NFPA 112? Questions

Exactly. Take his good advise. It was a variety of TRA members calling ATF after TRA and NAR and AT referred to ATF despite the exemption everyone knows about.

DOT is yet another can of whoopass about to be opened by mental midgets in silly little clubs.

And when they cannot be shipped, ATF crap will not matter anymore. Nor will plants burning down.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

According to Gary and NAR S&T secretary they were already tested and aproved (almost a year before), but the manufacturer had not publicly announced the approvals till NARAM. One of the first times Gary actually did the process right IMHO. Give him credit where credit is due.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Wow! That's even more bizare than I'd have thought. I hope they at least gave you a few reloads for paying their fee.

Reply to
GCGassaway

Ole!

Reply to
Alan Jones

Really? Did he post anything about the K motors that were shipped unmarked via air parcel post? Did he post anything about the DOT denying that the EX numbers he submitted belonged to him?

Reply to
GCGassaway

DOT should be able to verify the authenticity regardless of whether it "never expires". In fact, they could verify that claim too.

Reply to
GCGassaway

IIRC the guys in the university were the RATTworks guys, but I see RATT Works is a subsidiary of Monterey Machine Products, owned and operated by Dave Griffith

but in fact, nearly all of the hybrid manufacturers are small businesses. The Propulsion Polymers guys work off of their farm in their spare time:

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

The USR hybrids were outsourced rattworks. When he submitted them they were accepted :)

This guy is the up and coming hybrid guy. By West Coast I think he means west coast of CANADA. He has even applied to be a test site (Like or for for CAR) for hybrids.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

What does "interim certified" mean and entail?

$50!!!!!

Give me a break!!!

It just gets better and better.

So now USR is blackballed and the remaining monopoly LMR supplier cannot even raise funds to pay $50 approval fees.

Gotta love it!.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I am openly admitting having little to no background in this, but based on the things that I have seen posted, it appears that DOT is issuing the permit based on the formulation (i.e., the chemical makeup of the item), is it not? If so (please correct me if I'm wrong, this is an assumption/interpretation), then it really doesn't matter who is making it, the number would correspond to the formulation.

As an analogy, if common table salt were issued a DOT number, would every company that makes table salt get a DIFFERENT number? I don't know, I'm asking. If this is the case, then it doesn't matter whether ACS is still in business or not, as long as the propellant formulation is the same as the EX numbers imply?

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

Yes.

Also correct. The "permit holder" can use whatever contractors or employees or subsidiaries they wish so long as the formula and process is the same.

Table salt not being an explosive, gets merely a UN number and maybe a competent authority, but probably not.

An explosive gets a UN number (general hazard class), a Competent Authority (inclusive of EX numbers for each formula for substances and EX numbers for each type of article)

Type can be general or specific.

There is no "continuity of busuiness requirement, however in this case it happens that ACS remained a business continuously, just not in TRA's view because it was blackballed by TRA. So TRA of course takes the irrational position that merely because it was blackballed, it was out of business. Then **POP** it rearrives to annoy further the evil empire that thought, hoped and wished it was long dead and gone.

Too bad it was fine and dandy in every other market, eh??

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Why? Have you any evidence he is not performing his job there as representative of TRA?

Reply to
RayDunakin

There has been plenty supplied, Ray. I know which quintuple times 70 million redundancy is necessary, though.

Prove it. Until proven otherwise in a court of law, which has not been done, because such legal requirements do not currently exist, they are not.

I still have not seen any evidence that they do.

Wrong. We are not talking about inside stipulations Ray. I am talking about the practice of requiring government paperwork which the government itself does not require. Are you intentionally trying to redirect and obfuscate (again)?

launches --

So you admit it then. Thank you.

~ Duane Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

like accepting responsibility on behalf of the national organizations for performing regulatory enforcement, and emboding same in codes ultimately to become state law (where adopted)?

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Oh yeah, that's real clear. A mystery manufacturer you refuse to identify except to a certifying authority but only if they promise in advance to cert the motors, and it must remain a secret to the public even if they are certified?

This is interesting. First off, if your sales exceed Aerotech's, why are you constantly complaining about being forced out of the market?

Secondly, since you are unable or unwilling to get the motors legally certified and marketed for use in TRA/NAR launches and can't even get ER to accept your ads, it sounds like whoever "really owns" USR needs to hire a "marketing, packaging, sales, distribution" consultant who can actually get the job done.

How do you earn a living, pay the bills, etc? Just curious.

I thought you bought ACS? And the EX number you submitted to TRA had the name "Dynamic Propulsion Technologies" handwritten in, not ACS.

So your business isn't important enough for them to be bothered with? Sounds like you need to find a manufacturer with more interest in serving smaller customers.

The Fest launches never had that many people.

Reply to
RayDunakin

I think that EX numbers do expire. At least when looking at the list of exemptions numbers at the DOT Hazmat web site, they all have associated expiration dates. It's also worth noting that when I looked at the list I found:

10996AeroTech, Inc. 01/31/2005 10996AeroTech, Inc. 01/31/2005 10996AMW Inc. 01/31/2005 10996Cesaroni Technology Inc. 01/31/2005 10996Composite Propulsion Technology Inc. 01/31/2005 10996Ellis Mountain Rocket Works 01/31/2005 10996Kosdon Enterprises of Ventura, CA 01/31/2005 10996Magnum Plus Inc. dba Magnum Rockets Hobbies & More01/31/2005 10996Missile Works Corporation 01/31/2005 10996Vulcan Systems, Inc. 01/31/2005

All listed consecutively just as above. Nowhere in the file was "ACS Reaction Labs" or "Dynamic Propulsion Technologies". Could Jerry, or anyone, point out where these companies are found in any of the DOT files found here:

formatting link
?

Thank you.

Jeff Taylor

GCGassaway wrote:

Reply to
Jeff Taylor

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?

Did NFPA write LEMP into their codes? And is the NFPA in and of itself a law?

Your getting warmer.

Surely. Then do tell, what is it exactly that NAR/TRA are going to court over?

~ Duane Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

Aha, you mean the ones they'd submitted to NAR S&T over a year earlier and had been tested and approved? I did check in advance to be sure they had been certified.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

TRA would certify a motor as soon as it was submitted for certification, pending testing. Bogus as a $3 bill. But not surprising at all. After all, the purpose of TRA certification is to pacify the NFPA and various government agencies, not to actually verify compliance with motor standards.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.