NFPA 112? Questions

How can the requirement for a company having an LEMP or DOT clasification be enforced in what eventually becomes a state law? In
otherwords, how can, say, the state of Florida (assuming Florida had incorporated NFPA112? into law) enforce whether AT, in Utah, obtains a LEMP or DOT classification?
Obviously it can't. Therefore, the interpretation is that the enforcement only applies to companies within the state that they reside. If a company in Florida began making motors, then (assuming Florida had incorporated NFPA112? into law) it could be enforced by Florida.
Neither the state of Florida, nor its citizens, nor any other entity (corporation) are responsible for determining if a company in another state is meeting all the laws within its home state in making any product.
Taking this further, since the explosive laws do not require an LEMP for commerce in non-explosives (applying the definition of explosive found in the law), any state (or other entity) requiring an LEMP for manufacturing is unduly burdening a company and restricting commerce, both federal offenses. This opens them up to criminal and civil charges. And "them" in this case (TRA/NAR) can be applied to the corporation, its directors AND, in some cases, its members.
Bob
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"the corporation, its directors AND, in some cases, its members." are expendable :)
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I don't follow this line of reasoning.
The NAR requires that only certified motors are allowed on our ranges. People are free to source and use engines of whatever certification (or not) in other venues. Thus, I don't see how we're restricting anyone's ability to sell non-certified motors. If they want to sell them, they're free to do so. The NAR simply won't allow their use on our ranges.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org
"There is a very fine line between ‘hobby’ and ‘mental illness'."
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because you are dense at best, and a moron at worst.
Let me spell it out for you (again).
If a LEMP is NOT required to legally manufacture PADS (which your own lawsuit claims NAR certified motors are), then if you require one anyway KNOWING it is not required, you are excluding those types of motors that meet all of the other guidelines but not that arbitrary one you illegally added. That refusal to certify motors with for example 1.3C DOT papers (like ACS) and a manufacturer who refuses to submit his HEMP since that is NOT required for PADS, you are engaging in restraint of trade.
And doing so on a basis you KNOW to be illegal. Your own lawsuit papers say so.
You sir are screwed.
Jerry
Someone reply to this without editing anything to byass his killfile feature.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

With all due respect sir, (honestly), if the NAR requires any governmental paperwork that is not required by the government, that could be construed such as "baDBob" says.
This following statement you made here has no further bearing on the issue, especially when the NAR enjoys the largest segment of membership among any of the other consumer rocketry related groups, with its' symbols or other references found on and within many of the major motor manufacturers packaging.
I quote the NAR web site: "The National Association of Rocketry (NAR)is the oldest and largest sport rocketry organization in the world." - http://www.nar.org/discovery.html
Would you not agree?

~ Duane Phillips.
"Motors are the lifeblood of the hobby."
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane wrote: << This following statement you made here has no further bearing on the issue, especially when the NAR enjoys the largest segment of membership among any of the other consumer rocketry related groups... >>
His statement is completely relevant. The fact that NAR, or TRA, require the use of certified motors at their launches in no way reflects on the ability of manufacturers to sell non-certified motors to those who want to fly them at other venues.
If you believe otherwise, you might as well complain that allowing only "contest approved" motors in contests is an infringement manufacturers who make non-contest approved motors.
Regardless of whether or not the law requires motor certifications, manufacturing permits, or DOT numbers, private organizations will always have the right to set whatever standards they feel are appropriate for use in their events.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

issue,
of
the
ability of

at
make
!!!!!
have
their
!!!!!
"whatever standards"
No they cannot. They cannot legally require something that is against the law... such as requiring government paperwork that even the government does not require.
And the relevancy of Mark's second part (or in this case, the lack thereof) is the level of impact the restrictions have on commerce.
You do not know (or choose to play ignorant of) what you are talking about.
~ Duane Phillips.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Except illegal ones!!

Point.
As does the President of the National Association of Rocketry, and he just did the courtesy of proving it for us.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane wrote: << No they cannot. They cannot legally require something that is against the law... such as requiring government paperwork that even the government does not require. >>
Well, of course that can't require something that's _against_ the law. But since we're talking about LEMP's and DOT "EX" numbers, that isn't really the case.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

Against=contrary
Moron detector on full.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the
does not

the
"isn't really the case"?
Is that your way of not "really" saying anything? Either an LEMP is required by law or it isn't.
~ Duane Phillips.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane wrote: << Either an LEMP is required by law or it isn't. >>
Exactly my point. Now, I'll admit I'm no lawyer nor am I an expert in the legal aspects of propellent manufacture. But so far I haven't seen any evidence that these are NOT legal requirements.
And if they aren't, why would so many manufacturers go to the trouble and expense of meeting these requirements? For that matter, how would it even be possible to meet requirements that don't exist? Yet we know that AT, CTI, AMW and Ellis have done so.
Furthermore, if these are not legal requirements, then why did the NFPA include them in their codes? Please don't try to tell me that it's all a big scam by TRA/NAR -- they are only two voices on the NFPA. There's no way they could be pulling the wool over the eyes of everyone else in that organization. If they had requested codes which include mention of legal requirements that don't exist, surely someone would have noticed!
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

legal
that
I have not seen any evidence that they are.

Now there's the million dollar question... could it be... could it really be that it is because NAR and TRA require this, and that certain companies tend to think it is easier to "just do it" than spending money they don't have fighting off illegal requirements, and instead get down to making money?

AMW
include
Did NFPA write LEMP into their codes? And is the NFPA in and of itself a law?
Your getting warmer.

are
over
codes
someone
Surely. Then do tell, what is it exactly that NAR/TRA are going to court over?
~ Duane Phillips.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep.
Tiny amounts of money in exchange for huge expenses and permits that expose you to loss of rights.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I wrote: "...why would so many manufacturers go to the trouble and expense of meeting these requirements?"
Duane Philips replied:
<< Now there's the million dollar question... could it really be that it is because NAR and TRA require this, and that certain companies tend to think it is easier to "just do it" than spending money they don't have fighting off illegal requirements, and instead get down to making money? >>
You're correct, that is the key question, but you're speculating as to the answer. Why not ask the manufacturers why they went to the trouble and expense of getting LEMP's and DOT EX numbers?
<< And is the NFPA in and of itself a law? >>
NFPA is an organization. Their _codes_ are law in the states that have adopted them.
<< Surely. Then do tell, what is it exactly that NAR/TRA are going to court over? >>
They're going to court over the fact that the law is being improperly applied. But until the court tells the ATF to stop, we're stuck with it.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

When they got the answer you vilified me.

There is no example of it being "enforced" only "applied by request and intimidation". But don't be intimidated!
Cite the rules (LAW) and they are FORCED by duty to abide by them or themselves be enforced against and not by some wimpy administrative lawsuit either.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

meeting
is
it
expense
Has been done.

adopted
We know this... the question was rhetorical. Those same codes do not require NAR or TRA to specifically certify motors, which you continue to imply they do... not even in the states that adopt them as law. That motor certifications are required, is one point... that NAR and TRA are required to do so, and to the extent of requiring government paperwork that the government itself does not require, is quite another.

court
applied.
That is two-faced, and hypocritical. This is recognition without the willingness to correct it at one of the most industry standard-setting levels.
~ Duane Phillips.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I wrote: "Why not ask the manufacturers why they went to the trouble and expense of getting LEMP's and DOT EX numbers?"
Duane wrote: <<Has been done. >>
And?? What did AT, CTI, AMW and Ellis say?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

I asked:
AT: we wanted to overcomply.
CTI: because we have been verbally told by the ATF (main) and we agree the LAW does NOT require it. Wanna be a non-LEUP dealer?
AMW: Because Tripoli said so and we want to sell to TRA members. Deal with it.
Ellis: I did not talk to him.
Jerry
Typical conversation at TRA TMT and NAR S&T
(M) Manufacturer (Kosdon, Irvine, USR, DPT, ACS, RDS, . . . ):
"We have read the law and here is a copy. No LEMP is required.
(C) Certification agency with fiducuiary duty to follow law:
"We don't agree with that and we have been told to ask for ATF permits from consumers, vendors, manufacturers by ATF agents at NFPA meetings. They plan to change the law in the future and we are getting ready now."
Manufacturer (Kosdon, Irvine, USR, DPT, ACS, RDS, . . . ):
"We received a letter ruling that rocket motors are PADS and are following the law to the letter. Compliance is our problem. Certify us and we will comply with the law."
C:
"No. We can't risk the liability."
M:
"What liability? You don't make anything, sell anything, dealer anything. All you do is fire some motors and report their name, duration, sometimes the delay and the thrust, but not always, and the fact it didn't blow up in any of 1 or 3 tests, if you even perform the tests at all as the rules state, which as often as you do, you do not."
C:
"Shhhhh about that. Besides, we do not want to get in trouble with ATF."
M:
"Cite any way whatsoever you could possibly get in trouble with the ATF."
C:
"No. You are refused."
M: (A year later)
"Here is my LEMP"
C:
"We do not recognize LEMP unless the name of the individual matches the name of the DOT papers and the name on the rental agreement and the name on the . . . . ."
M:
We have a license arangement, and here it is, and also have done several bulk purchases of companies. We are not broke like Aerotech and Kosdon."
C:
"We do not recognize LEMP unless the name of the individual matches the name of the DOT papers and the name on the rental agreement and the name on the . . . . ."
M: Read the rules you publish. That is not a requirement. Here are cites proving it."
C:
"We do not recognize LEMP unless the name of the individual matches the name of the DOT papers and the name on the rental agreement and the name on the . . . . ."
M: Read the NFPA-1125 you adopted. That is not a requirement. Here are cites proving it."
C:
"We do not recognize LEMP unless the name of the individual matches the name of the DOT papers and the name on the rental agreement and the name on the . . . . ."
M:
Are you listening? Is there an echo in this room?
C:
"No. You are refused."
15 other variations on a theme, each time bringing them EXACTLY what they asked for last time and without prior warning they find YET ANOTHER reason to reject on some other random and uncited basis. Over and over and over.
So the manufacturers or licensees get worn out and leave one after another. What is the ONE thing they ALL had in common? They licensed motor designs from Jerry Irvine.
13 YEARS later for some, no certs.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
repost
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.