[saverocketrylater.tra]

So did any of those agencies respond and take any action?

Fred

Jerry, your acting like a moron. I ask Bob an straight question and got a straight answer.

Fred

You are the only one that has a problem with consistency.

Good idea - if you want censored lame assed content.

amen 8-)

Isn't that because they threw him out?

I contacted Paul Holmes the TMT Chairman and asked about delay testing. He said they test that delays are within NFPA specs. That seems reasonable to me. Obviously, the other certification testing is similar between all the organizations.

Yes, they do.

Ahhh, the power of the keyboard.

Up to G: 11 Up to M: 3 Otherwise: 1

But at least one of EACH DELAY must be tested per ALL NFPA-1125 standards, and per TMT rules, and S&T rules.

So failing to test and report the results is a KNOWN VIOLATION.

Could easily be a CRIME in 32 states.

Jerry

Calling you a liar is not a denial. It is an affirmative statement.

Each of these subjects and the related proof or references to thereof have indeed been posted to rmr over the years.

Fetch.

Lie.

The law is controlling. Thank goodness.

The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances).

The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55.

What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding?

Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption?

From: Rick Dickinson

I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written.

The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means.

and

All I have been saying is that:

1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.".

2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:"

3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number.

4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined."

5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable.

6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing

, Part

55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance.

7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned.

and

Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein.

Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers.

Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me.

- Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson

Proof posted above. Ignore it again?

It is proof.

Sufficient for ATF but NOT Ray or TRA. Ironic or moronic?

So TRA should simply renew the certs of the motors that under their own rules require ONLY motors and money to be submitted.

Shit or get off the pot. Put it to the test.

Show me.

Did you ask for the test results? You know, the thrust curves with the ejection "tick" on it?

Of course not. You took his "word" that something occured for every motor that "we all" (certainly those of us who have participated in several TMT tests and watched carefully what results or reports have emerged from same.) know for a fact has NOT occured.

You can bait and blather otherwise, but I am a first hand witness to this one.

Jerry

Obviously NFPA has no issue with what ever TRA and NAR are doing. Why do you? You either comply as the rest of the manufactures do or you don't. You don't comply; therefore you don't have certified motors; NAR, TRA, or CARR. Do you want some cheese with "yoo whine boy"????

Fred

No, They just don't want you.

What zippy really means is: "Ahhh, the power of the asshole".

I have no reason not to believe Paul.

You say you are a first hand witness. When was the last time you witnessed it? I doubt that you have witnessed it recently. Who was the last TMT Chairmen that you watched?

You need to show us the code for function StartRDSesktop

Maybe so, but it's not up to me.

I think it's three for most motors.

The motor testing _results_ are no secret. Either a motor passes testing, or it fails.