PAULLINA, Iowa USA — So you thought all along that experimental and amateur rocketry endeavors were safe from the ever-outstretching arms of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), right?  Think again.  An amateur rocketeer in Paullina, Iowa has found out otherwise.

Scott Fintel, a champion of potassium nitrate rocket motors, more commonly known as "sugar" propellant, has found out that the experimental formulation is considered within the scope of explosive mixtures the ATF has included in their "List of Explosive Materials," a list mandated by Congress that the director of the ATF must publish and revise at least once per year.

Fintel has maintained a well documented web site in addition to an online discussion forum for the purposes of sharing his success and failures experimenting with the potassium nitrate formulation.  Like ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP), potassium nitrate composite propellant is a fast burning solid but not generally considered by users to be an explosive.

In 2002, the ATF amended its "List of Explosive Materials" to include potassium nitrate explosive mixtures, by publishing the updated list in the Federal Register (link).  Within the filing lies the phrase, "In the 2002 List of Explosive Materials, ATF has added five terms to the list of explosives," with item number three being "Nitrate explosive mixtures." 

The filing went on to read, "We have added these explosive materials to the List because their primary purpose is to function by explosion."  And further down, "'Nitrate explosive mixtures' is meant to be an all-encompassing term, including all forms of sodium, potassium, barium, calcium, and strontium nitrate explosive mixtures."

Once again, the language that the materials that are on the list primarily function by exploding, when APCP's primary purpose is not to function by exploding.  The interesting aside here is that APCP is specifically listed in addition to "ammonium perchlorate explosive mixtures", yet potassium nitrate composite propellant is not on the list.  So one would think that potassium nitrate composite propellant is not an explosive, right?

Wrong.

Apparently Fintel's experiments have caught the ATF's attention.  In a telephone conversation with his local agent at the end of November, Fintel was informed that he needed an explosives permit in order to continue his experiments with sugar motors.  Somewhat in disbelief, Fintel contacted his regional office to verify the position of the local agent.

The regional office held that potassium nitrate composite propellant was to be treated the same as if the rocketeer were using APCP, that any composition using potassium nitrate and a fuel was an explosive.  Citing the ATF's own Orange Book, Fintel explained that potassium nitrate composite propellant was most certainly not an explosive.

So the matter was forwarded to another ATF office for an official determination of whether potassium nitrate "sugar" propellants are considered explosive materials.  And?  The other office concurred, sugar propellants are explosives and require a federal explosives permit. The response?

Mr. Scott Fintel,

The information that I received in response to your formula is that the mixture is an explosive.

If you log onto ATF's website you'll find this question addressed on 8/9/04. Log onto www.atf.gov - Arson & Explosives (Tab at top) - Safe Explosives Act (Scroll down on right side) - FAQ Hobby Rocket Motors (8/9/04) - Question # 8.

To receive an official response on agency letterhead, please submit a written inquiry to:

Explosives Industry Programs Branch
650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20226
Phone: 202-927-2310
Fax: 202-927-8887

Thanks,

Richard E. Lake
Industry Operations Investigator
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives
2707 N. 108th Street, Suite 202
Omaha, NE 68164
(402) 952-2635 Main
(402) 952-2638 Direct
(402) 952-2606 Fax

Not because potassium nitrate composite propellant is on the List of Explosive Materials.  It isn't.  Because ATF says so.  Nothing more.  Apparently any oxidizer combined with a fuel is considered an explosive.  The List of Explosive Materials published in the Federal Register states, "While the list is comprehensive, it is not all inclusive.  The fact that an explosive material is not on the list does not mean that it is not within the coverage of the law."

So where does this leave Fintel and the thousands of other amateur and experimental rocketeers?  For Fintel, the answer is to get a federal explosives permit and continue on.  For the rest of the community, that might not be such an easy answer.  While the fact remains that as an amateur or experimental rocketry hobbyist, you can legally mix your own "O" class (or any size, for that matter) motor right in your own back yard, and even assemble and test fire said motor, you still can't transport it off your property to an appropriate launch site without a federal explosives permit.  And that is the heart of the matter.

Sugar propellants are not on the ATF list of explosives, but potassium nitrate explosive mixtures are, and according to the ATF, any fuel mixed with potassium nitrate constitutes an explosive mixture. The real question then becomes: how do you challenge the ATF's claim?  Fintel's position is that with badges, steep fines and/or jail cells to back up them up, what citizen is going to go up against ATF?  No matter what mixture of oxidizer and fuel you come up with, if the ATF says that it's an explosive mixture, then it is within their jurisdiction to oversee your actions.  And without a permit, those actions can become criminal offenses.

Federal Register filing 04/26/2002: http://www.ttb.treas.gov/regulations_laws/notice_943.pdf
Q&A about Hobby Rocket Motors: http://www.atf.gov/explarson/0504rocketryqa.pdf

12-06-2006 09:08 PM  #1
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	So, potassium nitrate composite propellant is not on the List of Explosive Materials, but potassium nitrate explosive mixtures is. Also, ammonium perchlorate composite propellant AND ammonium perchlorate explosive mixtures are BOTH on the List of Explosive Materials. If ATF can regulate potassium nitrate composite propellant because potassium nitrate explosive mixtures is on the list, then theoretically ATF could also regulate ammonium perchlorate composite propellant EVEN IF "ammonium perchlorate composite propellant" were taken off the list, because ammonium perchlorate explosive mixtures would still be ON THE LIST. Comprende? Translation: Win lawsuit, still lose.

12-06-2006 10:56 PM  #2
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1248	Since KNCP is not on the list and other CP's are, it is CLEAR KNCP is not regulated. In writing. Therefore the actions of the various ATF agents is clear fraud. The response should be accordingly. The "victim" needs to call the FBI. If he fails to do so, all sympathy should be lost, and his administrative recourse is long, expensive, and likely to be punctuated by KNCP simply being added to the list arbitrarily. Just Jerry

12-06-2006 11:28 PM  #3
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	Oh yeah, and now would be a good time for all experimental/amateur rocketry enthusiasts to contribute to the TRA/NAR legal fund, to help fight off these types of personal freedom infringements. A great way is to click that link on the right and buy one of the Rocketry Planet Legal Fund T-shirts!

12-07-2006 05:36 PM  #4
Mach1 Certified Level One   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 27	Any fuel/oxidizer mix? Sounds like they're opening the door to regulate hybrids.

12-07-2006 11:25 PM  #5
Steve_Shannon Growing more clueless...   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 2059	Also from ATF FAQ: The ATF quotes their FAQ, question #8, for rocketry as their source for saying that nitrate mixtures require permitting, but from that same document, question #2: No, a license or permit is not required to manufacture explosive materials (including propellant, igniters, etc.) for one’s own use. They go on to say you need a permit to transport it and it must be stored in a magazine, but apparently if one were to mix on-site, you could do whatever you want. Steve Shannon

12-08-2006 01:21 AM  #6
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 3547	That is what RRS did in the late 90's with their infamous 50 mile flight.

12-08-2006 01:27 PM  #7
Rocket Flier Certified Level Three   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 164	#8 does NOT say "nitrate mixtures". it says "explosive mixtures" That still begs the question, are AN/PN -propellant- mixtures considered explosives which would require permits. The ATF could have put this all to bed a long time ago by prosecuting someone. Have they, no. Why, because the first thing the defense would do is point out they have no procedure for determining what is explosive. Quote: The ATF quotes their FAQ, question #8, for rocketry as their source for saying that nitrate mixtures require permitting, but from that same document, question #2: No, a license or permit is not required to manufacture explosive materials (including propellant, igniters, etc.) for one’s own use. They go on to say you need a permit to transport it and it must be stored in a magazine, but apparently if one were to mix on-site, you could do whatever you want. Steve Shannon While it is true explosives must be stored and transported according to regulations, it is also true that devices in which those explosives are installed are exempt from regulation.

12-08-2006 09:29 PM  #8
RandyWakeman New Member   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 1	There are over 4 MILLION muzzleloading hunters in this country (of which I am one), the majority of which use "BP subs"-- most of the sugar-based variety: Triple Se7en, American Pioneer, Black Mag3 . . . are falling off the shelves of Wal*Mart and sporting good stores across the nation. Loose powder, pellets, sticks, takes your pick . . . where is the theory of "regulation?

12-22-2006 10:08 AM  #9
Aphyle Hot HCl and rubber @ AM   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 113	broader implications So theoretically, these regulations would impact anyone who uses a muzzleloader or reloads their own ammunition. Imagine the NRA's response if one needed a LEUP in order to reload a box of shells to take hunting or target shooting. If you cannot transport the stuff, how do you get it home from the discount store? Would you have to buy your shells, powder, primers, caps, etc., at the entrance to the hunting forest? This sounds just a little crazy, but if you have to pre-order and pick up your high-power reloads at a launch site, would not the same rules apply to even more powerful and sensitive materials (and used in far greater quantities) used for hunting and shooting? We don't have to register our guns, but would we have to register our ammunition? Aphyle

12-22-2006 02:53 PM  #10
Aphyle Hot HCl and rubber @ AM   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 113	Quote: There are over 4 MILLION muzzleloading hunters in this country (of which I am one), the majority of which use "BP subs"-- most of the sugar-based variety: Triple Se7en, American Pioneer, Black Mag3 . . . are falling off the shelves of Wal*Mart and sporting good stores across the nation. Loose powder, pellets, sticks, takes your pick . . . where is the theory of "regulation? The theory of regulation is, "We're from the government, and we're here to help." I wonder what the next target of such assistance is. Aphyle

02-22-2007 05:36 PM  #11
Arnold Roquerre New Member   Joined: Feb 2007 Posts: 7	BATF More Wated Time What I find most fascinating when it comes to the BATF is how uterly useless they are. They will not stop one terrorists attack. They are not making our nation safer. What they are doing is what all bureacrats do stepping on our freedoms to justify their paychecks and their pointless existence. They are truely a useless lot. Of course they are empowered by Congress a body of lawyers dedicated to stripping more and more freedoms from Americans. I have know doubt that the founders of this nation would spit in the face of the BATF director and most members of Congress for their betrayal of their dream of a FREE America.

03-11-2007 11:04 AM  #12
Raider Rocketry Low Power Enthusiast   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 128	Quote: We don't have to register our guns, but would we have to register our ammunition? I can see the marketing now. "And if the BATFE makes the ammo illegal for our firearm it doubles as a wonderful club." Next up, FAA regulations for Santa's Sleigh.

03-11-2007 01:13 PM  #13
Steve_Shannon Growing more clueless...   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 2059	Quote: So theoretically, these regulations would impact anyone who uses a muzzleloader or reloads their own ammunition. Aphyle No, because there are specific, legislated, exceptions for black powder used in primitive style firearms and for all components used in reloading ammunition, which make it difficult for ATF to use those regulations against shooters. We need similar protections for use of materials in rocketry so that ATF cannot try to "rule" us out of existence.

03-11-2007 01:27 PM  #14
Raider Rocketry Low Power Enthusiast   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 128	Quote: No, because there are specific, legislated, exceptions for black powder used in primitive style firearms and for all components used in reloading ammunition, which make it difficult for ATF to use those regulations against shooters. There are specific exceptions right up until they remove them, which I wouldn't put past them. That isn't to say I think it likely, but I just want to point out how fragile that particular freedom is. I could cite all sorts of 2nd Amendment issues by way of comparison, which to me isn't that far off the mark with the topic of propellants. Land of the Free? I think we have been too acquiescent of government controls and am very happy that NAR/TRA have brought this lawsuit against BATFE and, by proxy, the legislators who seek to restrict people engaging in the pursuit of freedom, of happiness, and of science.

05-23-2007 11:31 AM  #15
K-Man New Member   Joined: May 2007 Posts: 83	Quote: #8 does NOT say "nitrate mixtures". it says "explosive mixtures" That still begs the question, are AN/PN -propellant- mixtures considered explosives which would require permits. The ATF could have put this all to bed a long time ago by prosecuting someone. Have they, no. Why, because the first thing the defense would do is point out they have no procedure for determining what is explosive. While it is true explosives must be stored and transported according to regulations, it is also true that devices in which those explosives are installed are exempt from regulation. My 2 cents on this, and it is just playing devil's advocate here, is that the interpretation of an explosive comes down to the potential use, not actual use. A rocket motor is certainly an explosive in potency (in its potential). If the housing is weak, it blows up. If the throat is closed it blows up. And if your intent is to explode KNCP then you can easilly do that in a sealed off pipe. Just because you channel the oxidation into the form of a slow, vented explosion, known as thrust, does not change the inherrent nature of the mixture as an explosive material. Consider this: Gunpowder is an explosive, but not when used as a fuse. A nuclear bomb is not an explosve when used as a large paperweight. KNCP is not an explosive, or not deliberately one, when used by you. When used by an islamic militant for wrong purposes children in daycare centers can get killed in the name of Allah. So let's try to temper our judgment, and hope we don't lose priveledges and that a few rotten apples don't keep ruining our society. It's THEIR fault more than Uncle Sam's.

05-23-2007 04:29 PM  #16
Len_Lekx Certified Level Two   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 51	Quote: My 2 cents on this, and it is just playing devil's advocate here, is that the interpretation of an explosive comes down to the potential use, not actual use. A rocket motor is certainly an explosive in potency (in its potential). If the housing is weak, it blows up. By that argument, the BATFE could also regulate water, because a ruptured boiler will explode. Also baked beans can be regulated, because if you put a sealed can on top of a heater, it will explode. In fact, ANYTHING that is put into a sealed container and heated has the potential to be an explosive... by that definition. The question should be - is something an UNAIDED explosive? If APCP, ANCP, KNCP, etc., can be made to explode OUTSIDE of a sealed casing... THEN it might fall under the definition of an explosive. But since the formulations we use are incapable of doing that, they should be reclassified as Flammable Solids.

05-23-2007 04:41 PM  #17
Kapton Certified Level Two   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 33	Quote: is that the interpretation of an explosive comes down to the potential use, not actual use. But that is contrary to *law*. The *law* states that the BATFE has the authority to list and regulate explosives. For regulatory purposes, "Explosives" are explicitly defined as "any chemical compound, mixture or device, the primary or common purpose is to function by explosion." 18 U.S.C. 841(c). So items must be examined as to their actual primary or common usage, not any potential usage.

05-23-2007 05:05 PM  #18
heada Certifiable   Joined: Apr 2007 Posts: 914	Quote: But that is contrary to *law*. The *law* states that the BATFE has the authority to list and regulate explosives. For regulatory purposes, "Explosives" are explicitly defined as "any chemical compound, mixture or device, the primary or common purpose is to function by explosion." 18 U.S.C. 841(c). So items must be examined as to their actual primary or common usage, not any potential usage. And that is the key to the lawsuit, defining what explodes. The BATFE claims that APCP explodes when used as a rocket motor and we(TRA/NAR) claim it doesn't. The appeals court said it wasn't defined correctly and now we're at a point when the BATFE says "since it burns faster than 'x' then it explodes because 'x' is on the list" and we're saying "but it doesn't burn faster than 'x', you measured wrong" Hopefully this will all come to an end (in our favor) in just a few months. -Aaron

05-23-2007 05:40 PM  #19
Kapton Certified Level Two   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 33	Quote: BATFE says "since it burns faster than 'x' then it explodes because 'x' is on the list" and we're saying "but it doesn't burn faster than 'x', you measured wrong" -Aaron And even your incorrectly high measurements shows it burns slower than 'Y' and 'Y' in NOT on the list.

05-28-2007 01:15 PM  #20
jimmyc-rocket Certified Level Two   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 68	Since Scott's encounter with the BATFE he has had to close his Web site and Forum this is a violation of his second amendment rights but the fear of Jail has him doing this, as some one said they have the handcuffs and jail cells behind them. that said I have read that gun owners should be feeling this pressure but with all their members (Voters) behind them and the NRA they will not feel this pressure. the real deal is that as long as we the rocketeers do not put this in the media and force the government to stop taking our freedoms away we will soon be at the mercy of the government as those in Iraq where with Sodaminsane! yes that is spelled correctly we the people are free to do as we are told! I have said it in several post be fore that as long as the people feel they are safer by giving up their freedoms they will continue to do so until they realize What THE COST REALLY IS. MOST PEOPLE DO NOT CARE UNTIL IT EFFECTS THEM BUT WHEN THEY REALIZE, IT WILL BE TO LATE. WE HAVE A VOICE AND SHOULD BE Discussing THESE ISSUES WITH EVERYONE WE MEET and in the media so everyone understands that the freedoms given up today will be lost for ever.Write your government leaders and demand that this action be stopped. they are just trying to justify their existence and we have to let them know that WE THE PEOPLE will not stand for our freedoms being taken away. Lets stop letting them feel we are SHEEP TO BE LEAD TO THE SLAUGHTER! thank you for my time to rant, JimmyC

05-28-2007 03:22 PM  #21
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 3547	Jimmy, It wouldn't do any good to bring in the media on this. There isn't any "useful" political spin to be gained by airing the previously mentioned events for the media, so they are not going to invest any energy in promoting a perceived First Amendment issue. In the earlier days of television and print news, simply reporting the news was enough. In today's cut-throat world of media culture, the news is driven by politicizing the news, not just in reporting it. By politicizing the news, agendas can be introduced and promoted which are controlled by the owners of the stations or media conglomerates. As an example, if there was a case of majority-on-minority crime, the media would be all over it, because it could politicize the event and leverage their agendas. But a minority-on-majority crimes doesn't even warrant reporting on a national basis because it doesn't accomplish the media source's agenda. As an example, let's say a young white couple went to dinner, and on the way home they were taken against their will by five minority individuals who hijacked their car, blindfolded them and took them to a house. Once there, the aggressors proceed to torture, rape and then murder the couple. The man's body is found along side a railroad track, wrapped in a sheet, shot 3 times, anally raped and the body had been burned. The woman's body is found in a trash can in the kitchen of the home of one of the aggressors. Her body was dismembered and in 5 separate trash bags, had been raped vaginally, orally and anally. You would think, "If something like that happened, it would most certainly make the national news, right?" Wrong. It does not have the ability to be politicized to meet a media agenda. By the way, this event actually happened. Did you hear about it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channon_Christian http://hotair.com/?episode_id=7969

02-12-2008 09:30 AM  #22
SpaceCowboy Rocket Scientist   Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 20	Re: Article: Potassium nitrate "sugar" propellant latest target of ATF scrutiny Hi, From what I have read I have a question: You can design, build, and test a KNSU O class solid propellant rocket motor on your own property, but you cannot store or take it off your property? This is not what the FBI, ATF, Homeland Security, and any other agency you want to add has told me! I have been told you cannot even have the ingredients without a permit! I also would like a definition or explanation of, at what point does a composition become a composition that burns, or a composition that explodes? Where is the line of determination? It seems we are talking about three different things here, the volatility of a composition on it's own (ex. - a chunk of C4 explosive), and the volatility of a composition in a closed container (ex. - APCP in a closed ended metal pipe bomb), and the volatility of a composition in a directive container (ex. - KNSU in a PVC tube with a nozzle on it. Duh Rocket Motor!). Which of these ex. - would you or any NORMAL person consider to be an "explosive" or "explosive device"? Are we playing the registration, regulation, and confiscation game here? I wholeheartedly support free registration (free online registration), reasonable regulation (common sense guidelines), and unrestricted confiscation (of intentionally destructive compositions or devices). I could be wrong but I think you should be able to design, build, test, store, and transport motors you have built, with a minimum of free registration, reasonable storage, and storage and signage during transportation. Like we should apply the MISS approach to this. (Oh, MISS stands for Make It Simply STUPID! Or, ya piss me off and I will sue you!) Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to determine if something is deliberately intended to be used for destructive purposes or for hobby use. Does it seem like we have a mentality developing that everyone is guilty, is a potential terrorist, and no one should not be allow to do anything but go to work and pay taxes so some people can do what they want to do and "You will have nothing and like it!" OEY! I think I could go on and on......but I......am sleepy now! zzzzZZZZ!

02-12-2008 09:38 AM  #23
Rocket Flier Certified Level Three   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 164	Re: Article: Potassium nitrate "sugar" propellant latest target of ATF scrutiny Quote: Hi, From what I have read I have a question: You can design, build, and test a KNSU O class solid propellant rocket motor on your own property, but you cannot store or take it off your property? This is not what the FBI, ATF, Homeland Security, and any other agency you want to add has told me! I have been told you cannot even have the ingredients without a permit! What regulations did they point you to that state you cannot have those components?

02-12-2008 09:52 AM  #24
SpaceCowboy Rocket Scientist   Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 20	Re: Article: Potassium nitrate "sugar" propellant latest target of ATF scrutiny Hi, You got me there! I asked them to show me the regulations.....and they said they would get back to me with it, but until they did I couldn't have any of it around! It's been 6 months, haven't seen or heard from them since!

02-12-2008 10:42 AM  #25
Rocket Flier Certified Level Three   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 164	Re: Article: Potassium nitrate "sugar" propellant latest target of ATF scrutiny Well. There's right. And there's spending time in jail to prove you're right.

02-12-2008 11:26 AM  #26
SpaceCowboy Rocket Scientist   Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 20	Re: Article: Potassium nitrate "sugar" propellant latest target of ATF scrutiny Hi, And then there is when ya realize there is nothing bad or wrong here and you juz leave them alone. (No terrorism here, next!) HeHeHe

02-15-2008 11:15 PM  #27
jenelle681 Certified Level One   Joined: Jan 2008 Posts: 14	Re: Article: Potassium nitrate "sugar" propellant latest target of ATF scrutiny Hmm, I just cant help but think. Maby if the BATFE was spending its time a little better maby we wouldnt have 7 dead and 18 wounded at the NIU campus today. You probably wont hear about the warning that it was comming written on the bathroom wall earlier last week. Yet after the shooting stopped all I saw was FBI, state, and local authoritys. THIS SHOULD BE A LESSON AS TO PRECIEVED THREAT AND ACTUAL THREAT. ROCKETS MOTORS ARE A PRECIEVED THREAT, FIREARMS ARE REAL. Dont get me wrong I am a NRA member and believe in peoples right to own and BEAR arms. The BATFE needs to get there heads out of the fertalizer. I am not talking based on what I saw on TV. I live 20 min. away from the campus and headed there as soon as the shooting took place. Prayers to the victims and there families. Despite the chaos the local police, state police, paramedics, medavacs, and everyone involved did a supurb job and should be commended.

02-16-2008 12:45 PM  #28
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 3547	Re: Article: Potassium nitrate "sugar" propellant latest target of ATF scrutiny It's easier to chase a demon that doesn't exist than to roll up your sleeves up and actually pursue one that does. Don't expect ATF to stop pursuing Osama Bin Perchlorate any time in the near future — 'terrorism' is such a nifty buzzword, while guns are so ... last century.

02-16-2008 02:10 PM  #29
Aphyle Hot HCl and rubber @ AM   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 113	Re: Article: Potassium nitrate "sugar" propellant latest target of ATF scrutiny Quote: ...Despite the chaos the local police, state police, paramedics, medavacs, and everyone involved did a supurb job and should be commended. My wife was reading her Reader's Digest the day after the shooting, with an article that listed NIU as one of the safest campuses in the country. Sad irony. The point is that there can never be 100% safety in anything. See Ecclesiastes 9:9-12.