Model Forum / General / Rockets / June 2005

It is all about making rec.models.rockets about anything but rockets.

I felt it important to reiterate this before reading Ray's rant.

Thank you.

Jerry

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Correct.

Correct.

Correct.

It is NOTABLE that TRA's own policy prevents me from living the
lifestyle and sticking it in their face (full force) while selling
unregulated motors.

Ironic, eh?

Or to cite the ACTUAL law and the reading thereof :)

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 <rtd@notesguy.com>

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
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , 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

Just Helpful Jerry

Dear Ray:  it would be easier just to post the results of the delay testing
by TRA. Showing a proof that the job was done is easier than to prove that
the job wasn't.
Btw... how many samples of each motor are fired before accepting a motor?