New ITAR revisions would limit amateur rocketry! Save HPR!

[maxmanson]

I'm surprised this hasn't come up on the forum yet but ITAR has proposed new revisions that would make many L2 and all L3 rockets ITAR controlled! Obviously, this would be very bad for amateur rocketry. Fortunately, there is a public comment period open until 11/22/24. From what I've heard, very few people submit comments to ITAR revision proposals and they are taken very seriously and addressed individually. This means we have a chance at preventing this. This is also an opportunity to suggest revisions to existing rules, for example clarifying the definition of "active control" to something that would explicitly allow things like active stabilization. If you choose to submit a comment, please be respectful and informed in your responses.
Here is the link to the proposed revisions as well as the comment submission:
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...s-itar-us-munitions-list-categories-iv-and-xv

The main revisions pertaining to us is a reclassification of amateur rocketry in $121.0 to...

"Amateur rocket means an unmanned rocket that:

(1) Is made of paper, wood, fiberglass, or plastic, and does not contain any substantial metal parts;


(2) Does not carry a payload designed to be flammable, explosive, or harmful to humans or property;


(3) Is propelled by one or more motors having a combined total impulse of 40,960 Newton-seconds or less;


(4) Has a capacity for no more than five (5) pounds of propellant;


(5) Has no active controls; and


(6) Cannot reach an altitude greater than 150 km above Earth's surface.

Amateur rocket motor means a rocket motor or engine containing no more than 5 pounds of propellant, that is certified for U.S. consumer use as described in National Fire Protection Association Code 1125."

I think (1), (3), (4), and (5) all could be changed, removed, or clarified, but obviously (4) is the most important to fix

 

[lr64]

If you have #4, #6 hardly seems necessary.

 

[Art Upton]

humm

 

[cls]

interesting .. how did you catch this NPRM?

the link above includes the text

Rockets​

​

USML Category IV(a)(5) describes rockets, space launch vehicles (SLVs), and missiles not described elsewhere in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4). This includes rockets on the lower end of the performance spectrum that, nonetheless, warrant designation as a defense article. USML Category IV(a) excludes certain model rockets via note 3 to paragraph (a).​

​

link The Department also proposes to replace note 3 to paragraph (a) with a specific definition of “amateur rockets” in § 121.0 and to reference that definition to exclude amateur rockets from the regulatory text of paragraph (a)(5). The proposed definition is consistent with the current National Fire Protection Association Code definition referenced in note 3 to paragraph (a).​

​

(bold mine) I'll have to go chase that down but it seems the 5 pounds thing is some wrong copy/paste error and would be correctable.

that said, I personally think 40960 newton seconds is not enough! although I personally do not have plans to exceed that.

does NFPA 1127 say anything aboiut a maximum Ns for motors?


one more issue: we have secret laws in America!!! NFPA text is copyrighted, so is not allowed to be published in state law. unless you pay you can't have a copy. So the NFPA sections are incorporated by reference in to law.

This is actually better, in one way, because the NFPA texts can and do get revised, and the law ought to accept the latest revision. (some laws do not and are stuck at a past revision, and require an act of Congress, errrr, state legislature, to get updated, to make the fire marshal happy.)

late night $0.03 ramblings

 

[cls]

link to section defining "amateur rocket" and 5 pounds of propellant

Amateur rocket motor means a rocket motor or engine containing no more than 5 pounds of propellant, that is certified for U.S. consumer use as described in National Fire Protection Association Code 1125.

what dummies. NFPA 1125 is code for manufacture, 1127 is our HPR code.

so I think that is all we need to say in the NPRM comments: 1127 is the relevant code; 1125 does not mandate any 5 pound limit, nor is there such a thing in 1127, so remove the 5 pound text.



but ... there's a bunch of things on the USML like active control, certain kinds of antennas, gyros, I guess those could be on the list and we could still play with them in the US, but exporting a commercial product (say TVC or gyro stabilkizing) would be a no-no.

 

[2-0turbo]

Does anyone have a concise, proposed response we should reply with? Many times, if an industry group that will be regulated comes together and compiles a thoughtful response and encourages their membership to all respond with the same language, the results are better. We could influence the rule hopefully so it doesn’t negatively impact us.

This seems like something Tripoli should weigh in on and provide some guidance. Anyone know anyone on the BOD to reach out? See if they can advise us?

 

[Steve Shannon]

Anyone know anyone on the BOD to reach out?

I do.

I have a launch today, but I’ll take a look at this to see what’s new and I’ll bring it to the attention of the rest of the board.

 

[Steve Shannon]

link to section defining "amateur rocket" and 5 pounds of propellant

Amateur rocket motor means a rocket motor or engine containing no more than 5 pounds of propellant, that is certified for U.S. consumer use as described in National Fire Protection Association Code 1125.

what dummies. NFPA 1125 is code for manufacture, 1127 is our HPR code.

so I think that is all we need to say in the NPRM comments: 1127 is the relevant code; 1125 does not mandate any 5 pound limit, nor is there such a thing in 1127, so remove the 5 pound text.



but ... there's a bunch of things on the USML like active control, certain kinds of antennas, gyros, I guess those could be on the list and we could still play with them in the US, but exporting a commercial product (say TVC or gyro stabilkizing) would be a no-no.

No, not dummies at all. They said, that is certified for us consumer use as described in NFPA 1125. NFPA 1125 is exactly where certification of rocket motors is described.

 

[Steve Shannon]

interesting .. how did you catch this NPRM?

the link above includes the text

Rockets​

​

USML Category IV(a)(5) describes rockets, space launch vehicles (SLVs), and missiles not described elsewhere in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4). This includes rockets on the lower end of the performance spectrum that, nonetheless, warrant designation as a defense article. USML Category IV(a) excludes certain model rockets via note 3 to paragraph (a).​

​

link The Department also proposes to replace note 3 to paragraph (a) with a specific definition of “amateur rockets” in § 121.0 and to reference that definition to exclude amateur rockets from the regulatory text of paragraph (a)(5). The proposed definition is consistent with the current National Fire Protection Association Code definition referenced in note 3 to paragraph (a).​

​

(bold mine) I'll have to go chase that down but it seems the 5 pounds thing is some wrong copy/paste error and would be correctable.

that said, I personally think 40960 newton seconds is not enough! although I personally do not have plans to exceed that.

does NFPA 1127 say anything aboiut a maximum Ns for motors?


one more issue: we have secret laws in America!!! NFPA text is copyrighted, so is not allowed to be published in state law. unless you pay you can't have a copy. So the NFPA sections are incorporated by reference in to law.

This is actually better, in one way, because the NFPA texts can and do get revised, and the law ought to accept the latest revision. (some laws do not and are stuck at a past revision, and require an act of Congress, errrr, state legislature, to get updated, to make the fire marshal happy.)

late night $0.03 ramblings

40,960 Ns has been the limit for commercially sold rocket motors for a long time. That’s nothing new.
Many states refer to a specific copyright date of NFPA. They must not simply accept the latest revision because if they did, and if the Pyro Technical Committee added wording that was absolutely wrong somehow (typos have been known to squeak through) it would immediately become regulation wherever it was adopted.
You’re right, if you don’t pay for a copy you cannot print it off, but all of the NFPA codes are available to freely read online. So they aren’t secret.
But there’s a value to having NFPA codes developer the way they are. This way they are developed by people who actually know rocketry and represent the interests of NAR members and Tripoli members rather than the town councils in tens of thousands of towns, county commissioners in thousands of different counties, and state legislators in 50 different states.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

maxmanson - Thanks for bringing this up. A few comments. 4. should be deleted since low energy propellants can far exceed 5 pounds and as we know, plenty of commercial motors are north of 5 pounds. 5 should explicitly exclude guidance that is meant to keep a rocket on a single flight vector, ie straight up or 5 degrees etc. The altitude limit should also be scratched as hobby rockets with the goal of educational and technical advancement push to 300 km.

More generally the ITAR rules should be directed at rockets that are meant to be munitions. Any rocket without any clear military value should be exclude.

 

[Steve Shannon]

I'm surprised this hasn't come up on the forum yet but ITAR has proposed new revisions that would make many L2 and all L3 rockets ITAR controlled! Obviously, this would be very bad for amateur rocketry. Fortunately, there is a public comment period open until 11/22/24. From what I've heard, very few people submit comments to ITAR revision proposals and they are taken very seriously and addressed individually. This means we have a chance at preventing this. This is also an opportunity to suggest revisions to existing rules, for example clarifying the definition of "active control" to something that would explicitly allow things like active stabilization. If you choose to submit a comment, please be respectful and informed in your responses.
Here is the link to the proposed revisions as well as the comment submission:
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...s-itar-us-munitions-list-categories-iv-and-xv

The main revisions pertaining to us is a reclassification of amateur rocketry in $121.0 to...

"Amateur rocket means an unmanned rocket that:

(1) Is made of paper, wood, fiberglass, or plastic, and does not contain any substantial metal parts;


(2) Does not carry a payload designed to be flammable, explosive, or harmful to humans or property;


(3) Is propelled by one or more motors having a combined total impulse of 40,960 Newton-seconds or less;


(4) Has a capacity for no more than five (5) pounds of propellant;


(5) Has no active controls; and


(6) Cannot reach an altitude greater than 150 km above Earth's surface.

Amateur rocket motor means a rocket motor or engine containing no more than 5 pounds of propellant, that is certified for U.S. consumer use as described in National Fire Protection Association Code 1125."

I think (1), (3), (4), and (5) all could be changed, removed, or clarified, but obviously (4) is the most important to fix

I’m not sure there’s anything new there. I think that language already exists, but I brought it to the attention of the board.

 

[les]

ITAR is related to security classification. I assume that this is to prevent those motors from being used to make homemade missiles by our enemies. Consider how commercial drones have been turned into tank killers in Ukraine.

It would prevent export of motors with more than 5 pounds of propellant without special clearance. This would apply to physically shipping to outside the US as well as providing said motors to a non-US citizen even within the US. So if someone from Canada came to the US, they could not just pick up a motor at a launch site since that would be an ITAR violation. This will add some complexity for our commercial motor vendors as they would now need to both verify HPR cert level and US citizenship. For #3, I'm not certain how a vendor can know if the rocket will be using multiple motors or not. I guess this would apply only if both the motors and the rocket itself was to be shipped.

It could impact the restricted thread, but would create a grey area. There could be discussions on how to make a motor with 4.9 pounds of propellant, but not 5.1 pounds. I'm not into making motors, but I assume there is no real difference in the manufacturing process once you cross that 5 pound weight limit. This is where it could become grey since the process is usable for the larger motors.

 

[nickt.mrc]

Having 5 lb and 40000+ ns, to me, looks like someone was in a rush. 5lb only gets you to the lower/ middle end of L. I'm sure that the powers that be in NAR and Tripoli can point out the errors and also clarify what is meant by substantial metal parts. Engine cases? Retainers? Shock cord Hooks? What is substantial?
We had a similar problem here in the U.K., when in response to the plague of kids sniffing small no2 canisters, the government wanted to ban outright the sale of no2 to all but authorised medical practitioners.
Following consultation, the legislation was eventually passed with specific exclusions for rocketry ( and one or two other legitimate uses). So they do listen, if you put your points in a measured and authoritive way.

 

[Zbench]

ITAR is no joke. I used to own a shooting range and we made our ammunition. Since small arms are on the export list, as a type 7 FFL holder we were required to register with the Secretary of State and declare each year how many munitions we exported. Since we were not in the arms export business, that was as simple as filing a form. But each year you had to pay $5000 to register with The Secretary of State. In my view it was nothing more than a sophisticated govt shake down scheme. At the time, there was talk of reducing the fee for concerns that didn’t export.

What that means practically is that Areotech will become part of that regulatory bureaucracy since they are the manufacturer. It only covers producers, so if you buy a motor from a dealer it won’t impact the dealer. Otherwise the dept of state in the example above would need to track every box of ammunition sold by a manufacturer which I can assure you isn’t the case.

This will prohibit those who enjoy Cesaroni motors from being imported above the specified weight limit. As noted above, Aerotech can, if it chooses export motors above the ITAR regulation, but will have to report and pay for it. The schedules are different for each class of controlled item.

Bottom line, if enacted, Aerotech will have some work to do, but if won’t impact consumers in the US. It will also likely impact what Cesaroni can export to the US.

 

[tfish]

From Gary Rosenfield..with permission to share....from texts..

Yes…it is mostly a clarification and reorganization of existing ITAR regulation verbiage. This does NOT affect domestic operations by US persons. The 5 lb. propellant limit was instituted in 2019 when the State Dept. issued RCS a split decision commodity jurisdiction ruling. Up until that point all RCS high power hobby motors were exempt. I did notice they are using rather archaic descriptions of “model rocket” and “amateur rocket”, and include the phrase of “no substantial metal parts” that could be commented on. Perhaps they should use the class 1, 2 and 3 definitions instead.

https://d3l66gvjdr7rqw.cloudfront.n...final determination 5-20-19_1656443725288.pdf

I discussed this with Anthony Cesaroni, and his opinion is that this appears to be more clarification than policy change. “Amateur rocket motor” is defined in the notes at present. It's going to move to a definitions paragraph. This is being done to standardize the format within the CFRs.

You’re welcome…you can share it on TRF also if you want. Karl is going over the notice as well to see if I missed anything.



After the 2019 CJ ruling, I designed the 75/5120 M2050X reload specifically to make a level 3 motor available to our international customers that did not require a state department license.

.....end...

 

[les]

What that means practically is that Areotech will become part of that regulatory bureaucracy since they are the manufacturer. It only covers producers, so if you buy a motor from a dealer it won’t impact the dealer. Otherwise the dept of state in the example above would need to track every box of ammunition sold by a manufacturer which I can assure you isn’t the case.

Well, from my training at work, if an item is classified as ITAR, ANYONE who provides it to a foreign national is required to follow those ITAR rules. Manufacturer, Dealers, and even individuals. Even to the point that if the individual doesn't sell it and just offers it gratis, it is still an export covered by ITAR.

Now, will the State Department have agents at every launch to ensure a transfer doesn't occur, highly unlikely.

Just like if you are keeping up with traffic on a highway that is going 60 in a 55 zone, most likely you will not get pulled over. But you are still breaking the law......
It more gets into how well the rules are enforced.

 

[Zbench]

Well, from my training at work, if an item is classified as ITAR, ANYONE who provides it to a foreign national is required to follow those ITAR rules. Manufacturer, Dealers, and even individuals. Even to the point that if the individual doesn't sell it and just offers it gratis, it is still an export covered by ITAR.

Now, will the State Department have agents at every launch to ensure a transfer doesn't occur, highly unlikely.

Just like if you are keeping up with traffic on a highway that is going 60 in a 55 zone, most likely you will not get pulled over. But you are still breaking the law......
It more gets into how well the rules are enforced.

It’s a difference without a distinction. As mentioned above, other more onerous ITAR items are not monitored past the first point of sale. Govt bureaucrats haven’t evolved to the point where they can track every transaction… but they are trying.

 

[grillsjosephbus]

It’s a difference without a distinction. As mentioned above, other more onerous ITAR items are not monitored past the first point of sale. Govt bureaucrats haven’t evolved to the point where they can track every transaction… but they are trying.

Just wait until the greenback is replaced by digital currency

 

[cwbullet]

I’m not sure there’s anything new there. I think that language already exists, but I brought it to the attention of the board.

The voice of sanity. Thanks.

 

[-Slick-Ice]

1 - what defines a major component. Air frame? Fins? nose cone tips? motor casing? Pretty sure aluminum is a metal.
2 - obviously
3 - that's the limit for a class 2 rocket what about class 3 rockets?
4 - assuming the 40,960 limit mentioned in 3, a motor would be 50lbs not 5lbs
5 - active stabilization or vertical guidance should be excluded
6 - If it is a vertical flight why does the altitude relevant?

It would also affect manufacturers of components or parts for model and amateur rockets.

 

[Zbench]

6 - If it is a vertical flight why does the altitude relevant?

It would also affect manufacturers of components or parts for model and amateur rockets.

You might recall there is such a thing as a surface to air missile which in general are used to shoot down high flying fixed wing aircraft. I think that would definitely pique the interest in an export control situation.

 

[lr64]

You might recall there is such a thing as a surface to air missile which in general are used to shoot down high flying fixed wing aircraft. I think that would definitely pique the interest in an export control situation.

Yes, it could be a problem. At least if the target is considerate enough to be directly overhead at the moment of impact. ;-)

 

[wmdiess]

40,960 Ns has been the limit for commercially sold rocket motors for a long time. That’s nothing new.
Many states refer to a specific copyright date of NFPA. They must not simply accept the latest revision because if they did, and if the Pyro Technical Committee added wording that was absolutely wrong somehow (typos have been known to squeak through) it would immediately become regulation wherever it was adopted.
You’re right, if you don’t pay for a copy you cannot print it off, but all of the NFPA codes are available to freely read online. So they aren’t secret.
But there’s a value to having NFPA codes developer the way they are. This way they are developed by people who actually know rocketry and represent the interests of NAR members and Tripoli members rather than the town councils in tens of thousands of towns, county commissioners in thousands of different counties, and state legislators in 50 different states.

I searched NFPA 1125 and it has no reference to 5 lbs of propellant. So I take umbrage with codifying a definition that says "as described in National Fire Protection Association Code 1125".

I believe the proposed changes to ITAR could end collegiate rocketry clubs. The proposed language would codify the definition of an amateur rocket and anything that is outside this definition would potentially be an export controlled item, requiring me (and any university adviser) to control discussions and visual inspections of export controlled items around international students. I wouldn’t have the resources to assure compliance with export controls so we would have to just stop doing rocketry.

The deadline to submit comments was extended through 12/23/24, so there's still time to comment.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2024-0035-0002

 

[BNev]

I thought they removed all of the comments... Interesting, the "-0002" version of this document doesn't have any of the previous actions. It looks like they did just extend the comment period and not make any changes to the document.

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOS-2024-0035/document

 

[wmdiess]

Did they remove the previous comments?
Oh I see they revised this document, it's now "0002" and there are only 3 comments!

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOS-2024-0035/document

Nope, there were 42 comments in the original deadline. They are all there.

 

[mrwalsh85]

I'm very late to the party. I read the comments on the original comment period, and see that there are three comments on the new comment period.

I will have to read the proposed document in full tonight. As a mentor of SLI, my eyes have been opened as to how these ITAR regulations and proposed regulations might impact the hobby.... And myself as their mentor as well (red tape).

Anyone have suggestions or input for specific language to look for as I pore through the document? Being that I'm not a lawyer, I tend to get lost in the details... Blech.

 

[ep29030]

It would be better if there was a response from an organized rocket organization, although individuals can comment.

When proposing changes to regulation, the proposers are required by CFR to respond in writing to all comments, whether they like the comment or not. For some regulations, they can receive 1000+ comments and it can take months to write the response to all questions. I remember one regulation (21CFR11, Electronic Records and Signatures) where the response was 10X longer than the regulation itself.

 

[SolarYellow]

It would be better if there was a response from an organized rocket organization, although individuals can comment.

When proposing changes to regulation, the proposers are required by CFR to respond in writing to all comments, whether they like the comment or not. For some regulations, they can receive 1000+ comments and it can take months to write the response to all questions. I remember one regulation (21CFR11, Electronic Records and Signatures) where the response was 10X longer than the regulation itself.

Only 10x? There are a lot of Final Rule notices where the discussion swamps the actual regulation by a lot more than that.

 

[wmdiess]

It would be better if there was a response from an organized rocket organization, although individuals can comment.

When proposing changes to regulation, the proposers are required by CFR to respond in writing to all comments, whether they like the comment or not. For some regulations, they can receive 1000+ comments and it can take months to write the response to all questions. I remember one regulation (21CFR11, Electronic Records and Signatures) where the response was 10X longer than the regulation itself.

Regulators don't have to respond directly to all comments. Often they will group them together and write something like "many responders stated..." or something to that effect. Regulators won't admit they don't tally comments, but they do. If everyone on this list comments that 5 lbs of propellant is "arbitrary and capricious", they will hear it.

BTW, "arbitrary and capricious" is a great way to "poke the bear" because it is often the phrase used by a judge when a regulation gets thrown out.

 

[Banzai88]

BTW, "arbitrary and capricious" is a great way to "poke the bear" because it is often the phrase used by a judge when a regulation gets thrown out.

Agreed. In the 2A circles, this is the phrasing we use when making comments on ATF proposed rules and regulations.