated device’’ read 

as follows: 

Propellant actuated device. (a) Any tool or 

special mechanized device or gas generator 

system that is actuated by a propellant or 

which releases and directs work through a 

propellant charge. 

(b) The term does not include— 

(1) Hobby rocket motors consisting of 

ammonium perchlorate composite 

propellant, black powder, or other similar 

low explosives, regardless of amount; and 

(2) Rocket-motor reload kits that can be 

used to assemble hobby rocket motors 

containing ammonium perchlorate composite 

propellant, black powder, or other similar 

low explosives, regardless of amount. 

The Department noted in Notice No. 

9P that implementation of the proposed 

amendment is important to public safety 

and consistent regulatory enforcement 

efforts. In addition, the proposed rule 

confirmed the position that hobby 

rocket motors are not exempt from 

federal explosives regulation, pursuant 

to the propellant actuated device 

exception. The proposed rule also 

clarified that hobby rocket motors 

cannot legally be classified as propellant 

actuated devices due to the nature of 

their design and function. 

The comment period for Notice No. 

9P closed on November 9, 2006. 

III. Analysis of Comments and Final 

Rule 

ATF received 275 comments in 

response to Notice No. 9P. Comments 

were submitted by sport rocketry 

hobbyists, permittees, one hobby shop 

owner, two sport rocketry organizations 

(the National Association of Rocketry 

and Tripoli Rocketry Association), and 

others. 

In its comment (Comment No. 261), 

the National Association of Rocketry 

(‘‘NAR’’) stated that it is a non-profit 

scientific organization dedicated to 

safety, education, and the advancement 

of technology in the hobby of sport 

rocketry 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 4,700 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. Ninety-eight 

comments expressed specific support 

for NAR’s position as set forth in its 

comments in response to Notice No. 9P. 

According to its Web site (http:// 

www.tripoli.org/), the Tripoli Rocketry 

Association (‘‘TRA’’) (Comment No. 

219) is an organization dedicated to the 

advancement and operation of amateur 

high-power rocketry. Its members are 

drawn from the United States and 22 

other countries. 

In general, the commenters expressed 

opposition to the proposed definition of 

‘‘propellant actuated device’’ (‘‘PAD’’), 

arguing that hobby rocket motors are 

PADs. Their reasons for objecting to the 

proposed rule are discussed below. 

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). 

‘‘Propellant actuated devices,’’ along 

with gasoline, fertilizers, and propellant 

actuated industrial tools manufactured, 

imported, or distributed for their 

intended purposes, are exempted from 

this statutory definition by 27 CFR 

555.141(a)(8). Approximately 40 

comments contended that rocket motors 

and rocket propellants (including APCP) 

are not explosives. These commenters 

also contended that, even if rocket 

motors and rocket propellants are 

explosives, they are propellant actuated 

devices and exempt from regulation. 

Some of the arguments raised by the 

commenters to support their position 

include the following: 

• [APCP] only burns at a rate which 

is[,] in mm/second, far below that which 

is even considered deflagration. 

(Comment No. 54) 

• Hobby rocket motors and reloadable 

motor propellant grains are not designed 

to explode. Scientific and engineering 

tests and references confirm that the 

propellants do not detonate or have a 

burn rate consistent with explosives. 

(Comment No. 82) 

• Ammonium perchlorate/hydroxyterminated polybutene propellant does 

not function via explosion but rather by 

burning at a rate of ∼ 0.1′′/second and 

therefore does not meet the definition of 

an explosive. Explosives have much 

higher burn rates. (Comment No. 203) 

• APCP does not function by 

explosion, but by the generation of gases 

through controlled burning. Recent tests 

by the BATFE [Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or 

ATF] have indicated that the burn rate 

of APCP is approximately 36–143 mm/ 

sec, though its testing should 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
1880 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

concentrate on the actual formulation of 

APCP used in hobby rocketry, which 

burns at a much slower rate. The actual 

burn rate of APCP used in hobby and 

high-powered rocketry would more 

closely resemble that of a road flare and 

is similar to that of common bond paper 

(4–56 mm/sec). (Comment No. 257) 

Department Response 

As stated above, the federal 

explosives laws define the term 

‘‘explosives’’ as ‘‘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.’’ In order to provide 

guidance to the public, and in 

compliance with 27 CFR 555.23, ATF 

maintains and publishes a list of 

explosive materials classified in 

accordance with the statutory 

definition. Rocket motors generally 

contain the explosive materials APCP, 

black powder and/or other similar low 

explosives. These materials are on the 

‘‘List of Explosive Materials.’’ However, 

there has been some debate regarding 

the validity of including APCP on the 

list. 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, 

Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives, 337 F. Supp. 

2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004). The district court 

held that ATF’s decision to classify 

APCP as a deflagrating explosive was 

permissible. Id. at 9. In February 2006, 

the District of Columbia Circuit Court of 

Appeals disagreed with the district 

court on this issue, because in its view 

ATF failed to provide sufficient 

justification to support its classification 

with a specific, articulated standard for 

deflagration. Tripoli Rocketry Ass’n, Inc. 

v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives, 437 F. 3d 75 

(D.C. Cir. 2006). The circuit court 

declined to set aside the classification, 

and APCP thus remains on the ‘‘List of 

Explosive Materials’’ that ATF is 

obligated to maintain. Id. at 84. The case 

was remanded to the district court so 

that ATF may reconsider the matter and 

offer an explanation for whatever 

conclusion it ultimately reaches. ATF 

submitted the requested information, 

including test data results, to the United 

States District Court for review. Pending 

the outcome of this case, APCP remains 

an explosive and continues to be 

regulated as such. 

2. The Proposed Rule Holds Hobby 

Rocket Motors to a Different Standard 

than Other Products Classified as PADs 

by ATF 

Approximately 40 commenters 

indicated that ATF’s assertion that 

hobby rocket motors should not be 

classified as PADs is arbitrary. Some 

commenters contended that the same 

arguments used by ATF to disqualify 

hobby rocket motors as PADs can apply 

to other products that ATF has 

classified as propellant actuated 

devices. Other commenters noted that 

the proposed rule failed to explain 

ATF’s process by which devices such as 

nail guns, aircraft slide inflation 

cartridges, etc., warranted classification 

as PADs. The following excerpts 

represent the views of most of the 

commenters: 

By BATFE’s rationale that the ‘‘rocket 

motor itself’’ is not a device because it cannot 

perform its function until installed, the 

propellant charges for a nail gun, (or for that 

matter, an air bag or aircraft escape slide 

inflator), prior to their installation in the nail 

gun (or air bag or aircraft slide), would 

likewise not be PADs. Yet they are exempt 

as PADs. BATFE’s determination that a nail 

gun reload is exempt, but a rocket motor is 

not, is therefore arbitrary and capricious. 

(Comment No. 70) 

The [NPRM] further mischaracterizes a 

rocket motor and confuses the definition of 

a PAD. By the convoluted logic of the 

[NPRM], accepted propellant actuated 

devices like ‘‘nail guns’’ used to drive 

concrete anchors, diesel and jet engine starter 

cartridges, and aircraft slide inflation 

cartridges would not meet the definition 

either. In those ‘‘tools,’’ the ‘‘propellant’’ 

portion of the tool is even simpler than a 

rocket engine. If you consider the whole tool, 

i.e. the propellant containing device and the 

‘‘tool’’ * * * you must consider the whole of 

the rocket as the tool and not just the 

propellant containing element. (Comment 

No. 182) 

You then state * * * ‘‘the hobby rocket 

motor is little more than propellant in a 

casing, incapable of performing its intended 

function until full installed (along with an 

ignition system).’’ I wish to point out that 

this statement is also true for aircraft slide 

inflation cartridges and diesel and jet engine 

starter cartridges as they are also incapable of 

performing their intended function until 

fully installed in a diesel or jet engine or 

aircraft slide. So are these items not PADs, 

if we apply the same strictures that have been 

applied to model rocket motors? (Comment 

No. 199) 

Part of the argument used in the proposed 

rule states that ‘‘the hobby rocket motor is, 

in essence, simply the propellant that 

actuates the hobby rocket, and * * * cannot 

be construed to constitute a propellant 

actuated device.’’ The same line of reasoning 

can easily be applied to any item in which 

the object containing the propellant is 

separate from the rest of the device, such as 

a nail gun cartridge or an automotive airbag 

deployment device. Therefore, the agency’s 

assertion that hobby rocket motors should 

not be considered as PADs is arbitrary and 

inconsistent with other devices that operate 

in a similar fashion but are so considered. 

(Comment No. 219) 

Consider the following examples, where 

BATFE’s reasoning outlined in the NPRM for 

hobby rocket motors is applied to other 

devices cited by BATFE as qualifying as 

PAD[s]. 

The automobile airbag [aircraft slide 

inflation cartridge, jet engine starter 

cartridge] cannot be brought within the 

regulatory definition of propellant actuated 

device as a ‘‘tool’’ because it is neither 

‘‘handheld’’ nor a complete ‘‘device’’ and 

because it is not a metal-shaping machine or 

a part thereof. 

BATFE cannot simultaneously rule hobby 

rocket motors are not PADS yet declare other 

devices which function in exactly the same 

underlying manner as hobby rocket motors to 

be PADS. Any such attempt would be 

arbitrary, capricious or otherwise contrary to 

the statue [sic] underlying the PADS 

exemption mandated by Congress. (Comment 

No. 261) 

A search of the Federal Register * * * 

found no instances of notice and comment 

rulemaking regarding any propellant actuated 

device determinations. Specific searches for 

aircraft slide inflation cartridges, inflatable 

automobile occupant restraint systems, nail 

guns and diesel and jet engine starter 

cartridges, devices listed as meeting the 

PADS definition, returned no results. The 

NPRM is silent about how such devices 

warranted a PADS determination or how 

BATFE reached those conclusion[s.] 

However * * * it appears that BATFE’s PAD 

classification is completely arbitrary and 

results driven * * * (Comment No. 261) 

Department Response 

The Department’s position has been 

and continues to be that the term 

‘‘propellant actuated device’’ does not 

include rocket motors or rocket-reload 

kits containing APCP, black powder, or 

other similar low explosives. The 

definition of ‘‘propellant actuated 

device’’ in section 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.’’ It is 

not the intention of this rulemaking to 

evaluate other items that have been 

classified as propellant actuated 

devices. The intention of the rulemaking 

is to clarify the Department’s position 

that rocket motors and rocket motor kits 

are not exempt as propellant actuated 

devices. 

ATF individually reviews each 

request for a propellant actuated device 

determination, and the final decision is 

then relayed in written form to the 

requestor specifying the reasons for 

approval or denial. Each submission 

and response contains detailed and 

proprietary information on chemical 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1881 

compositions, system designs, and 

functionality, most of which may not be 

disclosed to outside entities. 

By way of illustration, an airbag 

inflation module is an example of an 

item that would fit the description of a 

propellant actuated device. ATF has 

exempted airbag modules as propellant 

actuated devices but has not exempted 

the propellant inside the gas-generation 

canister. The airbag module is a selfcontained unit that is deployed by an 

internal initiator or micro gas generator 

that receives an electronic pulse from a 

crash sensor. The propellant charge 

inside the unit is converted into a gas, 

which is then released to inflate the 

airbag cushion. ATF ruled that these 

fully assembled airbag modules 

constitute a gas-generating system. 

Other examples of items that would fit 

the description of propellant actuated 

devices would be assembled seatbelt 

pretensioner units and the aircraft 

parachute deployment devices 

referenced elsewhere in this 

rulemaking. 

3. Hobby Rocket Motors Meet the 

Current Definition of a PAD 

As defined in the current regulations, 

the term ‘‘propellant actuated device’’ 

means ‘‘[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.’’ As 

several commenters pointed out, there 

are six possible combinations that 

would meet the definition of a PAD: 

a. A tool which is actuated by a 

propellant; 

b. A tool which releases and directs 

work through a propellant charge; 

c. A special mechanized device which 

is actuated by a propellant; 

d. A special mechanized device 

which releases and directs work through 

a propellant charge; 

e. A gas generator system which is 

actuated by a propellant; or 

f. A gas generator system which 

releases and directs work through a 

propellant charge. 

In the proposed rule, ATF stated that 

the hobby rocket motor cannot be 

brought within the regulatory definition 

of propellant actuated device as a ‘‘tool’’ 

because it is neither ‘‘handheld’’ nor a 

complete ‘‘device’’ and because it is not 

a metal-shaping machine or a part 

thereof. Further, it cannot be considered 

to be a ‘‘special mechanized device’’ 

because, although clearly designed to 

serve a special purpose, it in no way 

functions as a mechanism. Finally, 

because it has no interacting mechanical 

or electrical components, the hobby 

rocket motor cannot be deemed to be a 

gas generator system. Therefore, a rocket 

motor does not meet the first prong of 

the definition of a PAD. It is noteworthy 

that a rocket’s flight is powered by a 

propellant, and in a sense, work is 

produced through a propellant charge. 

However, a rocket motor by itself 

accomplishes neither of these actions. 

Therefore, a rocket motor does not fit 

either of the descriptions in the second 

prong of the definition. 

In general, the commenters disagreed 

with ATF’s determination that hobby 

rocket motors are not PADs. Many 

commenters were critical of ATF’s use 

of a dictionary to define technical terms 

(e.g., ‘‘gas generator system’’), while 

other commenters criticized ATF for 

what they considered the agency’s 

selective use of the dictionary to define 

certain terms. Two commenters 

expressed concerns regarding ATF’s use 

of one dictionary (Merriam-Webster’s 

Collegiate Dictionary) as the sole source 

in defining terms. Following are 

excerpts from some of the comments: 

I was struck by the use of the MerriamWebster’s Collegiate Dictionary as the source 

for the definitions of ‘‘gas generator.’’ It is 

inappropriate to use a dictionary to define 

terms commonly used in a specialist field 

such as rocketry. A much better source is the 

7th edition of Rocket Propulsion Elements by 

George P. Sutton (the standard University 

propulsion course textbook) where you will 

see in the index ‘‘Gas generator; see also 

Liquid propellant rocket engine; Solid 

propellant rocket motor.’’ Without a doubt 

hobby rocket motors meet the definition of 

gas generators. (Comment No. 77) 

A common dictionary is insufficient to 

define the technical terms involved here; a 

science textbook would be more appropriate. 

(Comment No. 212) 

The definitions you employ are not wrong, 

but they are incomplete and therefore 

misleading because you ignore other equally 

valid definitions. (Comment No. 66) 

[T]he ATF has contrived to select the least 

pertinent part of Webster’s definition of 

‘‘tool.’’ It is utterly obvious that a ‘‘tool’’ 

[need] not necessarily be handheld; a 

Bridgeport Mill is a ‘‘tool,’’ but I defy any 

member of the ATF to ‘‘hold’’ one. Likewise 

‘‘cutting or shaping’’ and ‘‘machine for 

shaping metal’’ are ridiculously limiting 

statements; the large majority of tools do 

none of these tasks. Webster’s offers the 

synonym ‘‘implement’’ which is more 

appropriate, as ‘‘a device used in the 

performance of a task.’’ This definition 

encompasses all of the devices that the ATF 

has listed above as ‘‘propellant actuated 

devices.’’ None of those same devices, with 

the single exception of a handheld nailgun, 

would conform to any part of the ATF’s 

* * * definition of ‘‘tool.’’ (Comment No. 60) 

The primary definition of a tool in the 

Encarta dictionary is ‘‘a device for doing 

work.’’ Work by definition is the application 

of force through a distance. Force is in turn 

defined as the product of mass and 

acceleration. A rocket motor does work by 

accelerating the gases it generates through its 

nozzle, and it generates thrust whether or not 

it is installed in a rocket. (Comment No. 205) 

In the Supplemental Information listed in 

the Federal Register , there were a variety of 

definitions listed which seem to imply that 

rocket engines are not special mechanized 

devices, tools, or gas generators. The 

conclusion stated * * * is incorrect. Per 

Merriam-Webster’s On-Line Dictionary, 

Definition 2a clearly indicates that rocket 

motors can be considered tools. 

Definition 2A: ‘‘2a: something (as an 

instrument or apparatus) used in performing 

an operation or necessary in the practice of 

a vocation or profession.’’ 

Obviously, a rocket engine is an 

‘‘apparatus’’ (Webster definition: ‘‘1a: a set of 

materials or equipment designed for a 

particular use’’) It is used to perform the 

‘‘operation’’ (Webster definitions: ‘‘1: 

performance of a practical work or of 

something involving the practical application 

of principles or processes 2a: an exertion of 

power or influence’’) of lofting a rocket into 

the air and it is necessary for the practice of 

this ‘‘vocation’’ (model rocketry). (Comment 

No. 233) 

There is not, as far as I know, one 

particular dictionary that has been 

designated as the final arbiter on the meaning 

of all words in the English language. Over the 

years, many groups of learned scholars have 

labored long and hard to produce many fine 

dictionaries and associated references. These 

scholars recognize that, as a result of years 

of usage, many words have acquired a broad 

range of meanings, all of which must be 

considered when interpreting these words. 

(Comment No. 254) 

Many commenters argued that the 

hobby rocket motor meets at least one of 

the combinations of the PAD definition. 

The NAR (Comment No. 261) 

maintained that the hobby rocket motor 

meets all of the combinations of the 

PAD definition: 

The [PAD] definition consists of two parts, 

first a description of the kind of device 

employed [tool, special mechanized device, 

gas generator system] and secondly, a 

description of the means by which work is 

done by that device [actuated by a propellant; 

releases and directs work through a 

propellant charge]. Using these elements, 

there are six possible combinations which 

would meet the legal definition of a PAD. A 

rocket motor meets not one, but all three 

device definitions in the regulation. It is a 

tool because its sole purpose is to provide 

power for rockets. It’s a specialized 

mechanized device because it cannot be used 

for any purpose other than to propel rockets. 

It is a gas generator system because an 

exhaust gas is generated by all rocket motors. 

A rocket motor meets both types of motive 

work used in the regulatory definition. 

Clearly, rocket motors are actuated by 

propellant, and certainly release and direct 

work through a propellant charge. 

Following are excerpts from other 

comments: 

[T]he devices in question [hobby rocket 

motors] clearly do meet several and perhaps 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
1882 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

all of these six definitions. The point is made 

most clearly with respect to #5 and #6 [e and 

f, above]: A * * * rocket motor clearly is a 

gas generator system, it clearly is actuated by 

a propellant, and it clearly releases and 

directs work through a propellant charge. 

ATF’s argument to the contrary is simply 

false: ‘‘Finally, because it has no interacting 

mechanical or electrical components, the 

hobby rocket motor cannot be deemed to be 

a ‘gas generator system.’ ’’ A hobby rocket 

motor does have interacting mechanical 

components, including a carefully chosen 

nozzle, liners and often o-rings and washers 

to contain the pressure and protect outer 

casings, and various components designed to 

actuate the rocket’s recovery system safely 

* * * [O]ne cannot simply stuff propellant 

into a cylinder, as the ATF suggests, ignite 

it, and expect it to perform as a model rocket 

motor. Hence the devices in question do meet 

the fifth and sixth of the parts of the 

definition of ‘‘propellant actuated device.’’ 

(Comment No. 17) 

Without resorting to selective use of 

dictionary definitions, one can certainly 

argue that hobby rocket motors ‘‘generate 

gas.’’ That is in fact their main purpose. The 

propellant in the device generates gas, which 

is directed through a nozzle to release the 

energy (work) of the expanding gas in a 

specific direction to thrust the rocket 

forward. (Comment No. 24) 

The argument that a hobby rocket motor is 

not a ‘‘gas generator system which * * * 

releases and directs work through a 

propellant charge’’ is also patently false. A 

solid-propellant rocket motor is one of the 

simplest machines known to science, and it 

operates by burning its propellant charge to 

generate copious quantities of gas under 

pressure, which the other parts of the 

mechanism (such as the combustion chamber 

and nozzle) work on to produce mechanical 

energy of motion by confining, directing, and 

accelerating the gas flow. The solid 

propellant rocket motor is the simplest, most 

straightforward example of a device that 

directs work derived from the burning of a 

propellant charge. (Comment No. 28) 

A rocket motor is precisely a ‘‘group of 

interacting or interdependent mechanical 

and/or electrical components that generates 

gas,’’ which is the very definition of ‘‘gas 

generator system’’ developed in the BATFE 

NPRM. A rocket motor has at least two and 

often three interacting components: (1) The 

combustion or pressure chamber in which 

the propellant charge is contained and within 

which it burns, generating gas; (2) the 

deLaval converging-diverging nozzle 

assembly which converts the thermal energy 

of the propellant gas that the combustion 

chamber generates into directed kinetic 

energy; and (3) in most motor designs, a 

mechanical-pyrotechnic system of the 

opposite end of the pressure chamber that 

actuates a recovery device. The rocket motor 

‘‘releases and directs work’’ (BATFE 

definition of a PAD) in its normal operation: 

the precise technical definition of work is the 

application of force across distance, and the 

rocket motor delivers force (propulsive 

thrust) to an object (the rocket airframe) 

which is directed along and travels across a 

distance (in flight, directed by its 

aerodynamic stabilization system). Thus a 

rocket motor is a gas generator system that 

directs work. Therefore, it is by BATFE’s own 

definitions, a propellant actuated device. 

(Comment No. 63) 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges that 

words have numerous definitions, many 

of which vary between dictionaries. The 

argument that ATF selectively used 

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 

to better fit its interpretation of 

propellant actuated device is not valid. 

The Department’s use of a universally 

accepted publication such as MerriamWebster’s Collegiate Dictionary has been 

common practice upon which the 

Department has relied to make past 

decisions and interpretations. The 

Department continues in part to rely 

upon the previously mentioned 

definitions to determine that rocket 

motors are not propellant actuated 

devices. Because regulations should be 

understandable by all members of the 

public, the Department does not believe 

it appropriate to rely upon scientific and 

technical publications to define terms, 

as suggested by some commenters. This 

would result in definitions understood 

only by scientists and specialists in a 

particular field. The Department 

believes this final rule adopts a 

definition that is technically accurate, 

clear, and capable of being understood 

by all interested parties. 

Agencies are provided broad latitude 

to incorporate definitions into the 

regulations. Several commenters have 

applied broader definitions to illustrate 

that a rocket motor should be 

considered a propellant actuated device. 

Unfortunately, these definitions are 

sometimes practically inconsistent with 

the subject matter. For example, one 

commenter cites definition 2(a) from 

Merriam-Webster’s On-Line Dictionary 

of ‘‘tool’’: ‘‘something (as an instrument 

or apparatus) used in performing an 

operation or necessary in the practice of 

a vocation or profession.’’ The usage 

example in this definition is ‘‘a scholar’s 

books are his tools.’’ Outside of rocketry 

context, such a definition could mean 

almost any physical item or abstract 

concept. These comments certainly 

illustrate that words have multiple 

definitions. However, the definitions of 

the words chosen by the commenters 

are not particularly helpful in defining 

‘‘propellant actuated device’’ within the 

context of the federal explosives laws. 

Applying the reasoning of these 

commenters to the definition of a 

propellant actuated device would result 

in a definition under which virtually 

any item containing a propellant would 

qualify as a PAD. While not specifically 

addressing PADs in the law, Congress 

clearly did not mean for ATF to apply 

definitions so broadly as to render the 

term ‘‘propellant actuated device’’ 

meaningless. Exceptions to statutory 

prohibitions should be narrowly 

construed. The Department believes that 

construing the term ‘‘propellant 

actuated device’’ to include any item 

containing a propellant would be 

inconsistent with its mission to reduce 

the hazards to the public arising from 

misuse and unsafe or insecure storage of 

explosive materials. Exempting all 

propellants from the permit, licensing, 

prohibited person provisions, and 

storage requirements of the law would 

be irresponsible, particularly in light of 

potential criminal and terrorist use of 

such items. 

Many of the comments describe 

certain characteristics of rocket-motor 

function and state that the definition of 

propellant actuated device, specifically 

gas generator systems, speaks to these. 

These comments are unpersuasive in 

their argument, as they fail to specify 

that rocket motors function in the 

manner described largely due to their 

interaction with other components of a 

rocket. 

It is undisputed that rocket motors 

produce a large volume of gas when 

ignited. Further, it is clear that the gas 

is forced through a nozzle designed to 

produce thrust. However, the motor 

alone does not constitute a system, or a 

‘‘regularly interacting or interdependent 

group of items forming a unified 

whole.’’ It is apparent that the motor 

relies upon other items and parts, such 

as the rocket body, fins, nosecone, and 

others, to function properly, and to 

therefore perform as designed. However, 

this final rule is not intended to govern 

fully assembled rockets. 

Because the rocket motor does not 

constitute a system, and because the 

successful direction of energy produced 

by a rocket motor requires that the 

motor be integrated into a rocket, 

complete with other system 

components, the Department finds that 

a rocket motor does not constitute a gas 

generator system that releases and 

directs work. 

4. Hobby Rocket Motors Are No 

Different From Other Approved PADs 

Many commenters argued that a 

hobby rocket motor should be classified 

as a PAD because it functions in a 

manner similar to other products 

classified as PADs by ATF. Following 

are some of the arguments presented by 

the commenters: 

By using a chemical reaction that creates 

gasses exiting the nozz[le] of the hobby 

rocket motor, the [resulting] thrust created 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1883 

performs the task of lifting the hobby rocket 

off the ground. This is the same reaction used 

to inflate aircraft safety slides, automobile 

airbags and other PADS that enjoy the same 

exemption. The inner workings of all of these 

PADS is the same. (Comment No. 112) 

The purpose of the other propellant 

actuated devices that ATF recognizes * * * 

[is] to convert chemical potential energy into 

useful mechanical work—i.e., a nail gun, 

inflatable automobile occupant restraint 

systems, etc. A rocket motor and the reload 

kit that can be assembled to create the rocket 

motor clearly do the same. (Comment No. 

123) 

It is not shown why it is valid that only 

hobby rocket motors are proposed to lose this 

PAD status. Other devices still classified as 

PADs, i.e., car air bag[,] gas generators and 

aircraft safety systems, have very similar 

function, extremely similar mechanical 

configuration, and contain very similar 

chemical compositions to hobby rocket 

motors. Many of these devices classified as 

PADs contain chemical compositions 

designed to be much more energetic than the 

compositions used for hobby rocket motors. 

(Comment No. 212) 

Devices that operate in a very similar 

function and contain many of the same basic 

materials as hobby rocket motors are allowed 

by BATFE to utilize the PAD exemption 

(including devices that function as part of a 

larger overall device and that operate in 

conjunction with other components, just like 

hobby rocket motors). For example, BATFE 

has specifically exempted rocket motors of 

equivalent design and size utilized in aircraft 

safety systems. (Comment No. 230) 

There is regulatory inconsistency present 

in this NPRM as the proposed regulation fails 

to address how and the basis for regulating 

an identical rocket motor (the Industrial 

Solid Propulsion line throwing rocket motor 

and the Aerotech 1200) differently. The use 

in both applications is similar. The line 

throwing motor delivers a payload to the 

intended area, and if flown by a conventional 

rocket it can loft instrumentation for the 

collection of scientific data or evaluate upper 

air wind speed and direction during the 

descent phase. (Comment No. 232) 

Rockets use the gas generating properties of 

burning propellant to generate motion, in this 

case, to loft satellites, scientific payloads, and 

even humans to high altitude and into space. 

This is the exact same concept used by a 

cartridge in a nail gun, or the propellant 

which enables an airbag to rapidly deploy. A 

rocket motor, a nail gun cartridge, an airbag, 

and numerous similar devices all work by the 

same princip[les], and should all be 

categorized and regulated as such. They are 

all the working portions of large systems 

which operate in concert to perform specific 

tasks and functions. (Comment No. 257) 

Rocket motors, as used in practice, have 

parallel operation similar to other devices, 

listed by BATFE as PADS. The devices cited 

by BATFE as PADS function as part of a 

larger whole, and rely on other interacting 

components, just as rocket motors do. 

(Comment No. 261) 

Department Response 

Several commenters argue that rocket 

motors are similar in function, 

construction and composition to other 

devices previously exempted as PADs 

and therefore should be exempted as 

such. 

ATF has historically granted 

propellant actuated device exemptions 

to devices that are generally aimed at 

increasing personal safety or enhancing 

the efficiency of mechanical operations. 

Each device must contain and be 

actuated by a propellant, and also must 

be a complete device, tool component, 

or mechanism that requires no other 

parts to perform its intended function, 

including to whatever degree it may 

operate within a larger or more complex 

system. Any such device must not 

permit ready access to the propellant 

charge as manufactured. 

For example, ATF has exempted 

airbag modules as propellant actuated 

devices but has not exempted the 

propellant inside the unit. The airbag 

module is a self-contained unit that is 

deployed by an internal initiator or 

micro gas generator that receives an 

electronic pulse from a crash sensor. 

The propellant charge inside the gasgeneration canister is converted into a 

gas, which is then released to inflate the 

airbag cushion. ATF ruled that these 

fully assembled airbag modules 

constitute a gas-generating system. As 

demonstrated by this analysis, each item 

being considered for classification as a 

PAD is individually assessed based 

upon design and usage characteristics. 

5. There Are No Clear Technical 

Standards for Previous PADs 

Classifications Listed in the Proposed 

Rule 

In the proposed rule, ATF stated that 

in applying the regulatory definition of 

a PAD it has classified certain products 

as propellant actuated devices: Aircraft 

slide inflation cartridges, inflatable 

automobile occupant restraint systems, 

nail guns, and diesel and jet engine 

starter cartridges. Approximately 150 

commenters argued that the proposed 

rule provides no technical standards for 

those products previously classified by 

ATF as PADs. According to the NAR, 

One device listed is hand held, but others 

are not. One device is whole and stands unto 

itself, the others are incorporated into larger 

machines or devices. The NPRM is silent on 

the size, shape, functions or other measurable 

specification[s] associated with listed PADs. 

Nowhere are clear, measurable standards for 

PADs outline[d] in any detail. Unless and 

until BATFE can provide potential PADs 

applicants such specification, there is no 

consistent basis on which applicants could 

determine whether their devices would 

qualify as PADs. (Comment No. 261) 

Another commenter expressed similar 

concerns: 

Although the proposed rule claims that the 

ATF has classified certain products as PADs, 

there is no reference provided to support that 

such judgments were ever shared with the 

public, or that they exist anywhere for that 

matter. If they do exist, what are the 

standards by which such classifications were 

made? (Comment No. 255) 

Department Response 

The commenters expressed concern 

about the lack of specific technical 

standards to be used in making 

propellant actuated device 

determinations. They suggest that a 

person would be at a loss to make their 

own determination regarding a 

particular item that may be a propellant 

actuated device. 

Congress did not provide extensive 

guidance as to what size, shape, or 

specific functions should be taken into 

account with respect to propellant 

actuated device determinations. In fact, 

a description of items determined by the 

Department to be propellant actuated 

devices would include a wide variety of 

explosive weights, various shapes, and 

a number of work functions to be 

performed. This great variation in the 

types, sizes, and functions of devices 

makes it difficult to specify technical 

standards for such classifications. 

Moreover, the law clearly distinguishes 

between a federal agency’s general 

interpretations of the laws it enforces, 

which cannot be changed without the 

notice-and-comment process, and 

federal agency opinions applying that 

law to the facts of a particular case, 

which are not subject to notice-andcomment requirements. York v. 

Secretary of Treasury, 774 F.2d 417, 420 

(10th Cir. 1985) (classification of firearm 

as machine gun is ‘‘not a rulemaking of 

any stripe’’). ATF classification 

decisions related to particular items fall 

squarely in the latter category. Id.; Gun 

South, Inc. v. Brady, 877 F.2d 858, 865 

(11th Cir. 1989) (‘‘[A]ctivities which 

involve applying the law to the facts of 

an individual case, do not approach the 

function of rulemaking.’’) The 

Department is not required to disclose 

the internal deliberative process used in 

making PAD classifications and wishes 

to maintain the flexibility to modify 

evaluation criteria as products and the 

market evolve. Any person wishing a 

classification of an explosive device 

may request one, free of charge, at any 

time by contacting ATF. 

6. Congress Did Not Specify That 

Mechanism, Metal Work, or Inclusion 

in, Exclusion From, or Stand Alone Was 

a Requirement for a PAD Determination 

In the proposed rule, ATF stated that 

the hobby rocket motor cannot be 

brought within the regulatory definition 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
1884 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

of propellant actuated device as a ‘‘tool’’ 

because it is neither ‘‘handheld’’ nor a 

complete ‘‘device’’ and because it is not 

a metal-shaping machine or a part 

thereof. Further, it cannot be considered 

to be a ‘‘special mechanized device’’ 

because, although clearly designed to 

serve a special purpose, it in no way 

functions as a mechanism. Finally, 

because it has no interacting mechanical 

or electrical components, the hobby 

rocket motor cannot be deemed to be a 

gas-generator system. 

Approximately 130 commenters 

indicated that Congress intended a 

broad definition be applied to PADs and 

they argued that the proposed rule set 

forth a narrow interpretation of the 

term. As one commenter stated, 

‘‘Congress did not specify any particular 

type of device to be excluded from the 

definition. Nothing about the size, 

complexity, work product produced, 

whether or not a PAD might be used in 

or with other components was specified 

in [the] statu[te].’’ (Comment No. 163) 

Department Response 

Congress did not define the term 

‘‘propellant actuated device,’’ nor did it 

provide significant criteria for use in 

determining which devices should be 

PADs. The commenter suggested that 

Congress did not focus on the nature of 

the explosive materials in question. The 

Department disagrees with this 

contention. By the very nature of the 

term ‘‘propellant’’ it is clear that 

Congress did not intend for devices 

actuated by other types of materials 

(e.g., high explosives) to be considered 

propellant actuated devices. 

In addition, a review of the 

Congressional testimony provides 

insights as to what Congress may have 

considered as propellant actuated 

devices. Frederick B. Lee from Olin 

Corporation provided testimony, see 

H.R. Rep. No. 91–1549, at 64 (1970), as 

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

4041., on smokeless propellants and 

various Olin smokeless propellant 

devices that he felt should be exempted. 

When describing these devices, Mr. Lee 

stated, ‘‘these devices are all aimed at 

increasing personal safety or enhancing 

the efficiency of mechanical 

operations.’’ Although Congress did not 

define the term ‘‘propellant actuated 

device,’’ and did not exempt these 

devices from the explosives controls in 

the final legislation, this excerpt 

provides some indication of the types of 

devices contemplated by Congress in 

their deliberations related to propellant 

actuated devices. 

The Department agrees that Congress 

intended the use of discretion and 

judgment in determining which devices 

should be exempted as propellant 

actuated devices. Further, the 

Department believes that Congress 

intended for this term to include 

devices designed to perform some type 

of work. However, the Department 

believes that Congress did not intend for 

ATF to disregard considerations such as 

public safety and the potential for 

misuse of materials under 

consideration. Rather, Congress 

intended for ATF to judiciously apply 

this term to avoid exempting items that 

could pose a significant danger to the 

public if left unregulated. Therefore, the 

Department disagrees with the 

commenter’s conclusion that ATF is 

precluded from considering factors 

other than the purpose for which the 

device is used. 

7. ATF Has Not Established a Clear 

Process for Application, Review, 

Adjudication, and Appeal for Parties 

Seeking a PADs Definition for Their 

Devices 

Many commenters (approximately 

145) stated that the proposed rule failed 

to provide for any form of due process 

regarding the application, review, 

adjudication, and appeal of 

organizations or individuals seeking 

PADs exemptions. According to the 

NAR, ATF ‘‘does not appear to have any 

such mechanisms as regards PADS but 

merely pronounces selected devices as 

receiving PADS classification. There is 

no transparency around PADS 

determinations or their denial.’’ Another 

commenter noted that ‘‘[a] clear process 

is needed to apply a clear standard 

rather than arbitrary decision making of 

an arbitrary standard. This allows one 

rocket motor to be denied PAD status as 

a hobby rocket while another similar 

rocket motor could be granted PAD 

status due to an arbitrary process.’’ 

(Comment No. 249) 

Department Response 

The NPRM does not provide specific 

guidance regarding the application, 

review, adjudication, and appeal 

process for propellant actuated device 

determinations. Moreover, as stated 

previously, the law clearly distinguishes 

between a federal agency’s general 

interpretations of the laws it enforces, 

which cannot be changed without the 

notice-and-comment process, and 

federal agency opinions applying that 

law to the facts of a particular case, 

which are not subject to notice-andcomment requirements. However, 

procedures for those seeking review of 

a PAD determination are standardized 

in the Administrative Procedure Act, 

and information regarding past 

determinations can generally be 

obtained through Freedom of 

Information Act requests. 

Accordingly, the Department 

disagrees with the contention that there 

is any inconsistency or arbitrary 

application of the PAD exemption. 

Specifically, 5 U.S.C. 702 et seq. 

provides for judicial review of an 

agency action, when a person is 

adversely affected or aggrieved by the 

action. Therefore, the judicial system is 

available to review the agency’s actions 

when an item is submitted for 

classification under the federal 

explosives laws. Furthermore, except for 

confidential, proprietary, or statutorily 

protected information, copies of 

classification and exemption letters can 

be obtained from the Department 

through the Freedom of Information 

Act. These letters often contain a 

description of the submitted item and 

an analysis applied to the item in order 

to determine whether it meets the 

regulatory definition of a propellant 

actuated device. Finally, classification 

letters contain the name and phone 

number of an ATF officer who can be 

contacted to answer any questions or 

concerns regarding the classification. It 

is the Department’s position that 

information regarding PAD 

classifications is readily and openly 

available and review of classifications 

can be addressed through the judicial 

system. 

8. ATF Has Granted PADs Status to 

Aircraft Safety Systems That Use the 

Same Technical Approach as Hobby 

Rocket Motors 

Approximately 155 commenters noted 

that ATF failed to list in the proposed 

rule a product that it has classified as a 

PAD that is functionally equivalent to a 

hobby rocket motor—an aircraft safety 

system rocket motor. The following 

comment represents the views of most 

of the commenters: 

BATFE failed to list aircraft safety system 

rocket motors in their listing of PADS, even 

though such systems have been granted 

PADS status. Details on these systems can be 

found at http://brsparachutes.com/ 

default.aspx. These parachute deployment 

devices are installed in approximately 1,000 

FAA certificated airplanes and 18,000 

ultralight aircraft. These devices are exactly 

functionally equivalent to hobby rocket 

motors. Either both hobby rocket motors and 

parachute deployment devices are 

‘‘propellant actuated devices,’’ or neither is a 

PAD. Both systems use PADS involving 

airframes with parachutes, not operating 

explosive devices. Any attempt to deny 

PADS classification to hobby rocket motors 

while simultaneously exempting parachute 

deployment devices would be arbitrary. 

(Comment No. 163) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1885 

Department Response 

The purpose of the NPRM was not to 

invite review of, and solicit comments 

on, propellant actuated device 

determinations with respect to a broad 

range or complete list of items. Rather, 

the purpose of the notice was to propose 

amendment to the regulations at 27 CFR 

part 555 to clarify that the term 

‘‘propellant actuated device’’ does not 

apply to rocket motors or rocket-motor 

reload kits consisting of or containing 

ammonium perchlorate composite 

propellant, black powder, or other 

similar low explosives, and to invite 

comment on this specific issue. 

However, the item detailed in the 

comments (parachute deployment 

devices) was not determined to be a 

propellant actuated device. Rather, it 

was exempted by ATF as a special 

explosive device under the provisions of 

27 CFR 555.32, which contains criteria 

for exemption different from that used 

for propellant actuated device 

determinations. Apart from this 

difference, it is incorrect to categorize 

‘‘parachute deployment systems’’ as 

similar to rocket motors. The explosives 

contained in these systems, although 

critical to their function, are only a 

small part of the overall product. These 

parachute deployment systems are sold 

and have been exempted as complete 

systems. The described parachute 

deployment system is a multicomponent system that includes, but is 

not limited to, an activation handle, 

rocket-motor igniter, propellant rocket 

motor, parachute harness, canister, and 

bag. Individual rocket motors apart from 

the final assembly on the aircraft must 

still comply with all applicable ATF 

explosive laws and regulations. This is 

consistent with the final rule on rocketmotor propellant actuated device status. 

9. The Proposed Rule Is a Major Rule 

Pursuant to the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 

In Notice No. 9P, ATF stated that the 

proposed 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, 

because it would 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. Approximately 125 

commenters disagreed with ATF’s 

assertion. In its comment (Comment No. 

261), the NAR noted the following: 

U.S. manufacturers currently dominate the 

export market for rocket motors. Denial of a 

PADS exemption for hobby rocket motors 

will adversely affect U.S. rocket motor 

manufacturers’ ability to attract investment, 

innovate and compete due to the far higher 

costs of regulatory compliance, and a 

shrinking market for hobby rocket motors. 

BATF[E] cannot publish a final rule simply 

by asserting the rule would not have adverse 

impacts under the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. BATFE 

must provide the means and economic 

analysis by which it determined the 

proposed rule would not have adverse 

impacts for public comment. 

Another commenter stated the 

following: 

The model rocket hobby is interdependent 

with a number of small businesses engaged 

in the manufacture, resale, and support of 

model rocket engines. In further complicating 

consumer purchase of these engines, this 

proposal will have serious negative impacts 

in terms of the Small Business Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. It will interfere with 

both domestic and foreign business, putting 

these U.S. companies at competitive 

disadvantage. (Comment No. 39) 

A hobby shop owner provided the 

following comments: 

The proposed regulations have already had 

and will have further negative impact on my 

small business. My ability to compete 

globally will literally be eliminated as a 

result of this rule. (Comment No. 260) 

Department Response 

The commenters’ contentions rest on 

an inaccurate portrayal of this 

rulemaking and Department policy. 

Specifically, the commenters suggest 

that if the proposed rule were adopted, 

it would significantly change the 

classification of rocket motors and the 

Department’s regulation of these 

materials. This is not the case. For many 

years, ATF has regulated low 

explosives, including rocket motors not 

exempted as toy propellant devices 

(those containing 62.5 grams or less of 

propellant material). This rulemaking is 

simply a clarification of a long-standing 

position. If adopted, this proposed rule 

will not affect the current and past 

classification of rocket motors or the 

determination that they are not 

propellant actuated devices. The 

Department’s regulatory requirements 

and enforcement program regarding 

rocket motors will remain unchanged. 

Therefore, the Department can assert 

with confidence that the costs 

associated with doing business in the 

United States and abroad, for rocket 

motor-related businesses, will not be 

significantly affected by this 

rulemaking. The commenters have not 

provided any substantive support for 

the assertion that the international 

rocket-motor industry will be adversely 

affected. 

10. The Proposed Rule, if Adopted, Will 

Have a Negative Effect on the Sport 

Rocketry Hobby and Small Businesses 

Approximately 70 commenters argued 

that the proposed rule will have a 

negative effect on the sport rocketry 

hobby and on small businesses. Some 

commenters believe that many 

individuals currently participating in 

the hobby will stop doing so and many 

more potential new participants will 

decline to participate in the hobby. The 

commenters contend that reduced 

participation in the hobby will result in 

reduced sales of model rocket motors. 

Some commenters disagreed with the 

Department’s determination that the 

proposed rule is not an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rulemaking as defined by 

Executive Order 12866. Following are 

excerpts from some of the comments: 

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 ATF inspections. 

(Comment No. 96) 

Every entity that participates in this market 

is a small entity as defined by statute. ATF 

should undertake a rigorous assessment of 

the economic impact of this effectively new 

regulation. ATF’s assertion that everyone 

involved in the market is already regulated 

is false; this rule effectively eliminates a 

means by which a significant number of 

users were able to participate in this market. 

A large number of these users may not be 

able, or elect not to, obtain the requisite 

permits, thus significantly reducing the 

market for these products. (Comment No. 

205) 

I participated in a club buy of a magazine 

and an associated purchase of primary 

insurance. The cost of this worked out to be 

$100 per person up front plus $100 per year 

per person for liability insurance. Even this 

relatively cost effective method of meeting 

onerous BATFE expectations would have a 

major impact on the small rocketry 

community. In particular, if NAR’s 2000 

Sport Rocketry flyers were to engage in a 

similar strategy, they would pay in the 

aggregate approximately $200,000 (one time 

buy of the magazine) plus $267,000 per year 

to sustain the cost of principle insurance and 

the recurring cost of the [low explosives user 

permit] (LEUP). Add in the Tripoli Rocketry 

Association’s 3000 members who are highpower certified and this only exacerbates the 

staggering cost. A conservative estimate of 

the total real cost of this unneeded regulation 

is as follows: 

$500,000 one-time cost upon implementation 

of the NPRM 

$665,000 sustained yearly average cost 

(insurance and LEUP) (Comment No. 255) 

Obtaining an LEUP requires the ability to 

store APCP and most people in urban and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
1886 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

suburban environments aren’t able to get 

permission from local authorities to do so. 

The net effect of this rulemaking will be to 

force a large percentage of the rocket 

enthusiasts out of the hobby and to shut 

down a 100 million dollar industry. 

(Comment No. 257) 

The proposed regulations have already had 

and will have further negative impact on my 

small business. My ability to compete 

globally will literally be eliminated as a 

result of this rule. (Comment No. 260) 

Department Response 

This rulemaking is simply a 

clarification of a long-standing position. 

If adopted, the proposed rule will not 

affect the current and past classification 

of rocket motors, or the Department’s 

regulatory requirements and 

enforcement program regarding rocket 

motors. 

One commenter provided estimated 

costs associated with the proposed 

rulemaking. The commenter mistakenly 

suggests that all rocket members of NAR 

and Tripoli will require storage in 

approved storage magazines when in 

fact only those individuals who 

purchase, store, and use rocket motors 

that contain more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant will require access to 

approved storage magazines. Ninety 

percent of rocket motors sold in the 

United States contain 62.5 grams or less 

of propellant, therefore, this storage 

requirement only applies to 10 percent 

of the rocket market. Those individuals 

who currently purchase and use rockets 

that contain more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant should have already obtained 

the necessary ATF permit and complied 

with storage requirements, and this 

proposal should not affect the storage 

requirements applicable to their rockets. 

Aside from the renewal fees, these 

individuals should not incur any 

additional fees associated with these 

requirements. 

One commenter suggests that the 

rulemaking will force individuals to 

stop using hobby rockets due to fees 

associated with explosive permits, 

background checks, fingerprinting, and 

ATF inspections. ATF does not and has 

never charged fees for inspections. The 

rulemaking does not affect the permit 

fees associated with obtaining a federal 

explosives permit. Current permit fees 

will remain at $100.00 for the first three 

years (less than $34.00 a year) and $50 

for every subsequent three-year period 

(less than $17.00 a year). The 

background checks and processing of 

required fingerprint cards are included 

in the price of the ATF permit. 

Therefore, the Department is 

confident that the costs associated with 

doing business in the United States and 

abroad, for rocket motor-related 

businesses, will not be significantly 

affected by this rulemaking. 

11. ATF’s Statement That ‘‘the Hobby 

Rocket Motor Is Little More Than 

Propellant in a Casing’’ Is Factually 

Incorrect 

Eleven commenters disagreed with 

ATF’s description of a hobby rocket 

motor as being ‘‘little more than 

propellant in a casing.’’ Following are 

excerpts from some of the comments: 

A hobby rocket motor must be considered 

to be the entire construction of the motor 

including all components such as but not 

limited to nozzle, retaining cap, delay grain, 

ejection charge, and any other components 

necessary for the proper mechanical 

operation of the motor. A hobby rocket motor 

cannot be reduced to ‘‘little more than 

propellant in a casing.’’ (Comment No. 124) 

The assertion that [the] hobby rocket [is] 

‘‘little more than propellant in a casing’’ is 

incorrect. Key components of a hobby rocket 

motor are: 

a. Nozzle 

b. Pressure vessel (with an aft nozzle 

retaining system and a forward 

pressure/delay bulkhead) 

c. Propellant grain(s) 

d. Case liner/insulator 

e. Delay grain 

f. Ejection charge 

g. Ejection charge holder 

To use the phrase ‘‘little more than 

propellant in a casing’’ is an 

oversimplification and demonstrates very 

little understanding of the overall complexity 

of the system. (Comment No. 133) 

This * * * statement is incorrect because 

the fundamentals of rocket propulsion 

require the acceleration of the exhaust gases 

in a particular direction in order to perform 

work. A road flare is little more than a 

combustible mixture and a casing. It has no 

nozzle by design and is not designed to 

generate thrust. A rocket motor is at least 

three components: Propellant, a casing, and 

an exhaust nozzle. Without a nozzle a rocket 

motor is functionally just a road flare. 

(Comment No. 228) 

The typical reloadable HP model rocket 

motor I use(d) is the Aerotech H128. It 

employs a precisely designed and engineered 

case (like the smaller motors), and a reload 

that includes carefully formulated and 

manufactured propellant, sealing disks and 

O-rings, liners and a specifically engineered 

nozzle. This is a patented reloadable rocket 

motor system. The case is designed for reuse, with engineered tolerances for the 

various reloads and well established internal 

pressures they can create. The reloads 

themselves are basically non-reusable items, 

each component engineered for specific 

purposes in the motor’s operation. These 

motor systems are far more complex than the 

term ‘‘propellant in a case’’ implies. 

(Comment No. 258) 

Department Response 

The statement ‘‘the hobby rocket 

motor is little more than propellant in 

a casing’’ was taken from a previous 

rulemaking regarding rocket motors. 

The comments failed to address the rest 

of the statement in the previous 

rulemaking, which stated that ‘‘the 

hobby rocket motor is little more than 

propellant in a casing, incapable of 

performing its intended function until 

fully installed, along with an ignition 

system, within a rocket.’’ This 

statement, taken in context, implied that 

rocket motors in no way function as a 

mechanism because they lack the 

necessary indicia of a mechanized 

device. The Department previously 

acknowledged that rocket motors 

typically include a nozzle, retaining 

cap, delay grain, and ejection charge. 

The Department also acknowledges that 

variations exist among types of rocket 

motors available for purchase by the 

general public. The Department 

maintains its view that rocket motors 

are in no way analogous to a special 

mechanized device, because they 

consist essentially only of propellant 

encased by a cardboard, plastic, or 

metallic cylinder. 

12. Model Rocket Motors Are Not a 

Threat to Homeland Security 

Approximately 40 commenters argued 

that model rocket motors do not pose a 

threat to homeland security, should not 

be regulated, and should be classified as 

PADs. Some of the arguments raised by 

the commenters are as follows: 

The rockets we fly would make terrible 

weapons, [and] therefore pose no risk to 

national security. The fuel used in them 

(APCP) burns far too slow to be used for any 

other purpose than rocket fuel. (Comment 

No. 32) 

BATFE’s concern that a hobby rocket 

motor could be used to launch terror 

weapons against targets is unfounded. 

Terrorists have already developed techniques 

for smuggling their weapons into crowded 

areas without attracting attention, and 

therefore have no need of a rocket, which 

would attract attention toward its launch site 

when launched. Thus imposing this 

regulatory burden on the law abiding 

rocketry community would have no benefit 

to the common defense and security and is 

therefore not justified. (Comment No. 70) 

I don’t believe there has been a single 

recorded incident of a terrorist action against 

the public using hobby rocketry motors of 

any size. (Comment No. 215) 

One hypothetical reason for a desire on the 

part of [the] administration to regulate hobby 

rocket motors might be the perception of a 

threat to security. But such a threat is indeed 

perception and not reality. The Tripoli 

Rocketry Association is not aware of any 

specific use of hobby rocket PADs in any 

security threat, and BATFE does not appear 

to have made public any such incident. 

(Comment No. 219) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1887 

Department Response 

The Department is 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 long-standing 

exemption from the federal explosives 

controls for hobby rocket motors 

containing 62.5 grams or less of low 

explosive materials. This exemption 

covers 90 percent of all rocket motors 

that are sold to hobby rocketry 

enthusiasts. 

The Department disagrees, however, 

with the suggestion that ammonium 

perchlorate composite propellant rocket 

motors could not be used for criminal or 

terrorist purposes. While it is true that 

APCP in a rocket motor usually burns in 

a controlled manner, it can react much 

more violently when more strictly 

confined. APCP can be used to make an 

effective pipe bomb or other improvised 

explosive device. Criminal and terrorist 

elements do not always focus on precise 

strikes against specific or small targets. 

Terrorists have demonstrated in recent 

international events the effectiveness of 

indiscriminately firing improvised 

rockets into civilian areas. Terrorists 

could effectively accomplish their goals 

of instilling fear and disrupting our 

economy through the similar utilization 

of a large rocket within the United 

States, regardless of whether they 

targeted a building or other structure 

with great accuracy. Terrorism will 

exploit any vulnerability. Allowing 

unfettered access to large rocket motors 

would create opportunities for terrorists 

and criminals, and could make the 

United States more vulnerable to the 

consequences of their activities in many 

ways. 

13. Historically, ATF Has Considered 

Hobby Rocket Motors To Be PADs 

Several commenters maintained that 

historically ATF has considered hobby 

rocket motors to be PADs, regardless of 

the propellant weight. Following are 

some of the arguments raised by the 

commenters: 

The BATFE exempted all APCP rocket 

motors regardless of propellant weight up 

until the mid 1990’s. They considered all 

rocket motors propellant activated devices, 

which were exempt from BATFE permits. 

Current APCP rocket motors use the same 

propellant as before. Since Congress has not 

changed the definition of an explosive during 

this time, it is illogical to now start regulating 

rocket motors, nor within the powers of the 

BATFE to change. (Comment No. 65) 

Furthermore, the ‘‘confusing’’ letters from 

1994 are rather clear: ‘‘An ATF 

manufacturer’s license would be required to 

manufacture ammonium perchlorate 

composite explosives. The exemption at 27 

CRF 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.’’ That does not 

appear to be the least bit confusing. 

(Comment No. 194) 

Department Response 

The comments that contend ATF has 

historically considered hobby rocket 

motors to be propellant actuated devices 

are inaccurate. Among industry 

members and in the rocketry 

community, there has been some 

confusion regarding the status of rocket 

motors as PADs. This confusion may be 

partially attributable to a classification 

letter drafted by ATF in 1994 that 

incorrectly stated that rocket motors 

containing 62.5 grams or less of 

propellant were exempt from federal 

regulation as PADs. A superseding 2000 

letter more accurately and clearly stated 

that rocket motors did not meet the 

regulatory definition of a PAD. The 

intention of this rulemaking is to clarify 

ATF’s position that rocket motors are 

not and have not been exempted from 

federal explosive regulation as 

propellant actuated devices. 

14. Certain Terms Defined in the 

Proposed Rule (e.g., ‘‘Tool’’ and 

‘‘Device’’) Were Not Included in the 

Initial Rulemaking That Defined the 

Term ‘‘Propellant Actuated Device’’ 

As explained in the proposed rule, in 

1981 ATF added the current definition 

of a PAD to its regulations. Two 

commenters questioned whether certain 

terms defined in the proposed rule, e.g., 

‘‘tool,’’ ‘‘mechanized device,’’ etc., were 

similarly defined during the rulemaking 

proceeding that resulted in the 1981 

regulation. According to the 

commenters: 

You do not say that the terms used (‘‘tool’’, 

‘‘mechanized device,’’ etc.) were themselves 

carefully defined as a part of the 1981 

regulation. Therefore, it appears you are 

trying to narrowly define them now, after the 

fact, in order to support your current 

proposed rulemaking. (Comment Nos. 66 and 

254) 

Department Response 

The Department has been charged 

with enforcing the federal explosive 

regulations and applying them as 

Congress directed. In order to work 

within the statutory language provided 

by Congress and the resultant regulatory 

provisions, ATF analyzed and 

referenced certain terms such as ‘‘tool’’ 

and ‘‘special mechanized device’’ in 

order to give meaning to the technical 

term ‘‘propellant actuated device.’’ 

Therefore, the Department is not 

representing these words to be terms of 

art that are specific to propellant 

actuated devices. Instead, these terms 

are being used to further illustrate and 

articulate the concept of a ‘‘device.’’ 

15. Implementation of the Proposed 

Rule Is Not Necessary for Correction of 

a Demonstrated Public Safety Issue 

ATF stated in the proposed rule that 

implementation of the proposed 

definition of a PAD is important to 

public safety. Approximately 15 

commenters argued that model rocketry 

is a safe hobby and that hobby rocket 

motors should be exempt from 

regulation as PADs. Following are 

excerpts taken from some of the 

comments: 

I have been unable to find any reports of 

deaths, or even serious injuries, related to 

hobby rocketry in this country. This is due, 

in part at least, to the fact that the rocket 

motors you are most concerned with in this 

proposed rulemaking (those containing over 

62.5 grams of propellant) are not available to 

the general public * * *. [I]t is necessary 

that one be certified through, and under the 

rules of, the NAR or TRA in order to 

purchase and use these high-power motors. 

(Comment No. 66) 

No example, case, documentation, or threat 

has been demonstrated or presented to 

amend the regulation to exclude the devices 

in question. No reason has been presented as 

to why this change is ‘‘important to public 

safety.’’ In my extensive professional 

experience, I am not aware of any case where 

public safety was jeopardized to the point 

that would warrant such an expansion of the 

regulation. (Comment No. 133) 

If the purpose [of the proposed rule] is 

public and personal safety, I would point out 

that sport rocketry is already one of the safest 

(if not the safest) outdoor hobbies today. 

(Comment No. 149) 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges that 

the hobby rocket community, in general, 

has demonstrated its ability to maintain 

a safe and functioning hobby for 

thousands of individuals. However, 

APCP, a common ingredient in hobby 

rocket motors, is an explosive material. 

By nature, explosive materials present 

unique public safety hazards. Congress 

determined that these types of materials 

should be subject to regulation even 

though they are usually used in a 

lawful, utilitarian manner. Accordingly, 

these explosives are regulated by law. 

One commenter suggested that one of 

the reasons that there are few injuries or 

deaths associated with high-power 

rocket use is that these items are not 

available to the general public. Rather, 

a person must be certified by a rocketry 

association in order to purchase motors 

of a certain size. The Department agrees 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
1888 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

that the purchase of large motors should 

be restricted, and it applauds the rocket 

industry for setting standards to ensure 

that rockets are not readily available to 

all members of the general public. 

Exempting high power rocket motors as 

PADs would be inconsistent with the 

above concerns, and with the 

Congressional mandate that the 

Department set standards to ensure that 

only qualified persons receive 

explosives. 

Another commenter states that ‘‘[n]o 

reason has been presented as to why 

this change is ‘important to public 

safety.’ ’’ The same commenter states 

that rocket motors should be excluded 

from regulation because no reasons have 

been provided where public safety was 

jeopardized. 

The proposed rulemaking makes no 

change to the current explosive 

regulations but rather clarifies existing 

policies regarding rocket motors. 

Moreover, explosives of all types 

provide the means for individuals with 

nefarious objectives or goals to cause 

significant damage to life or property. 

Congressional mandate requires 

oversight and regulation of these 

materials. 

16. The Proposed Rule Violates the 

Federal Explosives Law and Fails To 

Meet the Statutory Intent of the PADs 

Exemption 

ATF is responsible for implementing 

Title XI of the Organized Crime Control 

Act of 1970. One of the stated purposes 

of the federal explosives law is to avoid 

placing any undue or unnecessary 

federal restrictions or burdens on lawabiding citizens with respect to the use 

of explosives for lawful purposes. 

Propellant actuated devices, along 

with gasoline, fertilizers, and propellant 

actuated industrial tools manufactured, 

imported, or distributed for their 

intended purposes, are exempted from 

the statutory definition of ‘‘explosives’’ 

in section 841(d) of title 18, United 

States Code, by 27 CFR 555.141(a)(8). In 

1970, when Title XI was enacted by 

Congress, the Judiciary Committee of 

the United States House of 

Representatives specifically considered 

and supported an exception for 

propellant actuated devices: 

It should be noted 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 purpose. 

H.R. Rep. No. 91–1549, at 64 (1970), as 

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

4041. 

Several commenters argued that the 

proposed rule either violates the law 

because it places an undue burden on 

the lawful use of explosives or it fails to 

meet the statutory intent of the PADs 

exemption. Following are excerpts from 

some of the comments: 

The statute clearly states that its purpose 

is not to impose an undue burden on the 

lawful, peaceful uses of explosives. The 

statutory PAD exemption is clearly and 

obviously intended to permit use of materials 

classified as explosives without the burden of 

permitting, when the explosive action is so 

limited and directed by design as to be non 

destructive * * * i.e., when the explosive 

force is so applied by design of the explosive 

and its containing device that it does not 

destroy its container nor other nearby 

materials, but performs otherwise useful 

work such as driving a nail, or inflating an 

aircraft escape slide or automobile air bag, 

then the explosive falls under the PAD 

exemption. A rocket (and its fuel) clearly 

falls within this intent and is therefore 

entitled to the PAD exemption. (Comment 

No. 70) 

ATF’s proposed rule is contrary to the 

intent of the enabling law * * * in that it 

will place any undue and unnecessary 

Federal restrictions or burdens on lawabiding citizens with respect to the 

acquisition, possession, storage, or use of 

explosive materials for lawful purposes, and 

in that it seeks to impose Federal regulations, 

procedures, and requirements that are not 

reasonably necessary to implement and 

effectuate the provisions of Title XI. 

(Comment No. 205) 

In light of this legislative history, as well 

as the purpose of the Act to avoid placing 

‘‘any undue or unnecessary Federal 

restrictions or burdens on law abiding 

citizens’’ * * * it is quite clear Congress 

intended a broad definition, not a narrow 

one, be applied to PADS * * *. BATFE’s 

proposed rule ignores completely the broad 

intent of the Congress relative to the nature 

and usage of PADS by generating an 

artificially narrow interpretation of 

Congressional intent. (Comment No. 261) 

Department Response 

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 and 

unsafe or insecure storage of explosive 

materials. Therefore, this goal is the 

basis for all regulatory action 

undertaken by the Department. 

Regulation is imposed only to the extent 

that it is ‘‘reasonably necessary to 

implement and effectuate the provisions 

of this title.’’ 

The Department believes that 

protecting the general public from the 

potential for criminal or terrorist misuse 

of rocket motors greatly outweighs any 

limited burden placed on individuals 

acquiring, using, storing or selling these 

items. 

17. The Proposed Rule Is Unreasonable 

Several commenters contended that 

the proposed rule excluding hobby 

rocket motors from the PAD exemption 

is unreasonable because it makes no 

allowance for a ‘‘responsible adult’’ 

category of use between what is safe 

enough for minors, e.g., the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission-based 62.5 

gram limit, and what is dangerous 

enough to require special training, 

permitting, regulation, etc. The 

commenters argued that this 

‘‘responsible adult’’ category exists in 

most other human endeavors. For 

example, children may ride bicycles and 

adults may drive automobiles, but a 

Commercial Driver’s License is only 

required for people who drive tractor 

trailers and buses, not private 

automobiles. 

Department Response 

The Department disagrees that 

persons deemed to be ‘‘responsible 

adults’’ should be exempt from 

regulation of rocket motors. First and 

foremost, Congress specifically 

addressed age standards for persons by 

prohibiting distribution of explosive 

materials to anyone under the age of 21. 

See 18 U.S.C. 842(d)(1). In doing so, 

Congress established a statutory 

criterion for the age a person should be 

in order to receive explosive materials. 

To deviate from that standard 

specifically for rocket motors would be 

inconsistent with the statutory scheme. 

Likewise, there is no basis within the 

statutory language to create an 

exemption based upon age. 

Although not relevant to the PAD 

determination, the regulatory exemption 

set forth in 27 CFR 555.141(a)(10), 

which exempts rocket motors that 

contain no more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant, did take into consideration 

the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission standards. This standard 

did not result in an age limitation, but 

instead is based upon the safety and 

potential hazards associated with the 

motor. ATF’s explosives regulation, 

section 555.141(a)(10), applies an 

exemption to rocket motors that are 

most commonly used by hobbyists, Boy 

Scouts, and rocketry club members for 

learning and experimentation, i.e., those 

with 62.5 grams or less of propellant. In 

effect, the exemption allows for lesspowerful rocket motors to be used by all 

age groups without regulation, while 

leaving intact regulatory standards for 

more-powerful rocket motors. An 

exemption based solely on age, 

however, would not be grounded in any 

statutory provision and would be 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1889 

inconsistent with the 62.5-gram 

threshold. 

18. Hobby Rocket Motors Meet the 

Definition of a PAD According to the 

Department of Commerce and Other 

Sources 

Approximately 15 commenters cited 

various references to show that the 

standard usage of the terminology 

‘‘propellant actuated devices’’ 

specifically includes rocket motors. 

Following are some of the references 

presented in the comments: 

• A document entitled, ‘‘National 

Security Assessment of the U.S. 

Cartridge and Propellant Actuated 

Device Industry Third Review,’’ 

published in August 2006 by the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

Industry and Security, Office of 

Strategic Industries and Economic 

Security. 

• A study released in 1963 by 

Frankford Arsenal, ‘‘Propellant 

Actuated Device (PAD) Assisted 

Parachute System for Aerial Delivery of 

Cargo.’’ 

• A test conducted in 1971 by the 

Aberdeen Proving Ground MD Material 

Testing Directorate, ‘‘Engineering Test 

of Rocket, Compensating, Tip-Off for the 

OV–1 Mohawk Escape System’’ (Report 

Number APG–MT–3858). 

• A file entitled, ‘‘Ordnance 

Technology,’’ authored at the Naval 

Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head 

Division. 

• The U.S. Army Project Manager 

Close Combat Systems. 

• The Army Materiel Command 

publication, ‘‘Propellant Actuated 

Devices’’ (AMCP 706–270, 1963). 

• ‘‘Rocket Basics, A Guide to Solid 

Propellant Rocketry,’’ published by 

Thiokol Propulsion (now ATK). 

Department Response 

The Department’s purposes for and 

methods of classifying propellant 

actuated devices under the federal 

explosives laws may vary from those of 

other government agencies. Each 

government entity is charged with 

fulfilling its own unique mission and 

interpreting its own unique statutory 

authorities, as reflected in their 

corresponding regulations, rulings, and 

policies. The Department’s classification 

of these items and its definition of 

‘‘propellant actuated device’’ may vary 

from other organizations’ definitions of 

the same term. ATF must define the 

term PAD and determine its application 

with reference to the statutory mandates 

of title 18 U.S.C. chapter 40, ATF’s 

specific mission, and the goal of public 

safety; other agencies’ interpretations of 

terms applicable to their mission should 

have no effect on the Department’s 

deliberations in this regard. 

The Department rejects the argument 

that because other entities identify 

certain devices, some of which contain 

substantial explosives weight, as 

propellant actuated devices, then the 

Department should follow suit. 

Nonetheless, the Department has 

reviewed the aforementioned 

documents and rejects the inference that 

these documents identify a rocket motor 

alone as a propellant actuated device. 

The Army Materiel Command 

Publication, ‘‘Propellant Actuated 

Devices,’’ was replaced in 1975 by an 

updated version, which has since been 

rescinded. The PADs referred to in the 

Army publication are complex systems 

involving multiple components, 

designed for use in military vehicles. 

Furthermore, the definition in the Army 

publication specifically states that a 

PAD must accomplish or initiate a 

mechanical action. The rocket motors in 

this final rule do not initiate or 

accomplish a mechanical action. 

The study by Frankford Arsenal, 

‘‘Propellant Actuated Device Assisted 

Parachute System for Aerial Delivery of 

Cargo,’’ was initiated to study the 

feasibility of using PAD-type rockets to 

reduce the ground contact velocity of 

air-delivered cargo. 

The Department’s review of 

‘‘Ordnance Technology’’ from the Naval 

Surface Warfare Center revealed no 

reference suggesting that rocket motors 

alone are considered propellant 

actuated devices. This file made no 

attempt to define propellant actuated 

device, nor did it establish any criteria 

for such a designation. 

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s 

‘‘National Security Assessment of the 

U.S. Cartridge and Propellant Actuated 

Device Industry’’ was initiated to 

analyze the current and long-term 

health and economic competitiveness of 

the cartridge actuated device/propellant 

actuated device industry and to develop 

recommendations for the Navy to ensure 

the continued ability of the industry to 

support defense missions and programs. 

The document was not intended to 

define ‘‘propellant actuated device,’’ nor 

did it define or provide criteria to 

determine what a PAD is. The 

Department questions the relevancy of 

this document to this rulemaking 

proceeding. 

The U.S. Army Project Manager Close 

Combat Systems manages over 190 

separate programs that meet Army 

transformation goals of providing 

smaller, lighter, more-lethal munitions 

over the next 20 years. The Department 

found no reference to propellant 

actuated devices in their publications 

and questions the relevancy of this 

program to the question of whether 

rocket motors should be classified as 

PADs. 

19. ATF’s Statement That ‘‘the Hobby 

Rocket Motor Is, in Essence, Simply the 

Propellant That Actuates the Hobby 

Rocket’’ Is Incorrect 

Three commenters disagreed with 

ATF’s statement that because the hobby 

rocket motor is, in essence, simply the 

propellant that actuates the hobby 

rocket, the motor itself cannot be 

construed to constitute a propellant 

actuated device. Following are excerpts 

from the comments: 

The ATF suggests ‘‘the hobby rocket motor 

is, in essence, simply the propellant that 

actuates the hobby rocket.’’ No, the 

propellant is the material (e.g., APCP) inside 

the motor. What is actuated is the conversion 

of this propellant into a gas inside the motor. 

The gas exiting the motor’s nozzle moves the 

rocket motor in the opposite direction. Used 

as intended in a rocket airframe (typically 

nosecone, body and fins designed so as to be 

stable in flight) the rocket motor moves the 

rocket upward. (Comment No. 152) 

[T]he propellant alone cannot make a 

rocket motor function, but the mechanical 

interaction of all the components does 

constitute a propellant actuated device. 

(Comment No. 174) 

The premise, that a motor is propellant, (in 

essence or otherwise) is flatly, provably, 

wrong. If I put propellant in my rocket, I will 

burn up my rocket. I need to load that 

propellant into a motor in order to create 

thrust. Since the premise is wrong, the 

conclusion can not follow. (Comment No. 

205) 

Department Response 

The Department considers APCP, 

whether in powder form or fabricated 

into propellant grains, an explosive. The 

Department is required under the 

federal explosives laws to publish an 

annual list of explosives. Since 

publication of the first ‘‘Explosives List’’ 

in 1971, ammonium perchlorate 

composite propellant, the propellant 

used in many high-powered rocket 

motors, has been classified as an 

explosive. 

One commenter implies that rocket 

motors are not propellants. The 

Department disagrees with this 

suggestion. Rocket motors, consisting 

principally of propellant grains, are 

manufactured with APCP, which is a 

regulated explosive. 

Each of the above comments makes 

the distinction between APCP 

propellant and a rocket motor 

containing APCP. Also, each suggests 

that the rocket motor performs a 

function beyond what the APCP alone 

can accomplish. The Department finds 

these to be reasonable assertions. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
1890 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

However, it is unclear how this 

differentiation between the rocket motor 

and the APCP propellant makes more 

convincing the argument that rocket 

motors are propellant actuated devices. 

The rocket motor has no self-contained 

igniter, nor is it by itself serving any 

intended, ‘‘actuated’’ purpose. 

Therefore, rocket motors do not fall 

within the definition of a PAD. 

20. The Proposed Rule Will Have an 

Effect on the States (Executive Order 

13132) 

In the NPRM, the Department stated 

that the proposed rule would 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. Accordingly, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, the Attorney General 

determined that the proposed regulation 

did not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a federalism summary impact 

statement. 

Two commenters, including the NAR, 

raised similar concerns regarding the 

Department’s determination that the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement was not warranted. 

The NAR stated the following in its 

comment: 

First, the NPRM is silent about how this 

conclusion was reached. There is no analysis 

or rational[e] provided for this conclusion. 

BATFE fails to comment on the types, 

number and work of state agencies who 

might be forced [to] change procedures by the 

proposed rule. There is no qualification given 

to the size, duration or nature of potential 

economic or regulatory impacts on state 

governments. Secondly, state regulators who 

currently do not license hobby rocket motors 

users, would face a great increase in licensed 

explosive users should a PADS exemption 

not apply to hobby rocket motors. Workloads 

for these state regulators will increase 

dramatically, both as regards licensing and 

inspection without any corresponding staff or 

funding increase. BATF[E] must address 

these potential state impacts prior to 

publication of any final rule. (Comment No. 

261) 

Department Response 

The commenters’ contentions appear 

to rest on inaccurate assumptions 

regarding the relationship between state 

requirements and the federal explosives 

regulations as well as a 

misunderstanding of this rulemaking. 

Title XI of the Organized Crime Control 

Act of 1970 and its implementing 

regulations make clear that this law and 

the regulations are not intended to affect 

state or other law. A license or permit 

issued under the federal explosives 

requirements confers no right or 

privilege to conduct business contrary 

to state or other law. Similarly, 

compliance with state law affords no 

immunity from the consequences of 

violation of the federal law and 

regulations. Finally, the federal 

explosives laws under title XI of the 

Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 

place no enforcement burden or 

expectation on state or other nonfederal 

authorities. 

21. ATF Does Not Need To Regulate 

Model/Sport Rocketry 

Three commenters argued that ATF’s 

regulation of the model/sport rocketry 

hobby is unnecessary. Following are 

some of the commenters’ reasons given 

to support their position: 

[W]e have a safety record that is better than 

any other hobby or sport; including baseball, 

swimming, or riding a bicycle. This 

incredible safety record is a result of a safety 

code originally developed by a former White 

Sands Range Safety Officer that is always 

followed when our rockets are flown. We’re 

a self-policing hobby that needs no Federal 

intervention. (Comment No. 189) 

The sport and high power rocketry 

community is fully able to regulate itself 

without further intrusion of the United States 

government. (Comment No. 223) 

Hobbyists who wish to use large hobby 

rocket PADs for their intended purpose must 

first gain permission from the Federal 

Aviation Administration * * * to use the 

motors in U.S. airspace. To require 

permission from yet another agency to 

purchase the motors is redundant, an 

unnecessary duplication of effort to no 

logical purpose. (Comment No. 219) 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges that 

rocketry clubs and organizations have 

implemented self-regulating procedures 

and policies that are commendable. 

Voluntary club regulation and 

certification provide some oversight of 

club members, but this final rule 

clarifies existing policy that governs all 

persons, including potential terrorists, 

felons, or illegal aliens. 

One commenter incorrectly implies 

that ATF and the Federal Aviation 

Administration (‘‘FAA’’) have 

duplicative roles in the regulation of 

explosives. While it is true that FAA 

permission is necessary for certain 

activities, ATF is the Federal agency 

primarily responsible for regulating the 

purchase and storage of, and interstate 

commerce (with the exception of 

transportation) in, these explosive 

materials. 

Government agencies tailor their 

regulations to facilitate their specific 

mission. For instance, Department of 

Transportation (‘‘DOT’’) regulations are 

primarily designed to ensure the safe 

transportation of explosive materials. 

The Department’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, 

the Department’s regulations are 

necessary to accomplish its specific 

mission. 

In addition to Government agencies, 

the Department is aware of the selfregulation 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 governs all persons, 

including potential terrorists, felons, or 

illegal aliens. Moreover, it applies 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. 

22. Removal of Hobby Rocket Motors 

From Their Current Classification as 

PADs Will Increase ATF’s Work Load 

One commenter, the Tripoli Rocketry 

Association (Comment No. 219), 

contended that adoption of the 

proposed rule would place a burden on 

ATF’s resources. According to the 

commenter: 

Currently, the classification of hobby 

rocket motors as PADs eliminates or reduces 

the time-consuming and unnecessary 

inspections by BATFE employees of records 

and storage of these harmless and 

educational PADs by hobbyists. If the 

proposed rulemaking is imposed, inspection 

of records and storage of such devices must 

be resumed. The BATFE may have to provide 

further training to those field operatives 

unfamiliar with rocket motors. The BATFE 

will also have to deal with the applications 

for user’s permits from hobbyists who wish 

to use these devices. All such additional 

effort would be unnecessary if the current 

classification of hobby rocket motors as PADs 

is retained. 

Department Response 

The commenter has misinterpreted 

the Department’s position on rocket 

motors. It is and has been the 

Department’s position that all rocket 

motors and kits containing explosive 

materials such as APCP and black 

powder are subject to the provisions of 

27 CFR part 555. One of these 

provisions provides an exemption for 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1891 

motors and kits containing 62.5 grams 

or less of explosive material. However, 

with respect to rocket motors and kits 

containing more than 62.5 grams of 

explosive material, ATF has been 

processing applications from rocketry 

enthusiasts and conducting inspections 

as a regular course of business. 

Therefore, the Department does not 

anticipate an increased workload due to 

this rulemaking. Further, the 

Department’s field personnel have been 

regularly exposed to training and field 

activities regarding rocket motors. 

IV. Request for Hearings 

Two comments requested that ATF 

hold public hearings on the proposed 

definition of a PAD set forth in Notice 

No. 9P. According to one commenter 

(Comment No. 247), the proposed rule 

‘‘is arbitrary and capricious in many 

ways and violates a recent court 

decision of which the ATF must be well 

aware. On this basis the proposed rule 

should not be enacted. * * * The 

issuance of an arbitrary and capricious 

rule change through a process that 

violates a recent DC Circuit of Appeals 

decision must surely be an action that 

the Director should not take solely on 

his own discretion.’’ 

After careful consideration, the 

Director has determined that the 

holding of public hearings with respect 

to the proposed definition of a 

propellant actuated device is 

unnecessary and unwarranted. First, 

issuance of this final rule complies in 

all respects with the Administrative 

Procedure Act. Any party who believes 

the rule to be arbitrary, capricious, or in 

excess of statutory authority may 

challenge it in federal court. In addition, 

ATF’s public hearings are generally 

conducted to permit the public to 

participate in rulemaking by affording 

interested parties the chance to present 

oral presentation of data, views, or 

arguments. Most commenters who 

addressed the proposed definition of a 

PAD 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. 

V. Final Rule 

After careful consideration of the 

comments received in response to 

Notice No. 9P, this final rule adopts the 

definition of a propellant actuated 

device as proposed, and confirms the 

Department’s position that hobby rocket 

motors are not exempt from federal 

explosives regulation, pursuant to the 

propellant actuated device exception. 

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 section 

1(b) of Executive Order 12866 

(‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’). 

The Department of Justice has 

determined that this rule is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

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, 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 rule merely clarifies ATF’s longheld position that hobby rocket motors 

and rocket-motor reload kits consisting 

of or containing APCP, black powder, or 

other similar low explosives, regardless 

of amount, do not fall within the 

‘‘propellant actuated device’’ exception. 

The rule does not in any way expand 

the universe of rocket motors and 

rocket-motor reload kits that will remain 

subject to ATF regulation. Accordingly, 

unless they fall within ATF’s exemption 

for rocket motors containing 62.5 grams 

or less of propellant, rocket motors will 

remain subject to all applicable federal 

explosives controls pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. 841 et seq., the regulations in 

part 555 of title 27 of the CFR, and 

applicable ATF policy. 

Rocketry hobbyists who acquire and 

use motors containing 62.5 grams of 

propellant or less, however, may 

continue to enjoy their hobby on an 

exempt basis, i.e., without regard to the 

requirements of part 555. Without the 

62.5 gram exemption, a typical rocket 

motor would be required to be stored in 

a type-4 magazine (costing 

approximately $400) because of the 

explosives contained in the motor. ATF 

has published a rule that incorporates 

its existing 62.5-gram exemption 

threshold into its explosives regulations. 

See 27 CFR 555.141(a)(10); Commerce 

in Explosives—Hobby Rocket Motors 

(2004R–7P); 71 FR 46079 (Aug. 11, 

2006). 

As noted above, rocket motors 

containing more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant will continue to be regulated 

by ATF. In 2002, Congress enacted the 

Safe Explosives Act (‘‘SEA’’) which, in 

part, imposed new licensing and 

permitting requirements on the 

intrastate possession of explosives. 

Under the SEA, all persons who wish to 

receive explosive materials must hold a 

Federal explosives license or permit. 

Prior to its enactment, only persons who 

transported, shipped, or received 

explosive materials in interstate 

commerce were required to obtain a 

license or permit. Now, intrastate 

receipt, shipment, and transportation 

also are covered. ATF recognizes that 

some rocketry hobbyists may have been 

operating under the false assumption 

that all rocket motors, regardless of size, 

were exempted from regulation under 

the ‘‘propellant actuated device’’ 

exception. However, rocketry hobbyists 

wishing to utilize rocket motors 

containing more than 62.5 grams of 

propellant must comply with the 

existing requirements in order to obtain 

such rocket motors. See also infra 

section V.D (discussing cost analysis 

pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act). 

B. Executive Order 13132 

This rule 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 rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant the preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement. 

C. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

This rule meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. 

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 rule and, by approving it, 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

indicated, the rule merely clarifies 

ATF’s long-held position that hobby 

rocket motors and rocket-motor reload 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
1892 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

kits consisting of or containing APCP, 

black powder, or other similar low 

explosives, regardless of amount, do not 

fall within the ‘‘propellant actuated 

device’’ exception and are subject to all 

applicable Federal explosives controls 

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

regulations in part 555 of title 27 of the 

CFR, and applicable ATF policy. The 

Department believes that the rule will 

not have a significant impact on small 

businesses. 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 (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). 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. This 

will not change upon the effective date 

of this rule. 

Rocket motors containing 62.5 grams 

or less of explosive propellants (e.g., 

APCP) and reload kits that can be used 

only in the assembly of a rocket motor 

containing a total of no more than 62.5 

grams of propellant are exempt from 

regulation, including permitting and 

storage requirements. Typically, rocket 

motors containing more than 62.5 grams 

of explosive propellant would be 

required to be stored in a type-4 

magazine that costs approximately $400; 

however, this rule does not impact 

ATF’s storage requirements, nor does it 

affect the applicability of ATF’s 62.5- 

gram exemption. 

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 the ability 

of United States-based companies to 

compete with foreign-based 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 of 1995 

This rule does not impose any new 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Disclosure 

Copies of the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, all comments received in 

response to the NPRM, and this rule 

will be available for public inspection 

by appointment during normal business 

hours at: ATF Reading Room, Room 1E– 

063, 99 New York Avenue, NE., 

Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 

648–7080. 

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. 

■ 2. Section 555.11 is amended by 

revising the definition for ‘‘Propellant 

actuated device’’ to read as follows: 

§ 555.11 Meaning of terms. 

* * * * * 

Propellant actuated device. (a) Any 

tool or special mechanized device or gas 

generator system that is actuated by a 

propellant or which releases and directs 

work through a propellant charge. 

(b) The term does not include— 

(1) Hobby rocket motors consisting of 

ammonium perchlorate composite 

propellant, black powder, or other 

similar low explosives, regardless of 

amount; and 

(2) Rocket-motor reload kits that can 

be used to assemble hobby rocket 

motors containing ammonium 

perchlorate composite propellant, black 

powder, or other similar low explosives, 

regardless of amount. 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 7, 2009. 

Michael B. Mukasey, 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. E9–578 Filed 1–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Prisons 

28 CFR Parts 545 and 550 

[Docket Nos. BOP–1093–F; BOP–1109–F; 

BOP–1139–F] 

RIN 1120–AA88; RIN 1120–AB07; RIN 1120– 

AB41 

Drug Abuse Treatment Program: 

Subpart Revision and Clarification and 

Eligibility of D.C. Code Felony 

Offenders for Early Release 

Consideration 

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau 

of Prisons (Bureau) finalizes three 

proposed rules on the drug abuse 

treatment program. Finalizing all three 

proposed rules together results in a 

more uniform and comprehensive 

revision of our drug abuse treatment 

program (DATP) regulations. 

Specifically, this amendment will 

streamline and clarify these regulations, 

eliminating unnecessary text and 

obsolete language, and removing 

internal agency procedures that need 

not be in rules text. 

This rule clarifies the distinction 

between mandatory and voluntary 

participation in the drug abuse 

education course, removes eligibility 

limitations pertaining to cognitive 

impairments and learning disabilities, 

and addresses the effects of nonparticipation both in the drug abuse 

education course and in the residential 

drug abuse treatment program (RDAP). 

In this rule, we also add escape and 

attempted escape to the list of reasons 

an inmate may be expelled from the 

RDAP. Furthermore, in our regulation 

on considering inmates for early release, 

we remove obsolete language, add as 

ineligible for early release inmates with 

a prior felony or misdemeanor 

conviction for arson or kidnapping, and 

clarify that inmates cannot earn early 

release twice. 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 

16, 2009. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES