Clarification of ATF regulation CFR 27, section 555 (555.141 actually)

the rocketry show
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
dr wogz

dr wogz

Fly caster
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
9,498
Reaction score
5,660
Location
Land of Poutine!
Hi,
once again the importation of rocket motors has come up in our club. Notably, one of the members was asked to prove the exemption of APCP rocket motors.

In discussions with an import specialist, he states:

Notably, Section 555.141 of these regulations generally exempt some explosive materials from these regulations. Among these exemptions is one for certain rocket motors. In the email, he inserted that exemption language, and I’m pasting it here for ease of reference:

(a) General. Except for the provisions of §§ 555.180 and 555.181, this part does not apply to:
(10) Model rocket motors that meet all of the following criteria—
(i) Consist of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant, black powder, or other similar low explosives;
(ii) Contain no more than 62.5 grams of total propellant weight; and
(iii) Are designed as single-use motors or as reload kits capable of reloading no more than 62.5 grams of propellant into a reusable motor casing.

and form teh original converstion I had, we have this statement:
“Also, due to a lawsuit years ago, all motors that only consist of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) are exempt (regardless of size)”.


So, we were originally under the impression that any APCP motor is exempt. and I believe that is what some / most other Canadians believe. " I'll fly a K this week-end!! Load it up, and cross the US border with it, no issues!"

But as we read & re-read the above exemption, it notes "62.5g of propellant" which would then limit an imported APCP motors to a 'G' or there abouts.. (So, no bringing that 'K' across..)


So I ask the collective:
What did you understand to be "exempt'?
What do you understand section 555.141 to say?


It really comes down to trying to get a black & white response: "You can bring this, but not that.. this is OK, and so is that; as long as XX is met / excluded"
 
Last edited:
No problem with APCP motors in the US. What are the regulations in your country?
 
I thought the results of the lawsuit made APCP a non-regulated substance and so while it is listed there, the ATF no longer regulates APCP at all so the rest is moot.
 
So, it sounds like the CFR wasn't updated after the lawsuit. Don't you love having to know the regulations AND the case law? Or that the regulators (customs agents in this case) can easily look up the regulations - but not the case law?

Alcohol is much the same. At least the online WI Statutes are footnoted with the relevant case law.
 
It was remanded for review - what was the result? Is there an ATF notice of the final decision?

This, by the way, is how the agency operates in the alcohol domain. If you disagree with their interpretation of law/definitions, you litigate it in court.
 
Originally filed 2000, appealed 2006 and remanded back to Judge Walton and then decided 2010 in TRA/NAR favor.

(Edit: decided in 2009 but granted attorneys fees in 2010 which was the final step in the case)
 

Attachments

  • show_public_doc.pdf
    62 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
to be clear, this to bring ACPC into the US to use, from Canada. Its the border agent that is the "authority" in this case, unless you can prove otherwise, hence this statement and talking with an 'import specialist'. but it is still vague, depending on who you talk to..

Canadian regs are close to yours.. but are more strict (Its' more of a "Transport Canada" issue than ATF or the like..)


it's the "62.5g" statement vs. "all APCP is excluded" that is causing confusion.



Are all ACPC motor excluded? or only the ones with 62.5g or less?
 
Charles_McG said:
it sounds like the CFR wasn't updated after the lawsuit. Don't you love having to know the regulations AND the case law
Click to expand...

I found 3 versions of the CFR.
2010-2014:
https://regulations.atf.gov/555-141/2010-891#555-141-a-10

2015-2019:
https://regulations.atf.gov/555-141/2015-25190

And 2019 (current):
https://regulations.atf.gov/555-141/2019-24570#555-141-a-6

All 3 still have the 62.5g limit in there, in error.

Look at the List of Explosive Materials in the Federal Register link that Steve and John linked. This spells out which materials are regulated explosives.
In the Summary, it states:
“As a result of a recent court decision, ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) is no longer regulated under the Federal explosives laws”

It’s not regulated, the amount is irrelevant.

As I understand it, that is.
 
tsmith1315 said:
I found 3 versions of the CFR.
2010-2014:
https://regulations.atf.gov/555-141/2010-891#555-141-a-10

2015-2019:
https://regulations.atf.gov/555-141/2015-25190

And 2019 (current):
https://regulations.atf.gov/555-141/2019-24570#555-141-a-6

All 3 still have the 62.5g limit in there, in error.

Look at the List of Explosive Materials in the Federal Register link that Steve and John linked. This spells out which materials are regulated explosives.
In the Summary, it states:
“As a result of a recent court decision, ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) is no longer regulated under the Federal explosives laws”

It’s not regulated, the amount is irrelevant.

As I understand it, that is.
Click to expand...
No, the 62.5 gram limit is not “in error”. That affects all low explosives (including black powder) that are used in model rocket motors. Our lawsuit didn’t change that. Tripoli and NAR tried to get congress (with Mike Enzi’s help) to change the law but that was blocked by Schumer and Lautenberg? The lawsuit proved that ATF was wrong in adding APCP to the explosives list. Removing APCP from the explosive list was the only change. The suit didn’t change the law.
 
I can't find the order right now, but the linked OPEN LETTER TO ALL FEDERAL EXPLOSIVES LICENSEES AND PERMITTEES dated July 17, 2009 from the ATF should answer your question. https://www.atf.gov/explosives/docs...ium-perchlorate-composite-propellant/download

The Open Letter clearly states the ATF recognizes that "APCP and products that contain only APCP are not subject to the recordkeeping, storage, and other regulatory requirements under 27 CFR, Part 555." There is no mass requirement to the exception. [EDIT] - APC is no longer regulated by the ATF and therefore there is no mass requirement for APCP. But the exception still stands for "black powder or other similar low explosives."[/EDIT] The CFR has just not been updated since Judge Walton's Order.

IMO, TRA and NAR should have a copy of the Order and the Open Letter on their respective websites in an easily identifiable spot. I'm going to look for the Order and if I find it, will post it to this thread.
 
Last edited:
dr wogz said:
Hi,
once again the importation of rocket motors has come up in our club. Notably, one of the members was asked to prove the exemption of APCP rocket motors.

In discussions with an import specialist, he states:

Notably, Section 555.141 of these regulations generally exempt some explosive materials from these regulations. Among these exemptions is one for certain rocket motors. In the email, he inserted that exemption language, and I’m pasting it here for ease of reference:

(a) General. Except for the provisions of §§ 555.180 and 555.181, this part does not apply to:
(10) Model rocket motors that meet all of the following criteria—
(i) Consist of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant, black powder, or other similar low explosives;
(ii) Contain no more than 62.5 grams of total propellant weight; and
(iii) Are designed as single-use motors or as reload kits capable of reloading no more than 62.5 grams of propellant into a reusable motor casing.

and form teh original converstion I had, we have this statement:
“Also, due to a lawsuit years ago, all motors that only consist of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) are exempt (regardless of size)”.


So, we were originally under the impression that any APCP motor is exempt. and I believe that is what some / most other Canadians believe. " I'll fly a K this week-end!! Load it up, and cross the US border with it, no issues!"

But as we read & re-read the above exemption, it notes "62.5g of propellant" which would then limit an imported APCP motors to a 'G' or there abouts.. (So, no bringing that 'K' across..)


So I ask the collective:
What did you understand to be "exempt'?
What do you understand section 555.141 to say?


It really comes down to trying to get a black & white response: "You can bring this, but not that.. this is OK, and so is that; as long as XX is met / excluded"
Click to expand...

APCP is not completely unregulated. It’s just not subject to the explosives regulation of the ATF. It’s still considered a hazardous material by DOT. I have emailed a lawyer friend who is very familiar with this and I’ll reach out to your member (Daniel?) to get this clarified. He asked about getting documentation that would “allow me to import APCP rocket motor of any size for personnel use”.
I doubt that’s going to be possible.
 
The ATF can't regulate APCP. Whether the DOT or a border agent can is something for Steve's friend to determine. I leave that to a real lawyer. Just to follow up though, here's Judge Walton's Order vacating the ATF decision to classify APCP as an explosive.
 

Attachments

  • TRA v BATFE Order.pdf
    31.3 KB · Views: 0
SecondRow said:
The ATF can't regulate APCP. Whether the DOT or a border agent can is something for Steve's friend to determine. I leave that to a real lawyer. Just to follow up though, here's Judge Walton's Order vacating the ATF decision to classify APCP as an explosive.
Click to expand...
It is still a thing of beauty!
 
Steve Shannon said:
APCP is not completely unregulated. It’s just not subject to the explosives regulation of the ATF. It’s still considered a hazardous material by DOT. I have emailed a lawyer friend who is very familiar with this and I’ll reach out to your member (Daniel?) to get this clarified. He asked about getting documentation that would “allow me to import APCP rocket motor of any size for personnel use”.
I doubt that’s going to be possible.
Click to expand...
yes, thank you!! And yes, it is Daniel.

but this [this thread] is also to serve as the official: "what you can bring across the CAN / US border into the US" so others don't question it, have a reference to show the uneducated, and to have this clearly spelled out..
 
dr wogz said:
yes, thank you!! And yes, it is Daniel.

but this [this thread] is also to serve as the official: "what you can bring across the CAN / US border into the US" so others don't question it, have a reference to show the uneducated, and to have this clearly spelled out..
Click to expand...
I wrote to Daniel asking him to forward the email he received from ATF.
 
@Steve Shannon I should, then also, send you what I originally got as well.

To give a bit of added back-ground: we have a club member who is / was a border agent (now retired). I had initially asked him, and he took it upon himself to move the request / query up the 'chain of command' to get clarification. In the e-mail exchange, we both came to the conclusion that only BP motors were regulated, anything 'APCP' was exempt; needed only be declared. Now this was about 5 years ago. Covid seems to have changed a few people's minds, attitudes, and understanding on things..

I have since forwarded my e-mail chain to Daniel and a few other Canadians in the club. One other member did get pulled into secondary a few years ago. But he presented the e-mail exchange, and was allowed to proceed: "You seem to know more about it than I do! go have fun"

Daniel got pulled into secondary, then presented the e-mail exchange. The border agent was focused on the "62.5g" statement. While he did let him thru, it did leave a bad taste in his mouth. I believe he did get a warning & such.. I believe Daniel had a 38mm reload; an I-something..
 
dr wogz said:
@Steve Shannon I should, then also, send you what I originally got as well.

To give a bit of added back-ground: we have a club member who is / was a border agent (now retired). I had initially asked him, and he took it upon himself to move the request / query up the 'chain of command' to get clarification. In the e-mail exchange, we both came to the conclusion that only BP motors were regulated, anything 'APCP' was exempt; needed only be declared. Now this was about 5 years ago. Covid seems to have changed a few people's minds, attitudes, and understanding on things..

I have since forwarded my e-mail chain to Daniel and a few other Canadians in the club. One other member did get pulled into secondary a few years ago. But he presented the e-mail exchange, and was allowed to proceed: "You seem to know more about it than I do! go have fun"

Daniel got pulled into secondary, then presented the e-mail exchange. The border agent was focused on the "62.5g" statement. While he did let him thru, it did leave a bad taste in his mouth. I believe he did get a warning & such.. I believe Daniel had a 38mm reload; an I-something..
Click to expand...
That’s not surprising. People (which includes customs agents and ATF employees) see the “exemption” and use it, but if something isn’t on the explosives list then the exemption doesn’t follow logic.
But here’s the other side of the coin:
Although APCP is no longer on the ATF explosives list, it’s still considered an “explosive” by DOT and rocket motors may also be considered as regulated devices under certain circumstances. If you were a customs agent and someone showed up at the border with an O motor, what do you do?
So, you’re right, getting this spelled out will be helpful, but in most cases the manufacturers have already done the legwork and have delivered rocket motors to vendors on both sides of the border.
More when I learn it.
 
:D

If someone show sup at the border with an O motor?!

I have wondered what the car behind me (at the border) thinks when the border agent comes to see my rockets in the trunk. He then takes one or two out to 'look them over'. (Most say something to the effect of: "Those are cool!!") but the car behind me must be going ballistic (haha 'pun'!): "He had missiles in the back of his car!! and they let him thru!!!!!!"

I know what an O is, and what to ask. the average borer agent: not a clue.

It seems the Canadian transport regs are more strict to transporting & storing rocket motors than the US..

Vendors have done their due diligence to have the items imported / exported. We have a few vendors of APCP (2 actually.. and I believe only 2: Sunward & allrocket.ca). so, we may buy a motor here, but will want to fly it in the US.. so, how do "we" get it across? We (CRMRC.org) don't have a vendor on site. And few of us have a US address (cottage) to ship to & store at..
 
Okay, so Daniel forwarded to me his (and Dr. Wogz') correspondences with ATF and Customs. In both cases the official answer is that motors which use explosive propellants must comply with the three conditions in the exemption in Section 555.141, but APCP motors (APCP only - containing no other regulated explosive materials) are exempt because of the lawsuit.

Also, due to a lawsuit years ago, all motors that only consist of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) are exempt (regardless of size). Anything else is a regulated explosive material and would require a Federal Explosives License or Permit (FEL/P) to import.

This seems pretty clear to me.
Steve


I received your below inquiry. The short answer is that some rocket motors are exempt from the Federal explosives regulations, while others are not. There is an exemption for certain rocket motors (listed below). If the subject rocket motors meet all three requirements, they would be exempt from the Federal explosive laws and regulations. Also, due to a lawsuit years ago, all motors that only consist of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) are exempt (regardless of size). Anything else is a regulated explosive material and would require a Federal Explosives License or Permit (FEL/P) to import.

27 CFR § 555.141 Exemptions.
(a) General. Except for the provisions of §§ 555.180 and 555.181, this part does not apply to:
(10) Model rocket motors that meet all of the following criteria -
(i) Consist of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant, black powder, or other similar low explosives;
(ii) Contain no more than 62.5 grams of total propellant weight; and
(iii) Are designed as single-use motors or as reload kits capable of reloading no more than 62.5 grams of propellant into a reusable motor casing.
 
So.....an APCP motor reload that also contains 2 grams of BP for ejection charge are either exempt via being APCP or exempt by containing less than 62.5grams of BP, correct?
 
heada said:
So.....an APCP motor reload that also contains 2 grams of BP for ejection charge are either exempt via being APCP or exempt by containing less than 62.5grams of BP, correct?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. I wouldn’t assume so because the BP isn’t propellant.
If so would that also mean a manufacturer could include up to 62.5 grams of BP with an APCP reload?
 
Steve Shannon said:
I don’t know. I wouldn’t assume so because the BP isn’t propellant.
If so would that also mean a manufacturer could include up to 62.5 grams of BP with an APCP reload?
Click to expand...
That's how I read it but I'm not a lawyer. The BP isn't propellant and should not move a reload into the regulated area.
 
heada said:
That's how I read it but I'm not a lawyer. The BP isn't propellant and should not move a reload into the regulated area.
Click to expand...
Correct; it's not a propellant. The 62.5 gram exemption in 555.141(a)(10)(ii) is specific to propellants. I'm just not certain that the language of the exemption covers igniters or ejection charges, especially considering the very specific language in the email from ATF. I could see an argument being made that the igniter and the BP would fall under the second (red) sentence here, but maybe I'm reading too much into it (I'm also not a lawyer):
Also, due to a lawsuit years ago, all motors that only consist of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) are exempt (regardless of size). Anything else is a regulated explosive material and would require a Federal Explosives License or Permit (FEL/P) to import.
 

Similar threads

D
HAZMAT Shipping Update.
2 3
Replies
78
Views
5K
jsdemar
jsdemar
shockie
Piotr Tendera's TSP Motors from Poland
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
mr. bob
mr. bob
S
Adam Laakmann's Rocket Facts LinkedIn posts #1 - #10
Replies
8
Views
934
John Kemker
John Kemker
prfesser
Our rocket hero, Judge Reggie Walton
Replies
3
Views
910
cwbullet
cwbullet
overklock
Aerotech G-force Build Thread - WIP
Replies
12
Views
2K
gldknght
gldknght

Latest posts

Back
Top