USR vs Aerotech

The situation would match if ACS submitted the motors for certification.

Tom

The motors marketed under license with the name ACS did.

The motors marketed under license with the name USR did not.

All my approaches have merit. I grew this industry the first time. Hence why the good ole boy network lives to shun me. Damn the consequesnces.

Well Jeff, I didn't think I had to explain in that much detail. TMT was implied since there are only two cert bodies and this whole discussion is about TRA motorcer irregularities.

Fine, how about 49 CFR 107.1

Sec. 107.1 Definitions.

All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 5102 are used in their statutory meaning. Other terms used in this part are defined as follows:

Applicant means the person in whose name an exemption, approval, registration, a renewed or modified exemption or approval, or party status to an exemption is requested to be issued.

Approval means written consent, including a competent authority approval, from the Associate Administrator or other designated Department official, to perform a function that requires prior consent under subchapter C of this chapter (49 CFR parts 171 through 180).

Exemption means a document issued by the Associate Administrator under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5117. The document permits a person to perform a function that is not otherwise permitted under subchapter A or C of this chapter, or other regulations issued under 49 U.S.C.

5101 through 5127 (e.g., Federal Motor Carrier Safety routing requirements.)

Holder means the person in whose name an exemption or approval has been issued.

Party means a person, other than a holder, authorized to act under the terms of an exemption.

Person means an individual, firm, copartnership, corporation, company, association, or joint-stock association (including any trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative); or a government or Indian tribe (or an agency or instrumentality of any government or Indian tribe) that transports a hazardous material to further a commercial enterprise or offers a hazardous material for transportation in commerce. Person does not include the following: (1) The United States Postal Service. (2) Any agency or instrumentality of the Federal government, for the purposes of 49 U.S.C. 5123 (civil penalties) and 5124 (criminal penalties.) (3) Any government or Indian tribe (or an agency or instrumentality of any government or Indian tribe) that transports hazardous material for a governmental purpose.

Or perhaps 49 CFR 106.5

PART 106--RULEMAKING PROCEDURES--Table of Contents Subpart A--RSPA Rulemaking Documents Sec. 106.5 Defined terms used in this subpart.

The following defined terms (see part 105, subpart A, of this subchapter) appear in this subpart: File; Person; State.

OK, How about 49 CFR 105.

PART 105--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROCEDURES--Table of Contents Subpart A--Definitions Sec. 105.5 Definitions

(a) This part contains the definitions for certain words and phrases used throughout this subchapter (49 CFR parts 105 through 110). At the beginning of each subpart, the Research and Special Programs Administration (``RSPA'' or ``we'') will identify the defined terms that are used within the subpart--by listing them--and refer the reader to the definitions in this part. This way, readers will know that RSPA has given a term a precise meaning and will know where to look for it.

Person means an individual, firm, copartnership, corporation, company, association, or joint-stock association (including any trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative); or a government or Indian tribe (or an agency or instrumentality of any government or Indian tribe) that transports a hazardous material to further a commercial enterprise or offers a hazardous material for transportation in commerce. Person does not include the following: (1) The United States Postal Service. (2) Any agency or instrumentality of the Federal government, for the purposes of 49 U.S.C. 5123 (civil penalties) and 5124 (criminal penalties). (3) Any government or Indian tribe (or an agency or instrumentality of any government or Indian tribe) that transports hazardous material for a governmental purpose.

Based on these, and no definition of assignee provided, then the accepted definition of everyday parlance apply. I see a definition of party that means what you want.

Bob

You certainly do if you retain ANY listed employees.

Not if the new owner (stockholders for example) is a mere supervisor or non-participating owner, and not a handler of non-exempt explosives.

Is everything you say wrong?

Jeff,

If you had been reading the thread, you would know that this thread is discussing that very thing....

Philip

Certification is needed to satisfy the insurance company and to make many local jursidictions feel safer about the hobby. An insurance company will not pay if they find that a law was broken. Manufacturing without a LEMP is breaking the law. Certification thus requires asking for a LEMP and DOT paperwork from the immediate manufacturer.

This, I believe, is easy enough for anyone to understand.

The certifying agency (NAR/TRA/CAR) holds no liability for their testing, and is only indirectly protecting themselves (and clubs and members) by validating the insurance by eliminating a possible question of legality in case there is a claim. Any other purpose of certification is consequential, and has proven to be essentially a paper tiger when action or accountability was required from either organization.

This, I understand, is harder for people to believe!

-John DeMar

And those people should get it (if and when asked) or go where it is not asked for. It should **NOT** be universally mandated on the outside chance somebody might demand it.

According to the TRA BOD that is not the case and they feel quite safe in their actions.

Manufacturing what? Socks? Exempt items?

False on its face.

And then disagree with on firm and citeable basis.

Mainly because there is no evidence of it, experience supporting it, orlaw you can cite.

Jerry

Philip -

You asked a question, I tried to answer. What's with the 'tude? I never said anything condescending or rude to you.

Never mind. I'm sorry that joined in. I'll leave your "discussion" now.

-JT

PhilipD wrote:

In addition, the new owners and any new employees with access to the explosive material will need to have background checks, post HSA/SEA. Therefore, the real value of the LEMP extends only to the real estate and capital equipment required to obtain the LEMP.

-John

If you are right, that is yet another reason or three NOT to get one unnecessarily.

Are you trying to tell me that if my house burn down due to a faulty light fixture, my insurance company won't pay me if A) UL didn't verify the manufacturing companies DOT hazmat shipping papers, or B) because the lamp company didn't have a LEUP for the special paint they were using. What garbage!!!!

Ya'll need to find a new insurance company. I would like to see a cite from the policy stating this.

As far as local jurisdictions is concerned, oh yeah it's all about feeeeeeling good. Wanna make them feel good, show them the safety code. Invite them to a launch. Show them the safety measures that we all take. Otherwise, it's no different than the "safety" inspections at airports. They make some feeeeeeel better, but its cost in inconvenience is not worth negligible benefit in safety.

Please cite the law that is being broken.

Based on the complexity of the DOT regs, I would venture that a close inspection of any random hazmat shipment has atleast one error.

Gotta do better than that.

consequential? Your right. They have been pompous, self-important, and influential in that they have kept a supply of motors from the users.

Bob

Nope, I belive the consequential part.

Sorry, that should have been 'pre-built'.

Right. That's an ""illegal"" rule. 'I don't care about the rocket, I just want to test electronics packages' or 'I just want to conduct high altitude experiments'. Why should 'I' have to build the rocket (or even the fincan in NARs case)? Why can't 'I' buy a rocket prebuilt from the manufacturer and certify with it? Aren't they ""limiting"" rocketry because of enforcing an """illegal""" rule? They're limiting the market of those builders who want to sell prebuilt rockets. What if 'I' want to do those experiments for my school's science fair (like the movie), 'I' might only be 17 and can't even "certify".

Oh, because,... xyz

And because uvw, manufacturers of motors conform to NAR/TRA motor certification """""rules""""".

Joel. phx

Aerotech's system is patented. It is not compatible with other reloadable systems, except for Dr. Rocket's hardware which is a licensed duplicate line of Aerotech's hardware.

Aerotech's form of bankruptcy allows them to reorganization with the intent of becoming profitable and solvent. There are no guarantees, but this action increases the likelihood that the company will be around a while longer.

USR motors are not certified for use at launches insured by the NAR or TRA. They may or may not be legally manufactured for resale. They may or may not be legal to ship via common carrier. They may or may not be legal to use at a self-insured launch in some localities.

I have seen a few USR motors fly, and they seem to be very nice.

-John DeMar

Let's be honest. Some Aerotech motors are certified for use at launches insured by the NAR or TRA. They may or may not be legally manufactured for resale. They may or may not be legal to ship via common carrier. They may or may not be legal to use at a self-insured launch in some localities.

Bob

Is ANYTHING you say right?

The one exception all year? It MUST be wrong too.

Bob, it sounds like your starting to talk in circles.

Fred

they do it to appease the BATFE

and to minimize the number of competing vendors in the marketplace

- iz