I don't know either.. I just except what is on the explosive list until changed.. BTW, I may of misspoke, class 1 refers to the basic classification of explosives.
You can call if you want, I prefere to let that dog lay under the tree, undisturbed. BTW, who is making baseless accusations? Not me..
I can only speculate PROCA is more restrictive, based on what we have seen posted, (isn't that where you live?).
Fred
How can I debate such logic??
Fred
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?
-dave w
HARD proof of moronity.
DOT only.
But note:
"BUREAU OF EXPLOSIVES
Proper transportation hazard classification for an explosive, of course, culminates with the assignment of an EX Number. Much more specific than a Hazard Classification, an EX Number applies to a particular explosive formula and its packaging. The two larger pictures of historic regulation of explosives and the present system of classification of all hazardous materials are needed to make clear the EX Number. In the nineteenth century the EX Number was essentially a privately administered classification of the only recognized hazardous material. Today it is administered publicly as part - albeit a special part - of the larger system that regulates hazardous materials.
A specific series of tests determines the hazard classification. The manufacturer's knowledge of the material can, in some cases, substitute for some of the tests in this process. In the absence of assumptions, except a concern that the material is explosive, the material moves through Test Series 1 and 2 in that order. Test 1 looks at output ascertaining if the material exhibits explosive characteristics. If not, then for transportation classification, it exits from Class 1 consideration at this point."
I find it easy to note you NEVER cite facts, law or agencies verbatim.
I win.
Both more and less restrictive... as usual in CA, the bad news is that you need a permit for everything (including model rockets); the good news is that there's a provision for permits for everything (including liquid and solid amateur rockets not registered with the CSFM as "model" or "high power" types!)
None of this "absolutely unregulated?/absolutely forbidden?" uncertainty, such as there appears to be with respect (for example) to rockets falling outside of the scope of NFPA-1127 (etc.) in "NFPA-adoptive" states. There's a generic "experimental rockets unlimited" section of the pyrotechnics code, which applies to "all rockets except those falling under the 'Model Rockets' or 'High Power Rockets' sections of the code".
-dave w
There certainly were enough trolls this past month to do the job. I'm guessing they don't have the right stuff. Besides, it makes more sense to continue the trash posting than posting about rockets.
What evidence do you have to present that a federal permit is required to manufacture rocket propellant? Otherwise why would he be under ATF scrutiny.
phx is not in california, lax is
Joel. phx
OK, you can have it. I have never been very good at making a silk purse out of a sows ear anyway.
Fred
Maybe now would be a good time to take your winnings and pay of some of that massive debt you're accruing. By my estimate, it's up to somewhere around $100,00 give or take some.
How can I debate such logic. I guess we will see the end results at some point. I guess I could call and ask the question and reference a particular DOT case, but I have decided I will no longer be involved with any of your potential or actual problems. The noise level is way to high. Solve you own problems as I will not make the mine.
Fred
With the past history of Jerry, what else would you expect??
I don't know if Jerry is, would not surprise me, and it's not my problem if it's so. As for as permits for manufacturing, I don't see anyone but Jerry, involved in motor manufacturing/distribution, saying no permits are required. Do the math..
Fred
The judge said they because of a letter from ATF to AT that was submitted, that said they were PADs. Only because ATF did not do a NPRM. He also said that it's within their rights to do an NPRM to make them not PADs.
In my opinion, that's a technicality.
The record of the DOT administrative proceedings, more than establishes a basis to support the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Any half trained investigator could build a substantial case using the information, especially with a little digging; many, many starting points.
Of course, all of what your saying would be used in defense, by a good trial defense attorney, but it would still be a crap shoot.
Fred
Intentionally identifying ROCKET MOTORS as "model aircraft parts" is a "procedural technicality"?
Just exactly what shade of chartreuse IS the sky in your world?
He knowingly falsified a shipping document. That qualifies as a "procedural technicality" as much as Enron's accounting shenanigans do.
-Kevin
I'd expect everyone in the group to sink to his level?
So you're just guessing ("baseless") like Woody. Did you stop to consider that the very recent PAD ruling may have effected the requirement?
Joel. phx
Or that whoever the BATF has answering the phone might not be "up to speed" on the matter (intentionally or not)...
IOW, the recent ruling _did_ affect the requirement, but I don't know how reliably we can expect BATF to admit _that_ in public...
-dave w
We CAN expect them to NOT admit it.
That's why we needed a judge in the first place. That and users with no balls whatsoever.
It cost $300,000 and three years and an 80% reduction in industry to not have balls.
Jerry
Well no crap. And as even they will suggest, ask for it in writing.
Joel. phx
Did it? Directly effecting manufacture or just use. Far easier to speculate, no?
I consider my level of knowledge a bit more than, "just guessing". Of course I have thought about the PAD ruling. I'm hoping for the best, but I'm not quite ready to send in my LEUP. Hate to have to go through the process of a new application, if ATF is successful with rule making, removing the PAD exemption. I must admit, it sure looks like the PAD exemption covers PADS, from the cradle to the grave. However, I find it confusing how manufactures are exempted. Manufactures, first, make the explosive used in a PAD, usually in batches. At the batch point, the explosive is not a PAD, it is raw explosive and that part of the manufacturing process, to my logic, is not covered by the exemption. I believe the logic of that so strongly, I don't think we could stand the answer, if the question was asked of the ATF; ATF may already believe tat as fact. However, having read the exemptions and the Federal court ruling, there is no question; distribution, possession, and use are exempt, period. On the other hand, manufacture exemption I'm not sure.
Fred
Well, let's see... with respect to the count that was granted (and note that the complaint was so crafted that _any_ count, if granted, would provide regulatory relief... why do you think it was presented in 4 or 5 parts like that?), that section 55.141 of 27 CFR part 55 was in fact the legal basis.
Section 55.141 starts out: "This part shall not apply with respect to..." and then lists various circumstances... including PAD's at subsection (a)(8).
"This part" refers to 27 CFR part 55 - which has the whole shebang... penalties, permits, licensing, administrative petitions and provisions, magazines, manufacturing, recordkeeping, _and_ the definition of "explosive materials" to include all items on "the List". It's all in various subsections of 27 CFR part 55, i.e., "this part". No matter what BATF might "list as explosives", this whole mass of regulation doesn't apply to us.
No "speculation" involved... just RTFM as the computer geeks would say. This was just from looking up the regulations and noting that it's all in "this part"...
What part of "yes" are you so reluctant to understand?
-dave w
Hmmm... exemption from 27 CFR 55 ("Commerce In Explosives") looks pretty "cradle to grave" to me... are you aware of another part that would be applicable to "manufacturing" in particular? (The manufacture of the propellant itself would be the only part of the "manufacture" of a PAD with which the regulations on explosives might concern themselves in the first place...)
-dave w
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.